# Inexisting personality type Ni, Te, Si, Fe



## bogdan

Why come a personality type with the following functions Ni, Te, Si, Fe, doesn't exist? It's impossible for those functions to coexist?


----------



## UncertainSomething

Its quite possible to be any type at some point in your life, your type when its stable is only a preferred option which could even be two types theoretically, especially those on the borders. Everyone does morph in and out of other types in different situations, moods, etc... its not an exacted thing just yet. Its good to narrow it down to two or three types then try on the descriptions of those types to see how they fit.


----------



## scarygirl

Sounds like an INTJ/INTP blend. Theorically you can't be, but truth is sure you are.
I am pretty INFJish.


----------



## vel

N and S, F and T are antithetical cognitive elements. Only way they can exist within mind of single person is if they are pointed in opposite directions - one gets introverted while the other gets extraverted.


----------



## Herp

According to socionics, that type you put up exists - and it's their INTp. But that's a whole different system. If you want to look at it anyway, delve into wikisocion.


----------



## vel

Leaves said:


> According to socionics, that type you put up exists - and it's their INTp. But that's a whole different system. If you want to look at it anyway, delve into wikisocion.


It doesn't exist in socionics. In socionics unlike MBTI functions are not listed in order of strength, strongest to weakest, but instead they are given roles. If you look over INTp profile it lists Fe and Si after listing Ni and Te but if you actually read thought it you'll see that Fe is described as point of least resistance or vulnerable function, aka the triple blindspot function in INTp mindset. And Si is the role function that is effectively almost permanently turned off because it opposes the workings of the dominant function, Ni. The profile is simply describing what in MBTI is known as shadow functions.


----------



## Herp

Yup, that's why the Super-ID and Super-ego blocks exists. There's no indication in the OP of preference, so I just thought to bring that up. 

But it was something I had to keep in mind, so thanks for the reminder.


----------



## Diphenhydramine

Well, if you want to follow Jungian theory, he says that because the two functions; F/T or S/N are the opposite of one another, you can't have both looking towards one direction; essentially one is suppressed at the expense of the other.


----------



## Random Ness

vel said:


> It doesn't exist in socionics. In socionics unlike MBTI functions are not listed in order of strength, strongest to weakest, but instead they are given roles. If you look over INTp profile it lists Fe and Si after listing Ni and Te but if you actually read thought it you'll see that Fe is described as point of least resistance or vulnerable function, aka the triple blindspot function in INTp mindset. And Si is the role function that is effectively almost permanently turned off because it opposes the workings of the dominant function, Ni. The profile is simply describing what in MBTI is known as shadow functions.


Yeah...if I would rate the functions in socionics in order of use, hmm...probably 1>2>8>3>6>5>7>4...definitely not like MBTI.


----------



## Random Ness

bogdan said:


> Why come a personality type with the following functions Ni, Te, Si, Fe, doesn't exist? It's impossible for those functions to coexist?


Because Ni + Se goes together, Ne + Si goes together, Fi + Te goes together, and Fe + Ti goes together. If you have Ni + Si, then you're only taking in information through an introverted perspective and that's unhealthy. If you have Te + Fe, then you're only making decisions based on an extroverted perspective, and that's unhealthy. The key is balance.


----------



## Random Ness

Leaves said:


> According to socionics, that type you put up exists - and it's their INTp. But that's a whole different system. If you want to look at it anyway, delve into wikisocion.


I have different functions in socionics than I do in MBTI, though...and so do a lot of ppl. *sweat drop*


----------



## bogdan

Random Ness said:


> Because Ni + Se goes together, Ne + Si goes together, Fi + Te goes together, and Fe + Ti goes together. If you have Ni + Si, then you're only taking in information through an introverted perspective and that's unhealthy. If you have Te + Fe, then you're only making decisions based on an extroverted perspective, and that's unhealthy. The key is balance.


Well, yes i think this is a good explanation, that's why such a personality type isn't not on the Jung and Myer Briggs list, although it is possible for it to exist. Thanks .


----------



## timwaagh

bc MBTI is a human invention and not a law of nature. they wanted to make it elegant so they invented a rule to prevent the messy stuff from existing. the system would get way too complicated to sell of they had to invent names for all 8!=40320 function permutations. or 1680 function permutations for just the first four. or 70 function combinations for the first 4. so they cut a few out and 16 remained. it's still quite a lot and it leaves a pretty rich system.


----------



## vel

Leaves said:


> Yup, that's why the Super-ID and Super-ego blocks exists. There's no indication in the OP of preference, so I just thought to bring that up.
> 
> But it was something I had to keep in mind, so thanks for the reminder.


Ok I must have misunderstood what you meant here :happy: Yeah socionics groups and lists the functions somewhat differently from MBTI. Though I did a bit of reading on what ego, id, super-ego/id are supposed to be and can't see why they decided to group them this way, it's confusing.




timwaagh said:


> bc MBTI is a human invention and not a law of nature.


hmm well I dunno, the terms/labels are certainly man-made but the observations Jung made were based on real people and their behavior, not invented people
there is even some research that connects functions to neurology of the brain but psychology is lagging behind other sciences in terms of having hard evidence behind every model and concept


----------



## bogdan

It seems that this personality type would create a perfectly left brained user ) (found on Fundamental Nature of the MBTI), which I think is rather false it's hard to say which functions are in which brain hemisphere


----------



## timwaagh

vel said:


> hmm well I dunno, the terms/labels are certainly man-made but the observations Jung made were based on real people and their behavior, not invented people
> there is even some research that connects functions to neurology of the brain but psychology is lagging behind other sciences in terms of having hard evidence behind every model and concept


there are many such systems, few as popular as MBTI, though. You've got the enneagram, of course. then I read a book once that recognised three kinds of people on the way they walk. There is the Big Five, which seems popular in the academic world. Ever read a book on NLP? they hypothesise that people got a primary sense. then they categorise on which sense seems 'dominant'. My brother often has to do similar, but again different tests for his college. 
Of course, everyone uses 'observations of real people and their behaviour' as their basis. 
Now don't get me wrong. the MBTI is the most popular. And I'd not be into it if I'd not think there was anything to it. if Te is defined as critical thinking, then of course they will look at an MRI and find out where in the brain it is done, if that is what you mean by research. but it would be a mistake to put MBTI functions on a pedestal because of that (because you can do that with any well defined mental task).


----------



## Ikrash

To be honest i dont believe in these things you are what you choose to be or what your environement makes you.


----------



## Naama

Ti + Te creates an internal conflict in thinking process, same with Fi + Fe, Ti + Fi or Te + Fe and P functions.

think of the main 4 functions as a function set with each function having their own roles in this set. your functions cannot create a conflict inside the thinking process of an function set. but you can use different function set that includes a different functions than your main function set. you can learn to use different function sets fluently. like if your main function set would be Ti Ne Si Fe, you can learn to use Te Ni Fi Se set and have well trained Te Ni in this function set. now if your main function set has strong Ti and Ne, but weak Si and Fe and your other function set(that you have learned to use well) involves strong Te and Ni, but weak Fi and Se, your strongest functions would be Ti Ne Te Ni, but you would still be an INTP, because your main function set would still be Ti Ne Si Fe.

my INFP friend has schizophrenic ocd and after figuring out how his sick thoughts manifest, it seems that he uses defected function set when creating these thoughts, they seem to come from Ne and instead of using decision making function to figure out if the thought is true or false, he just seems to use Ni to gather this information coming from Ne and Ni treating it as if it was true. healthy personwould only gather information thats coming from Je function when using Ni.


----------



## SVALP

> N and S, F and T are antithetical cognitive elements. Only way they can exist within mind of single person is if they are pointed in opposite directions - one gets introverted while the other gets extraverted.


I don't believe in MBTI's 4 function sets, I think the theory is flawed from its very base. Why can't Ti and Fi, or Se and Ne, coexist within a single person? First of all, we all use all 8 functions, so, with that in mind, how does this theory start to make any sense? MBTI implies that one person only uses regularly 4 functions, with one of them (the inferior one) being actually quite shitty! Sorry but I don't buy that. Human beings are much more complex than that; MBTI almost makes us look like robots programmed to do very specific tasks at which we excel, while there being many other "tasks" at which we suck, big time. That, I have a beef with.

Besides humans being quite complex, we also have the ability to adapt. While it is true that every individual has strengths and weakness (that's where Jung's and MBTI's theory really proves its usefulness), we can all start using whatever functions we were ignoring previously, and even excel at them with practice (maybe not to the level of someone who uses that function as dominant, but that's beside the point).

Now, I'm not implying we can change types, I'm just pointing out that we all use 8 functions, so the reality is much more complicated than the 4 functions MBTI tells us about regarding each personality type.

Last but not least, I'm of the opinion that MBTI misinterpreted Jung's theory when they added this whole "functions order" thing. While it is true that, for example, someone who is very extroverted and has a strong preference of T vs F will behave, for the most part, like a stereotypical Te-dom, that doesn't happen so often in reality. Jung was quite explicit about the fact that the descriptions of his types are only extreme cases, and that reality is a bit more complicated than that. I actually like to think of the difference in orientation of a function (Ti vs Te, for example) as a continuum. There can be a kind of thinking that is "very extroverted", or "very introverted", and some individuals may actually be in either extreme; but the reality is that very few people behave like pure Te-doms or Ti-doms. Most individuals from these types have a personal preference towards the extroverted or towards the introverted kind of thinking, but they also exhibit traits of the other kind of thinking; if they didn't, their thinking would be useless (to reference Jung again, he stated that a thinking that is purely extroverted and not introverted at all (or vice versa) is completely useless and can't arrive at any actual knowledge due to its extremely unilateral condition).


----------



## Ray Mabry

SVALP said:


> I don't believe in MBTI's 4 function sets, I think the theory is flawed from its very base. Why can't Ti and Fi, or Se and Ne, coexist within a single person? First of all, we all use all 8 functions, so, with that in mind, how does this theory start to make any sense? MBTI implies that one person only uses regularly 4 functions, with one of them (the inferior one) being actually quite shitty! Sorry but I don't buy that. Human beings are much more complex than that; MBTI almost makes us look like robots programmed to do very specific tasks at which we excel, while there being many other "tasks" at which we suck, big time. That, I have a beef with.


I wouldn't call it flawed necessarily plus there are people that have begun incorporating the idea of using all 8 functions in some way anyways. But even if they didn't it still isn't necessarily wrong...

Se and Ne are complete opposites. Ne types consistently don't look for meaning in the immediate impressions of objective fact they basically project potential into objects and are consumed by exploring the potential whatever objects hold their interest. Se types on the other hand are more likely to exploit the elements of the object that are immediately available to them through the object and they want to get as much as possible out of that.

It basically comes down to these aspects of information exist and the human brain responds to them in a certain way producing different perspectives. That's why people sometimes never see fully eye to eye.

MBTI isn't necessarily wrong in stating that we have 4 function sets. It is more so, in it's original form, incomplete. It leaves out how we respond to our opposing functions.

