# The dominant and inferior functions are the only functions that matter!



## Anubis (Nov 30, 2011)

Studying personality theory I've come to the conclusion the dominant and inferior functions are the only ones that truly help a person understand themselves and reach for a broader understanding of others personalities. The auxiliary and tertiary functions just cause people to act in a certain way to prove they're a certain type. (I've done it unconsciously on this forum before as well.)

For example... INFJ'S and INTJ's will act so different on the internet but in real life, they are so similar. Same goes for ENTP's and ENFP's. This is because they share the same dominant function that guides their life and perceptions... Fi/Ti sneaks in there, but since it's so unconscious and won't really aid the person in their understanding, _*why do we include it into the type? *_We all buzz around the lantern of life using whatever function we feel like using. Fi, Fe, Te, Ti... We all develop these whenever the hell we feel like. But it will never define who we are, it will only manipulate our dominant function for a bit.

I think it should start being like... I'm a *[Dominant function]*. Doesn't mean I'm this crazy extroverted/introverted person in my life, it means my understanding and perceptions come directly from my dominant. For example I'm not a highly emotional person anymore than an INTP, and I don't go around screaming my feelings. This just means I'm somewhat sane, not a Fi user. I'm idealistic, but come on.... Who's not?? Everyone is idealistic, it's narcissistic to say "I'm more idealistic than a Fe user because Fi is my auxiliary." Yes, INFP's/ISFP's are more idealistic, but that's their dominant function, so it's understandable and logical to say they are more idealistic than the average joe. 

TLDR: I don't know because I went to a ramblefest, but the dominant and inferior functions are the only functions that permanently exist in our conscious personality. The auxiliary and tertiary functions exist only on the internet and in our minds.


----------



## nujabes (May 18, 2012)

Woah woah woah. Back up. Explain again how I don't actually have or prefer Ti and how I can develop Te "whenever the hell I feel like it." The claim that for an ENTP, Ti is used only to prove I'm an ENTP and nothing else is a rather weighty claim. 

My internal rationality is just a ruse to be able to prove myself to people? Are you serious? *Where is the evidence for this????*


----------



## LiquidLight (Oct 14, 2011)

You are correct only dom/inferior really matter. The two middle functions are simply auxiliaries that support dom/inferior. This is what Jung was proposing and why he only has 8 basic types (with a ton of variation possible for those types, but still 8 basic types).

Dominant function represents the expression of conscious personality, inferior function represents the expression of the unconscious person. It really doesn't matter the middle two functions (people get all caught up in this unnecessarily trying to figure out if they are ESTP or ESFP or whatever, but those are MBTI categories). In reality you are just an Extraverted Sensation type who may prefer Thinking in general over Feeling or vice versa, but may not actually prefer Ti or Fi or Te or Fe. Jung never says the two middle functions will be differentiated into attitudes in this way. 

Now I should say we can't dismiss the two middle functions because as people develop they will take on characteristics of these functions. Von Franz talks about people who sort of will live in a function that is not their dominant for a time while they assimilate it, and for a while may even look the part (say a person who really is a Fi-dom but looks like an Intuitive while they assimilate their intuition), but they are still primarily oriented around Fi/Te. Also in the Beebe model the two middle functions represent how we deal with the world around us and other people, parent/child complexes are expressed through these functions, so there is some importance there as well. But even in Beebe's model it is still dom/inferior that represent the 'spine' of that person.


----------



## Ace Face (Nov 13, 2011)

WinklePlum said:


> Studying personality theory I've come to the conclusion the dominant and inferior functions are the only ones that truly help a person understand themselves and reach for a broader understanding of others personalities. The auxiliary and tertiary functions just cause people to act in a certain way to prove they're a certain type. (I've done it unconsciously on this forum before as well.)


The aux. and tert. functions are just as important in figuring out who you are. For example, our aux. and tert. functions as ENFPs are greatly used in our decision-making process. I wouldn't say people use them to prove their type, though I do believe that many people play to the stereotypes of their type in order to "fit in" as if it were a damn club  



> For example... INFJ'S and INTJ's will act so different on the internet but in real life, they are so similar. Same goes for ENTP's and ENFP's. This is because they share the same dominant function that guides their life and perceptions... Fi/Ti sneaks in there, but since it's so unconscious and won't really aid the person in their understanding, _*why do we include it into the type? *_We all buzz around the lantern of life using whatever function we feel like using. Fi, Fe, Te, Ti... We all develop these whenever the hell we feel like. But it will never define who we are, it will only manipulate our dominant function for a bit.


Yes, ENFPs and ENTPs can be a lot alike on the surface, but we ENFPs do process the information we take in a bit differently from ENTPs. There's a huge difference between using Fi+Te and Ti+Fe. Personally, learning about Fi and Te has helped me be more comfortable with the way I am and the way I handle things. I happen to very much like the fact that I gather outside information and evaluate it according to my own moral compass so to speak. There is a downside to that though, and that's why learning about it how much influence those functions have has been a very good thing for me. I can spot my weak points and improve on them. 



> I think it should start being like... I'm a *[Dominant function]*. Doesn't mean I'm this crazy extroverted/introverted person in my life, it means my understanding and perceptions come directly from my dominant. For example I'm not a highly emotional person anymore than an INTP, and I don't go around screaming my feelings. This just means I'm somewhat sane, not a Fi user. I'm idealistic, but come on.... Who's not?? Everyone is idealistic, it's narcissistic to say "I'm more idealistic than a Fe user because Fi is my auxiliary." Yes, INFP's/ISFP's are more idealistic, but that's their dominant function, so it's understandable and logical to say they are more idealistic than the average joe.


Sure, Fe users can be idealistic, but what does that have to do with your not liking the aux. and tert. functions? It sounds more to me like you hate the stereotypes  Join the club!  And also, keep in mind, there are types whose aux. and tert. functions are Ni+Se and Si+Ne. An ENTJ isn't only using Te and inferior Fi, lol. Their Ni+Se is just as important as far as who they are and how they take in and process information. 



> TLDR: I don't know because I went to a ramblefest, but the dominant and inferior functions are the only functions that permanently exist in our conscious personality. The auxiliary and tertiary functions exist only on the internet and in our minds.


Not everyone believes this, and I understand why... but I personally believe that you _can_ utilize functions that you don't normally favor. I only believe this because, to my knowledge, I have experienced it on a couple of occasions. I don't think it's an occurrence that happens often by any means, but for the most part, one's preference will shine through in most situations. This is my personal belief... so just take it or leave it. What I'm saying is that I don't think people utilize unnatural functions quite as often as you seem to think. Food for thought.


----------



## Helios (May 30, 2012)

You lot do a very good job at looking at MBTI's functional stack too rigidly. I'm pretty sure everyone uses every function at least once at some point in their lives, and as seen with the results of cognitive functions tests, lot's of people's functional preferences don't match the MBTI stacks perfectly. But to say that the aux and tert preferences don't matter is just silly to me. They help differentiate the users of the same dominant functions. Yes they have a lot in common, but the differences can't be ignored. And even users with similar aux and tert functions have just as much in common. Any user of any function can find common ground with another user of a different function if people learn to look beyond differences in thought process. All the functions matter though.


----------



## Kabosu (Mar 31, 2012)

Oddly, I recognized my middle functions more easily than dom./inferior. I think I'm a lot more on the Ti/Fe axis than Fi/Te.


----------



## Arrow (Mar 2, 2012)

I agree actually. I think it's a lot easier to find a judgement or perception type based on their dominant/inferior functions then it is to look at the auxiliary or tertiary ones.


----------



## LiquidLight (Oct 14, 2011)

Arrow said:


> I agree actually. I think it's a lot easier to find a judgement or perception type based on their dominant/inferior functions then it is to look at the auxiliary or tertiary ones.


Well yea because you can't really know the orientation of someone's auxiliary functions. If it were really that identifiable you wouldn't have so many "am I INFP or ISFP" or "am I ENTP or ENFP" type threads popping up. Or all the seemingly contradictory results of cognitive function tests. This is one of those areas where, especially in Introverts, MBTI imposes rules that people have just sort of accepted as doctrine that may not actually reflect the real world (like the auxiliary function will always be the opposite attitude of the dominant and that the tertiary will always be the same attitude - originally this wasn't Myers' theory). There may be a number of individuals for whom this is true, but maybe not everyone. Jung actually thought that, in his eyes, since the auxiliaries supported the dominant and the inferior they might actually take the attitude of those corresponding functions, so an ENFP might more accurately be Ne-Fe-Ti-Si (which of course this person wouldn't qualify as an ENFP under the type dynamics rules). Myers originally thought all the other functions would be expressed in the non-preferred manner so if you were typed as ENFP prior to the mid-80s revisions, you were typed under the assumption of Ne-Fi-Ti-Si.


----------



## Erbse (Oct 15, 2010)

LiquidLight said:


> You are correct only dom/inferior really matter. The two middle functions are simply auxiliaries that support dom/inferior. This is what Jung was proposing and why he only has 8 basic types (with a ton of variation possible for those types, but still 8 basic types).


While he may says that, when he takes apart Schiller and Göthe at the beginning of 6th volume he points out the issues that arise within society if we only attribute one function with meaning. 

Namely imbalance.

Collectivity and individuality needs to be balanced on an ideal stage; thus aux and ter are well required in that process - whether their attitude matter specifically is a different matter.

EDIT: Also, the dominant function cannot perceive if it's a judging function, but solely judge.


----------



## Coburn (Sep 3, 2010)

A bit of a sidenote, but INFJs and INTJs do not act similar at all in real life.


----------



## Anubis (Nov 30, 2011)

I honestly don't have much time to respond to specific posts and I'm rushing now. The life wheel keeps on spinning, you know...

But I want to say that I don't mean everyone develops every single function whenever the hell they want. I meant that a dom. Ne user can develop their Te quicker and more efficiently than their Fi, or even Ti rather than Te. And like Liquid said, people develop other function after they have established their dom. For some people, this takes _years and years and years._ 

I think that people not only on this forum, but the internet have forgotten that IRL there is _*SO*_ much variation. Everyone is different on the internet. I have trouble finding a type not only because I'm still learning about myself, but the types are too damn confining and badly engineered. It's better to say I'm a dom. Ne user and the other functions are more obscure and not quantifiable. This would help a lot of people understand themselves better, I think. (Instead of having them read type descriptions and then melding themselves around the innumerable Keirsey internet articles.) Find the source of your self and stop worrying so much about being INTP or ISTP, ISFP or INFP, ENFP or ENTP etc. because in the end we're trying to balance ourselves out not become an over the top arrogant ENTP, emotional INFP, manipulative ENFJ and all the other stereotypes. (Which actively exist on PerC because of the obsession with the aux/tert.)

I'm not trying to flame anyone, I'm just trying to get people to _think_ instead of just relating to a few articles and saying, "Hey, I think really well... I'm *INTP*!" or "I'm crazy as hell, I'm *ESFP*!" 

I gotta run. I'll check back later, I hope people feel inspired to reply more.


----------



## Anubis (Nov 30, 2011)

Marlowe said:


> A bit of a sidenote, but INFJs and INTJs do not act similar at all in real life.


I don't know why you only chose to reply to that tiny detail, but it's my personal experience. No possible way to argue on here about it though


----------



## Anubis (Nov 30, 2011)

gingertonic said:


> Woah woah woah. Back up. Explain again how I don't actually have or prefer Ti and how I can develop Te "whenever the hell I feel like it." The claim that for an ENTP, Ti is used only to prove I'm an ENTP and nothing else is a rather weighty claim.
> 
> My internal rationality is just a ruse to be able to prove myself to people? Are you serious? *Where is the evidence for this????*


Take a peak at my latest wall of text. 

Internal rationality doesn't always = Ti by the way.


----------



## nujabes (May 18, 2012)

WinklePlum said:


> Take a peak at my latest wall of text.
> 
> Internal rationality doesn't always = Ti by the way.


