# How to translate cognitive functions to MBTI?



## xVladdy (Sep 19, 2018)

I'm asking this since the MBTI seems to have a rather weird approach to how many types there can be. It crossed my mind since:
1. What if someone's function stack is Pe-Pe-Ji-Ji instead of Pe-Ji-Je-Pi?
2. What if someone is a superextrovert? (Aka all his functions are extroverted)
3. What if someone has both types of Intuition in their function stack? How would you class someone that has Ni just as developed as Ne.
4. What if someone is completely perceiving? Like Se-Ni-Ne-Si? Could this even be possible?
5. What if someone has no defining cognitive function? What if that someone's functions are all just as developed?
I am curious since the MBTI theory could benefit from a refined function stack. Thus, it would cover more exceptions and even common cases. Not only that, but it would also be more flexible and, thus, reduce the number of mistypings.

If I made any logical mistakes/forgot to mention some crucial details about the theory, feel free to tell me so 🙂


----------



## Ecchi (Jun 26, 2018)

The type is identified only by the first two (strongest) functions:

FeNi = ENFJ
NeFi = ENFP
TeNi = ENTJ
NeTi = ENTP
FeSi = ESFJ
SeFi = ESFP
TeSi = ESTJ
SeTi = ESTP
NiFe = INFJ
FiNe = INFP
NiTe = INTJ
TiNe = INTP
SiFe = ISFJ
FiSe = ISFP
SiTe = ISTJ
TiSe = ISTP

These are also just "presets." You can develop any function to be stronger.


----------



## ChaoticEvil (Aug 17, 2017)

you can't survive in full perceiving mode. you need to judge those things you have perceived.

you can't survive being a full extravert and focusing only on outside world too. you gotta take care of yourself, listen to your si. are you feeling "somewhat" dizzy? if you can notice that before you got very sick you will survive. if you ignore that and continue doing shit you will die. your body needs rest and medicine and stuff. also, what do *you* "really" think? what do *you* exactlyfeel? there's no real you without asking those questions. if we were %100 result oriented we all would go for world domination and when we realize there's no chance we are dominating the world we would terminate ourselves. but with introverted functions we say shit like "meeeh, i didn't really wanted world domination anyway".

also, say, if you are an ne dom that will push se all the way down. if your brain is wired in a way so you are focused on possibilities and shenanigans and alternative theories and tangent shit... then you won't actually focus on that one thing forcefully or it takes so much conscious and annoying effort for you to stick with one thing. you want to explore, you want to discover, you don't want to hold things and screw them to each other and actually, physically build things, especially following somebody else's blueprints. 

since i am an ne dom, since se is all the way down, from where i can get sensing? from si. so si must be in the first (conscious) stack, even though inferior. and this, what we call a cognition axis is. Ne-Si is a perceiving axis. 

now i need another axis which should be judging. as an entp, i got ti-fe. but if i was an enfp, i could have fi-te too.

basically: why there are no elephants with four legs that all stem from the middle of their stomach? because that's a stupid design, it won't work.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

The functions are 4 actually, E/I is the attitude of the mind, which relates to adaptation; the extravert changes oneself (adapts), while the introvert protects oneself against the environment. MBTI wrongfully simplified E/I as outgoingess, it can relate but not necessarily. The actual extra/introversion scale in MBTI is the P/J.

So you don't have "two Ns", you have N and a preferred attitude, which results in behavioral changes. These preferences are built at a young age, but I believe certain life circumstances can change them somewhat, especially those that were not strongly favored to begin with.


----------



## Handsome Dyke (Oct 4, 2012)

Although there are undoubtedly multiple possible theories of cognitive functions, some of the possibilities you listed are not possible for even the bare minimum of human psychological health; for example, a complete lack of introverted functions would mean having no self-knowledge or will. So some configurations of cognitive functions would be classified as mental illnesses if not cognitive disability...and I don't see a reason to _also_ include such configurations in any theory of cognitive functions or personality.

These theories have a purpose: they are used for self-knowledge and self-improvement, and I can't imagine why someone whose functions were all equally developed would need any such self-improvement (so why apply the theory to such a person at all?)...unless all her functions were equally _underdeveloped_, but in that case, that person would either be a baby, psychologically/cognitively disabled (so, again, better categorized as a disorder), or so far outside the psychological norm on which the theory is based that applying the theory would be useless.