Consider* Ti* and *Te* for example:

*Ti types* basically come up with what is factual to them through experience first and then try to relate them to a fact with the goal of validating their own experience. The flow of their "psychic energy" goes from them (the subject) to the object and then back to them.

*Te types* on the other hand trust factual information and adapt to it accordingly. They trust facts and their ideas are drawn directly from them and when the fact proves itself to be a reliable tool to them they are validated. The flow of their "psychic energy" goes from the object to the subject and then back to the object.

If *Te's* fact is wrong their own personal experience comes into play and the fact changes a bit. If *Ti's* fact is wrong then the objective experience they had alters their own personal fact. 

When the two interact you REALLY see the difference:

*Ti types* are the types that feel like they are self reliant, self assured. Their ideas aways being drawn from experience first they can't believe that anyone can be so trusting of fact. *Te types* on the other hand sometimes see Ti's as being a bit arrogant with no real basis for their arrogance.

They start off relating to one another because they are both thinking over feeling and appreciate that. But soon, they argue.

*Ti* says something that there is no fact to support. Te types go "your crazy" what are you talking about this fact right here contradicts you!

*Ti* then has a choice they can either tie their observation to and objective fact and when the argument or they can not and lose.

IN THE REVERSE:

*Te* says something that goes against *Ti's* experience *Ti* says "but that can't be true because I...". *Te* can then either prove the *Ti* wrong by trying to force them to make that experience more concrete. If they can't *Te* wins. If they can *Te* loses the argument.

You see this is human beings *ALL THE TIME*.

*Ti's *are too self assured to completely trust objective fact in the way that *Te's* can. *Te's* on the other hand feel like they are more efficient and don't waste time trying to draw from their experience when they can just use the facts.

One can't be both. Otherwise where's the personality?... One, however, can certainly relate to both elements in a certain way. *Ti's* relate to other *Ti's* with a sense of understanding whether they agree or not. *Ti's* relate to Te with a bit more confusion and anger but may find them to be helpful friends in the long run. Whether they agree always or not. 

But being both basically almost never happens. Some people can at some point achieve a perfect balance between the objective element of information and the subjective element of information. (*Ti* and *Te* become more like one another and calm down opting to understand one another by incorporating both sides into the argument). But that will remove distinctive characteristics of a person's function and quite frankly it is rare to find.

The theories don't take away from human complexity at all and instead give more insight into human nature. We are complex but there is a predictable nature to us as well. I don't see that as making us into robots. If anything it simply helps us understand the world around us and why we are who we are.
Besides a lot about us is predictable. Look at the human anatomy and the way the boy works. If our structure has a predictable component than why not it's output? We are, after all creatures of habit.


----------



## Functianalyst

SVALP said:


> You are taking this out of context. Jung isn't talking here about the 8 functions and their hypothetical order, but about the 4 main functions, regardless of orientation: S, N, F and T. What Jung is saying here is that, if you're first a T and then an S, your order of the 4 main functions will be S-T-F-N. If you are an introverted thinking type then, of course, that T will be mainly Ti instead of Te, and Fe will be your inferior. I'm of the opinion (as I explained earlier) that we can say very little beyond that, though. MBTI tries to establish the order of all of the functions, Jung never did. In my opinion, MBTI is very pretentious for its own good in this regard (which is ironic, because overall it's an oversimplification of Jung's theory). We can't establish the function order of people like MBTI tries to do. The fact that so many people don't have their cognitive functions (according either to them or to tests) in the order that the theory says, is, in my opinion, not an argument against these tests, but an argument against MBTI's very theory.


I think you took my statement out of context if you believed I was saying Jung alluded to the 8 function model. That model was developed by Beebe. Yet contrary to your assertion, Jung does allude to all eight functions in his theory of individuation vs collective unconscious. I am unsure what you are conveying since it appears that you agree with what I said.


SVALP said:


> According to MBTI. I'm of the opinion that the theory is wrong, though. I'm going to focus on the inferior function. According to the theory, the inferior function is a necessary component of each type's set of 4 functions, as it takes care of the balancing of the dominant function. It is correct that it balances the main function, this is the very same thing that Jung said. However, the inferior function, by definition, is the very worst function of them all in a given person/type. It is not the 4th function, but the 8th one; it is the function where a person's very weakness lies; hence, the function that this person will try to avoid the most. It still takes care of balancing the primary function, since the inferior function pops up every now and then, whether its user wants it or not, but it is the very last function of them all, not the 4th one (we see this all the time here, people scoring as Ni dominants, for instance, and scoring the lowest in Se; there's a reason for that, it's not a coincidence). With this I'm implying that a function can take care of that necessary compensatory role by being in the 8th place; in other words, that a function doesn't have to be in the 4 first positions to play a significant role.


You’re still saying what I have conveyed on this forum more times than I can count. I am unsure whether you are disagreeing with me or repeating what is obvious SVALP.


SVALP said:


> That's not exactly true, as von Franz (following Jung's theory) focuses a lot on how the inferior function is always the one that negates (and thus compensates) the dominant function. But I do remember reading something like that. I can see why that would be true... partly. But at the same time, the idea that someone would have a very strong Fi, but no Fe whatsoever (or very little of it) doesn't make much sense to me. The way I see it, if we were to ask a bunch of Fi-doms, half of them would report having very little Fe... while the other half would report giving Fe decent levels of use. It can really go both ways, just as many thinkers focus only on Ti or Te, others give both a lot of use despite of having a clear preference towards one or the other, etc.