You don't explain yourself. You just rephrased "people act a certain way to confirm that they are an XXXX."

Meh. Boring. I'm not concerned over what type I am, so I don't _try_ to act like a certain type. I just act and it happens to be categorized as ENTP.


----------



## Owfin (Oct 15, 2011)

My solution for finding out the auxiliary is just "do you generally prefer X". I generally (well, actually fairly strongly) prefer T to F, so I'm an ISTJ.

Another reason why the auxiliary's and tertiary's orientation can kinda go wherever is because with the ego headed by the dominant, the auxiliary and tertiary often end up being used kinda just to fulfill the desires of the ego, and will adapt themselves to accommodate the situation. The dominant function, however, is a whole worldview and so changing it would be like suddenly losing your eyesight and having to navigate the world with echolocation.


----------



## psynite (Feb 7, 2011)

WinklePlum said:


> I think that people not only on this forum, but the internet have forgotten that IRL there is _*SO*_ much variation. Everyone is different on the internet. I have trouble finding a type not only because I'm still learning about myself, but the types are too damn confining and badly engineered. It's better to say I'm a dom. Ne user and the other functions are more obscure and not quantifiable. This would help a lot of people understand themselves better, I think.


I don't think there is that much variation in personality between people. The large scale variation occurs is due to life experience, gender, physical attributes, and so on, but its all just tiny details. I watch people very closely and there are strong similarities of personality types between people I know and people I meet. If you look for the similarities, they can be glaringly obvious sometimes.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

WinklePlum said:


> Studying personality theory I've come to the conclusion the dominant and inferior functions are the only ones that truly help a person understand themselves and reach for a broader understanding of others personalities. The auxiliary and tertiary functions just cause people to act in a certain way to prove they're a certain type. (I've done it unconsciously on this forum before as well.)


Bullshit. I think you just got frustrated trying to figure out your type. (Which is not to say that types should really exist "as is" so you may have set an impossible goal in trying.)

My auxiliary is clearly differentiated into Ti and it will dip into the conscious quite a lot. When I do happen to extravert T, that for me is a bit more unconscious I believe. And it's only done for my goals (goals of dominant function, etc.).

Even my tertiary seems to be differentiated into more Fe than Fi... I had some life stuff going on that may have affected this.

I don't see why I should only focus on the Se/Ni axis.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

psynite said:


> I don't think there is that much variation in personality between people. The large scale variation occurs is due to life experience, gender, physical attributes, and so on, but its all just tiny details. I watch people very closely and there are strong similarities of personality types between people I know and people I meet. If you look for the similarities, they can be glaringly obvious sometimes.


I have to challenge this too. I'm pretty weird, some people see me X way, other people see me Y way, where X and Y completely contradict each other and I'm not role playing; people who've known me closely for long years say they can't figure me out... No I also can't figure myself out, I'm content with just noticing all my idiosyncrasies from time to time here and there. 

No, I don't fit into type stereotypes either. -.- I found my type only via the cognitive functions.

Anyway, regardless of how I am, I do think there is a lot of variation between certain people. Some people may seem more "typical" but then there are quite some people who are not typical in any way.


----------



## Cetanu (Jan 20, 2012)

This thread is hilarious, incorrect, but still hilarious.

Good show. *eats popcorn*


----------



## LiquidLight (Oct 14, 2011)

Cetanu said:


> This thread is hilarious, incorrect, but still hilarious.
> 
> Good show. *eats popcorn*


Why do you say this?


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

The big issue with the way people look at this stuff comes from viewing this stuff in terms of "abilities" and "understanding," rather than the ego metric it was intended to be, because abilities can't be predicted from this stuff (e.g. so-and-so will be good at math because of their type, etc.) - impossible. It's mainly a descriptive model of where one is more egotistical to where they are least, and certainly, the lower functions will be very noticeable as well. It's much, much more subtle than people make it out to be, due to conflating persona and stereotypes with this stuff (it seems like a natural tendency for people to way blow up how they believe they come off to the world). As I always waste my breath stating here, once you can eliminate what type isn't, you can easily get it down to what it is (the functions and Jung's principles, basically).


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

> Though of course there is the issue that maybe even Socionics didn't get that right; perhaps some Ti/Fi dominants are actually a lot more P-ish due strong perception functions?


Ever since I've began studying this stuff, I've always been dying to hear someone describe what "J-ish" and "P-ish" is in an intellectual manner, since I have never in my life heard it described beyond something that makes "Js" look like they're constipated and "Ps" look like helpless children. I'm not slighting you with this, but I've heard so much idiocy on the internet surrounding these stereotypical behavioral labels that I've given them up a long time ago (actually, I gave them up the moment my INTP twin said "There's no way in hell you're a J and there's no way in hell I'm a P").


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

LXPilot said:


> I know ENFJ's, to cite one example, who use their "last two" functions so well that you can hardly make out their type at all until realizing that they're not _motivated _by Se and Ti, but instead _highly value _them. They're pretty good friends with a few _STP's as well.


I think we need to make sure there is an understanding that all function-attitudes are conscious and we are capable of using each of them as circumstances arise. But there is a difference in using that function-attitude momentarily and someone using it on a consistent basis. As I have repeatedly quoted Dr. Jung to say:


> The products of all the functions can be conscious, but we speak of the consciousness of a function only when not merely its application is at the disposal of the will, but when at the same time its principle is decisive for the orientation of consciousness… This absolute sovereignty always belongs, empirically, to one function alone, and can belong only to one function, since the equally independent intervention of another function would necessarily yield a different orientation, which would at least partially contradict the first.


Again anyone claiming the equal use of all four functions essentially admitting are to having yet to develop a dominant function, thus have not determined a type. As Dr. Jung goes on to say there are individuals who claim that two functions exist at the same level, whereby both have equal motive power in consciousness. But Dr. Jung says in such a case, it is clear that it is not that two function-attitudes have been well developed. Instead there is no developed, or at best an underdeveloped, dominant function. So someone claiming to be an ENFJ type with a good use of Fe-Ni-Se-Ti basically tells me that Fe is not their dominant function.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

I think a lot of those people who claim to be "good" at something in terms of JCFs are sort of casually trying to say that the function works in their favor or they don't have personal issues against it, which might be them just recognizing that it's an ego-syntonic function.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

Functianalyst said:


> Any difference in the type is based on theory, or loosely written descriptions laced with stereotypes. They both dominate with Ti, and if it is differentiated the Se and Ne will have little say. But your question may be better answered by you articulating how you would tell the difference between the two types without resorting to the usual stereotypical list of characteristics. Let’s say that without a doubt we know two people dominate with Ti. How will you discern one is ISTP and the other INTP? If your first inclination is to resort to stereotypes, I can tell you now that not all INTP types play chess, are interested in math, etec, and I have yet to meet an ISTP type that claims to be an adrenaline junky or mechanically inclined.


I don't have a good memory for stereotypical details. I prefer to analyse by functions to do the typing. 

Anyway to keep it short, my own general impression of INTP's: they default to the head-in-the-clouds kind of theorizing. Then ISTP's: a bit "angrier" than INTP's; more concrete in their views.

But ok, one commonly stereotypical detail did also stick: INTP's bump into objects.  (And ISTP's don't really.)

Btw, math, if we must link it to functions (actually, only link to the underlying cognitive skills, not to the functions themselves), it should be just Ti, intuition has nothing to do with it. That, or I'm really intuitive which I'm not... (I've always loved and always been good at math)




> Without a doubt there are those who claim to be one of those types because they are interested in some of the characteristics that are stereotypical, but it is also apparent in their posts that they do not use Ti or at least it has yet to be developed to show a differentiation. If the auxiliary function is that clear to where the dominant function is not apparent, then it merely means the person has yet to develop a dominant function therefore should not be claiming a type.


Okay so you originally claimed to be INTP, now you claim to be ISTP. Did you just use that test you linked to to determine your type? Does that test not rely on the auxiliary function? We can safely state that it does. In this case, why are you so adamant on ignoring the auxiliary function's role? You yourself relied on it to determine your type, even if it was tested for not in such an obvious way by those tests.


This is the seeming contradiction in your expressed view that I would like to see resolved. I'm sure it is not a real contradiction (especially with you as Ti dominant  ), but I will need to see your reasoning behind it that resolves the contradiction here.


Btw, what do you mean by not yet developed dominant function?!


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

MrShatter said:


> I've always seen the auxiliary function as a function that just keeps the dominant in check. Not necessarily driving the person and in that sense it could be considered "unimportant".


Hum, my Ti used to be unimportant-ish, yes. But that changed as I aged.




JungyesMBTIno said:


> Ever since I've began studying this stuff, I've always been dying to hear someone describe what "J-ish" and "P-ish" is in an intellectual manner, since I have never in my life heard it described beyond something that makes "Js" look like they're constipated and "Ps" look like helpless children. I'm not slighting you with this, but I've heard so much idiocy on the internet surrounding these stereotypical behavioral labels that I've given them up a long time ago (actually, I gave them up the moment my INTP twin said "There's no way in hell you're a J and there's no way in hell I'm a P").


Oh, I'll oversimplify it for sure, but to me: P-ish: likes to be spontaneous, J-ish: likes to be oriented by some kind of reason. Yes I realize my definitions are closer to the original Jungian Rational/Irrational but I think for extraverts in MBTI it's basically the same thing. Introverts are a different matter, depends.

Your INTP twin likes to be dominantly oriented by reason internally, so that can affect his actions.

I don't think P should be related to being childish or J to constipation 




Functianalyst said:


> I think we need to make sure there is an understanding that all function-attitudes are conscious and we are capable of using each of them as circumstances arise. But there is a difference in using that function-attitude momentarily and someone using it on a consistent basis. As I have repeatedly quoted Dr. Jung to say:
> Again anyone claiming the equal use of all four functions essentially admitting are to having yet to develop a dominant function, thus have not determined a type. As Dr. Jung goes on to say there are individuals who claim that two functions exist at the same level, whereby both have equal motive power in consciousness. But Dr. Jung says in such a case, it is clear that it is not that two function-attitudes have been well developed. Instead there is no developed, or at best an underdeveloped, dominant function. So someone claiming to be an ENFJ type with a good use of Fe-Ni-Se-Ti basically tells me that Fe is not their dominant function.


Then what is their dominant function? Where does Jung talk about an underdeveloped dominant function? Isn't the essence of a dominant function is that it dominates? When does type concretely develop, at what age?

Also my case, I just had a dominant Se until the age of 18, then auxiliary became very important too, it does provide extra motivation for me in many cases. (I did have the auxiliary before that from an early age, but it was less conscious and less often turned "on".) So now I feel like they are almost equal in motive power, but I can still discern it is Se motivation > Ti motivation. Simply because Ti on its own doesn't necessarily provide me with such a strong motivation as Se, or when it DOES provide me with such a strong motivation (which is often), the motivation on its own won't last as long as Se motivation on its own. However, I feel at my total best if they both provide me with motivation at the same time. I'm going to say maybe Se did get a bit weaker as my brain is finite after all.


----------



## nonnaci (Sep 25, 2011)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> I totally agree with @_Functianalyst_ and @_MrShatter_ here. I even devised a system that I doubt many people here read which makes the dom and tert. functions out to be inextricably connected (so one's orientation between being an introvert or an extravert is stable), while the aux. is just the ego-syntonic self-promotion function and the assistant for the dominant (I like how Beebe's model makes it out that people are preachy with the aux. function, because I've found it to be quite true IRL - I've noticed most of my life, I "preach" from an objective, conceptual standpoint (Te), no matter what topic I'm talking about, I default to this kind of preaching when I'm really passionate about something (my ISTJ dad is like this also with Te), essentially (and tends to not experience inferiority complexes the way the tert. does, since it is directed away from a person's ego-investment in introversion or extraversion).