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

Don't, problem solved


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

ChaoticEvil said:


> you can't survive in full perceiving mode. you need to judge those things you have perceived.
> 
> you can't survive being a full extravert and focusing only on outside world too. you gotta take care of yourself, listen to your si. are you feeling "somewhat" dizzy? if you can notice that before you got very sick you will survive. if you ignore that and continue doing shit you will die. your body needs rest and medicine and stuff. also, what do *you* "really" think? what do *you* exactlyfeel? there's no real you without asking those questions. if we were %100 result oriented we all would go for world domination and when we realize there's no chance we are dominating the world we would terminate ourselves. but with introverted functions we say shit like "meeeh, i didn't really wanted world domination anyway".
> 
> ...


Which is why I consider cognitive functions to be preferences. They are how we prefer to interact, not how we always interact. They are the functions that most consistently worked best for us, given our temperament, environment, and genetics. Our favorite methods, not our only ones.


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

xVladdy said:


> I'm asking this since the MBTI seems to have a rather weird approach to how many types there can be. It crossed my mind since:
> 1. What if someone's function stack is Pe-Pe-Ji-Ji instead of Pe-Ji-Je-Pi?
> 2. What if someone is a superextrovert? (Aka all his functions are extroverted)
> 3. What if someone has both types of Intuition in their function stack? How would you class someone that has Ni just as developed as Ne.
> ...


Because a person would be lost in some sort of schizophrenic "closed loop" for most of these function combinations to be true. The truth is, our functions are more like _preferences_, the ones we favor, sort of like how we usually favor our right or left hand. Are there people who are ambidextrous? Sure, but chances are, when it comes down to it, even though they are good with both hands, they're still going to favor one over the other. When the situation is dire, they don't have time to stop and decide which hand to use.

That's how our cognitive functions are. They are the ones we've gotten consistent results with since we were very young, so we tend to favor them. They've worked for us. When we're under stress, chances are good, we're going to go with what works best for us. That does not mean that, given the right set of circumstances, we can't learn to use other functions, but it does mean that given the chance, we're going to go with the functions that are most comfortable to us.


----------



## Kiriae (Oct 2, 2015)

*1. What if someone's function stack is Pe-Pe-Ji-Ji instead of Pe-Ji-Je-Pi?*
Fully in the moment, not considering past or present. No memories, no predictions. Kinda how little babies are but without the ability to learn. ADHD with agnosia and amnesia.

*2. What if someone is a superextrovert? (Aka all his functions are extroverted)*
Acting, acting, acting, acting without thinking, without feeling, without learning, without predicting. Are they some kind of primitive animal? No, even animals have some mental capabilities. It would be a leaf on wind. Well, I guess a person with severe mental disability capable only of reacting to external stimuli and doing whatever others make them to could be this type. But as it it they wouldn't even be able to use a stupid spoon because they wouldn't remember how. So no, not really. A leaf on wind after all.

*3. What if someone has both types of Intuition in their function stack? How would you class someone that has Ni just as developed as Ne.*
Shadow functions theory accepts that but it's not my cup of tea so perhaps someone else can explain it. 
As for MBTI - the functions are generally similar, come in pairs and never act alone so high Ni use in Ne user can be mimicked by good use of for example Ne+Si+Ti. Also the description aren't fully correct because they focus on behaviours (often of a specific type, for example the Si you often see described is Si-Te of ISTJ, not exactly Si-Fe of ISFJ). 

*4. What if someone is completely perceiving? Like Se-Ni-Ne-Si? Could this even be possible?*
Can't make any decision or even act, except for bodily reactions. Severe disability, dead brain. A human vegetable. A computer hardware without a system.

*5. What if someone has no defining cognitive function? What if that someone's functions are all just as developed?*
That's what you call a fully developed personality - the final stage of development, sometimes seen in older people unless something went wrong in their life or their brain got damaged by old age. 
In case of younger people situation like this is usually a sign of loop or grip going on and is considered unhealthy - instead of developing the functions properly they jump the stack and use lower functions before they are mentally ready, while neglecting their dominant/aux function development.


----------



## Stevester (Feb 28, 2016)

Why is the concept of natural balance so hard to grasp for some people??

If you have this thing, it naturally comes with this other thing at the end of the spectrum to complete and balance it out. Stop trying to look for a loophole out of this. It's why 100% of cars in the world have a gas AND break pedal. You literally can't use a car that has a super gas pedal but no break.


