# Is this Ti or Te?



## Meadow (Sep 11, 2012)

@Abraxas, I'm reading the thread "Illustrative Jungian Model," so I understand more where you're coming from. I've struggled with this for a while, unsure whether I'm not understanding the basics of my and others' psyches well enough to perceive how closely they indeed fit with MBTI and Type Dynamics, or if those theories, in their rigid structure, don't work for everyone.

I also want to add that it might seem strange to introverts that I have trouble easily thinking things through by myself. It's not that I never do, but it's difficult to achieve clarity of insights unless I have someone to at least listen to me so I can sound out my ideas and to work my way to what I see as being the truth of a situation or idea. It's like having a mass of string that I need to untangle and straighten out through talking or writing. My method of delving into ideas while talking doesn't necessarily make me shallow, since I try to go both as deeply and broadly as I can with whoever is willing, plus I do read a lot, but of course I'll never have the depth of an introvert since my specialty is breadth, with the breadth always pulling at me.

There are pluses and minuses to needing people who want to talk ideas. When I lived in a large city, I almost never experienced loneliness since there were always people nearby I could talk to. Now that I'm in a smaller town, I understand the drawbacks of being an extrovert who needs to talk through ideas, and sometimes ideas that are too odd to interest most people.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

@_Meadow_,

What I get from Jung's description of Te is basically a kind of thinking that "reacts" to external reality in the same way that I described an object might react to external forces. Essentially, it's not a matter of subjective definition that leads to truth - truth is "out there" waiting to be "discovered" in the world, and it only takes the right confluence of events and objects to bring it into being from an extraverted thinking perspective. Thus, the extraverted thinker is focused on the state of the world around him, because that is what he rests his judgment upon and depends upon it for clarity. In a way, he is "delegating" the decision to events and conditions around him. Just whatever the world happens to dictate _is_ the truth.

The introverted thinking perspective is that truth entirely depends upon a subjective criterion and that's it. _People_ define "truth" - not the external world. It's a choice, a decision, a personal commitment that is shared by the community so we have a consensus - but again, that's all it is, a consensus. It's not as if "truth" were absolute beyond that, you see? So the introverted thinker is far more concerned with the quality of thought itself - the "pure rational type" if you will - willing to entertain any argument so long as it is reasonable, and the reasonableness of the argument entirely depends upon it's internal consistency. If reality happens to refute the argument - well - that doesn't mean the argument is wrong. It just means reality doesn't match up, end of story. In a sense, the introvert is saying, "this is still hypothetically true, it just doesn't _apply_ to anything objective."

So in my mind, when I hear about descriptions of a type who is largely athletic, focused on sense details in an immediate way, prone to extreme sports, or mechanical aptitude - the generic description of an ISTP or an ESTP if you noticed what I was doing there - in my mind, and to my understanding, that sounds a LOT more like Se-Te or Te-Se. You see why though? If I'm right, and I think I am because my theory is perfectly consistent with Jung's, then that makes more sense than Ti-Se or Se-Ti.

Think about the very notion of "Ti-Se" or "Se-Ti." How would that even work? So you have a person caught up in a subjective thought process, and for some reason this person is just going to take external sense data for _granted?_ I strongly doubt that. It just doesn't make any sense. Why would someone whose consciousness was clearly biased towards an introverted attitude do anything more than entertain an extraverted perspective as something novel and suggestive? I'm not saying that they will just reject everything objective and external - I'm just saying I find it hard to accept that an introvert, whose consciousness is -dominated- by a subjective point of view, is going to trust anything about the external world _completely_. Rather, it would seem to me that anything "coming in" from an external point of view is going to go through a subjective filter, and whatever doesn't "fit" into that subjective paradigm will get discarded or ignored.

Thus, I see Ti paring up FAR more easily with Si or Ni. Think about why for a second. It just makes obvious sense, doesn't it? Imagine you're an introvert. Jung makes it clear how introverts are. Psychic energy or "libido" as he puts it, is directed inward towards the subject at the expense and aversion towards the object. He _really_ emphasizes this. So, in my mind that creates this sense that an introvert is going to consciously take an introverted point of view on just about _everything_ by default, and only _unconsciously_ act or think in an objective extraverted way - _precisely because they are an introvert, and therefore value an introverted attitude above an extraverted one._

Add to this fact that Jung not _once_ in ANYTHING he EVER wrote even remotely suggests what MBTI puts forth - namely, that the principal and auxiliary functions share opposite attitudes. And add the fact that MBTI was originally intended to describe people within a working environment - it was NEVER intended to give a general description of the entire human psyche and cognitive development. That came much later, after MBTI received critical acclaim and got bloated way out of proportion and sensationalized to all hell.

Now, I'm not saying that what MBTI suggests _can't_ be possible, I'm just saying I find it hard to accept based on my understanding of Jungian psychology, and Jung himself, as a person. And it goes against everything I observe around me here on PerC and everywhere else.

If people would just _DROP_ the MBTI indoctrination for one second, everything I'm saying would make a damn lot of sense.


----------



## Bricolage (Jul 29, 2012)

Abraxas said:


> Add to this fact that Jung not _once_ in ANYTHING he EVER wrote even remotely suggests what MBTI puts forth - namely, that the principal and auxiliary functions share opposite attitudes.


That's just wrong. In Jung's taxonomy, the second to fourth functions are repressed and oppositely oriented.



> The relatively unconscious functions of feeling, intuition, and sensation, which counterbalance introverted thinking, are inferior in quality and have a primitive, *extraverted character*, to which all the troublesome objective influences this type is subject to must be ascribed.


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

Just my quick two cents. I don't see a conflict with accepting the 16 types structure suggested in MBTI while looking at Jung's observations about what each function, or psychological perspective is like. 

*Meadow *I'm still working out my own understanding of how functions operate in different personalities but what you said about Fi makes sense to me. Fi or Fe is not something that could be a long process in itself. The call is made, and then what you do about it is something else. A call to action has been made with the Fe or Fi, but how that action gets carried out, or even what it is, may be situation dependent, or experience dependent or something else. Example if Fi is a kind of red flag or sticky note, the corresponding action is not the flag.

I could understand your frustration or the tie-up you seem to be describing as an Ne thing.
Ne dom just sees stuff, a kind of ongoing systems analysis of causes and effects (description of it from my own inside walk through attempt). So sometimes what you see, baffles you that other people don't see it, and what you are taking in gets ahead of being able to do anything about it. Fi wanting impact (and introverted depth) Te needing external verrification of some kind. (ENFP)

This is going to sound Low-Brow, but it makes me think of the Barbra Streisand character in _The way we were. _done now, I'll let others have space . . . .


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

unctuousbutler said:


> That's just wrong. In Jung's taxonomy, the second to fourth functions are repressed and oppositely oriented.