You seem to be implying that because they’re both feeling functions, there should be some similarity? Even Jung in his definitions showed the extreme differences between Te-Ti, Fe-Fi, Se-Si and Ne-Ni. Are you saying that von Franz did not say Fi is more different than Fe than Te, or are you saying you do not agree with her theory?


SVALP said:


> Well, whatever the case, the thing is that a lot of people (in this very forum, for instance) report having both good Fi and good Ti, despite of having a preference for one or the other. I completely disagree with one being "the true opposite" of the other, since the true opposite is the inferior function. It takes a much bigger effort to change the orientation AND the function per se (like going from Fi to Te) than simply changing the actual function while keeping the same orientation (like going from Fi to Ti). This is why lots of people report having these kind of functions, and also why so little people report giving good use to their inferior function. The reason, as I explained earlier, is that the inferior function is by definition our weakness, the function we try to suppress the most.


The inferior function-attitude is compensatory to the most differentiated function. You said yourself earlier as I agree with since it’s what Jung, Dario Nardi, Naomi Quenck proposes is that the inferior function compensates and is not antagonistic to the dominant function. Fi and Ti cannot be used equally for the obvious reasons, in that they both introvert and are antagonistic to one another. Going back to Jung:


> Thinking, if it is to be real thinking and true to its own principle, must scrupulously exclude feeling. This, of course, does not exclude the fact that individuals certainly exist in whom thinking and feeling stand upon the same [p. 515] level, whereby both have equal motive power in con~sdousness. But, in such a case, there is also no question of a differentiated type, but merely of a relatively undeveloped thinking and feeling. Uniform consciousness and unconsciousness of functions is, therefore, a distinguishing mark of a primitive mentality.


Now that makes sense.


SVALP said:


> I remember reading this from the book. I think we could discuss that quote alone for ages, so I'll try to be brief about it. It's definitely true that feeling can't coexist with thinking, as Jung says, but I have my doubts about his implying that no individual can have balanced feeling and thinking. First of all, I think this quote implies one thing: If someone seems to have balanced T and F, that person will most likely have a dominant perceiving function. With that in mind, it's also obvious that this hypothetical person would not have T and F at the same level as a T-dom and a F-dom, respectively. This is pretty much what Jung is saying, however I think he takes it too far; he implies the thinking and feeling of this person would be... well, downright bad. And that's a bit extreme, I think. Let's not forget that Jung has been wrong in the past; he initially associated introverted types with thinking types, and extroverted types with feeling types, a theory that he himself realized didn't have any basis whatsoever before he came up with his final one about the 4 functions.


I can appreciate you have your opinion of how the functions work, but we all do. Until there is a viable explanation that contradicts the current theory of Jung, there is only opinion. Besides you seem to be contradicting yourself from your earlier thought that the true opposite of the dominant is the inferior. Of course you can balance thinking and feeling, but you cannot balance two antagonistic functions that share the same attitude. Ti-Fe, Ni-Se and so on work in tandem as I alluded to. But Ti-Fi, Ni-Si cannot work with each other since it violates Jung’s principle that only one function-attitude can have complete sovereignty. Attempting to extravert or introvert two functions that are naturally antagonistic to one another results in as Jung says above a mark of primitive mentality. In conclusion and for the most part, you seem to be merely repeating what I have said. If there are true differences of opinion in what I am saying, I am not noticing them.


----------



## SVALP

> You’re still saying what I have conveyed on this forum more times than I can count. I am unsure whether you are disagreeing with me or repeating what is obvious SVALP.


My point is that the inferior function is not in the 4th place if we were to consider the order of the 8 functions in any given type. MBTI implies that, even if a person uses all 8 functions, the inferior one is the 4th one he will give the most use to. I disagree completely with that view.

I won't say more about the compensatory role of the inferior function since we clearly agree on that, but like I was saying earlier, I think it plays that compensatory role by being the 8th; in other words, by being the function the individual uses the least. To continue with the example of the INFP, I agree with the notion that Te in this type is potentially more beneficial to the individual than Ti is, and thus, more important. However, that being said, Te is the inherent weakness of the INFP, it will always remain in the 8th place; as such, I strongly believe that an INFP can very easily develop his Ti and use it very decently. *Potentially* (key word), he has the ability to use Ti with complete control over it. With Te, though, things are completely different. Te, for the INFP, will always be uncontrollable, it will pop up every now and then and act in an archaic and childish manner. So, while Te is more important to the INFP than Ti is due to Te's necessary compensatory role, I believe Ti will always rank higher in the INFP than Te, due to it (Ti) being a function that the INFP can potentially control and even excel at.

I must clarify, though, the INFP will use Fi and Ti interchangeably, of course, since no one can use a T and an F function at the same time.



> You seem to be implying that because they’re both feeling functions, there should be some similarity?


Sort of. Jung made it very clear that all of his descriptions describe very extreme and unilateral cases, and that real life is way more complicated than his general types. In its purest form, Fi is indeed quite different from Fe, I'm not denying that. However, in real life, you will very rarely, if ever, see a "pure" type as Jung described them. So, again, any Fi-dom or Fe-dom will have traits of the other type, unless they are very extreme and unilateral in the use of their dominant function.

I like to think of the difference between Fi and Fe as a continuum (same as Ti-Te, etc). Even if we have an obvious preference for one, we'll always have a certain degree of traits of the other. I'm aware this contradicts one of Jung's quotes where he says that Ti and Te can't coexist at the same time and that, at the most, we can use them interchangeably, so I'll save you the effort to look said quote up. But, in other parts of the Psychological Types book, he brings up the idea of there being a thing such as a "very introverted kind of thinking", or a "very extroverted" one. Again, Jung made mistakes in the past, so in the end it's really up to the interpretation that each of us make of his theory.