This pertains to only introverts where any sort of "preaching" by an introverted function would usually leave the other party confused. I see no problem with extroverts utilizing their dom function as their main mode of communication. On a side note, how do you suspect aux Se to preach? Usually when I get into a long-winded conversation, its evolves into a Ti Socratic dialogue + analogies of whatever Ni witnesses. Both requires a sort of brain dump which is beyond the bandwidth of everyday speech. Se is relegated to a passive or reactive role of listening.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

> Oh, I'll oversimplify it for sure, but to me: P-ish: likes to be spontaneous, J-ish: likes to be oriented by some kind of reason. Yes I realize my definitions are closer to the original Jungian Rational/Irrational but I think for extraverts in MBTI it's basically the same thing. Introverts are a different matter, depends.
> 
> Your INTP twin likes to be dominantly oriented by reason internally, so that can affect his actions.
> 
> I don't think P should be related to being childish or J to constipation


My twin and I are females, btw, haha. But yes, this falls apart for introverts, because say, INTPs, are oriented toward judging first, not perceiving, since they and all Ji dom types, as well as Je dom types, "like to be oriented by some kind of reasoning." But I would argue that aux. Je types come off this way externally, but aren't really this way internally, while the Ji doms might not immediately come off this way externally, but in my experiences with them, they have their own way of not easily accepting anything that doesn't have a rationale behind it, unlike the aux. Je types who like working with this kind of reasoning. I think a lot of what actually gets mistaken for being "P-ish" in INTPs would not be their aux. intuition, which is often tightly controlled by their dom. Ti, but their inferior Fe, which is rather wonky and lacking in nuance, so it either comes off as highly judgmental or muted and makes them seem apathetic or "out-of-it." When they don't give a crap about something, the latter ensues (they can't force themselves to find the value in what they're doing at all, unlike higher F types who are easily capable of finding something worth it in just about anything or if they don't, they'll know how to handle the situation to their liking anyhow). I think some INTPs have different relationships to their inferior Fe than others - for instance, my twin is uber judgmental and quick to jump to conclusions about how she thinks that something might be really boring, etc. and sort of just flips out and lets her cannon lose, while I can see other INTPs being more reserved, which might come off as apathy. So, basically, this kind of observation amounts to behaviorism and nothing with any psychological integrity. My twin is better with "external" spontaneity than me, so sure, the "P" observation works in that way, but if it can't be standardized, what's the point of it other than for easy type identification from a distance (which is fine for quick typing, btw, although one has to be careful not to use it as a full descriptor of the individual, since what may look "P" from the outside can be covering for a J person on the inside and vice-versa). Might their be more typological ways to apply it - perhaps, but they better be well-defined to hold up.


----------



## Figure (Jun 22, 2011)

Functianalyst said:


> instead there is no developed, or at best an underdeveloped, dominant function. So someone claiming to be an ENFJ type with a good use of Fe-Ni-Se-Ti basically tells me that Fe is not their dominant function.


What if functions are empirically about role, not _only _hierarchy?


----------



## nonnaci (Sep 25, 2011)

LXPilot said:


> What if functions are empirically about role, not _only _hierarchy?


By role, do you mean an adaptation towards external changes? As in, one suspends the use of some function in favor of another in some circumstance? I think the argument is that the dom function cannot be suspended.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

nonnaci said:


> This pertains to only introverts where any sort of "preaching" by an introverted function would usually leave the other party confused. I see no problem with extroverts utilizing their dom function as their main mode of communication. On a side note, how do you suspect aux Se to preach? Usually when I get into a long-winded conversation, its evolves into a Ti Socratic dialogue + analogies of whatever Ni witnesses. Both requires a sort of brain dump which is beyond the bandwidth of everyday speech. Se is relegated to a passive or reactive role of listening.


Well, none of this is absolute, but you have to get the nature of "being preachy" to get what I'm getting at. Getting into a Socratic dialogue wouldn't be being preachy - being preachy would be more like pushing what you think is the best or right way to go about something and why it is important onto someone else, and this is most often done through the aux. function. So for instance, IXFJs tend to get preachy and go on their "pulpit" so-to-speak through Fe, so often, if you come to them for advice for instance, their advice will often have a very Fe feel to it - introverts get into something of a "telling others how to be" mode with auxiliary preaching, while extraverts tend to get into something of a "this is how I tend to go about this and you should try these principles as well" mode.


----------



## Figure (Jun 22, 2011)

nonnaci said:


> By role, do you mean an adaptation towards external changes? As in, one suspends the use of some function in favor of another in some circumstance? I think the argument is that the dom function cannot be suspended.


Ehhhhm sort of. After a bit of thinking, I do see the argument that in the system's "actuality," that is to say, if the system is taken literally, that only the dominant really "matters." My argument against it was that because the system is mythological to begin with, it is easy to mistake some functions for others, given limited or fragmented exposure to the person in question, over short periods of time. By that logic, one can't say that only one or two functions matters - but yes, by the system of fact, I can see an argument for it. 

See, because of Te, I'm prone to ignore the architecture of the system itself and base observations on what it obvious to the outside. I'm sure that leaves itself vulnerable to correction by Ti, which is actually quite helpful. Using Te, though, it's easier to reconcile observed behavior with Model A (these are the "roles" I was talking about) than it is to reconcile Jung's system with the non-"obvious" ways people demonstrate the functions.


----------



## nonnaci (Sep 25, 2011)

LXPilot said:


> Ehhhhm sort of. After a bit of thinking, I do see the argument that in the system's "actuality," that is to say, if the system is taken literally, that only the dominant really "matters." My argument against it was that because the system is mythological to begin with, it is easy to mistake some functions for others, given limited or fragmented exposure to the person in question, over short periods of time. By that logic, one can't say that only one or two functions matters - but yes, by the system of fact, I can see an argument for it.
> 
> See, because of Te, I'm prone to ignore the architecture of the system itself and base observations on what it obvious to the outside. I'm sure that leaves itself vulnerable to correction by Ti, which is actually quite helpful. Using Te, though, it's easier to reconcile observed behavior with Model A (these are the "roles" I was talking about) than it is to reconcile Jung's system with the non-"obvious" ways people demonstrate the functions.


If you only have limited access to the black-box (person), then I'm not sure which is more difficult: Clustering the external outputs with respect to each other in a semi-supervised fashion v.s. mapping them directly to Jung's system. I suspect the solution is to treat the latter as some prior and go top-down as any sort of introverted function would not be readily expressed. 

Thus if this were the case, the auxiliaries of a dom introvert wouldn't be too informative.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

LXPilot said:


> Ehhhhm sort of. After a bit of thinking, I do see the argument that in the system's "actuality," that is to say, if the system is taken literally, that only the dominant really "matters." My argument against it was that because the system is mythological to begin with, it is easy to mistake some functions for others, given limited or fragmented exposure to the person in question, over short periods of time. By that logic, one can't say that only one or two functions matters - but yes, by the system of fact, I can see an argument for it.
> 
> See, because of Te, I'm prone to ignore the architecture of the system itself and base observations on what it obvious to the outside. I'm sure that leaves itself vulnerable to correction by Ti, which is actually quite helpful. Using Te, though, it's easier to reconcile observed behavior with Model A (these are the "roles" I was talking about) than it is to reconcile Jung's system with the non-"obvious" ways people demonstrate the functions.


Model A? As in Socionics? That system (or any other system that doesn't allow for falsification) only exists if you're heavy enough on confirmation bias. -.-

I don't see how Te observations of reality are vulnerable to correction by Ti, unless we're talking about an unhealthy Ti user disconnected from reality.


----------



## Figure (Jun 22, 2011)

itsme45 said:


> Model A? As in Socionics? That system (or any other system that doesn't allow for falsification) only exists if you're heavy enough on confirmation bias. -.-


More so than Beebe, you think? What do you mean by falsification? And, why couldn't one simply use it over a long period of time to "see through" any "impersonations" of a function? Sorry, this doesn't make any sense. 



> I don't see how Te observations of reality are vulnerable to correction by Ti, unless we're talking about an unhealthy Ti user disconnected from reality.


Read the post above. Our sense of what is "obvious" is totally different.

ISTP - The gun works perfectly. It'll work.
INTJ - It won't work, I guarantee it.
ISTP - Sure it will. Look, everything's in its right place. I checked (insert part) and (another), it'll 
fire
INTJ - No, it won't
ISTP - Watch (shoots)
INTJ - Well, okay, you're right, it does _fire_, but the target's too far away


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

LXPilot said:


> More so than Beebe, you think? What do you mean by falsification? And, why couldn't one simply use it over a long period of time to "see through" any "impersonations" of a function? Sorry, this doesn't make any sense.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It's about as good as the Beebe model - both at the same time can't work out as they are different.

Falsification: see the principles of scientific methodology. You can either choose to avoid this and just use this subjective mapping with confirmation biases all over the place or accept likely falsification and that the system doesn't make reliable predictions.

My real point: why do you think Model-A is easier to reconcile observations with than with the Jungian system? The former is a much more complex system with many more unproven assumptions. Thus, it (Model-A) is a system where you should be more wary of using any kind of predictions.

Funny example.


----------



## Figure (Jun 22, 2011)

itsme45 said:


> both at the same time can't work out as they are different.


Yeah, I mean they aren't exactly alike, but they do the same basic thing. I don't really use socionics for its stupid type descriptions, but its functional system is actually pretty good. 

As for falsification, it's not really any more confirmation bias than you'd have with the other cognitive function systems. I asked about Beebe because the two models are similar in the sense that they both describe *how *the functions work, not just *what they look like*. I can see where some people might fall to the confirmation bias with it, but not really more so than with other systems, if they learn it the right way. If you really need Jung to know that you're not making a mistake, you probably shouldn't like Model A or Beebe - you probably wouldn't really need them either. I'd think most _STP's would rather stick with Jung anyway - I mean, hell, at least you're consistent. 



> My real point: why do you think Model-A is easier to reconcile observations with than with the Jungian system? The former is a much more complex system with many more unproven assumptions. Thus, it (Model-A) is a system where you should be more wary of using any kind of predictions.


Ahhh, now I see why you're skeptical. Model A is pretty complex, but if you know Beebe, you can know Model A too. It's basically the same thing, just divided into the ego, superego, and id parts (which you can sort of skip anyway), with more specific descriptions of how you'd respond to one function in response to another. The type descriptions are crap, I don't use them. Another big problem is that people look at that one stupid website that screws up the entire Russian translation.


----------



## Knight_In_Rags (Mar 11, 2012)

WinklePlum said:


> Fi/Ti sneaks in there, but since it's so unconscious and won't really aid the person in their understanding, _*why do we include it into the type? *_


I'm sorry but my Ne _does_ aid me in my understanding and I'm full-on INFP.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

LXPilot said:


> Yeah, I mean they aren't exactly alike, but they do the same basic thing. I don't really use socionics for its stupid type descriptions, but its functional system is actually pretty good.
> 
> As for falsification, it's not really any more confirmation bias than you'd have with the other cognitive function systems. I asked about Beebe because the two models are similar in the sense that they both describe *how *the functions work, not just *what they look like*. I can see where some people might fall to the confirmation bias with it, but not really more so than with other systems, if they learn it the right way. If you really need Jung to know that you're not making a mistake, you probably shouldn't like Model A or Beebe - you probably wouldn't really need them either. I'd think most _STP's would rather stick with Jung anyway - I mean, hell, at least you're consistent.


I don't "believe" in Beebe any more than in Socionics, so I'm not sure why you keep bringing up Beebe.  Btw, an example of where they are different is Beebe thinks the opposite of the dominant is the weakest function and Model-A assumes it's the opposite of the auxiliary. (E.g. for INTJ/INTp(Ni+Te) it is Si in Beebe's system and Fe in Model-A.) This is pretty different, isn't it.

What do you mean by "learning it the right way"? Sounds way too subjective and unverifiable. Confirmation bias is hard to avoid unless you use properly set up experiments.




> Ahhh, now I see why you're skeptical. Model A is pretty complex, but if you know Beebe, you can know Model A too. It's basically the same thing, just divided into the ego, superego, and id parts (which you can sort of skip anyway), with more specific descriptions of how you'd respond to one function in response to another.