Yes, and that would be the case unless you read the rest of what he wrote later when he talks about the principal and auxiliary functions.

In fact, what you just brought up only _supports my case_.

Thanks.


----------



## Meadow (Sep 11, 2012)

Old Intern said:


> So sometimes what you see, baffles you that other people don't see it, and what you are taking in gets ahead of being able to do anything about it.
> 
> This is going to sound Low-Brow, but it makes me think of the Barbra Streisand character in _The way we were. _done now, I'll let others have space . . . .


Just a quick note in answer before I run out the door. Until I started studying personality typing, it's true that I couldn't understand why people wouldn't open their minds to new ideas. I blamed it on fear, which may be the case, but as it turns out I'm equally fearful of having a life without great amounts of spontaneity and newness. Fear is fear, attachment is attachment, whichever direction it goes. A book I read recently also helped me understand people, "The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion," by Jonathan Haidt. I thought the author did a good job of explaining why the U.S. is politically divided, and it also finally helped me understand why I seem to be in the minority, literally agreeing in a political sense with only 8% of the U.S. population, as judged by presidential approval ratings. And not only that, as it turns out, likely much of the world bases their lives on different basic values than I do. I used to blame people's choices on lack of willingness to use logic, but now I see that was a superficial understanding of people's differences. It was a fascinating book, worth reading to find out what is behind the political and religious divide in the U.S. I don't consider myself naive, but if the information in the book was correct, it's somewhat depressing for the outliers such as myself, especially since I can't even throw in my lot with liberals or libertarians. I don't necessarily "blame" it on Ne, but that might be behind part of the difference between the way I view the world, with regard to these particular issues, compared to most other people.

As to Barbra Streisand, yes, I can see myself seducing Robert Redford back in the day.  Other than that nice thought, I'm nowhere near as cause oriented, and though I ageed with many of her values, such as personal integrity, the emotional way she carried them out was a turn off. 

@Abraxas, I read on the other thread that you might be somewhat retiring. That would be too bad, since your posts are some of if not the best I've read. But I understand about moving on when it's time, since I've done so when I've finished what I set out to do and new horizons call.

Heading out, will be back later to post more.


----------



## Bricolage (Jul 29, 2012)

Abraxas said:


> Yes, and that would be the case unless you read the rest of what he wrote later when he talks about the principal and auxiliary functions.
> 
> In fact, what you just brought up only _supports my case_.
> 
> Thanks.


Haha, just juxtapose the two posts. It totally invalidates your point, but whatever. I can leave it.



> The relatively unconscious functions of feeling, intuition, and sensation, which counterbalance introverted thinking, are inferior in quality and have a primitive, *extraverted character*, to which all the troublesome objective influences this type is subject to must be ascribed.





> Add to this fact that Jung *not once* in ANYTHING he EVER wrote even remotely suggests what MBTI puts forth - *namely, that the principal and auxiliary functions share opposite attitudes.*


You're wrong. You said Jung never wrote it...thanks for playing.

Haha, don't be bitter because I called you on your bullshit. :wink:


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

unctuousbutler said:


> Haha, just juxtapose the two posts. It totally invalidates your point, but whatever. I can leave it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Okay man. You sure got me!

*rolls his eyes*

@_Meadow_, I appreciate it but this place is starting to become such a fucking downer.

Maybe you see why? :/


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

@_unctuousbutler_, the point Abraxas is making is about _consciousness_. If your dominant function is introverted, then all other functions would naturally be introverted once they become fully differentiated in the psyche. The psyche will then reject everything extroverted and these function attitudes will thus be forced to exist in the _unconsciousness_.

I am not sure what's so hard to understand about that. 
@Abraxas Also, y u no liek socionics? I actually think socionics is in many ways much more accurate and lies closer to Jung than MBTI does.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

LeaT said:


> @_unctuousbutler_, the point Abraxas is making is about _consciousness_. If your dominant function is introverted, then all other functions would naturally be introverted once they become fully differentiated in the psyche. The psyche will then reject everything extroverted and these function attitudes will thus be forced to exist in the _unconsciousness_.
> 
> I am not sure what's so hard to understand about that.
> @_Abraxas_ Also, y u no liek socionics? I actually think socionics is in many ways much more accurate and lies closer to Jung than MBTI does.


To be honest I'm on the fence with Socionics. I have issues with it as well, but you are right at least it makes more sense than MBTI.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

Te is literally probably 99% of what is considered objectivity of management, questioning, proving, quantifying, qualifying, organizing, strategizing, justifying, understanding, and even adapting to the conditions of the outside world via data, ideals, intellectual formulae, etc. in todays world and in Jung's world (surely hasn't changed since - Ti is virtually unrecognized as a kind of thinking that is highly dependent on the ego - these types tend to be touchy about their own ideas in the sphere of accurate representations of reality, due to placing high value on the outside world as is (Fe complementing Ti)). It's really no different than Ti, other than with reference to where it originates from and how it supports claims and the basic nature of how it adapts concepts to understanding forms of data.


----------



## Meadow (Sep 11, 2012)

Abraxas said:


> Okay man. You sure got me!
> 
> *rolls his eyes*
> 
> ...


Except for a brief mention to you at the end, I think you're going to need to close your eyes and not read my next post, which mooshes functions and MBTI together.  I actually enjoy posting at PerC much more than other forums I've hung out at for years, which maybe doesn't say as much about PerC as those forums. I started thinking the world was going insane, and I'd look at people next to me in grocery lines and wonder if they were the crazies posting on the forums.


----------



## Meadow (Sep 11, 2012)

Teybo said:


> Don't know if you're still interested, but now that I have a spare moment to get back to this thread, I thought I'd give my 2 cents again.
> 
> I would actually say that most of that seems Ne, and perhaps specifically *Ne colored by Fi if the structure that you're putting this wealth of new information into is based on its subjective value to you (which is going to be tilted toward exploration and new contexts): Is this topic interesting? Is this activity fun? Does this feed my hunger for new ways of seeing the world? *Am I seeing new possibilities for action by looking through another person's eyes? Does doing X, Y, or Z make me feel closer to the people around me that I care about?
> 
> ...


 @Teybo, your post was interesting and had me looking at how I actually connect with the world. I was going to write a longer response tonight but I went to the chiropractor twice today for neck problems, which stemmed from spending too much time yesterday on the computer while sitting in an uncomfortable chair. The chiropractor said I should stay away from the computer for a few days, so I'll just pick a couple points to answer right now since I'm not sure if I'll be back tomorrow or next week. I'll still read, but I need to limit posting.