----------



## Mammon (Jul 12, 2012)

xVladdy said:


> I'm asking this since the MBTI seems to have a rather weird approach to how many types there can be. It crossed my mind since:
> 1. What if someone's function stack is Pe-Pe-Ji-Ji instead of Pe-Ji-Je-Pi?
> 2. What if someone is a superextrovert? (Aka all his functions are extroverted)
> 3. What if someone has both types of Intuition in their function stack? How would you class someone that has Ni just as developed as Ne.
> ...



All the things you mentioned are 100% possible, although I suppose they'd take form in cases of _extreme_ autism/mental retardation and brain dead people.


----------



## Mammon (Jul 12, 2012)

Stevester said:


> Why is the concept of natural balance so hard to grasp for some people??
> 
> If you have this thing, it naturally comes with this other thing at the end of the spectrum to complete and balance it out. Stop trying to look for a loophole out of this. It's why 100% of cars in the world have a gas AND break pedal. You literally can't use a car that has a super gas pedal but no break.


Common sense delivered by yours truly.


----------



## xVladdy (Sep 19, 2018)

I am pleased to see where this has gotten to so I thought of asking some more 🙂

1. How does the shadow functions theory work? Could there be such a thing as "shadow grip" (similar to inferior function grip)?
2. Is it possible for a function stack to be JPJP instead of JPPJ? What about a IEEI stack? Could such an individual be considered mentally-healthy?
3. Is it true that introverted functions are deeper than extraverted ones? I'm thinking of Te and Ti. A Te-dom (at least to my understanding) takes in facts and judges them objectively; it stops there. Whereas a Ti-dom goes further and tries to reason based on subjective logic. Is there a chance that the Ti user sees the Te one as superficial?


----------



## Kiriae (Oct 2, 2015)

xVladdy said:


> 1. How does the shadow functions theory work? Could there be such a thing as "shadow grip" (similar to inferior function grip)?


I know very little about shadow functions but as I understood those are kinda like the "inner critic" - mental patterns imprinted into you by others, for example parents. Read here if you care enough to do your own research: https://www.psychologyjunkie.com/2017/11/10/introduction-shadow-functions/ 

But I am pretty sure it is possible to "grip" that one way or another - although from my experience it would be easier to "grip" 5th, "Opposing" or 6th "Critical Parent" function than 8th ("The Demon"). I am not sure because shadow functions are not my cup of tea but I can somehow see Te and Ni messing in my life ("I should be more productive, I should deal with the paperwork and I should think about the future more") while I don't seem to have such experiences with Fi. Which is actually what makes me "not exactly human" and is a problem on it's own but it's problematic more to others than to myself because I just cut off from my values when that happens and it doesn't feel half bad actually ("Demon" Fi gets along with Ti "Hero" just fine once "Anima" Fe goes through the window) although I need to experience hell first and go crazy so the way to the state is damn painful and damaging. 
But again - I know very little about shadow functions so it's just be babbling bullshit. 



> 2. Is it possible for a function stack to be JPJP instead of JPPJ? What about a IEEI stack? Could such an individual be considered mentally-healthy?


They are called "development", "loop" or "grip". It could be healthy or unhealthy depending on the age, what caused it and how it shows itself. It doesn't change the type though - it's just an subtype. 
There is a theory that covers that, mentioning about 64 types or something like that instead of 16 but I forgot how it's called. Maybe someone knows. They type by seeing videos of people based on body language and facial expressions characteristic to functions, for example Ne eyes scanning the surroundings aimlessly.



> 3. Is it true that introverted functions are deeper than extraverted ones? I'm thinking of Te and Ti. A Te-dom (at least to my understanding) takes in facts and judges them objectively; it stops there. Whereas a Ti-dom goes further and tries to reason based on subjective logic. Is there a chance that the Ti user sees the Te one as superficial?


It's like that with every function. Extrovertic = superficial, introvertic = deep. But remember functions come in pairs. Well, quartets actually. Te might be superficial but so is Fe. Ti users will be beep about their understanding of the world (assuming that Ne or Se don't feed it the wrong facts) but our feelings are pretty shallow, easy to brush off. Te users might be using superficial facts (but deep Ni or Si can get their knowledge deep) but their feelings go deep.