I'm skeptical also because I think the actual laws the psyche (brain) is based on are substantially different from these. These personality theories are good as observed tendencies but not as actual laws/rules of how things actually work. Don't ask what those are because nobody knows yet exactly (just possible frameworks of course).  I do not have an issue with complexity on its own (I actually like complex systems in general).

Jung tends to emphasize in some places that it's more just tendencies (if I understood it right) so yes you could say I side with Jung here.

Btw just to point out another substantial and un-reconcilable difference between the different systems: Socionics' model has concepts like dual-seeking function, which seems to be different from Jung's (and probably Beebe's) inferior. (And then of course there are the intertype relationships with duality etc.)




> The type descriptions are crap, I don't use them. Another big problem is that people look at that one stupid website that screws up the entire Russian translation.


Yea I agree the type descriptions are terrible stereotypes.  By "one stupid website" are you referring to wikisocion? How is the translation screwed up?


----------



## Arrow (Mar 2, 2012)

Knight_In_Rags said:


> I'm sorry but my Ne _does_ aid me in my understanding and I'm full-on INFP.


It may aid you but it doesn't define you like it does in a Ne-dom. It at most gives you a tint and can have a minor impact on the way you see the world but it doesn't impact you like it would an ENP. ENP's are dominanted by Ne/Si and IFPs are dominanted by Fi/Te. The auxiliary and tertiary functions just serve to provide context from the outerworld but if you are a judgement type then you are led by your judgments, you are not led by your perceptions. Your perception functions aim to help you make decisions or choices based on what is good or bad, right or wrong for you. It's not based on anything else other then that. It provides you context and tints the way you see things, but it's mild when compared to others who truly use that function as an every day life kind of thing. You could speak with an ENP and say that you can understand the way they view the world, but you are lead by judgments not by the external perceptions/possibilities in the world.

The tertiary and auxiliary functions aren't a huge part of the type at all. At best they are minor functions that aid to serve the main functions or dichotomies in the type.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

Arrow said:


> It may aid you but it doesn't define you like it does in a Ne-dom. It at most gives you a tint and can have a minor impact on the way you see the world
> 
> (...)
> 
> The tertiary and auxiliary functions aren't a huge part of the type at all. At best they are minor functions that aid to serve the main functions or dichotomies in the type.


I must again point out that you see this too black-and-white. For me the auxiliary is a huge part. It may not be always on but it's still more than a tint.


----------



## Arrow (Mar 2, 2012)

If Ti was a major part of your make up then you would feel the Ti/Fe conflict when you make decisions or when you encounter the world. It would not be as separate as you are making it seem. The fact that you are only referencing Ti as what is close to you and don't notice how Ti is affected by Fe is kind of making my point. Ti is not as dominant in you as it is to a Ti-dominant type. Your Ti merely serves to reference your main function which is to augment your extroverted perception. All types need perception and judgement functions. This doesn't mean you aren't a good judger or you aren't a good perciever it just means your dominant function rules house and all other functions are servants to that main one. That's what I mean by tint. When you truly look at it the main and inferior functions are the most meaningful ones because they show the most important parts of your psyche. 

Judgement types are always judging things or they are always judging something based on the external or internal systems they have built or cultivated. In extroverted perception types this is not the case the auxiliary/tertiary functions merely serve to preserve the main dominant function and build to deepen that main function. I think people take the function order too literally, they have this impression that types are amalgamations or combinations of function order in terms of strength and that's just generally not the case. Auxiliary judgement types don't focus on judgement the same way judgement dominant types do and it's the same thing for perception types. Even though I have Si and Ne as functions I do not use them the same way dominant Si or Ne dominant users would use them. They do not mean as much to me as Fi does in terms of my main function and those functions in me merely serve to strengthen my Fi. They are not functions in their own right they are built off the dominant one. They merely augment my main function and branch out or fill out my main function. 

The dominant/inferior functions are the most important key distinctions in type because they show your strength and weakness. Your conscious and your unconscious.


----------



## Figure (Jun 22, 2011)

itsme45 said:


> I don't "believe" in Beebe any more than in Socionics, so I'm not sure why you keep bringing up Beebe.


Because I didn't catch you outright include Beebe with Model A. A lot of people on here buy into Beebe, but totally discount Model A without taking time to _really _understand it. If you don't believe either, well then peachy for you for being consistent. 



> Btw, an example of where they are different is Beebe thinks the opposite of the dominant is the weakest function and Model-A assumes it's the opposite of the auxiliary. (E.g. for INTJ/INTp(Ni+Te) it is Si in Beebe's system and Fe in Model-A.) This is pretty different, isn't it.


Actually, not really. I can see why you'd think that based on the numbers, but neither are really supposed to be used to measure "weakness." Beebe maybe a little more so, but in Model A, the PoLR is actually suppressed, while the role function is simply not necessary, given the dominant function. The two are situationally weaker than each other. Sure, you can piss me off by making me be "fakey" to people with Fe, but you can also cheese me off pretty bad if you force me to go by "Si rules." I don't think there's a huge practical difference, TBH. 

I guess if all you care about is the system itself, then there are "differences," but in real life it's extremely hard to come up with a situation in which the difference in "weakness" is particularly important (though this changes significantly if you pull MBTI, etc into the picture too). It's about what ROLE the function is, not its strength. The roles of the PoLR and role function are extremely different in that PoLR is about subconscious inadequacy and role is frivolous and unnecessary, but both are weak. 



> I'm skeptical also because I think the actual laws the psyche (brain) is based on are substantially different from these. These personality theories are good as observed tendencies but not as actual laws/rules of how things actually work.


Well, they're all models - even Jung. A model, by definition, is not reality. Not even Jung, I think, is sufficient on its own. I would agree that Jung is pretty vague about some things, and leaves them quite open - but at the expense of having some schmucks take _his _word as grand law too, as internally consistent as it may be. But see, here's a big difference between an ESTP and an INTJ - I really couldn't care less about a theory's organization. If I think it works, and I test and see that it works, then it works. I couldn't give a rat's ass about internal consistency. If there are errors now and then, I make sure not to overuse the theory so much to make them serious ones. And guess what - I couldn't give two shits what most people think anyway, so it works out in the end most of the times I'm wrong! 

At the same time, there's a lot of value to what you're saying, and I like your comment about the theories not being actual laws because it's the biggest problem, I think, with all of typology. I just think it potentially applies equally to all theories. They're _all _models, even Jung, and need to be treated as such. You can't play battleship with chess pieces. 



> Yea I agree the type descriptions are terrible stereotypes.  By "one stupid website" are you referring to wikisocion? How is the translation screwed up?


No, this. If it was a person, I'd make it swallow a near-molten Santoku for the misrepresentation of information it spews. I'm a bit lucky to speak Russian, so I can tell how it's detached Filatova's, Augusta's etc's writings from the crap it has here.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

Arrow said:


> If Ti was a major part of your make up then you would feel the Ti/Fe conflict when you make decisions or when you encounter the world. It would not be as separate as you are making it seem. The fact that you are only referencing Ti as what is close to you and don't notice how Ti is affected by Fe is kind of making my point. Ti is not as dominant in you as it is to a Ti-dominant type. Your Ti merely serves to reference your main function which is to augment your extroverted perception. All types need perception and judgement functions. This doesn't mean you aren't a good judger or you aren't a good perciever it just means your dominant function rules house and all other functions are servants to that main one. That's what I mean by tint. When you truly look at it the main and inferior functions are the most meaningful ones because they show the most important parts of your psyche.
> 
> Judgement types are always judging things or they are always judging something based on the external or internal systems they have built or cultivated. In extroverted perception types this is not the case the auxiliary/tertiary functions merely serve to preserve the main dominant function and build to deepen that main function. I think people take the function order too literally, they have this impression that types are amalgamations or combinations of function order in terms of strength and that's just generally not the case. Auxiliary judgement types don't focus on judgement the same way judgement dominant types do and it's the same thing for perception types. Even though I have Si and Ne as functions I do not use them the same way dominant Si or Ne dominant users would use them. They do not mean as much to me as Fi does in terms of my main function and those functions in me merely serve to strengthen my Fi. They are not functions in their own right they are built off the dominant one. They merely augment my main function and branch out or fill out my main function.
> 
> The dominant/inferior functions are the most important key distinctions in type because they show your strength and weakness. Your conscious and your unconscious.


You won't tell me what is exactly what in my psyche, because you do not know me. You simply made a few general unproven assumptions based on some limited range of observations of whatever people. You cannot use those to reliably predict how I am. You are of course right in that my auxiliary isn't the absolute leader; I never claimed it was. However, it can provide me with strong motivations so it is a big part of me and means quite some things to me. If you claim it can't, you are plain wrong. As for Ti/Fe conflict, yes I can separate the two based on the situation but I can run into some Fe issues as well, again this depends on the situation, because it doesn't always happen.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

Knight_In_Rags said:


> I'm sorry but my Ne _does_ aid me in my understanding and I'm full-on INFP.


Yup. All of the functions aid in understanding since you need two context functions to deal with the objective "what" of something, while you need an equal amount of content functions to deal with the subjective "how" (how to your way of seeing or reasoning (Ni)/"getting reasoning" (Ti)/identifying significance (Fi)/realizing familiarity(Si)) of something. Put these all together and the process of understanding occurs.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

LXPilot said:


> Actually, not really. I can see why you'd think that based on the numbers, but neither are really supposed to be used to measure "weakness." Beebe maybe a little more so, but in Model A, the PoLR is actually suppressed, while the role function is simply not necessary, given the dominant function. The two are situationally weaker than each other. Sure, you can piss me off by making me be "fakey" to people with Fe, but you can also cheese me off pretty bad if you force me to go by "Si rules." I don't think there's a huge practical difference, TBH.
> 
> I guess if all you care about is the system itself, then there are "differences," but in real life it's extremely hard to come up with a situation in which the difference in "weakness" is particularly important (though this changes significantly if you pull MBTI, etc into the picture too). It's about what ROLE the function is, not its strength. The roles of the PoLR and role function are extremely different in that PoLR is about subconscious inadequacy and role is frivolous and unnecessary, but both are weak.


Well, I think "weakness" was not the best word to use; perhaps something like "most opposing to the essence of a person" is a better expression. I did not mean to refer to just the strength of the functions. So anyway, there I do see a difference in the two theories. Of course I agree that in practice it can be just a fine distinction, may not matter all the time. Still it (beyond many other things of course) indicates to me that these theories have not really sorted out this issue. And then of course the dual seeking vs inferior function difference is not just a fine distinction.




> Well, they're all models - even Jung. A model, by definition, is not reality. Not even Jung, I think, is sufficient on its own. I would agree that Jung is pretty vague about some things, and leaves them quite open - but at the expense of having some schmucks take _his _word as grand law too, as internally consistent as it may be. But see, here's a big difference between an ESTP and an INTJ - I really couldn't care less about a theory's organization. If I think it works, and I test and see that it works, then it works. I couldn't give a rat's ass about internal consistency. If there are errors now and then, I make sure not to overuse the theory so much to make them serious ones. And guess what - I couldn't give two shits what most people think anyway, so it works out in the end most of the times I'm wrong!
> 
> At the same time, there's a lot of value to what you're saying, and I like your comment about the theories not being actual laws because it's the biggest problem, I think, with all of typology. I just think it potentially applies equally to all theories. They're _all _models, even Jung, and need to be treated as such. You can't play battleship with chess pieces.


Yea these are just models, but... these models of reality are supposed to be improved by allowing falsification first and foremost. Then if the model gets good enough, it can actually be used well in practice too. By then the rules or laws discovered are close enough to reality then to allow for reliable practical use. As I said these theories here are far from that with too many unproven assumptions, untested hypotheses. -.- So the argument of "oh theories are not reality anyway" is not really applicable here. 