I'll start by talking in terms of MBTI's version of functions, since so far I'm not as familiar with Jung's Fi and Ti, though I'm in the process of remedying that. For the first paragraph, I bolded the part that's me. The second paragraph was more difficult since parts of each sentence were true for me, but maybe not the heart of it. What it comes down to is that with Fi, as soon as you brought up people I stopped bolding since it's not directly what motivates me. With Ti in the second paragraph, I do tend to focus quite a bit on truth and falsity but I'm also attuned to people's emotions, enough that I likely wouldn't be caught off guard by what's going on in a relationship. I don't like to debate in terms of "my answer is correct, yours isn't, and I'll explain why," being more comfortable with a harmonizing conversational tone of "that's interesting, and here's my take on it." My husband uses the former method and we're forever getting into heated discussions, which I don't enjoy. I haven't gone through life oblivious of people's emotions since my 8th grade girlfriend told me to pay attention to how other people feel about things, to learn how to pick up cues. Since I hadn't learned it at my dysfunctional home, I needed to be told, but I picked up on it immediately and it's had importance to the way I relate to people ever since. However, I will purposely ignore emotional cues if I don't want to be answerable to them, with a little guilt. It can also be difficult at times to sort out gender from functions. So that's how I relate to your first couple paragraphs, seeming to come down more on the Fi side of things.

It's interesting that you framed the homeless issue in terms of values, though I can see why you did. I would have framed it according to logic, as in "1) They signed a paper saying they would rent the land for 20 years, 2) the 20 years are up, 3) the land goes back to the owner and the renters can do what they want with their houses, and who cares how they feel." But I did have some emotion involved in that I actively didn't want them to keep the land and their houses, partly because it was attempted blackmail and would set a bad precedent to give in to it, partly because it would have set a precedent across the U.S. that could put land ownership into jeopardy. From what I've read of MBTI and per the official test I took, T vs F is more or less divided into whether you care more about principles or people, and as with the homeless case, I typically come down more on the principles side, with somewhat less caring about people's emotional states. But then the books and tests might not be measuring T vs F in a deeper sense, equating values to the subject of people only. If what we're talking about is a hybrid of Jung's function definitions and MBTI, I'm not sure where I fit at this point, but maybe Fi.

I'll just throw some things in. People who ignore logic upset me more than people who ignore values. I trust truth/falsity logic, with values and emotions captured within that umbrella, over Fi when others make decisions. I know what to expect with T and am never sure if I'm going to step on someone's toes with Fi. I'm not as people- and cause-oriented as 3 ENFPs I know, am more oriented toward people's emotions than 2 ENTPs, who seem to brush it aside. And so my mind goes in circles, with MBTI tests strongly saying I'm more T, MBTI type descriptions typically saying I'm more F, and my ability to connect deeply in a like/dislike manner not just with people but with whatever strikes my fancy and the bolded in your first paragraph saying F. So I'll still go with Fi. 

BTW, when I brought up values in a previous post I was referring to how the author divided people by what they value in life, so I wasn't necessarily saying my values are stronger than others' in their ability to separate me from people, more that the book says people are inherently separated from each other by their basic values, and the author was attempting to elucidate what those values are and the importance of relating to people with values different than your own.

I meant to keep this to a couple paragraphs lol. 

@Abraxas, I'm sorry I didn't answer a couple of your final posts, but I did read them. This thread and the other two have been so helpful that I've copied some posts into Word in case PerC disappears.

I'm off to ice my neck and hopefully manage to not do longer posts for a couple days.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

@_Meadow_,

Just to give you an example of how fluid my interpretation of Jung is, I can actually describe it without contradicting MBTI, because MBTI is just an "outside-in" way of looking at it, whilst my description is more of an "inside-out" way of looking at it.

Ultimately, I have nothing _against_ MBTI, I just see it as superfluous and the interpretation it gives is obfuscating Jung's emphasis on a subjective approach, making it seem as if the functions only work _one way_ and that you can't also approach the entire thing from the perspective of _being_ an ego, versus _experiencing_ an ego.

If we look at, for example, what I propose to be "Ni-Fi-Te-Se" - notice that Fi still pairs with Te. Ultimately, we can just swap those if you want, and produce the INTJ type, Ni-Te-Fi-Se. Now we have a "real" type, right? Okay. I can just explain my way of looking at it through that perspective.

Have you ever argued with a real INTJ on the INTJ sub-forum before?

They have the distinct way of speaking with intense _*conviction*_.

_*Fi.*_

I would almost describe their attotude to Te as being something subconscious and simply _*taken for granted.*_

Have you ever spent time following all their threads?

They almost exclusively focus on what I would describe as "Fi-driven" discussions and debates.

This suggests Fi is something they are much more conscious of and wrestling with internally most of the time, because they prefer their inner world after-all.

MBTI _does_ make sense from this perspective, because the "face" of the INTJ that we will encounter and see the most _just is_ whatever their extraverted judgment functions is, in this case Te, which is unconscious to them.

MBTI makes it rather clear that the auxiliary function is one that requires effort to sustain and develop, even once it becomes differentiated, am I right? And that it becomes "easier" with time. Well, we can easily attribute that to the fact that the introverted ego is _unconscious_ of its extraverted attitudes _by definition._ And thus, sustaining conscious use of a function attitude that runs against the grain is going to be _psychologically exhausting._

This _also_ describes their _short amount of patience with explaining things_, and their very short tempers in general.

While they _do_ unconsciously hold an extraverted perspective, whenever they are consciously thinking, this function appears introverted to them. Hence, INTJs view things through that same _"matter of fact"_ attitude that extraverted thinkers express themselves in. But, whereas the lead extraverted thinker is confident just because he is not conscious of his inferior feeling function, the INTJ is quite aware of his feelings most of the time, and indeed, he spends most of his conscious attention struggling with them in order to gain a sense of self about what he does, and focus his attention into something "worthy" of his time and effort.

Again, hence the _"Mastermind"_. Because we have a person so obsessed with their own fate that they delve into the external world from a subjective perspective, taking in so much information unconsciously that they speak with the authority of the experts themselves without even knowing it, unconsciously _echoing_ the external origins of their opinions.

But throughout this entire type description, I focused on the interaction of Ni-Fi, and chose to use that to define them from a personal perspective. That is, "this is what it would be like if you were an INTJ."

In the end, my only complaint is just that this seems to me like an unnecessarily round-about way of describing a type, not to mention misleading by focusing so much on their largely unconscious presentation of their _true_ auxiliary function, _Ti_, which they themselves seem conscious of _far more than Te_ whenever they are consciously thinking at all. The whole reason that their thinking takes on the extraverted characteristic that it seems to in the first place would be due to the fact that whenever this type expresses itself through thinking judgment, it tends to do so _unconsciously_.

But again, this only makes sense within MBTI if we decide that the auxiliary of an INTJ is Te.