> Ti-Fe, Ni-Se and so on work in tandem as I alluded to. But Ti-Fi, Ni-Si cannot work with each other since it violates Jung’s principle that only one function-attitude can have complete sovereignty.


Jung never talked about such a principle, as far as I know. I know there are some quotes where one can get the impression that he said that the auxiliary function will be in the opposite orientation of the dominant, but those quotes are vague at best. In fact, I'd argue that they leave the room open for the possibility of there being a type that has its first 3 functions in the same orientation. Again, it's really up to how we interpret what Jung said.

On second thought, I'm starting to think we actually differ on our views on how the inferior function compensates things within the individual.


----------



## Functianalyst

SVALP said:


> My point is that the inferior function is not in the 4th place if we were to consider the order of the 8 functions in any given type. MBTI implies that, even if a person uses all 8 functions, the inferior one is the 4th one he will give the most use to. I disagree completely with that view.


But aren’t we merely arguing semantics? Simply put, the 4th function has been coined the inferior function. But it would be a misnomer if one is connoting that the word inferior should be considered last. It is one reason that I simply refer to it as the 4th function, not the inferior function. However we know that MBTI does not imply we use all eight functions, they only use four, and Jung only focused on two-three functions as referred to *this* article.


SVALP said:


> I won't say more about the compensatory role of the inferior function since we clearly agree on that, but like I was saying earlier, I think it plays that compensatory role by being the 8th; in other words, by being the function the individual uses the least.


I think this goes back to how you connote a word. In this case, I am unsure why you believe compensatory equates to the least used of something. Compensatory literally means to counterbalance something. In that case, extraversion will negate introversion, sensing/intuition and thinking/feeling. Fi does not counter Ti, it’s completely antagonistic since they compete against one another vying for the introverted spot.


SVALP said:


> To continue with the example of the INFP, I agree with the notion that Te in this type is potentially more beneficial to the individual than Ti is, and thus, more important. However, that being said, Te is the inherent weakness of the INFP, it will always remain in the 8th place; as such, I strongly believe that an INFP can very easily develop his Ti and use it very decently. *Potentially* (key word), he has the ability to use Ti with complete control over it. With Te, though, things are completely different. Te, for the INFP, will always be uncontrollable, it will pop up every now and then and act in an archaic and childish manner. So, while Te is more important to the INFP than Ti is due to Te's necessary compensatory role, I believe Ti will always rank higher in the INFP than Te, due to it (Ti) being a function that the INFP can potentially control and even excel at.


Yet Te is not in the 8th spot of IFP types. It’s in the 4th (or inferior) spot. Furthermore the four functions for IFPs are placed that way to balance one another. No other function can counter balance Fi but Te.


SVALP said:


> I must clarify, though, the INFP will use Fi and Ti interchangeably, of course, since no one can use a T and an F function at the same time.
> 
> Sort of. Jung made it very clear that all of his descriptions describe very extreme and unilateral cases, and that real life is way more complicated than his general types. In its purest form, Fi is indeed quite different from Fe, I'm not denying that. However, in real life, you will very rarely, if ever, see a "pure" type as Jung described them. So, again, any Fi-dom or Fe-dom will have traits of the other type, unless they are very extreme and unilateral in the use of their dominant function.


Jung’s work was limited in that he never specified a hierarchy of function usage, except to say for each function-attitude that is most differentiated, the antagonistic function must be repressed. He was vague in saying for Ne it would be sensing, Te/feeling, Se/intuition, etc. However he was quite specific that no other function-attitude can be equal to the most differentiated. Therefore contrary to your assertion, Te counterbalances Fi whereas Ti antagonizes Fi because they both vie for the introverting preference of the person. Saying one can use Ti-Fi interchangeably is like saying it can occur with Ne-Se, Ni-Si, Te-Fe. I completely disagree with that assertion which is also why I had difficult with hierarchy theories such as Lenore Thomson’s.


SVALP said:


> I like to think of the difference between Fi and Fe as a continuum (same as Ti-Te, etc). Even if we have an obvious preference for one, we'll always have a certain degree of traits of the other. I'm aware this contradicts one of Jung's quotes where he says that Ti and Te can't coexist at the same time and that, at the most, we can use them interchangeably, so I'll save you the effort to look said quote up. But, in other parts of the Psychological Types book, he brings up the idea of there being a thing such as a "very introverted kind of thinking", or a "very extroverted" one. Again, Jung made mistakes in the past, so in the end it's really up to the interpretation that each of us make of his theory.


Going back to Jung, he makes obvious distinctions between the introverting and extraverting function-attitudes regardless as to whether they are the same functions. As for Te-Ti, he says:


> There is also, however -- and now I come to the question of the introverted intellect – *an entirely different kind of thinking,* to which the term I "thinking" can hardly be denied: it is a kind that is neither orientated by the immediate objective experience nor is it concerned with general and objectively derived ideas. I reach this other kind of thinking in the following way.


 .


SVALP said:


> Jung never talked about such a principle, as far as I know. I know there are some quotes where one can get the impression that he said that the auxiliary function will be in the opposite orientation of the dominant, but those quotes are vague at best. In fact, I'd argue that they leave the room open for the possibility of there being a type that has its first 3 functions in the same orientation. Again, it's really up to how we interpret what Jung said.