I mean, internal consistency is one thing, of course this also fails - as you noted, this does make me wary as it is indeed important to me that principles fit together - but the stuff doesn't even seem to make good enough predictions that could be used "as is". It may suggest ideas that one can keep in mind to choose from, along with other options, when dealing with situations and that is great; but anything beyond that is too risky to rely on. Some people seem to rely on these theory predictions too much. It seems like you are not one of those people  

I suppose your analogy about playing battleship with chess pieces hits home here. 

Btw, before I forget where we started from, originally I took issue with the discussion about matching observations to the model. That is something that in my opinion can't be done or at least not well due to the above mentioned issues. So beyond taking predictions seriously or not seriously, this is also important, not taking the attempt at matching things according to theory seriously either.




> No, this. If it was a person, I'd make it swallow a near-molten Santoku for the misrepresentation of information it spews. I'm a bit lucky to speak Russian, so I can tell how it's detached Filatova's, Augusta's etc's writings from the crap it has here.


Yeah, I never visited socionics.com much, I read mostly other sources because those were recommended, not this site. I was just wondering because I've heard a few people bash wikisocion too.


----------



## dimane (Jun 11, 2011)

The cognitive functions arent what you do there why and how you do them.

*"Jung didn't describe the functions as skills; he compared them to the four directions on a compass. Orientation, not innate ability. For example, you can make a reliable correlation between North and whale fishing, but orienting yourself by North won't give you the skills to work on a whale boat. Conversely, taking a job on a whale boat won't tell you how it feels to orient yourself by North.**Each function orients conscious awareness in terms of its own psychic content, just as the four directions orient us to different parts of the external landscape. To take a direction always leaves a path not taken. If you're going North, you're axiomatically not going South. Over time, favoring one orientation over another becomes habitual, assembling a consistent approach to the meaning of our experiences." Lenore Thomson*

The dominant function is the most important function because its the most conscious, the other four are steadily less conscious moving from the auxiliary to the tert to the inferior.
So when I take a type test and get the results ISTP Im responding in a way that I believe fits my overall approach to life.

*"A type test is trying to get at these free-will decisions -- do you see yourself as cool-headed or warm-hearted; do you like deadlines or do they get in the way? These choices can't be traced backwards into core emotional needs that demand behavioral compliance. Rather, they point ahead -- to goals that we set ourselves in a particular time and place, the ways in which we deliberately narrow our receptive field to information that we value."*
​The letters only refer to most differentiated functions. Now I'm completely see my self in the letters ITP because Ti is my lead function and Im aware of its use but Se is something that Im steadily becoming aware of not so much from my owns actions butt through the actions of other Se types especially Se doms. 
​


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

dimane said:


> The cognitive functions arent what you do there why and how you do them.
> 
> *"Jung didn't describe the functions as skills; he compared them to the four directions on a compass. Orientation, not innate ability. For example, you can make a reliable correlation between North and whale fishing, but orienting yourself by North won't give you the skills to work on a whale boat. Conversely, taking a job on a whale boat won't tell you how it feels to orient yourself by North.**Each function orients conscious awareness in terms of its own psychic content, just as the four directions orient us to different parts of the external landscape. To take a direction always leaves a path not taken. If you're going North, you're axiomatically not going South. Over time, favoring one orientation over another becomes habitual, assembling a consistent approach to the meaning of our experiences." Lenore Thomson*​



The first part of this is just fine as our consciousness is obviously not capable of true multitasking (that is, "to take a direction always leaves a path not taken", as in your quote). However it is an assumption that you must be favouring the same orientation in every situation. Of course some degree of consistency is there. E.g. one specific kind of situation is often dealt with in the same way every time unless you find a new way to adapt to it (perhaps a better way or perhaps you just want to shake up things), in which case your approach changes, which is an example of not being "consistent" unlike the quote assumed. Another claim that was made here would be consistency of approach between different kinds of situations: there is nothing that guarantees this, from the argument laid out in the quote it does not necessarily follow that this overall consistency must be the case. 





> The dominant function is the most important function because its the most conscious, the other four are steadily less conscious moving from the auxiliary to the tert to the inferior.



The idea of information flow moving in this specific way is more speculation. Biological basis?




> So when I take a type test and get the results ISTP Im responding in a way that I believe fits my overall approach to life.





> *"A type test is trying to get at these free-will decisions -- do you see yourself as cool-headed or warm-hearted; do you like deadlines or do they get in the way? These choices can't be traced backwards into core emotional needs that demand behavioral compliance. Rather, they point ahead -- to goals that we set ourselves in a particular time and place, the ways in which we deliberately narrow our receptive field to information that we value."*​



Those questions are forcing a discrete answer even in cases where they shouldn't. It assumes it can always be forced.

Nitpicking of the examples: 1) I prefer to be able to be both cool-headed and warm-hearted (not at the same time obviously), I do not want to exclusively see myself as only one of these; 2) I don't like deadlines and at the same I like them. (Not liking: it restricting impulsiveness; liking: forcing me to be structured enough.) Also there is the question of whether these are externally (by others) or internally set (by yourself) deadlines. They can be very different. OK, I'm not going to detail this longer now...
​


> The letters only refer to most differentiated functions. Now I'm completely see my self in the letters ITP because Ti is my lead function and Im aware of its use but Se is something that Im steadily becoming aware of not so much from my owns actions butt through the actions of other Se types especially Se doms.


This is interesting though, can you talk about your actual experience with this? ​


----------



## Naama (Dec 5, 2010)

First function matters the most(and it naturally sets the inferior too) and secondary function has secondary importance. It would be wrong to say that aux doesent matter at all or even that it has really little meaning overal. Its true that in some things aux doesent matter much at all, like when someone gets neurotic due to collision of the opposites of dom and inferior, but then again its the tert that you need to go through to properly handle this conflict and differentiate inferior and to get to properly differentiate tert, you need to go through differentiating aux..


----------



## dimane (Jun 11, 2011)

itsme45 said:


> The first part of this is just fine as our consciousness is obviously not capable of true multitasking (that is, "to take a direction always leaves a path not taken", as in your quote). However it is an assumption that you must be favouring the same orientation in every situation. Of course some degree of consistency is there. E.g. one specific kind of situation is often dealt with in the same way every time unless you find a new way to adapt to it (perhaps a better way or perhaps you just want to shake up things), in which case your approach changes, which is an example of not being "consistent" unlike the quote assumed. Another claim that was made here would be consistency of approach between different kinds of situations: there is nothing that guarantees this, from the argument laid out in the quote it does not necessarily follow that this overall consistency must be the case. ​











itsme45 said:


> The idea of information flow moving in this specific way is more speculation. Biological basis?




Dario nardis research shows that everyone has two high threshold functions and two low threshold functions





itsme45 said:


> Those questions are forcing a discrete answer even in cases where they shouldn't. It assumes it can always be forced.
> 
> Nitpicking of the examples: 1) I prefer to be able to be both cool-headed and warm-hearted (not at the same time obviously), I do not want to exclusively see myself as only one of these; 2) I don't like deadlines and at the same I like them. (Not liking: it restricting impulsiveness; liking: forcing me to be structured enough.) Also there is the question of whether these are externally (by others) or internally set (by yourself) deadlines. They can be very different.OK, I'm not going to detail this longer now...
> 
> Ok from this it seems like your saying your a well rounded and that moved beyond the need to define yourself in terms of F or T Jor P etc and thats good I guess, but from a mbti perspective thats a lifelong process usually taking 10 years to differentiate each function and still there referring to different general directions in life that youd rather take





itsme45 said:


> This is interesting though, can you talk about your actual experience with this?


hard to explain


----------



## saffron (Jan 30, 2011)

dimane said:


> Dario nardis research shows that everyone has two high threshold functions and two low threshold functions


How does his research show this?


----------



## Impact Calculus (Mar 29, 2012)

I don't know what theory you're looking at, but all of the functions clearly useful to know. If you think you're consciously directing energy to all of the judging functions at once, then you probably aren't looking deep enough.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

I think this is important, because the aux. functions are aux. functions that don't actually suppress one another - you can switch between each easily at the command of the dominant function (in fact, the aux. functions work closely together as well and help to suppress the inferior), so there's no real type conflict of balance between the aux. and tert. functions, while there always is between the dominant and inferior, thus making these functions the only real place where a personality "structure" is established - without a consistent structure, you can't call personality personality. So, one's personality isn't really seen in the aux./tert. functions (they color personality, but don't define it - I think the aux. function mainly colors the dominant function, while the tert. function colors everything in some capacity), but one's personality is seen from a motivational standpoint in terms of the dom./inferior.


----------



## Arrow (Mar 2, 2012)

I agree. I think the aux function basically just serves to support the main function (I think mostly all of the functions do this but aux is probably the most supportive one out of the three) while I think the tert function is kind of a check point or such that references the dominant function, and the inferior function is the other half of the dominant one acting on behalf of the dominant function in an opposite way to give further depth and scope to the individual. The tert and aux functions are there to aid and give a tint to the personality but they are not in charge and they do not effect the individual as much as the dom/inferior functions do. Hence why you can't as easily identify them in the type me forms.


----------



## dimane (Jun 11, 2011)

saffron said:


> How does his research show this?


http://www.nzapt.org.nz/images/2010_Australia_NZ_final.pdf slide 14
http://www.keys2cognition.com/papers/EEGandSocialCognition.pdf WAY at the bottom
the cognitive functions encompass a broad range of behaviors thats why alot of people refer to them as cognitive attitudes you can get through most things why just a judging and perceiving function


----------



## saffron (Jan 30, 2011)

dimane said:


> http://www.nzapt.org.nz/images/2010_Australia_NZ_final.pdf slide 14
> http://www.keys2cognition.com/papers/EEGandSocialCognition.pdf WAY at the bottom
> the cognitive functions encompass a broad range of behaviors thats why alot of people refer to them as cognitive attitudes you can get through most things why just a judging and perceiving function


For some reason Internet Explorer is shutting down when I try to access those links. Maybe you could copy and paste the info?


----------



## dimane (Jun 11, 2011)

Here’s what I’ve found.
• Various regions do similar tasks for all of us.
• BUT… People vary greatly in how much 
stimulus is needed to activate a region.
• Type, especially Jung’s 8 cognitive processes, 
strongly relate to brain activity.
• Patterns linked with each process seen most 
frequently in Types with that process dominant 
(1st), less frequently in Types with that process 
in support role (2nd), and rarely seen in others.
• Worth further research.

• Many cognitive functions are located in the 
same areas for all individuals.
• But… the amount of stimuli needed to activate 
an area easily varies by individual.
• Most individuals have 1 or 2 low-threshold 
functions, and 1 or 2 high-threshold functions.
• An individual may utilize a low-threshold 
function even if it produces suboptimal results.
• Lots of brain activity for a low-threshold 
function indicates skilled / considered use. 
• Linguistic or behavioral tag/s may belie use of 
a notably low/high-threshold function.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

dimane said:


> Dario nardis research shows that everyone has two high threshold functions and two low threshold functions


VS



> Most individuals have 1 or 2 low-threshold functions, and 1 or 2 high-threshold functions.


=> Isn't the same thing. Let's not redefine things when quoting from someone's research.

Also, it isn't proof for function order, in the sense that it isn't proof for information flowing in specific order.




> An individual may utilize a low-threshold function even if it produces suboptimal results.


This however would point more towards that flow idea.




> > This is interesting though, can you talk about your actual experience with this?
> 
> 
> hard to explain


I was only asking for some examples from your life 

Btw I see you edited your reply to me and a lot of empty space is in your post, did you delete some stuff?


----------



## dimane (Jun 11, 2011)

itsme45 said:


> VS
> 
> 
> 
> => Isn't the same thing. Let's not redefine things when quoting from someone's research.


Ok my bad on that one sorry to everybody who doesnt have two


itsme45 said:


> Also, it isn't proof for function order, in the sense that it isn't proof for information flowing in specific order.