So, I would just instead define the function preferences of the _true_ Jungian "INTJ" to be "Ni-Ti-Fe-Se", which is essentially breaking the function preference right down the middle between consciousness and unconsciousness, instead of mixing the conscious and unconscious functions up with each other in order to give an "outside-in" perspective on the type.

Basically I am saying, if we define the INTJ to be "Ni-Te-Fi-Se" then we get this:

Conscious/Unconscious - Conscious/Unconscious.


If we define the INTJ to be "Ni-Ti-Fe-Se" we get this:

Consciousness/Unconsciousness.

I just think my way is more concise.

Indeed, if you pay close attention to the attitude with which they express their feelings and moral principals, they have a distinctly _Fe_ characteristic to them - as if "the right thing to do" were just a "matter of fact" - like _Te._ This is often pushed off as just _being_ Te, and only Te, but obviously that is absurd. Clearly what we are seeing is Te _mirroring Fe in their ego at the same unconscious level._

It is, in my opinion, _much more practical_ to focus on these traits as definitive of the type.

So, just to recapitulate one last time, I see the true Jungian "INTJ" to have a function preference of Ni-Ti/Te-Fe/Fi-Se. Ti shows a stronger differentiation than Te because consciousness is introverted. When they are consciously thinking, their feelings take on an extraverted character because they are not conscious of them, and when they are consciously feeling, their feelings take on an introverted attitude and their thinking becomes extraverted and unconscious, you see?

Essentially, MBTI would have the INTJ believing that they need to be developing an extraverted attitude to their thinking instead of an introverted one, in order to bring "balance" to their ego. But this is something I fundamentally disagree with Myers-Briggs about on both a psychological level as well as a philosophical one.


----------



## Bricolage (Jul 29, 2012)

Abraxas said:


> I appreciate it but this place is starting to become such a fucking downer.
> 
> Maybe you see why? :/


Because you get called on unfounded assertions? :laughing:


----------



## Bricolage (Jul 29, 2012)

LeaT said:


> The psyche will then reject everything extroverted and these function attitudes will thus be forced to exist in the _unconsciousness_.


Yeah, that's why the "chief repression" of Ni-dom is sensing...



> The introverted intuitive's chief repression falls upon the sensation of the object.


Anyway, what you're saying right now is opposite this...



> Add to this fact that Jung *not once** in ANYTHING he EVER wrote even remotely suggests what MBTI puts forth -namely, that the principal and auxiliary functions share opposite attitudes.*



But if Abraxas can own up to his mistake, I suppose I can let it go.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

unctuousbutler said:


> Yeah, that's why the "chief repression" of Ni-dom is sensing...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


But the auxiliary function is a function that is either differentiated into the psyche or it's not. When differentiated, Abraxas is saying that it will take the same attitude as the dominant function. It is not opposite of what is being said. When a function becomes auxiliary it means it's becoming or is differentiated already in the psyche. Otherwise it's not an auxiliary function. The psyche has to accept the auxiliary as auxiliary first before it can become an auxiliary. 

So no, I still fail to see the contradiction. The auxiliary function isn't uconscious. If it is, it's not really an auxiliary.


----------



## Bricolage (Jul 29, 2012)

LeaT said:


> But the auxiliary function is a function that is either differentiated into the psyche or it's not. When differentiated, Abraxas is saying that it will take the same attitude as the dominant function. It is not opposite of what is being said. When a function becomes auxiliary it means it's becoming or is differentiated already in the psyche. Otherwise it's not an auxiliary function. The psyche has to accept the auxiliary as auxiliary first before it can become an auxiliary.
> 
> So no, I still fail to see the contradiction. The auxiliary function isn't uconscious. If it is, it's not really an auxiliary.


It rests on another issue - the presupposition of differentiation of functions two to four. MBTI and Jung posit different things on this subject. I simply told Abraxas that Jung actually called functions two to four undifferentiated and relegated to the unconscious; these functions are also the "opposite orientation" of the dominant, which contravenes our mutual friend Abraxas. That's fine if you don't see the contradiction, Lea, but it's there. Edit: Jung and MBTI, again, differ on what's auxiliary. Simply put, Abraxas' exposition of Jung was wrong.


----------



## MegaTuxRacer (Sep 7, 2011)

unctuousbutler said:


> That's just wrong. In Jung's taxonomy, the second to fourth functions are repressed and oppositely oriented.





Abraxas said:


> Yes, and that would be the case unless you read the rest of what he wrote later when he talks about the principal and auxiliary functions.
> 
> In fact, what you just brought up only _supports my case_.
> 
> Thanks.


Can we get the source (document and location) of this? It seems like this was taken out of context. It reads like one of his musings where he is trying to characterize his observations into something that makes sense.

For example, "extraverted character" suggests that what is happening is not entirely clear to him. He doesn't say that it is definitely extraverted. It reads more like "This is what I have so far."


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

unctuousbutler said:


> It rests on another issue - the presupposition of differentiation of functions two to four. MBTI and Jung posit different things on this subject. I simply told Abraxas that Jung actually called functions two to four undifferentiated and relegated to the unconscious; these functions are also the "opposite orientation" of the dominant, which contravenes our mutual friend Abraxas. That's fine if you don't see the contradiction, Lea, but it's there. Edit: Jung and MBTI, again, differ on what's auxiliary. Simply put, Abraxas' exposition of Jung was wrong.


No, because you are talking about functions, not function attitudes. We all got 4 functions and we all use them and we can only have one dominant function. Generally speaking, Jung posits that we might in many cases not have a fully differentiated dominant or an auxiliary at all. If there is no auxiliary function in the psyche then it's rejected because it's simply not differentiated which is different to what you are saying.


----------



## Bricolage (Jul 29, 2012)

LeaT said:


> We all got 4 functions and we all use them and we can only have one dominant function.


That all seems relatively uncontroversial. 



> Generally speaking, Jung posits that we might in many cases not have a fully differentiated dominant or an auxiliary at all. If there is no auxiliary function in the psyche then it's rejected because it's simply not differentiated which is different to what you are saying.


In many cases haha. Maybe you should reread what I wrote.


----------



## Bricolage (Jul 29, 2012)

MegaTuxRacer said:


> Can we get the source (document and location) of this? It seems like this was taken out of context. It reads like one of his musings where he is trying to characterize his observations into something that makes sense.
> 
> For example, "extraverted character" suggests that what is happening is not entirely clear to him. He doesn't say that it is definitely extraverted. It reads more like "This is what I have so far."


The argument is crazy. He's saying I'm wrong because Jung supposedly contradicted himself. Because Jung said two different things doesn't mean one thing Jung said - namely the opposite orientation of dominant and auxiliary functions - doesn't subvert what Abraxas said.