We know that Jung never discussed hierarchies except to say we have a most differentiated function. Contrary to your assertion that Jung was vague on how the auxiliary function works is completely erroneous. He was quite specific on how the auxiliary works and was quite specific that thinking can never be followed by feeling, sensing by intuiting and vice-versa. In fact he specifies that thinking or feeling will be followed by sensing or intuiting (and vice-versa) because perceiving functions are not antagnostic to judging functions and vice-versa. So there is no getting an impression, reading a thread of meaning or inferring, it’s taking his statements verbatim when he says:


> Experience shows that the secondary function is always one whose nature is different from, though not antagonistic to, the leading function : thus, for example, thinking, as primary function, can readily pair with intuition as auxiliary, or indeed equally well with sensation, but, as already observed, never with feeling. Neither intuition nor sensation are antagonistic to thinking, i.e. they have not to be unconditionally excluded, since they are not, like feeling, of similar nature, though of opposite purpose, to thinking -- for as a judging function feeling successfully competes with thinking -- but are functions of perception, affording welcome assistance to thought. As soon as they reached the same level of differentiation as thinking, they would cause a change of attitude, which would contradict the tendency of thinking. For they would convert the judging attitude into a perceiving one; whereupon the principle of rationality indispensable to thought would be suppressed in favour of the irrationality of mere perception. Hence the auxiliary function is possible and useful only in so far as it serves the leading function, without making any claim to the autonomy of its own principle.





SVALP said:


> On second thought, I'm starting to think we actually differ on our views on how the inferior function compensates things within the individual.


Oh without a doubt we are in complete disagreement since you appear to be taking the title “inferior” too literally, instead of it’s actual placement. Inferior does not mean least unless you subscribe to MBTI function order which only uses four functions. Going back to your example of INFP:

1st = Dominant/Fi
2nd = Auxiliary/Ne
3rd = Tertiary/Si (contrary to Lenore Thomson putting the tertiary of types in 7th, it has to go in 3rd since tertiary literally means in third place)
4th = Inferior/Te
Shadow functions for INFP
Fe
Ni
Se
Ti


----------



## myjazz

bogdan said:


> Why come a personality type with the following functions Ni, Te, Si, Fe, doesn't exist? It's impossible for those functions to coexist?


I am a little confused by this thread at least of the OP that is. Its titled "Inexisting Personality Types" then goes on to say the functions that the typing is based on does not even exist. Also "Why come" is this alluding that we choose the type we want?


----------



## SVALP

> But aren’t we merely arguing semantics? Simply put, the 4th function has been coined the inferior function. But it would be a misnomer if one is connoting that the word inferior should be considered last. It is one reason that I simply refer to it as the 4th function, not the inferior function. However we know that MBTI does not imply we use all eight functions, they only use four, and Jung only focused on two-three functions


Jung did say that people only use from one to three functions, that is indeed correct. However, in all of his writings about typology, whenever he talks about "functions", he only means the four basic ones (F, T, N and S). He never considers orientation, except when he is talking about the descriptions of his 8 psychological types.

MBTI made a huge mistake by assuming that people only use 4 functions out of the 8 possible ones, especially when Jung never alluded to individuals using only 4 functions. I find this ironic considering that MBTI is completely based on Jung's theory.

I still don't know if we're on the same page about people using all 8 functions; I thought we agreed on that point, but now it seems that we don't. If so, I'd like to know what makes you think that we use only 4 (or 3, because we both seem to agree that the inferior is archaic and not really under its user's control). Personally, I just can't wrap my head around the idea that any individual would only use 4 or 3 functions of the 8 ones, I find the notion of it to be downright surreal.

The reason I believe the inferior is the least used function of the whole set of 8 functions is because, as evidenced by all of Jung's writings about the issue, it is a type's weakness. And the reason it is a weakness is because it is the complete opposite, in every possible way, of the main function. If something is the complete opposite of that which you use the most, then, by definition, you will use that the least. Ergo, it will be in the 8th place. It's obvious that the Fi user will hate to organize everything and everyone according to formulas and systems like Te does, given that what's most important to the Fi-dom is precisely individuality. Ti might oppose Fi in the fact that T and F can't work simultaneously, but Te opposes Fi even more, it does so in every conceivable way. I don't think I exaggerate when I say that the inferior function represents everything that any given person dislikes, if not downright hates. The inferior is an annoyance. We see this everyday in life in everybody. The Fi user hates systems and formulas that categorize and put people in boxes; the Ti-dom hates being open about his feelings; the Ni-dom is uncomfortable actively engaging his senses in the physical world and doesn't notice details; the Si-dom resists change, favors stability over it and is concerned with what's tangible and "real". The list goes on.

It is basic human behavior to avoid those things we're not good at. Everyone tries to suppress their inferior function. Jung warns about this, stating that the inferior function *will* play its compensatory role, whether we want it or not, and no matter how much we try to suppress the inferior function. I'm sure you're familiar with the whole "unconscious" thing, though, so I'll skip that part.



> Jung’s work was limited in that he never specified a hierarchy of function usage


Which was a smart move on his part, if you ask me, since the very fact that we use all 8 functions to some degree or another makes it a daunting task to establish any kind of order. I would actually argue that it is downright impossible. But notice how Jung never refers to things such as Fi, Si or Ne as "functions". To him, those are the manifestations of functions in individuals, the actual functions being only F, T, S and N.



> Therefore contrary to your assertion, Te counterbalances Fi whereas Ti antagonizes Fi because they both vie for the introverting preference of the person.