 "Patterns linked with each process seen most frequently in Types with that process dominant (1st), less frequently in Types with that proocess in support role (2nd), and rarely seen in other"
its not definitive proof but it does point in that direction




itsme45 said:


> This however would point more towards that flow idea.[/QUOTE
> 
> not sure what your referring to
> 
> ...


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

dimane said:


> Ok my bad on that one sorry to everybody who doesnt have two


Oh I just I think precision is important in researching stuff... devil can be in the details. 



> "Patterns linked with each process seen most frequently in Types with that process dominant (1st), less frequently in Types with that process in support role (2nd), and rarely seen in other"
> its not definitive proof but it does point in that direction


It can point to different directions as well, depending on interpretation. You could interpret it as the brain adapting in X or Y ways (leaving this unspecified, as it would be too long now to explain alternative theories), without requiring function ordering.



> itsme45 said:
> 
> 
> > This however would point more towards that flow idea.
> ...


This (from one of your earlier posts): _"The dominant function is the most important function because its the most conscious, the other four are steadily less conscious moving from the auxiliary to the tert to the inferior."
_So, I meant: explicitly utilizing of the "dominant areas" when suboptimal could indicate we do try to make information go through the most dominant areas first. 
Now of course it doesn't say anything about tertiary or inferior areas.



> basically being present and paying attention to their actions seeing what affect they have when they do something and try to get similar results


Before that were you just in your head theorizing? What made you want to develop auxiliary? Or did it just happen automatically with you noticing the change in your behavioural pattern later?



> yeah I did, the first example i came up with was trash and I still dont completely know to quote without cutting and pasting


Well if you want to respond to each section separately, you just have to encase the section inside quote marks (you can use the Wrap Quote Tags button in the editor).


----------



## dimane (Jun 11, 2011)

itsme45 said:


> Oh I just I think precision is important in researching stuff... devil can be in the details.


I agree on that



> It can point to different directions as well, depending on interpretation. You could interpret it as the brain adapting in X or Y ways (leaving this unspecified, as it would be too long now to explain alternative theories), without requiring function ordering.


I think I kinda get what your saying but I see those who dont follow the regular mbti function order as the exception that proves the rule




> This (from one of your earlier posts): _"The dominant function is the most important function because its the most conscious, the other four are steadily less conscious moving from the auxiliary to the tert to the inferior."
> _So, I meant: explicitly utilizing of the "dominant areas" when suboptimal could indicate we do try to make information go through the most dominant areas first.
> Now of course it doesn't say anything about tertiary or inferior areas.


agreed




> Before that were you just in your head theorizing? What made you want to develop auxiliary? Or did it just happen automatically with you noticing the change in your behavioural pattern later?


I did do alot of thinking for its own sake but I think the change came from to trying keep up with my cousin, Im not sayin were rivals or anything but anything he tells you he can do I can probably do better





> Well if you want to respond to each section separately, you just have to encase the section inside quote marks (you can use the Wrap Quote Tags button in the editor).


Thanks


----------



## Juan M (Mar 11, 2011)

So much subjectivism, its probably your inferior Te, so much imagination probably your Ne, dreamer come back when you have real proof of this.


----------



## dimane (Jun 11, 2011)

Im assuming that wasnt directed at me cause first of all Im Ti dominant second of all imagination had nothin to do with it, I can back up all my claims with empirical evidence and third of all the proof is in the pudding


----------



## Anubis (Nov 30, 2011)

dimane said:


> Im assuming that wasnt directed at me cause first of all Im Ti dominant second of all imagination had nothin to do with it, I can back up all my claims with empirical evidence and third of all the proof is in the pudding


I think he was talking about me


----------



## dimane (Jun 11, 2011)

In that case Im sorry I take back what I said


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

They actually are the only functions that matter, according to Jung, whose main principles of the entire psyche are based off of them. They are the opposing forces of personality that control the auxiliaries - nothing ever gets past the dominant until the auxiliaries do the checking. Basically, they are what defines a person's personality, while the auxiliaries just get mixed into the activity of the dominant. It only makes sense that a person has one real preference in terms of a mental perspective, since they would be schizophrenic if they had two. It doesn't make sense that type exists in terms of a 4 preference hierarchy, since there is no principle behind this that makes sense (e.g. opposites) - the only thing that makes sense in function order is that you prefer a dominant, so automatically, you are rejecting the complementary perspective as inferior, while in between are the helper functions that prevent the inferior from taking over, which don't oppose each other, since if they did, they couldn't serve to help the dominant because they'd have to deal with compatibility issues between themselves first, so the dominant would fail, basically (and the dominant needs both helping it, since one occupies it's orientation, while the other occupies the orientation of the other - I have yet to hear any logical reasons for why the tert. is supposed to be subordinate to the aux. - the only place I can see differences would be in egotism, although these would probably exist on the basis of which one people use to attract the attention from other people, which would give one or the other reason to be egotistical around it, although I know plenty of people who aren't really very egotistical around it, so frankly, I see the aux/tert functions as very closely connected - come to think of my own experiences with aux. Te, I'm not really egotistical around it - the only times I would be egotistical around it would be 100% in reference to some Ni vision I have or accomplishing something in the Se department). I think the MBTI, by giving the auxiliaries precedence also, are basically locking people into boxes this way, since really, I don't think the auxiliaries can be categorized beyond the roles they serve the dominant - this isn't the case at all. There are no type patterns in the aux/tert functions - the only places where the patterns exist is the dom/inferior, so really, this makes type a whole lot more easy to figure out (e.g. the type motivations of INTPs and ISTPs are largely the same, but the way they handle them are mildly different, due to one being an Se/Ni type and one being an Ne/Si type).


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

What is this? I don't even...

XD XD XD XD


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> They actually are the only functions that matter, according to Jung, whose main principles of the entire psyche are based off of them. They are the opposing forces of personality that control the auxiliaries - nothing ever gets past the dominant until the auxiliaries do the checking. Basically, they are what defines a person's personality, while the auxiliaries just get mixed into the activity of the dominant. It only makes sense that a person has one real preference in terms of a mental perspective, since they would be schizophrenic if they had two. It doesn't make sense that type exists in terms of a 4 preference hierarchy, since there is no principle behind this that makes sense (e.g. opposites) - the only thing that makes sense in function order is that you prefer a dominant, so automatically, you are rejecting the complementary perspective as inferior, while in between are the helper functions that prevent the inferior from taking over, which don't oppose each other, since if they did, they couldn't serve to help the dominant because they'd have to deal with compatibility issues between themselves first, so the dominant would fail, basically (and the dominant needs both helping it, since one occupies it's orientation, while the other occupies the orientation of the other - I have yet to hear any logical reasons for why the tert. is supposed to be subordinate to the aux. - the only place I can see differences would be in egotism, although these would probably exist on the basis of which one people use to attract the attention from other people, which would give one or the other reason to be egotistical around it, although I know plenty of people who aren't really very egotistical around it, so frankly, I see the aux/tert functions as very closely connected - come to think of my own experiences with aux. Te, I'm not really egotistical around it - the only times I would be egotistical around it would be 100% in reference to some Ni vision I have or accomplishing something in the Se department). I think the MBTI, by giving the auxiliaries precedence also, are basically locking people into boxes this way, since really, I don't think the auxiliaries can be categorized beyond the roles they serve the dominant - this isn't the case at all. There are no type patterns in the aux/tert functions - the only places where the patterns exist is the dom/inferior, so really, this makes type a whole lot more easy to figure out (e.g. the type motivations of INTPs and ISTPs are largely the same, but the way they handle them are mildly different, due to one being an Se/Ni type and one being an Ne/Si type).


Thanks for putting it in a language I could comprehend.
I disgree on the aux and tertriary not mattering, 
since they play a vital role on how you chose to manifest your dominant function.
They are the spices in the main dish.
I agree that without the main dish the spices are pointless, 
however the main dish will be influenced hugely by the spices.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> (...) while in between are the helper functions that prevent the inferior from taking over, which don't oppose each other, since if they did, they couldn't serve to help the dominant because they'd have to deal with compatibility issues between themselves first, so the dominant would fail, basically (and the dominant needs both helping it, since one occupies it's orientation, while the other occupies the orientation of the other


OK, well, staying strictly at the theoretical logic territory; why couldn't it be possible that at one time one aux helps the dominant, not allowing the other aux (you can call it tert) to function at that time, then at another time the other one would be in this position. OK, your counterargument is the claim that the dominant needs both helping it (at the same time), but why? Just because one of the aux's is the same orientation of the dominant's orientation and the other isn't, how does it follow that both are needed? I need a bit more detailed reasoning here.


----------



## nonnaci (Sep 25, 2011)

itsme45 said:


> OK, well, staying strictly at the theoretical logic territory; why couldn't it be possible that at one time one aux helps the dominant, not allowing the other aux (you can call it tert) to function at that time, then at another time the other one would be in this position. OK, your counterargument is the claim that the dominant needs both helping it (at the same time), but why? Just because one of the aux's is the same orientation of the dominant's orientation and the other isn't, how does it follow that both are needed? I need a bit more detailed reasoning here.


I don't think that both aux-tert helping dom in a "simultaneous" fashion was implied in the original argument. From what I gathered, the following are evidenced: Let a <- b mean "b depends on a for conscious use" 
dom<-aux
dom<-tert

The following lacks evidence:
dom<-aux<-tert, dom<-tert<-aux
aux<-tert, tert<-aux
aux
tert
inf anywhere

The reasoning is that Jung's original description of the functions with orientations refer to dominant ones where they'd feel a tension with its opposite. The auxiliaries become conscious only when they work in tandem with the dominant. What can we infer from this alone? The aux and tert will not feel a pull or tension w.r.t. each other (despite being opposites) because they can not be used independently in a conscious manner. The dependence on the dominant makes aux,tert distinct from Jung's descriptions of the dom versions (see concreticism). 

Other point from outside source: It is unlikely that we can efficiently use functions in a simul manner because differentiating a function implies a reproduction of a set of brain states. Suppose there exist an established set of brain states for dominant Ti and dominant Ne. If one loads up dom-Ti brain state to active processing, then it is difficult to simultaneously reproduce the state of dom-Ne unless both states were entirely mutually exclusive (they're not if you look at maps of Dario's research). I personally believe that function differentiation has a physiological component so that the brain structurally evolves to conform to whatever brain state mapped to the dom function. This would account for why a person can't exchange functions in the dom position later in life or why aux functions can never actualize their potential as if they were in the dom positions.

Stupid analogy: Imagine mac OS running VMware windows on a fixed set of hardware.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

hornet said:


> Thanks for putting it in a language I could comprehend.
> I disgree on the aux and tertriary not mattering,
> since they play a vital role on how you chose to manifest your dominant function.
> They are the spices in the main dish.
> ...


Well, they only matter insomuch that you can tell whether, say, an INTJ is functioning on a Te-Fi axis or a Fe-Ti axis (which would turn them into an INFJ). But frankly, I don't really find that the differences between aux. T types and tert. T types is really so much that one's a "T" and one's an "F" - that doesn't easily define the differences between the two personalities at all - between INTJs and INFJs, the bigger difference has little to do with one being more "conceptual" than the other, but more just to do with the two having very very different judging function dynamics (Te/Fi vs. Fe/Ti is extremely different - they way they derive their senses of self are extremely different in locus of control in the F department). Actually, I would argue that ENFPs are the closest thing to being the "extraverted version" of INTJs, due to both being N dominant, S inferior, and using the same judging functions in between to support their dominant. Here's the rest of the system I came up with:

ISTJs and ESFPs
INFJs and ENTPs
ISFJs and ESTPs

I tend to find that most of the type conflicts between any of these types have just about nothing to do with one being more "F" or more "T" than the other - most come from one being more S or N than the other. This applies to the dominant judging types as well, where most of the type conflicts between them come from one being more T than the other, etc.