----------



## Bricolage (Jul 29, 2012)

MegaTuxRacer said:


> Can we get the source (document and location) of this? It seems like this was taken out of context. It reads like one of his musings where he is trying to characterize his observations into something that makes sense.
> 
> *For example, "extraverted character" suggests that what is happening is not entirely clear to him. He doesn't say that it is definitely extraverted. It reads more like "This is what I have so far."*


It's Psychological Types. Wouldn't Jung, though, have said "introverted character" if he meant that? 



> The relatively unconscious functions of feeling, intuition, and sensation, which counterbalance introverted thinking, are inferior in quality and have a primitive, extraverted character, to which all the troublesome objective influences this type is subject to must be ascribed.


Psychological Types - Wikisocion


----------



## MegaTuxRacer (Sep 7, 2011)

unctuousbutler said:


> That's just wrong. In Jung's taxonomy, the second to fourth functions are repressed and oppositely oriented.





unctuousbutler said:


> Yeah, that's why the "chief repression" of Ni-dom is sensing...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It's not really a mistake on @Abraxas's part. Abraxas was trying to say that Jung never declared "lower" functions opposite attitude to the dominant function. You--like a child armed with a book--found something involving lower functions and the word "extraverted" that Jung wrote and said that you refuted a point that's not really being made nor does the quote substantially disprove what Abraxas was trying to communicate. To illustrate how what Jung was saying is not the same as what you think he said, I could say that a tomato is characteristic of an apple. I think most people would agree with that statement. However, that doesn't make the tomato an apple at all.

I mean if you want to declare yourself the winner of an unsubstantiated technicality involving a misinterpretation of what two different people wrote, congratulations.


----------



## Bricolage (Jul 29, 2012)

MegaTuxRacer said:


> It's not really a mistake on @_Abraxas_'s part. Abraxas was trying to say that Jung never declared "lower" functions opposite attitude to the dominant function. You--like a child armed with a book--found something involving lower functions and the word "extraverted" that Jung wrote and said that you refuted *a point that's not really being made nor does the quote substantially disprove what Abraxas was trying to communicate.* To illustrate how what Jung was saying is not the same as what you think he said, I could say that a tomato is characteristic of an apple. I think most people would agree with that statement. However, that doesn't make the tomato an apple at all.
> 
> I mean if you want to declare yourself the winner of an unsubstantiated technicality involving a misinterpretation of what two different people wrote, congratulations.


I disagree but your emotionalism shines through.


----------



## MegaTuxRacer (Sep 7, 2011)

unctuousbutler said:


> I disagree but your emotionalism shines through.


In what way do you disagree?


----------



## Bricolage (Jul 29, 2012)

MegaTuxRacer said:


> In what way do you disagree?


I feel the juxtaposition "*substantially disprove what Abraxas was trying to communicate [in that portion of his post]." The attribution to Jung was inaccurate. *


----------



## MegaTuxRacer (Sep 7, 2011)

unctuousbutler said:


> I feel the juxtaposition "*substantially disprove what Abraxas was trying to communicate [in that portion of his post]." The attribution to Jung was inaccurate. *




Pray, tell why do you feel that it is a juxtaposition?


----------



## Bricolage (Jul 29, 2012)

MegaTuxRacer said:


> Pray, tell why do you feel that it is a juxtaposition?


Do you know what the word means haha? It's a juxtaposition because it contrasts Abraxas' false attribution with Jung's actual text; the latter shows the idiocy of the former.


----------



## MegaTuxRacer (Sep 7, 2011)

unctuousbutler said:


> Do you know what the word means haha? It's a juxtaposition because it contrasts Abraxas' false attribution with Jung's actual text; the latter shows the idiocy of the former.


Haha, yeah I do. I love juxtapositions. They're interesting and novel. That's why I am confused as to how this is a juxtaposition, especially when I reasoned why it's not a juxtaposition. Please point out what I am missing. Articulate your thoughts.


----------



## Bricolage (Jul 29, 2012)

MegaTuxRacer said:


> Haha, yeah I do. I love juxtapositions. They're interesting and novel. That's why I am confused as to how this is a juxtaposition, especially when I reasoned why it's not a juxtaposition. Please point out what I am missing. *Articulate your thoughts.*


I'm not seeing an advantage in doing so. I just explained to you how it is a juxtaposition.


----------



## MegaTuxRacer (Sep 7, 2011)

unctuousbutler said:


> I'm not seeing an advantage in doing so. I just explained to you how it is a juxtaposition.


And I explained why it isn't. And then you stated that you disagree without elaborating why it's a juxtaposition. I mean, what's the advantage of attempting to disprove what abraxas was saying in the first place if not to come to an agreement on a point? What exactly are your motivations?


----------



## bearotter (Aug 10, 2012)

@_unctuousbutler_: I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and say perhaps you think there is something to be conceptually clarified about what @_Abraxas_ said, so here's where my confusion lies with this discussion:

In the below, I am wondering if you claim the second to fourth functions posited to be repressed and oppositely oriented to contain the "auxiliary." To adequately do this, first (for the benefit of those of us who don't find it clear), please demonstrate how the notion of "auxiliary" you hold and Abraxas speaks of are necessarily the same, for otherwise there is no disagreement. Because to be honest, different systems which vaguely draw from various notions of the function attitudes, can and do have different theories of "functions other than the dominant," and there may or may not really even be a clear notion of auxiliary in some cases.



unctuousbutler said:


> That's just wrong. In Jung's taxonomy, the second to fourth functions are repressed and oppositely oriented.







Abraxas said:


> Add to this fact that Jung not _once in ANYTHING he EVER wrote even remotely suggests what MBTI puts forth - namely, that the principal and auxiliary functions share opposite attitudes.
> _





Perhaps you would help by linking to where Jung talks about the auxiliary. I'm no expert on this. Usually when people describe their experiences, and the descriptions do not align with the "Bible," it helps to understand why, but in the end there may be something to the descriptions, and a way to understand it in the framework of the "Bible," or may not -- it depends what the text was getting at and whether what the individual said was in the framework of that text's intentions or out of it, in which case it needn't automatically be void of intelligible content, but may need to be treated on its own footing.