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

Stevester said:


> Why is the concept of natural balance so hard to grasp for some people??
> 
> If you have this thing, it naturally comes with this other thing at the end of the spectrum to complete and balance it out. Stop trying to look for a loophole out of this. It's why 100% of cars in the world have a gas AND break pedal. You literally can't use a car that has a super gas pedal but no break.



Well, you probably could....once.


----------



## Bastard (Feb 4, 2018)

Switch J and P for introverts. Fi Ne = INFJ. :wink:

Any "function" system that measures beyond Dom+Aux is largely incompatible with MBTI's deliberate simplicity.


----------



## Kiriae (Oct 2, 2015)

tanstaafl28 said:


> Well, you probably could....once.


However you could easily make a car with just one pedal - brake. It would move forward by itself till desired speed, unless the brake pedal is pushed in. Actually some cars have something similar implemented already - it's called cruise control. It would require some modifications (for now you can only turn it on after reaching the desired speed) but is doable. 

You could do something similar with just gas pedal - the car would automatically proceed to stopping when you release it, sort of like a car with parking brake left up does - at least till it kills the brake. But you can also modify that so it doesn't kill it - the gas pedal push would release the brake, releasing the gas would activate the brake again.

Yeah, I know that's not the point. :exterminate::laughing:


----------



## Drecon (Jun 20, 2016)

There's always been a big gap between MBTI and cognitive function theory. There's people trying to bridge the gap, but honestly, there's nothing concrete. Any attempt to reconcile the two is headcanon at best. 

There's also different competing theories for cognitive functions so you're always going to get conflicting answers here. The concept of 'shadow functions' for example is one branch of cognitive functions that isn't subscribed to by most people. 

So in short, these are really interesting discussions but since there's no consensus, don't expect to get any clear answers here.


----------



## xVladdy (Sep 19, 2018)

Drecon said:


> There's always been a big gap between MBTI and cognitive function theory. There's people trying to bridge the gap, but honestly, there's nothing concrete. Any attempt to reconcile the two is headcanon at best.
> 
> There's also different competing theories for cognitive functions so you're always going to get conflicting answers here. The concept of 'shadow functions' for example is one branch of cognitive functions that isn't subscribed to by most people.
> 
> So in short, these are really interesting discussions but since there's no consensus, don't expect to get any clear answers here.


True dat.
I thought of asking here since it seems to be the likeliest spot I'd get my answers from. Only other forum I heard of is TypologyCentral or something like that.
What I thought is that the functions theory is far more flexible than the MBTI. One's cognitive functions do not have to be tied to some weird 4-letter code. I think it all depends on the situation the individual finds itself in. And one example that came to my mind was the use of Si (and, as such, memory) by individuals which are supposed to not have it in the first place (think of INTJs or ISFPs). 
I think everyone possesses all 8 functions, but chooses to use some of them which have proven reliable over time. And this would be consistent with what psychology really is: probability.
I don't think someone that, say, is an ENFP, is a pure ENFP. Si grip might push them to act like an ISTJ (am I right? Cause I know almost nothing about how grips and loops work) and, as such, give them that aura of being logical that they often don't have. Of course, that's just a grip - it's temporary - but it's still enough to prove that no-one is a single type and that's it.
Of course, Jung's theory strips down cognitive functions to what I think is the bare minimum. Because, normally, you'd have at least 2 emotional functions (emotionality and willpower).
For instance, one other thing that made me curious was how there is no loop between the auxiliary and inferior function. Although, only thing I could come up with was that the primary function just failed miserably at doing something, so the second function (which acts as a counterweight; it keeps the primary from going berserk and doing extreme stuff) has to take over to "restore order." But this would conflict with the definition of the grip (which is also caused by overuse of the primary.


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

Kiriae said:


> However you could easily make a car with just one pedal - brake. It would move forward by itself till desired speed, unless the brake pedal is pushed in. Actually some cars have something similar implemented already - it's called cruise control. It would require some modifications (for now you can only turn it on after reaching the desired speed) but is doable.
> 
> You could do something similar with just gas pedal - the car would automatically proceed to stopping when you release it, sort of like a car with parking brake left up does - at least till it kills the brake. But you can also modify that so it doesn't kill it - the gas pedal push would release the brake, releasing the gas would activate the brake again.
> 
> Yeah, I know that's not the point. :exterminate::laughing:


But it's hella fun to think about, isn't it?