Conflicts between dominant perception types and dominant judging types tend to result from projection that one is too T or F for them from the J dominants or one is too S or N for them from the P dominants. These are all generalizations, of course, but they hold water based on my observations. I'm not going to make any guesses yet about the J dominants, since the nature of the J functions tend to differ more greatly, no matter what.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

itsme45 said:


> OK, well, staying strictly at the theoretical logic territory; why couldn't it be possible that at one time one aux helps the dominant, not allowing the other aux (you can call it tert) to function at that time, then at another time the other one would be in this position. OK, your counterargument is the claim that the dominant needs both helping it (at the same time), but why? Just because one of the aux's is the same orientation of the dominant's orientation and the other isn't, how does it follow that both are needed? I need a bit more detailed reasoning here.


Because there is no principle that would allow this to make any sense, since the "tert." is in the same orientation as the dominant, it makes no sense that it will get rejected over the aux., which is in the opposite orientation from the dominant. These are both of the functions that the dominant sponges off of for support. The ways in which either function might be accepted or rejected is pretty much completely up to the individual, since they don't function on any rigid principle.


----------



## snowbell (Apr 2, 2012)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> Because there is no principle that would allow this to make any sense, since the "tert." is in the same orientation as the dominant, it makes no sense that it will get rejected over the aux., which is in the opposite orientation from the dominant. These are both of the functions that the dominant sponges off of for support. The ways in which either function might be accepted or rejected is pretty much completely up to the individual, since they don't function on any rigid principle.


Please correct me if I'm wrong.

So in other words you are saying that the dom./inf. axis is the most important axis, and the aux./tert. axis is far far weaker because they are supporting the dominant and working at its behest, doing what the dominant cant (ie judging if the dominant is perceiving or vice versa)?


----------



## LiquidLight (Oct 14, 2011)

snowbell said:


> Please correct me if I'm wrong.
> 
> So in other words you are saying that the dom./inf. axis is the most important axis, and the aux./tert. axis is far far weaker because they are supporting the dominant and working at its behest, doing what the dominant cant (ie judging if the dominant is perceiving or vice versa)?


That's basically how Jung envisioned it working. That the psychic or cognitive energy is focused around the dominant/inferior function since the conscious aspects of a person center around the dominant and the unconscious or shadow aspects would center around the inferior. 

Beebe sort of describes it where the head and feet are dom/inferior and the arms are the the auxiliaries. But head/feet are obviously the most important axis. In Beebe's theory the auxes deal more with how we relate to people and the world around us, but the 'spine of self' as he calls it revolves around the dominant/inferior. This is still in line with what Jung was saying (even though Beebe added the stuff about the auxes dealing with other people). But in the Jungian connotation the auxes are simply that: auxiliaries that support the functions they are attached to. 

The MBTI has gone back and forth with this over the years, but the current model basically preaches that all functions have strength of their own and work much more independently of one another, but again this is MBTI, so you have to understand which theory you are talking about if you say "dom/inf are most important," because this is not the true in MBTI, but would be true in Jung's construct.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

Well, at this point, I'm losing any belief in type dynamics beyond the dom/inferior one - it makes no sense to me that the tert would necessarily have more to do with the shadow than the aux, thus limiting it in a type. Basically, if you only have one preference, your going to have a different kind of preference to support the ego preference in terms of not how you see the world, but in terms of the attitude and most satisfying way of accomplishing the ego's goals. So right there, the tert/aux functioning outside of "Jung's laws" is going to get rid of all of the misconceptions about type = abilities, since really, the only one that really aids one's own individual abilities is the dominant (and to a lesser extent, the inferior). After all, without the dominant, everything, including abilities, goes out the window. The dominant and the dominant only constitutes an ability in itself and also extends itself to all else, but this negates the idea that functions themselves represent abilities or even the surface-level personality expressions of individuals. It's essentially a psychological inclination - not even remotely encompassing of most of personality as we know it. As I noted before, I cannot see where there are any patterns that indicate principles at work between the aux/tert, but the dom/inferior do have general patterns, and thus, are the only ones that would have much impact on one's psychology, outside of the function-attitude of all of the functions. After all, there is no principle that if the dominant becomes dysfunctional, the aux. will take over and the tert. won't - only the inferior will. I think looking at types in terms of dom/inferior 100% gets rid of persona associations for the better, because the only function that will get a persona associated with it will be the dominant - I mean, I can't seriously think of any time in my life when I thought I had issues with aux. Te or tert. Fi (Fi's kept to myself anyway, being introverted and not easily definable, so really, how in hell can anyone who doesn't lead with it even consider it relevant for it's own sake)...I don't think functions really work that way. I think Jung got it right that it's mainly just dom/inferior that matter in a person's ego - to take attention away from these to auxiliaries is to basically cause a person to dissociate into multiple personalities in terms of ego investment - the ego can only be invested in one function, but MBTI makes this stuff into persona by extending ego investment to the "images" evoked by other functions in a person's type (it can't really obey the principles of type though, since in the end, a person truly only has one ego and one way of harnessing their ego - you can't have two ways (dom/aux), because then, you'd have two egos, which is obviously impossible in normal people).


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

I still have yet to meet anyone who has issues with the tertiary over the auxiliary - in fact, I've seen more people I think who struggle with the aux. over the tert, largely because it's of the opposite orientation to their preferred one. I mean, seriously, how one can have underdeveloped introverted functions and be an introvert...um...for instance, what in hell does underdeveloped Fi or Si look like is absolutely beyond me - the only types that this makes any sense in would be inferior Fi or Si types, but it's not really their inferior function that is "underdeveloped," but it's more just "repressed," since the person is an extravert.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> I still have yet to meet anyone who has issues with the tertiary over the auxiliary - in fact, I've seen more people I think who struggle with the aux. over the tert, largely because it's of the opposite orientation to their preferred one. I mean, seriously, how one can have underdeveloped introverted functions and be an introvert...um...for instance, what in hell does underdeveloped Fi or Si look like is absolutely beyond me - the only types that this makes any sense in would be inferior Fi or Si types, but it's not really their inferior function that is "underdeveloped," but it's more just "repressed," since the person is an extravert.


Well... I do think I have more Fe (tert) issues than Ti (aux) issues. But it's complicated because it heavily depends on what kind of situation I am in. Sometimes they both smoothly go together and then sometimes it's definitely Ti > Fe. My life is not playing out in an ordinary way either so that's part of it. Overall I think I'm pretty ok with my aux, which shows in how I can maintain introversion for a bit, I've definitely got a lot better at it over time.



JungyesMBTIno said:


> I think Jung got it right that it's mainly just dom/inferior that matter in a person's ego - to take attention away from these to auxiliaries is to basically cause a person to dissociate into multiple personalities in terms of ego investment - the ego can only be invested in one function, but MBTI makes this stuff into persona by extending ego investment to the "images" evoked by other functions in a person's type (it can't really obey the principles of type though, since in the end, a person truly only has one ego and one way of harnessing their ego - you can't have two ways (dom/aux), because then, you'd have two egos, which is obviously impossible in normal people).


Is there anything that makes it a total requirement that the ego can only be invested in one function? Simply assuming that investment in two functions makes you "abnormal" does not constitute as proper reasoning. 

As for having two ways (I'm not going to call them "two egos" though), how about it being situation dependent? You could have very different behaviour and thinking in some situations than in others. That's how it is for me actually. And it's still one integrated self, everything is linked together, I see no problem with this.



JungyesMBTIno said:


> Because there is no principle that would allow this to make any sense, since the "tert." is in the same orientation as the dominant, it makes no sense that it will get rejected over the aux., which is in the opposite orientation from the dominant. These are both of the functions that the dominant sponges off of for support. The ways in which either function might be accepted or rejected is pretty much completely up to the individual, since they don't function on any rigid principle.


So is your reasoning that the opposite (from the dominant) attitude of the aux is too weak to be able to have any opposing power over the tertiary? Let me know if I got this wrong

It does make sense that there is no rigid principle though about how the aux or the tert can work together or oppose each other... That's at least how it is with me.

My only issue on a strictly theoretical level would be that the aux and the tert functions are still supposed to oppose each other simply because they are two different kinds of judging or perceiving (T/F or S/N). That's the same kind of opposition that the dominant and the inferior have. And just because the aux may be (or may not be) pulled into consciousness by the dominant, it doesn't mean it's some different kind of consciousness that can't oppose the tert.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

nonnaci said:


> The reasoning is that Jung's original description of the functions with orientations refer to dominant ones where they'd feel a tension with its opposite. The auxiliaries become conscious only when they work in tandem with the dominant. What can we infer from this alone? The aux and tert will not feel a pull or tension w.r.t. each other (despite being opposites) because they can not be used independently in a conscious manner. The dependence on the dominant makes aux,tert distinct from Jung's descriptions of the dom versions (see concreticism).


Alright that reasoning makes sense. Now of course all this is highly theoretical without any concrete access to these things.  So..... I still don't see why it can't be that they can actually be independently used in a conscious manner. But yeah, no point arguing that because we can have no objective evidence anyway. Whatever I've observed is my own observations and not quantitatively measurable.




> Other point from outside source: It is unlikely that we can efficiently use functions in a simul manner because differentiating a function implies a reproduction of a set of brain states. Suppose there exist an established set of brain states for dominant Ti and dominant Ne. If one loads up dom-Ti brain state to active processing, then it is difficult to simultaneously reproduce the state of dom-Ne unless both states were entirely mutually exclusive (they're not if you look at maps of Dario's research). I personally believe that function differentiation has a physiological component so that the brain structurally evolves to conform to whatever brain state mapped to the dom function. This would account for why a person can't exchange functions in the dom position later in life or why aux functions can never actualize their potential as if they were in the dom positions.
> 
> Stupid analogy: Imagine mac OS running VMware windows on a fixed set of hardware.


Funny analogy! =)

The question about this attempt to reify is, how does a very general brain state get mapped like that. The only way I can see that working is if we do away with the generic concept of functions.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

itsme45 said:


> Well... I do think I have more Fe (tert) issues than Ti (aux) issues. But it's complicated because it heavily depends on what kind of situation I am in. Sometimes they both smoothly go together and then sometimes it's definitely Ti > Fe. My life is not playing out in an ordinary way either so that's part of it. Overall I think I'm pretty ok with my aux, which shows in how I can maintain introversion for a bit, I've definitely got a lot better at it over time.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Well, the point of the functions in relation to the ego is that one is essentially "you," (dom) and one winds up not being you in most ways in the end (inferior), so you can't really have an "in-between you," since this would constitute another you, basically - you're either egotistical, or you're not very egotistical - there's no in-between. So a person's ego syntonic identity is the conscious side of a person's identity (the parts they care about), and a person's ego dystonic identity is the unconscious side of a person (the parts they don't care about), and the auxiliary functions work with the dom/inferior. I tend to find reasoning on the premises of psychology with the auxiliaries to be tenuous and risky, because these functions are largely associated with complexes rather than the ego, other than when the ego needs them. I mean, I've honestly never really seen people have conscious control issues with the tertiary function, since after all, it is in the orientation of the dominant, very very much unlike the inferior. The aux/tert functions pretty much work as a unit, so once again, I'm not sure how much isolating them the way MBTI does to make some pseudo-struggle out between them is really even an accurate way to think of them (from my own experiences, I have a shitton of trouble isolating tert/aux and how they impact me - they almost seem to go hand-in-hand). I think complexes kind of enter through them, but I don't think complexes effect them egotistically very often at all - the ego meltdowns of people are going to occur around the dominant function when the dominant can't wield them to it's rescue. I'm not 100% sure about this topic (and would appreciate an expert opinion from someone here), but those are the logical conclusions I've come to by far.


----------



## nonnaci (Sep 25, 2011)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> The aux/tert functions pretty much work as a unit, so once again, I'm not sure how much isolating them the way MBTI does to make some pseudo-struggle out between them is really even an accurate way to think of them (from my own experiences, I have a shitton of trouble isolating tert/aux and how they impact me - they almost seem to go hand-in-hand).


