# Actual Opposite Functions



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

It is understandable why we associate the opposite function-attitudes as completely different in function and in attitude. Based on that assumption, it is clear that we would consider the opposite function-attitudes to be:

Te-Fi
Fe-Ti
Se-Ni
Ne-Si

The problem with this theory is that Jung refers to the principle of compensation. Jung says,


> Whenever life proceeds one-sidely in any given direction, the self-regulation of the organism produces in the unconscious an accumulation of all those factors which play too small a part in the individual’s conscious existence. For this reason I have put forward the compensation theory or the unconscious as a complement to the repression theory.


 In her book, “Beside Ourselves”, Naomi Quenck (designer of the MBTI Step II) says, “Psychological opposites are essential for the whole of Jung’s personality theory, just as they are for his type theory. This opposition provides us a way for our psyches to correct one-sidedeness. Quenck says Jung borrowed Newton’s third law of motion in proposing compensation as a way to regulate and balance our functioning: Every action force has a reaction force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction. 


*Differentiation Between Opposites in a Pair:* In considering this theory, the opposites as referenced above are not true opposites. Jung never says that we cannot use thinking with feeling. He merely says that the more dominant function must suppress it’s opposite to work effectively. However later Jung developed his compensation theory based on Newton’s law. 

So what would be true opposites pertaining to type? I think we may refer to the Wolfgang Pauli exclusion (who befriended Jung and worked with him on the theory of Synchronicity). To paraphrase his theory, two thoughts cannot occupy the same space and time. In her book “Was That Really Me?”, Naomi Quenck refers to differentiation in saying, “….. If a person has Se and Ne, or Si and Ni fused together, neither can be used in a conscious, directed manner as a way of gathering information. Instead, facts and possibilities seem to be one and the same, and past, present and future are indistinguishable. For a person operating in this fashion, something that might occur may be equivalent to something this actually occurring and an imagined conversation may be accepted as having actually occurred.” 

Thus this should make the principle of type very clear that the true function-attitude opposites:

Te-Fe
Se-Ne
Ti-Fi
Si-Ni

This theory coincides with the 8 function model proposed by John Beebe that I do use Fe, but have no use of Fi. I can’t, because not only does it disrupt my thinking, it must take over my dominant function for usage Ti. In an example, Quenck gives some examples of being adaptive vs. having a preference for one-sidedness in saying someone who prefers the extraverted attitude will be charming, enthusiastic and sociable when using introversion. However when using too much extraversion they become boastful, intrusive and loud. When someone preferring introversion is balanced they are deep, discreet and tranquil. However too much introversion makes them aloof, inhibited and withdrawn. The same should be considered with the use of functions. Too intuiting makes one eccentric, erratic and unrealistic, but Ne-Si or Ni-Se becomes imaginative, ingenious and insightful. A final example will be someone who uses too much thinking. They will be argumentative, intolerant and coarse, but when they allow their Fe and Fi inferior functions to work, they become lucid, objective and succinct.

This brings me to the final notion that some claim in the use of the same functions (Ni-Ne, Fi-Fe, etc.). Really? Marie-Louise von Franz provides and example of Fi function in saying that although Fi dominant types struggle to use Te, they have even a more arduous time attempting to use Fe. These are also differentiations that will result in a “one-sidedness”. In the book, “Gifts Differing” Myers-Briggs alluded to too much intuiting and no sensing results in “all sail and no rudder”. These in my opinion are mild explanations. Someone attempting to use these sort of combinations render a ridgidity in the personality leading to e a full blown personality disorder, at best. However in reality, Ni-Ne would make a person completely oblivious to reality. Ti-Te (OMG) I could not even imagine the havoc that would be reaped if someone was using this combination on a daily basis. They would have no consideration for humanity. For us to balance we must use all four functions since they compensate the over use of one another. So although two perceiving or two judging functions of opposite attitude and function may work in tandem, these below would wreak utter havoc:

Te-Ti
Fe-Fi
Se-Si
Ne-Ni.


----------



## Gauntlet (Oct 19, 2010)

I understand what you're saying but what about individuals that experience their shadow personality? Even to the point they become their shadow for a time being and experience the stress point of their shadow?