----------



## bearotter (Aug 10, 2012)

Here is what I found upon naively searching:



> *When introverted thinker allows his auxiliary function to develop, his defective relationship to the external world becomes apparent to him.* He realizes the importance of his external world and that his ideas are mere subjective truths. He never attempt to force his ideas on others, but he will respond with venomous and personal retorts against those who attempt to criticize him, no matter whether just, which only increases his need to isolate himself more. His initial fertilizing ideas may become destructive like a residue and he may become cynical. *His struggle to defend himself from influences emanating from the auxiliary function increases with his isolation until gradually he becomes hindered. *Greater isolation must surely protect him from external influences, but as a rule this only takes him deeper into the conflict within.
> 
> The thinking of the introverted type is positive and synthetic in the development of ideas that in increasing measure approach the eternal validity of primitive images. But, when their connection with external world experience begins to fade, they become mythological and untrue for the present situation. Hence this thinking holds value only for those who think similar so long as it also stands in visible and understandable connection with the known facts of the time. But when thinking becomes mythological, its irrelevancy grows until finally it gets lost in itself. *The relatively unconscious functions of feeling, intuition, and sensation, which counterbalance introverted thinking, are inferior in quality and have a primitive and extraverted character to which all the troublesome external world influences this type is subject to must be recognized.* *The various measures of defending themselves from the external world and the curious protective obstacles that such people find necessary to surround themselves with when using the auxiliary function, are sufficiently familiar.* I may therefore, spare myself a description of these functions. The functions serve as a defense against 'magical' influences and a vague dread of the other sex .




If one accepts that @_Abraxas_ was speaking of an auxiliary lying on similar footing to the MBTI auxiliary, which is indispensable to the functioning of that type as per MBTI, then to me at least this would seem to be a totally different thing going on, which is to say Jung is positing a true Ti introvert may receive almost unwanted, painful influences from the "auxiliary" rendering him aware of the objective world. It sure doesn't sound like a function that really augments the dominant / is well differentiated to the consciousness.

And to be honest, philosophically this could be seen, at least by me, to support the idea that if any intuitive or sensation developed in the Ti dominant posited by Jung, which is to say a true introvert to whom all modes of extroversion take on such an "inferior quality," then it would seem they would start paying attention to various other aspects of their _introversion_. Again, if they really fit the kind of introversion Jung seems to be speaking of.

That said, I do not think that Jungian Ti-dominance is the only reasonable/useful notion of Ti-dominance, because frankly it doesn't have to describe the character of a fairly giant class of individuals who probably would not fit better into any other form of dominance. 
I think I fit the Jungian Ti-dominant far too well, and indeed in those who've spoken to me at length, Ne pretty much feels draining to me (it makes me rather boring ).

To really fit the Jungian Ti-type, one would not only have to be a T-dominant who is an introvert, but also it seems, pretty extreme on the T-preference and the introversion, if all their others (feeling, sensation, intuition) take on a comparably rather inferior extroverted character.

Now this does not mean that one cannot utilize the definition of introverted thinking in contexts where people don't quite fit this sort of dominance. I think the notion of dominance is ultimately rather subjective, and I remember even when naively presented with MBTI types, I would always ask _what do you mean dominant..._ there are so many "orderings" one can place on the class of functions after all.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

@bearotter

Sorry I could not get back to you in time but you seem to have done the research on your own.

I posted my own thread trying to address my complete understanding of Jungian psychology, which can be found here:

http://personalitycafe.com/cognitive-functions/138590-video-descriptions-jungian-functions.html

Hopefully that clears up everything.


----------



## bearotter (Aug 10, 2012)

@Abraxas thanks, that should be fun to watch!


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

unctuousbutler said:


> The argument is crazy. He's saying I'm wrong because Jung supposedly contradicted himself. Because Jung said two different things doesn't mean one thing Jung said - namely the opposite orientation of dominant and auxiliary functions - doesn't subvert what Abraxas said.


Can you read what I said? There's a big difference in a function being differentiated which it is if it's to be considered auxiliary, because the logic is that the auxiliary function will thus oppose its opposite function and attitude i.e. tertiary just like the dominant has its opposite function attitude i.e. inferior. It all operates on the assumption _that there exists an auxiliary function to begin with_.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

unctuousbutler said:


> That all seems relatively uncontroversial.


Yes, so it means you actually agree that this is theoretically correct? So if we expand on this e.g. assume the psyche can differentiate another function aside the dominant into the ego, i.e. auxiliary, then where's the theoretical problem?


> In many cases haha. Maybe you should reread what I wrote.


I think you should read what I wrote again and try to actually counter the points I bring up rather than simply falling back on red herrings.


----------



## Bricolage (Jul 29, 2012)

LeaT said:


> Yes, so it means you actually agree that this is theoretically correct? So if we expand on this e.g. assume the psyche can differentiate another function aside the dominant into the ego, *i.e. auxiliary, then where's the theoretical problem?*


The disparate definitions of auxiliary haha.


----------



## Bricolage (Jul 29, 2012)

LeaT said:


> Can you read what I said? There's a big difference in a function being differentiated which it is if it's to be considered auxiliary, because the logic is that the auxiliary function will thus oppose its opposite function and attitude i.e. tertiary just like the dominant has its opposite function attitude i.e. inferior. It all operates on the assumption _that there exists an auxiliary function to begin with_.


MBTI and Jung have different definitions for "auxiliary" and the orientation of functions two through four - namely, functions two and four's opposite orientation to the dominant function. Some MBTI theorists even argue the inferior function is inherently in the shadow; there are dozens of ideas on the unconscious, function pairs and the like.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

unctuousbutler said:


> MBTI and Jung have different definitions for "auxiliary" and the orientation of functions two through four - namely, functions two and four's opposite orientation to the dominant function. Some MBTI theorists even argue the inferior function is inherently in the shadow; there are dozens of ideas on the unconscious, function pairs and the like.


The question is not what definition I operate under but what definiton you operate under, something you've refused to clarify at this point. Until you do further discussion is useless. I am also fairly sure I am working with Jung's definition of auxiliary here, not MBTI's. I actually don't know what definition MBTI operates under when defining the auxiliary more than simply being the second function of preference.


----------



## Meadow (Sep 11, 2012)

Abraxas said:


> @_Meadow_,
> 
> Have you ever argued with a real INTJ on the INTJ sub-forum before?
> 
> ...


I read through your post #94 and realized I don't have enough grounding in Jungian or psychological terminology, such as conscious, unconscious, differentiated, etc., so I'll need to study in order to understand more fully what's being discussed on this thread. Adding this after reading through the thread: I noticed you posted videos on terminology, so I'll start there. Very bizarre that you seem to have covered all my terminology questions that came up during your post. Thanks! I hadn't completely realized until this thread that my lack of precise definitions for basic terminology was getting in the way of understanding.

Per bearotter's post #114, am I understanding correctly that Jung believes introverts, as an example, feel the need to defend and protect against the auxiliary while at the same time needing to come to terms with it and remain connected to the external world so as not to engage in magical thinking? How would that relate to the question of differentiation and what attitude it takes? MBTI's viewpoint is that the auxiliary is used to modify or support the dominant and implies almost everyone differentiates the top 4 functions within their lifetime, but I'm not sure that was Jung's conclusion. MBTI seems to be addressing a more surface manifestation. But I need to read more and I was wondering, are there any Jung books written later that might contradict or specifically add to his ideas in Psychological Types?