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

contradictionary said:


> Could that be "it"? That the full 180 deg opposites are:
> Ne vs Si
> Ni vs Se
> Te vs Fe
> ...


do you mean Te vs Fi and Ti vs Fe? 
according to Jung that's true yes, because it is both the opposite function and a switch in the attitude (E/I)
and someone will always have issues with their inferior because of that, it's essentially the farthest away from their natural mode of functioning.


----------



## contradictionary (Apr 1, 2018)

Red Panda said:


> do you mean Te vs Fi and Ti vs Fe?
> according to Jung that's true yes, because it is both the opposite function and a switch in the attitude (E/I)
> and someone will always have issues with their inferior because of that, it's essentially the farthest away from their natural mode of functioning.


Initially i almost automatically wrote Te vs Fi and Ti vs Fe but after second thought...

My observation says Te vs Fi and Ti vs Fe do not really clash, they are simply talking in entirely different language resulting in misunderstanding. They can "safely" ignore each other, practically speaking.

While Te vs Fe and Ti vs Fi DO clash, heavily. As if they speak the same language but from entirely opposite perspective where each so insist on overcoming one another. They simply cannot ignore each other, they want to fight.

But I may be wrong.


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

Red Panda said:


> But there's an important conflation here between wanting to apply a system VS coming up with it.. because wanting to apply it has, quite likely, a different root cause.


This I disagree with. I don't think we're talking about some kind of complete correlation here, but those who wish to apply systems are also going to be more likely to try to come up with them I would believe.


> I think it's what I said earlier that Jungian introverts, in an effort to protect themselves from change are also inclined to control their environment by applying to it what they believe is correct. I don't think that's controversial, I've heard many Js proudly say such things IRL without knowing anything about typology, they don't consider it negative or anything and many are completely aware of these needs they have. For some it's too much and they try to combat it, others are fully into it.


I believe that Jung describes this more strongly for introverted _rationals_ and even his Extraverted Thinking type. Both of these are... rationals, so saying that Js say it IRL I think just fits in with my general idea that Jungian rationality correlates to J.


> Comparable to ITJs? ISTJ systems are often very inefficient and usually serve their need for control first. Bureaucracy? Rote learning in schools? Their heuristics are wrong because they don't see the full picture of what they should have as a goal and it ends up being about getting good grades lol. FJs are typically much much worse, because they'll also lash out emotionally and blame their environment when something isn't working (which is really their poor T that fails their system). I'm honestly confused when you say that Js are more rational than Ps because they want to apply their systems, because from what I see, this need doesn't come from rationality per se, but introversion. And I think there's also lot of conflation with S/N and T/F in this...


I'm not talking about the quality of such systems, but I would react to this mainly as seeing this as over-systemization as you would too. So you can really just chalk this up as another way that Js are more systematic (in this case, in an external sense).


> With Ps I guess I was thinking more about how NPs systematise their understanding of the world. It's not the same as the systematic methods Js use, but it's still creating a system that you add to or change with new information.


I don't see this nearly as much with NPs as I do with NJs. NPs make a lot of connections with stuff but I don't see them feeling as much of an imperative to see everything in terms of -isms, models, groups, etc. They seem to be more independent thinking and generally get repelled by dogmatism which is more appealing to Js. And that dogmatism is often the result of systematic thought, which is poor at dealing with exceptions which can set NPs off.

So I also end up seeing NJs as generally more systematic in an internal sense.

The idea of attributing systematic thought to INTPs above all is a plague on MBTI in my opinion, caused by mixing up MBTI and Jung and saying people like Kant were "Ti-doms" despite it meaning something completely different in Jung. When you read about someone like Kant, it's pretty obvious that he would have been extremely on the J side of things in MBTI. He lived his life according to a regime, basically. Not INTP. Introverted Thinking type and *I-N-T-J*.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Ocean Helm said:


> I don't see this nearly as much with NPs as I do with NJs. NPs make a lot of connections with stuff but I don't see them feeling as much of an imperative to see everything in terms of -isms, models, groups, etc. They seem to be more independent thinking and generally get repelled by dogmatism which is more appealing to Js. And that dogmatism is often the result of systematic thought, which is poor at dealing with exceptions which can set NPs off.
> 
> So I also end up seeing NJs as generally more systematic in an internal sense.
> 
> The idea of attributing systematic thought to INTPs above all is a plague on MBTI in my opinion, caused by mixing up MBTI and Jung and saying people like Kant were "Ti-doms" despite it meaning something completely different in Jung. When you read about someone like Kant, it's pretty obvious that he would have been extremely on the J side of things in MBTI. He lived his life according to a regime, basically. Not INTP. Introverted Thinking type and *I-N-T-J*.