What I'm saying is, I believe it is possible, for some individuals to have literally become their shadow self (utilizing those shadow functions primarily on a day to day basis while not utilizing their base dominant functions) if their situation was extreme enough. Them getting out of their shadow and growing from that time frame is obviously up to them though.

I do agree we can't use the opposing functions simultaneously, but some individuals may have at least experienced the opposing function of their dominant function for a period in their life.


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

Gauntlet said:


> I understand what you're saying but what about individuals that experience their shadow personality? Even to the point they become their shadow for a time being and experience the stress point of their shadow?
> 
> What I'm saying is, I believe it is possible, for some individuals to have literally become their shadow self (utilizing those shadow functions primarily on a day to day basis while not utilizing their base dominant functions) if their situation was extreme enough. Them getting out of their shadow and growing from that time frame is obviously up to them though.
> 
> I do agree we can't use the opposing functions simultaneously, but some individuals may have at least experienced the opposing function of their dominant function for a period in their life.


Although I am still unsure how the shadow functions work, I believe we can and do use our shadow types for limited periods. When I need to get something done, I resort to my shadow type ESTJ. However that is not something I could do for long periods, because naturally as someone preferring introversion the constant use of extraversion would burn me out.


----------



## penchant (Sep 20, 2010)

So I as an INFJ would naturally use Ni, which blocks out Ne and Si, but could still use Se at the same time? And I can use either Ti or Te, but not at the same time? And Fe and Te are also incompatible, while Ti and Fe aren't?


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

penchant said:


> So I as an INFJ would naturally use Ni, which blocks out Ne and Si, but could still use Se at the same time? And I can use either Ti or Te, but not at the same time? And Fe and Te are also incompatible, while Ti and Fe aren't?


I look at function-attitudes the same way one would look at naturally preferring to be left handed or right handed. We use all eight functions the same as we use both hands, but one will always respond naturally over it’s counterpart. The others we must make a conscious effort to use. 

Per Beebe and Berens, the INFJ make-up is* Ni-Fe-Ti-Se-Ne-Fi-Te-Si*. Your dominant function Ni is your most differentiated so it will always be the anchor in your make-up. I would not look at them as blocking out instead complementing the dominant function. Si can’t complement Ni since they both work inwardly toward the Self and they are both perceiving functions. Essentially they are used for the same thing. So that function-attitude is placed furthest away in use from the dominant to preclude any internal strife. Referencing back to Quenck’s quote, “If a person has Si and Ni fused together, neither can be used in a conscious, directed manner as a way of gathering information. Instead, past, present and future are indistinguishable. For a person operating in this fashion, something that might occur may be equivalent to something this actually occurring and an imagined conversation may be accepted as having actually occurred.” the mind. 

You can use Ni-Ne, but that is too much intuition with no ability to stabilize your mental processes. Come to think of it, that seems to occur quite frequent when I do debate some intuiting types. They either imagine I said something, or they themselves believe they confuse their opinions as factual. Even with the use of Ni or Ne alone, some struggle with differentiating what they imagine from actual facts, so doubling up on intuition is quite scary. 

You also will struggle to use Fi since Fe is what you naturally use to connect to the outer world and Te would make you connect in a way that is counter to Fe. In the end, to function best you we use each function in some capacity as it complements your dominant function. So not blocking one out, but complementing what you prefer to use naturally as your dominant function.


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

What we have here is a double-*mirror* symmetry.

There are two different dimensions of reflection (one actually a shadow, really), and a combination of both reflections as well. This is what I was illustrating here:









So in the inferior, both the function and the orientation are reversed. The inferior or anima is specifically about "*otherness*" anyway, so everything"other' goes in that space.
So even though this appears to be the most "other", an thus we would assume, the most rejected by the ego, still, the opposite function is still in the pace it has been assigned by the ego. If you take only one of those opposites of Te, yielding Ti or Fe, then you have either the ego's function in the wrong (rejected) orientation, or the wrong function in the ego's dominant orientation. Hence, these end up "ego-dystonic" or more rejected than the inferior; the latter case being worst of all.

The latter case will end up on the same brain hemisphere, however, represented by the rotated image being congruent to the original dominant.


----------



## dimane (Jun 11, 2011)

define opposite


----------