To answer your questions above, I know one INTJ in real life who has written a book on conspiracy theories and it doesn't matter what he's discussing, it can be a face on Mars and you'd think he'd been there with a camera taking pictures, so intense is his conviction that his theories are correct. I haven't spent much time reading individual forums because a common complaint on PerC is that people are mistyped, so instead I've been reading books, though their explanations of functions and individual types contradict each other. On individual forums, in the little I've read, I've noticed FPs tend to identify with sensitivity, TP/J's with lack of sensitivity, and it's that split that's partly responsible for me straddling the line with regard to my type.


----------



## Teybo (Sep 25, 2012)

Meadow said:


> @_Teybo_, your post was interesting and had me looking at how I actually connect with the world. I was going to write a longer response tonight but I went to the chiropractor twice today for neck problems, which stemmed from spending too much time yesterday on the computer while sitting in an uncomfortable chair. The chiropractor said I should stay away from the computer for a few days, so I'll just pick a couple points to answer right now since I'm not sure if I'll be back tomorrow or next week. I'll still read, but I need to limit posting.
> 
> I'll start by talking in terms of MBTI's version of functions, since so far I'm not as familiar with Jung's Fi and Ti, though I'm in the process of remedying that. For the first paragraph, I bolded the part that's me. The second paragraph was more difficult since parts of each sentence were true for me, but maybe not the heart of it. What it comes down to is that with Fi, as soon as you brought up people I stopped bolding since it's not directly what motivates me. With Ti in the second paragraph, I do tend to focus quite a bit on truth and falsity but I'm also attuned to people's emotions, enough that I likely wouldn't be caught off guard by what's going on in a relationship. I don't like to debate in terms of "my answer is correct, yours isn't, and I'll explain why," being more comfortable with a harmonizing conversational tone of "that's interesting, and here's my take on it." My husband uses the former method and we're forever getting into heated discussions, which I don't enjoy. I haven't gone through life oblivious of people's emotions since my 8th grade girlfriend told me to pay attention to how other people feel about things, to learn how to pick up cues. Since I hadn't learned it at my dysfunctional home, I needed to be told, but I picked up on it immediately and it's had importance to the way I relate to people ever since. However, I will purposely ignore emotional cues if I don't want to be answerable to them, with a little guilt. It can also be difficult at times to sort out gender from functions. So that's how I relate to your first couple paragraphs, seeming to come down more on the Fi side of things.
> 
> ...


There isn't a PerC emoticon that properly expresses the face I make when I read that you have put yourself in a position to feel pain in order to read what I've written here. Mostly I should say I'm sorry. It's not worth the pain! I'm full of bullshit, anyway.

You seem to have a fairly good grasp on what makes you "you". Maybe you don't and I'm mis-reading your posts? I don't know. You can figure that out. But the point is that psychological type is not a science. It's not exact. It's not precise. It can't make predictions. I could have made a post saying how what you've posted in this thread exemplifies Ti (or Te, or Fe, or whatever) and I could have produced justification for that. (Ok, so to go super-meta on you again, I actually developed a framework in my mind and tried to see how you fit into it, while at the same time I'm not wed to the framework, and I'm open to new variables changing the dynamic. To me, that's the Fe-Ti axis at work. But perhaps that's over-reading into type.) I really could have highlighted how your actions exemplify Ti-Fe and not Fi-Te (and now at this point, I'm mixed up on that anyway!). It's all interpretation, and there's enough wiggle room in type to interpret however you want

Ah ok I've lost myself again in my train of thought. The point is (if I have any brains left) that you should study and investigate typology and type systems to the extent that they are useful to you. If you find that your frame of mind doesn't fit in to a particular dogma, so be it. If you find that you can gain insight into others using a certain type model, then by all means, do so. If you're not sure, "try on" a type or framework and see how it fits your perceptions. Learn from what seems to fit, and discard the rest. Then "try on" a different one. I don't know why you're interested in type in the first place, but if it's (inter)personal development, then I guess this applies.

I will say that figuring out I'm INFJ and not INTJ (as I used to think) has brought certain insights into my life, but I also can't rule out that I would have found those insights if I had continued to think I was INTJ. Maybe as long as you get your dominant function sorted out, the rest is fine?


----------



## Meadow (Sep 11, 2012)

Teybo said:


> There isn't a PerC emoticon that properly expresses the face I make when I read that you have put yourself in a position to feel pain in order to read what I've written here. Mostly I should say I'm sorry. It's not worth the pain! I'm full of bullshit, anyway.
> 
> You seem to have a fairly good grasp on what makes you "you". Maybe you don't and I'm mis-reading your posts? I don't know. You can figure that out. But the point is that psychological type is not a science. It's not exact. It's not precise. It can't make predictions. I could have made a post saying how what you've posted in this thread exemplifies Ti (or Te, or Fe, or whatever) and I could have produced justification for that. (Ok, so to go super-meta on you again, I actually developed a framework in my mind and tried to see how you fit into it, while at the same time I'm not wed to the framework, and I'm open to new variables changing the dynamic. To me, that's the Fe-Ti axis at work. But perhaps that's over-reading into type.) I really could have highlighted how your actions exemplify Ti-Fe and not Fi-Te (and now at this point, I'm mixed up on that anyway!). It's
> all interpretation, and there's enough wiggle room in type to interpret however you want
> ...


If I thought you'd contributed to my pain, I would have named an ice pack "Teybo."  But I spent almost the entire day on the computer, researching and doing various posts, and answering your post was a minor part of the day. I'm doing a little better, so all is good, and I'm spreading my typing of posts over time rather than all at once. 

Your post above sounds similar to the way I think, as in, it could be this way, it could be that, but then again.... I identify with that mindset. 

I don't have a strong background in psychology, more along the lines of spirituality. I stumbled upon spirituality in my late teens and spent a few years delving into it, and in the process having experiences that were so powerful, nothing else has compared. I'd go into each experience not believing or disbelieving and frequently came out completely blown away. I never looked at myself in a psychological sense and thought psychology was being used to help people feel as if they were changing, where nothing deep really changed at all. After observing a couple friends and some famous people in the spiritual field, such as Zen, I started realizing that spiritual spaces don't mean much without maturity that can come with psychological growth, so I somewhat dropped chasing after experiences and decided to attempt to mature, as much as an Ne can. 

Then came a car accident, then adrenal fatigue, and from viewing the word "security" as something for other people, I couldn't work for a while so security gained large importance to my life. Not understanding personality type and thinking I needed to mature into stability, I let myself get tied down, and after a time of being stuck in my life, I lost sight of who I was. By coincidence, soon afterward I started researching MBTI and Enneagrams and discovered I'm Enneagram 7, which gave me back the sense of myself that had been missing. So I now have an interest in psychology, and especially personality typing since it has the potential to put people back on the right track with regard to understanding themselves and their lives.