The alternative models from AP follow what look like aux sharing the same orientation as the dom and the tert following the inferior e.g. Ni-Ti | Fe-Se where the latter 2 functions are unconscious, or the case of "pure" types Ni - T/F - | Se, where the two auxiliaries are concrete (not well-differentiated) but can flip between conscious/unconscious by working with the dom. For now, I consider these two templates just as valid as MBTI flip orientations. From personal experience, I find myself more closely aligned with the former with sensitivities in two functions.



JungyesMBTIno said:


> I think complexes kind of enter through them, but I don't think complexes effect them egotistically very often at all - the ego meltdowns of people are going to occur around the dominant function when the dominant can't wield them to it's rescue. I'm not 100% sure about this topic (and would appreciate an expert opinion from someone here), but those are the logical conclusions I've come to by far.


Not an expert on complexes (also learning), but my understanding is that they are feeling-toned nodes or associations / clusters of data that when brought into the conscious (if they were originally unconscious) via some related context (e.g. word association), gets processed by functions like any other object. The trouble is that if the association was of a particularly negative experience, say the name of an ex from a bad-breakup, then we have with it all the baggage of the poor experience or whatever the endopsyche functions (memory, the real shadow functions, emotions/affect, invasion) pulled from the unconscious and spat forth towards conscious. i.e. We have possibly some data that has some affinity to poorly differentiated functions which may cause us to freeze up / get stuck with / pause as evidenced by delayed reactions times in the word association tests.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

nonnaci said:


> The alternative models from AP follow what look like aux sharing the same orientation as the dom and the tert following the inferior e.g. Ni-Ti | Fe-Se where the latter 2 functions are unconscious, or the case of "pure" types Ni - T/F - | Se, where the two auxiliaries are concrete (not well-differentiated) but can flip between conscious/unconscious by working with the dom. For now, I consider these two templates just as valid as MBTI flip orientations. From personal experience, I find myself more closely aligned with the former with sensitivities in two functions.
> 
> 
> 
> Not an expert on complexes (also learning), but my understanding is that they are feeling-toned nodes or associations / clusters of data that when brought into the conscious (if they were originally unconscious) via some related context (e.g. word association), gets processed by functions like any other object. The trouble is that if the association was of a particularly negative experience, say the name of an ex from a bad-breakup, then we have with it all the baggage of the poor experience or whatever the endopsyche functions (memory, the real shadow functions, emotions/affect, invasion) pulled from the unconscious and spat forth towards conscious. i.e. We have possibly some data that has some affinity to poorly differentiated functions which may cause us to freeze up / get stuck with / pause as evidenced by delayed reactions times in the word association tests.


Okay, that aligns with my previous understanding of this stuff. That model above is exactly what confuses me, since I can't find any principle behind this that makes any sense - why is the tert. "less conscious" than the auxiliary is a major question I have...there's just no principle for it. The lesser "consciousness" of the inferior has to do with it being repressed, due to it's complementary opposite being the prime focus of a person, but where on Earth is the principle that says anything about the aux. and tert. having a suppressive relationship? I don't see it. In fact, I see the dom./aux. channeling through each other, since, after all, the dom/inferior essentially do the same, but due to the suppression of the inferior, one wouldn't realize it. I think that model you mentioned turns the tert. into an inferior function, which doesn't make sense in terms of Jung's principles of opposites and consciousness/unconsciousness. If the dom. has control of them both, why would they suppress each other? Every time I model their relationship, I see two functions that both work to support the dominant and reject it when necessary and two functions that both work to support the inferior and much more often reject it to support the dominant. There's the balance. I've been drawing it out like energy fields on paper and seriously can't find where there's any place for suppression of the tert. over the aux. The dominant can reject them both also when necessary.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

It seems like most of the people I know are pretty much hybrids between their aux/tert functions - I've never met anyone who rigidly defaults to one over the other (if so, it's probably not a natural type thing). If so, it's probably situational and a matter of extraverting for introverts and introverting for extraverts. It's so very hard to put any psychological imperative on the auxiliary and tert. functions. I wouldn't be surprised if this was the reason that Jung basically focused on dom/inferior, since the seat of a person's psychology lies here. So for instance, if an F dominant is acting withdrawn, their F function would be the function to focus on (they're stuck in a rut with seeing judgement as some kind of truth). If an N dom is acting withdrawn, perhaps they have some perceptual distortion. Etc. Obviously, issues can filter through any function in a person, but the seat of the person's issues will be determined by examining the rationale or perception created by the dom/inferior. The nature of a person's rationale might be a strong indicator of what function they are leading with as an ego defense mechanism. The dominant function is the leading ego defense mechanism (against the inferior), so often, behaviors around the inferior can be indicative of dominant function issues, no matter how innocuous or serious. This is where Jung's model of type basically has nothing in common with the MBTI's model of type. It doesn't translate to persona and abilities. It's heavily in the realm of psychology. I can't see where the aux. function is an ego-defense mechanism "against" the tert. function. I can see them both acting as ego defense mechanisms for the dominant and inferior, but they don't really defend each other. This is where MBTI pretty much took Jung's psychology into the "twilight zone" of their own making with no real principles behind what they were talking about. I just have yet to see P dominants who have conflicting "perspectives" between their aux. and tert. functions (J functions) and J dominants who have conflicting perspectives between their aux. and tert. functions (P functions). After all, functions like say, Ni and Se are not "true opposites" - they complement each other, although their focuses differ greatly, so basically, you're stuck with one or the other factoring greatly into your mentality while the other becomes the slave to the dominant.


----------



## nonnaci (Sep 25, 2011)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> Okay, that aligns with my previous understanding of this stuff. That model above is exactly what confuses me, since I can't find any principle behind this that makes any sense - why is the tert. "less conscious" than the auxiliary is a major question I have...there's just no principle for it. The lesser "consciousness" of the inferior has to do with it being repressed, due to it's complementary opposite being the prime focus of a person, but where on Earth is the principle that says anything about the aux. and tert. having a suppressive relationship? I don't see it. In fact, I see the dom./aux. channeling through each other, since, after all, the dom/inferior essentially do the same, but due to the suppression of the inferior, one wouldn't realize it. I think that model you mentioned turns the tert. into an inferior function, which doesn't make sense in terms of Jung's principles of opposites and consciousness/unconsciousness. If the dom. has control of them both, why would they suppress each other? Every time I model their relationship, I see two functions that both work to support the dominant and reject it when necessary and two functions that both work to support the inferior and much more often reject it to support the dominant. There's the balance. I've been drawing it out like energy fields on paper and seriously can't find where there's any place for suppression of the tert. over the aux. The dominant can reject them both also when necessary.


The AP templates are only second-hand sources as I'm still searching through the "The Structure and Dynamics of the Psyche", "Aion", and the "tavistock lectures" that would confirm this. But in the interim and to argue for the consistency of the AP templates, I infer that a suppressive relationship only occurs when a function obtains an orientation. And by orient, I mean that we can direct or reproduce the use of that particular function with "less" contamination from the dominant. This is not to say that the dominant function is thrown off its throne as stated in PT, but rather the use of the other function can be disassociated from the dominant in its processing. 

e.g. Suppose a person experiences something visually and the immediate reaction is to determine _what_ it is via a name or classification (Ti/Te). Suppose either N is used with Ti/Te (like chasing tangents of implications where a => b1,b2,b3 =>c1,c2...) or S joined with Ti/Te (separating the visual by identified components), would this infer a suppressive relationship between N and S? I argue no as the dependency graph looks like dom<-aux, dom<-tert where the use of either aux or tert depends on what's called for by the dom with respect to the datum (e.g. the datum may be abstract in nature and so have no sensory components). Now if either S or N managed to differentiate beyond its dependence with the dom in its processing (the totality of the experience is no longer Ti/Te+Ti/Te<-N but instead Ti/Te+Ni/Ne, with Ti/Te used more often than Ni/Ne or has final say), then one can perhaps treat the Ni/Ne suppression of Se/Si the same way as the dom-inf relation. i.e. If the "you" as comprised by how information gets processed was a circle drawn around a differentiated function (the dom), why can't it be drawn around two differentiated functions that do not oppose each other? And suppose the latter was true, then it should exhibit the same characteristics of suppression as the former case by analogy.


----------



## TaylorS (Jan 24, 2010)

nonnaci said:


> The alternative models from AP follow what look like aux sharing the same orientation as the dom and the tert following the inferior e.g. Ni-Ti | Fe-Se where the latter 2 functions are unconscious, or the case of "pure" types Ni - T/F - | Se, where the two auxiliaries are concrete (not well-differentiated) but can flip between conscious/unconscious by working with the dom. For now, I consider these two templates just as valid as MBTI flip orientations. From personal experience, I find myself more closely aligned with the former with sensitivities in two functions.


This is the function model I use, and I have come to reject MBTI as a bastardization of Jung's ideas.

If I understand Jung correctly, in a personality that has become strongly individuated both auxiliaries become well-differentiated, Jung himself is an example, before his mid-life crisis he was:

Ti - Si | Ne - Fe

In his later life he had become:

Ti - Si+Ni | Fe.

I am something like:

Te - Se | Ni - Fi


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> It seems like most of the people I know are pretty much hybrids between their aux/tert functions - I've never met anyone who rigidly defaults to one over the other (if so, it's probably not a natural type thing). If so, it's probably situational and a matter of extraverting for introverts and introverting for extraverts. (...) I just have yet to see P dominants who have conflicting "perspectives" between their aux. and tert. functions (J functions) and J dominants who have conflicting perspectives between their aux. and tert. functions (P functions). After all, functions like say, Ni and Se are not "true opposites" - they complement each other, although their focuses differ greatly, so basically, you're stuck with one or the other factoring greatly into your mentality while the other becomes the slave to the dominant.


You forget that I've claimed I'm such a person. I have seen conflict between my aux and tert. So you can't keep stating you've never heard of anyone like that.




nonnaci said:


> The AP templates are only second-hand sources as I'm still searching through the "The Structure and Dynamics of the Psyche", "Aion", and the "tavistock lectures" that would confirm this. But in the interim and to argue for the consistency of the AP templates, I infer that a suppressive relationship only occurs when a function obtains an orientation. And by orient, I mean that we can direct or reproduce the use of that particular function with "less" contamination from the dominant. This is not to say that the dominant function is thrown off its throne as stated in PT, but rather the use of the other function can be disassociated from the dominant in its processing.


Yea that makes a lot of sense.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

itsme45 said:


> You forget that I've claimed I'm such a person. I have seen conflict between my aux and tert. So you can't keep stating you've never heard of anyone like that.
> 
> 
> Yea that makes a lot of sense.


Well, you said you weren't sure and that it's pretty situational. I don't know how anyone can really figure this out objectively. Also, I said that the auxiliaries and inferior are at the mercy of the individual, so this can result in them varying in a lot of ways, surely.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> Well, you said you weren't sure and that it's pretty situational. I don't know how anyone can really figure this out objectively. Also, I said that the auxiliaries and inferior are at the mercy of the individual, so this can result in them varying in a lot of ways, surely.


Lol, none of this can be objective, now can it? 

But yes the activation of aux for me is situational, otherwise it would be the dominant function...

Anyway in certain situations it seems to activate in a way that it can oppose the tert function. Then in other situations they can work together. I have not tried to analyse what this depends on.

If that can be just part of the possible variation you meant, then the theory is made even more vague, which I would not call an improvement at all.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

itsme45 said:


> Lol, none of this can be objective, now can it?
> 
> But yes the activation of aux for me is situational, otherwise it would be the dominant function...
> 
> ...


I'm not denying your experiences, but I just have a really hard time seeing where the aux. naturally overtakes the tert. in any ways - I can't find any ways.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> I'm not denying your experiences, but I just have a really hard time seeing where the aux. naturally overtakes the tert. in any ways - I can't find any ways.


Well experience > theory for me 

Just because a specific theory doesn't allow for something it doesn't mean it can't exist and can't be accounted for in a better theory


----------