That makes sense on paper, but a closer examination of real life proves that statement wrong. Many people report being strong at Fi and Ti (actually, that's my case), just as ENFPs tend to be good at Se despite of having a dominant Ne. I've also seen countless cases of Fe users (both as dominant and auxiliary) who display high levels of Te, not to mention several Si dominants having quite a decent Ni. If you remember, I posted a while back a quote from von Franz where she stated that it is perfectly possible for a Fi-dom to use Ti. As far as I know, Jung himself never talked about that "struggle for the introverted/extroverted spot", so I don't know what's your basis for that statement.



> We know that Jung never discussed hierarchies except to say we have a most differentiated function. Contrary to your assertion that Jung was vague on how the auxiliary function works is completely erroneous. He was quite specific on how the auxiliary works and was quite specific that thinking can never be followed by feeling, sensing by intuiting and vice-versa. In fact he specifies that thinking or feeling will be followed by sensing or intuiting (and vice-versa) because perceiving functions are not antagnostic to judging functions and vice-versa. So there is no getting an impression


Agreed about the auxiliary being a perceiving function if you have a judging one as dominant, but I was not talking about that. MBTI says that if you are extroverted, your auxiliary will be introverted. I'm not suggesting that can't be the case, but MBTI says that that is *always* the case, while Jung never specified the orientation of the auxiliary function, so MBTI jumped to conclusions. Personally, I believe it is perfectly possible for someone to have their two and even three best functions in the same orientation.



> (contrary to Lenore Thomson putting the tertiary of types in 7th, it has to go in 3rd since tertiary literally means in third place)


I don't recall ever reading Lenore, but I actually agree with the idea that the so-called "tertiary" function, as MBTI calls it, goes in the 7th place. Why? Because it's the complete opposite of the auxiliary function. Same arguments I mentioned above regarding the dominant versus the inferior function would apply here. Notice how the tertiary function in MBTI is always the completely opposite of the auxiliary. Considering the auxiliary is the 2nd function we use the most, how can the tertiary possibly be a "good" function within the individual, when they completely oppose to each other? In the INFP example, it's Ne-Si, respectively. These functions oppose each other; the more you use Ne, the less you use Si. Obviously, this would mean (to MBTI) that most people are only good at two functions; three for those individuals that work really really hard in making their way up to the tertiary function (this would require a huge effort, since, again, the tertiary opposes the auxiliary). Two or three out of eight! I can't wrap my head around the idea of someone using so few functions.


----------



## Functianalyst

SVALP said:


> Jung did say that people only use from one to three functions, that is indeed correct. However, in all of his writings about typology, whenever he talks about "functions", he only means the four basic ones (F, T, N and S). He never considers orientation, except when he is talking about the descriptions of his 8 psychological types.


When you say orientation, surely you’re not meaning the direction of energy? That was Jung’s first premise when discussing type.


SVALP said:


> I still don't know if we're on the same page about people using all 8 functions; I thought we agreed on that point, but now it seems that we don't. If so, I'd like to know what makes you think that we use only 4 (or 3, because we both seem to agree that the inferior is archaic and not really under its user's control). Personally, I just can't wrap my head around the idea that any individual would only use 4 or 3 functions of the 8 ones, I find the notion of it to be downright surreal.


I think you not on the same page since I never implied we do not use all eight functions. Each function is used for a specific reason although Te-Fe, Ne-Se, Ni-Si and Ti-Fi do the same things. Hence I will Ti instead of Fi, Se instead of Ne, Ni instead of Si and Fe instead of Te, but it does not mean when circumstances arise, I can’t use the alternate function-attitudes in short burst.


SVALP said:


> The reason I believe the inferior is the least used function of the whole set of 8 functions is because, as evidenced by all of Jung's writings about the issue, it is a type's weakness. And the reason it is a weakness is because it is the complete opposite, in every possible way, of the main function.


If you make that claim, you have to show the forum where Jung says that. He never specifies function-attitudes, instead alludes to general functions be suppressed, i.e., Te and Ti suppresses feeling, Se and Si suppresses intuition, etc.


SVALP said:


> If something is the complete opposite of that which you use the most, then, by definition, you will use that the least. Ergo, it will be in the 8th place. It's obvious that the Fi user will hate to organize everything and everyone according to formulas and systems like Te does, given that what's most important to the Fi-dom is precisely individuality. Ti might oppose Fi in the fact that T and F can't work simultaneously, but Te opposes Fi even more, it does so in every conceivable way. I don't think I exaggerate when I say that the inferior function represents everything that any given person dislikes, if not downright hates. The inferior is an annoyance. We see this everyday in life in everybody. The Fi user hates systems and formulas that categorize and put people in boxes; the Ti-dom hates being open about his feelings; the Ni-dom is uncomfortable actively engaging his senses in the physical world and doesn't notice details; the Si-dom resists change, favors stability over it and is concerned with what's tangible and "real". The list goes on.


As I have said, all indications show that Jung developed his compensatory theory to show what you refer to as opposites, balance one another. Contrary to Fi not being able to Te, Dario Nardi says the functions work in tandem this way:


> We can stay true to our beliefs by structuring our lives and standing firm with what’s important. We might decide against purchasing a particular product that harms the environment, and then arrange our lives or the organization we lead to make do without it. We might refer to evidence and empirical reasoning to support what we believe is true. Maybe we hold fast to the idea that all people bring useful gifts to society, then construct a sorter or a metric and gather data to demonstrate this value. Or we might use time-management and spatial organization skills to better follow through on important commitments and worthwhile projects.