Freud, Jung, Rogers and other psychologists have disagreed with each other about some of the basics, and who's to say which theory is correct? For this reason, until now I haven't been willing to study the subject in depth, since it's possible none of the top psychologists have truly understood the mind. And where do spiritual states fit with psychology? So I've left alone all but popular works, but because of my deepening interest in functions I am going to read Jung and see what he has to say.

Personality typing in all its forms has become an obsession, especially since I'm still recuperating and have time to research. With MBTI, I keep thinking there must be something I'm missing, some insight I need that will show me beyond a shadow of a doubt that I'm T or F, as definitive as a blood test would be.  I somewhat understand, at least at times, MBTI's version of functions, and it should be clear what my viewpoint is, but translating theory into reality turns out to not be as straightforward as it seems it should be. Many of my thoughts revolve around ideas, not directly with people, and it's difficult to place those ideas into values or logic. It's like I'm either a philosophical ENFP who cares more about the whole than the parts or I'm an extra-fun-loving ENTP who can easily connect in a "wow this is great" sense. I'll read Jung and see if I can make sense of his functions and other ideas, and maybe with that method I'll have a better handle on my type, but still, I'd also like to be able to place myself in MBTI. I don't understand what it means that every test I've taken places me strongly in T. Either they aren't testing what they say they want to or the tests work for most people but not for me, since I might have a more philosophical orientation than the average person who takes MBTI or function tests. On the forum, people seem to think I'm more along the lines of Fi than T, in real life, where people expect MBTI's version of ENFP, I'm seen as more T. Regarding your last sentence, in the last week or so it's finally come clear that I'm dom Ne and that I carry that viewpoint through much of my life, so that's the most important piece of knowledge and if I need to, I can let go of the MBTI T vs. F conundrum. Maybe.


----------



## Teybo (Sep 25, 2012)

Meadow said:


> If I thought you'd contributed to my pain, I would have named an ice pack "Teybo."  But I spent almost the entire day on the computer, researching and doing various posts, and answering your post was a minor part of the day. I'm doing a little better, so all is good, and I'm spreading my typing of posts over time rather than all at once.
> 
> Your post above sounds similar to the way I think, as in, it could be this way, it could be that, but then again.... I identify with that mindset.
> 
> ...


You're a very thoughtful and kind person. 

Just want to pause for a moment for emphasis.

Ok. So, putting yourself into T vs F may not matter a great deal, especially if you feel comfortable making either "style" of judgments. I don't fit neatly into the "INFJ" box, so to speak (I don't feel like I have much in common with many overly "feely" INFJ's, for example), but I do see how my patterns of thought could arise from the structure given by the outline put forth by Lenore Thomson's description of the INFJ, for example. For me, I feel a comfort in the retreat to thinking, which she describes as the temptation of the tertiary (I think, I'm too lazy to walk over to my couch and pick up the damn book! Sorry.). The point being, if you feel there is a "neglected" side of you, and you feel you need to honor that side of yourself a little bit more, then you should honor it. And if you feel that there is a strong side of you, than you should honor that as well. And you can place it in a framework if it helps you or is insightful. But to my mind, the important part is honoring your whole self, regardless of what box you place the parts in.

Also, I want to pull out this sentence from your post because it made me chuckle:



> It's like I'm either a philosophical ENFP who cares more about the whole than the parts or I'm an extra-fun-loving ENTP who can easily connect in a "wow this is great" sense.


The ENFP's in my life, especially those who are more mature, are VERY philosophical. And the ENTP's in my life are VERY fun-loving. The two types are, in my mind, waaaay more similar than they are different. I know that probably only muddies the waters, so I apologize. But it stood out to me.

EDIT: I got wrapped up in what I was saying and I forgot to mention that if you consistently test as a "T" and not an "F", and if the people in your (real) life say you exhibit more "T" qualities than "F" qualities, that's worth thinking about.


----------



## Meadow (Sep 11, 2012)

Teybo said:


> You're a very thoughtful and kind person.
> 
> Just want to pause for a moment for emphasis.
> 
> ...


Thank you for your nice words.  I read your earlier post on my iPhone when my husband and I were waiting at a stoplight, and when I told him you wrote a really nice and personable post to me, he had me read it out loud, as well as my later response. I've tried to teach him functions but he does a metaphorical plugging of his ears, saying it's too confusing, which I wish I could do also.  I'm beginning to believe that to really understand the system, someone would need to have a fairly extensive knowledge of both psychology and Jung's writings.

I've never heard of "the temptation of the tertiary." It sounds like a religion in which function obstacles need to be overcome to reach typology nirvana.  I'm also too lazy to go get Thomson, but I will later tonight and see what it says. Besides the gender issue which I brought up before, there are also childhood and other influences to consider when trying to understand native type, all of which confuse matters for me rather than help clear them up. If I did understand my type, if I have one lol, then maybe I'd understand how I retreat to the tertiary for comfort, which is an interesting concept. If I figure it out, I'll post about it.

Those are good words, and maybe I should think more in terms of honoring sides of myself that need such, rather than trying to figure out whether they are aux or tert and what attitude they have. Edit: As in, I can see how that would be healthier and would work more to my advantage, but at this point I'd need an intervention by family and friends, which I'm sure they'd happily agree to, to break the "what MBTI/function type am I" addiction. 

Thanks for talking about your experiences with ENxPs -- that was interesting. I've known two people who fit the heart of ENTP and ENFP descriptions. The ENTP is more removed from people's issues than I am, the ENFP is more closely connected and is cause oriented. I'm not particularly cause oriented, which is frequently brought up as a characteristic of ENFPs, though I don't know that it's a necessity. I live on either side of those types of causes, liking to help people one-on-one in a psychological sense and then jumping to the world as a whole, how people overall are thinking, what's going on in a philosophical sense, how species are dealing with each other, and in general any philosophical issues which can be talked about, understood better, and at best, engaging more people in discussion of important issues, preferably within a logical framework. It's not that I don't care about causes, I just don't enjoy discussing them specifically or using my energy in that way, for various reasons.

I'm beginning to understand that, as you said, anyone can build a framework to explain my type, but the accuracy of the framework depends on what I've emphasized and how I phrase my thoughts, and it's too easy to inadvertently emphasize a side of myself that might feel at the moment as if it has the most importance, but doesn't really because I don't understand myself function-wise well enough as yet, which ends up being circular. As I said in an earlier post, I was hoping I'd fit clearly in a type pattern where everyone would say, "Yes, ENFPs are typically like that." For now I'll just leave my type as ENFP, since there's at least a 50/50 chance it's accurate.


----------



## Meadow (Sep 11, 2012)

Deleting a couple questions since the thread seems to be done. Thanks everyone.


----------