SVALP said:


> It is basic human behavior to avoid those things we're not good at. Everyone tries to suppress their inferior function. Jung warns about this, stating that the inferior function *will* play its compensatory role, whether we want it or not, and no matter how much we try to suppress the inferior function. I'm sure you're familiar with the whole "unconscious" thing, though, so I'll skip that part.


Except Jung was ambivalent as to what he was referring to since he never says Fi can’t Te or Ti can’t Fe. He could have just as easily been referring to Ti when saying Fi suppresses thinking, and Fi when he said Ti suppresses feeling. His work does imply that introverts are oblivious to the object and extraverts struggle with subjectivity but as we have already concurred, he also did not discuss the use of all eight functions in a type.


SVALP said:


> That makes sense on paper, but a closer examination of real life proves that statement wrong. Many people report being strong at Fi and Ti (actually, that's my case), just as ENFPs tend to be good at Se despite of having a dominant Ne. I've also seen countless cases of Fe users (both as dominant and auxiliary) who display high levels of Te, not to mention several Si dominants having quite a decent Ni. If you remember, I posted a while back a quote from von Franz where she stated that it is perfectly possible for a Fi-dom to use Ti. As far as I know, Jung himself never talked about that "struggle for the introverted/extroverted spot", so I don't know what's your basis for that statement.


Uh no…. as Naomi Quenck says in her book, “Was That Really Me”, when referring to Jung’s work, you cannot consider the possibilities and act on them. You’re going to do one or the other, but not both. If an ENFP says they act on their possibilities instead of just consider them, then they may want to look closer at the ESFP type. As for IFP types using Ti, this is how Berens and Nardi says it works:


> They are usually unconcerned with definitions and logical consistency but may become caught up pointing out others’ inconsistencies. They miss the fine distinctions between principles and dogmatically adhere to one they adopt whole. Yet on occasion they can tap into universal principles that can transform their daily lives.


Contrast that with how Te is used by IFP types:


> While they may be rather disorganized and struggle with structure and putting their lives in order, they want to be efficient and systematic. They often find adhering to schedules can be taxing, but they know the importance of them. When they notice something is not functioning right, they may scold themselves for not being organized enough. Over time, using methods to better control their environment and lives becomes more important to them and they tend to pay more attention to sequencing actions and organizing time for optimal efficiency, actually enjoying organizing their space and time.
> 
> They may conform their thinking to what is observable as a measurable fact and lay out reasonable explanations for decisions and conclusions made…..


This last sentence is very noticeable in INFPs like Psilo, who are very organized and succinct in writing about this subject, and very logical in their arguments.


SVALP said:


> Agreed about the auxiliary being a perceiving function if you have a judging one as dominant, but I was not talking about that. MBTI says that if you are extroverted, your auxiliary will be introverted. I'm not suggesting that can't be the case, but MBTI says that that is *always* the case, while Jung never specified the orientation of the auxiliary function, so MBTI jumped to conclusions. Personally, I believe it is perfectly possible for someone to have their two and even three best functions in the same orientation.


To the contrary, not only did he say that introverts will use extraversion in the subsequent functions and extraverts will use introverted functions, he implied that the subsequent functions will all be extraverted for an introverting type and introverted for an extraverted type.


SVALP said:


> I don't recall ever reading Lenore, but I actually agree with the idea that the so-called "tertiary" function, as MBTI calls it, goes in the 7th place. Why? Because it's the complete opposite of the auxiliary function. Same arguments I mentioned above regarding the dominant versus the inferior function would apply here. Notice how the tertiary function in MBTI is always the completely opposite of the auxiliary. Considering the auxiliary is the 2nd function we use the most, how can the tertiary possibly be a "good" function within the individual, when they completely oppose to each other? In the INFP example, it's Ne-Si, respectively. These functions oppose each other; the more you use Ne, the less you use Si. Obviously, this would mean (to MBTI) that most people are only good at two functions; three for those individuals that work really really hard in making their way up to the tertiary function (this would require a huge effort, since, again, the tertiary opposes the auxiliary). Two or three out of eight! I can't wrap my head around the idea of someone using so few functions.





> ter·ti·ar·y - adjective, noun, plural -ar·ies.
> –adjective
> 1.
> of the third order, rank, stage, formation, etc.; third.


If Lenore chooses to put what MBTI considers the tertiary in 7th place, then it is no longer a tertiary function, in the case of let’s say an INFP, the tertiary then becomes Ti. This is how Lenore Thomson proposes the functions would run for INFP (from memory): Fi-Ne-Ti-Se-Ni-Fe-Si-Te. Contrast that to Beebe and Berens who says the hierarchy is more like this: Fi-Ne-Si-Te-Fe-Ni-Se-Ti. I am not arguing for MBTI because it’s limiting (which is also why I can’t agree with Lenore Thomson’s theory. Again the Ne and Si do not oppose one another, they work in tandem as again Dario Nardi says describes here:


> We might interpret the meaning of a situation by relating it to images from the past. We see a pattern in the present moment, and in addition to imagining alternative scenarios we draw upon our memories of the past. This recollection enables us to explore many more situations at once. Similarly, an academic researcher might do extensive research and book study of those who have come before while exploring a theoretical problem. We might embrace the convenience of supportive institutions so that we can live more freely in a world of ideas. We might even dream up a novel way to do something and then establish it as a new tradition or reliable standard for society.


It's just my observation, you criticize MBTI on one hand, but make your argument that Te is the weakest function of Fi types. That is vintage MBTI theory. Jung does not discuss hierarchy of functions, and Beebe and Berens/Nardi says that Ti is the weakest function of Fi dominant types.


----------