I'm a tad lazy and busy right now to reply to the rest - plus I wanna take my time to review certain things but I wanna reply to this.

I think you are using only one definition of a system which definitely relates to the J psyche better, but the more general definition of it is "1. a set of things working together as parts of a mechanism or an interconnecting network; a complex whole."
What I think, in short, is that if someone claims is an NP but doesn't try to understand how things connect into a whole (create-understand the system), then they are likely not N at all. All N types seek understanding, it's what sets us apart from S on a big-picture level. I agree that NJs are more dogmatic, and I think that's because they are not as open to receiving new information as NPs - which is a matter of mental adaptability, as we've said.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

contradictionary said:


> Initially i almost automatically wrote Te vs Fi and Ti vs Fe but after second thought...
> 
> My observation says Te vs Fi and Ti vs Fe do not really clash, they are simply talking in entirely different language resulting in misunderstanding. They can "safely" ignore each other, practically speaking.
> 
> ...


Hasn't been my experience for sure, plus there's certain issues here that may create confusion. For example, I think there's a difference between the opposite functions WITHIN a person, and the clash between different people with opposite functions. The first is much more clear, the 2nd is affected by the other parts of both people's psyches so it gets more complicated.

Then I think it's important to differentiate that a high preference T dom with a F dom may clash because of the function regardless of attitude. The problem with T/F doms with HIGH preference for T or F, is that their primary bias is to serve that function first, so they will definitely have difficulty dealing with their opposite, even in the same attitude. To be clear what I mean in this last bit, is that I think someone can be a judging-dom (not mbti J, just literally judging) so they care about making judgments - having conclusions, but they don't particularly care if they're of T or F nature, so they are more flexible in that regard.
It's not easy to test these things, if these people really are what you think and if they react to their opposite function better or worse in the same circumstances, etc.


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

Red Panda said:


> I'm a tad lazy and busy right now to reply to the rest - plus I wanna take my time to review certain things but I wanna reply to this.
> 
> I think you are using only one definition of a system which definitely relates to the J psyche better, but the more general definition of it is "1. a set of things working together as parts of a mechanism or an interconnecting network; a complex whole."
> What I think, in short, is that if someone claims is an NP but doesn't try to understand how things connect into a whole (create-understand the system), then they are likely not N at all. All N types seek understanding, it's what sets us apart from S on a big-picture level. I agree that NJs are more dogmatic, and I think that's because they are not as open to receiving new information as NPs - which is a matter of mental adaptability, as we've said.


I think there's a pretty big difference between analyzing existing systems and loving them. It actually seems like NPs analyze systems only to pick them apart and are the natural system breakers of society in multiple ways. A lot of that has to do with understanding said systems and seeing how they infringe on "perception", particularly being important for them because the desire for perception lives strongly within them.


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

Red Panda said:


> _why_ must the auxiliary carry the different attitude just because it's not the dominant one? drawing away from the ego/dominant function doesn't mean it must hurt adaptability... Why is not arbitrary to say it must?
> 
> If the person is primarily adaptable, according to Jung, has an EE-II conscious-unconscious stack of functions, or rarely E-III. Because E encompasses the conscious parts, regardless of the functions used, since adaptability is a separate important trait of a person's psyche.
> 
> TBH what you're describing is very convoluted and as I said seems a post-hoc way to explain Grant's beliefs that E-I must alternate.. is it Beebe's theory? I'd like more information on this, if you can provide links it would be nice..


Yes, that's Beebe's theory, and it is ultimately a bout complexes (which are also known in their raw form as "archetypes"). He has his own book out, Energies and Patterns in Psychological Type, which I review here: https://erictb.wordpress.com/2016/0...e-energies-and-patterns-in-psychological-type (and it has the link to the Amazon page for the book).
The premise is that the "parent" or "caretaker" complex is what deliberately chooses the opposite attitude, because the agenda of the complex is cognitive balance. It's when the ego is so wrapped up in its preferred attitude, that it might bypass the auxiliary, and go to the tertiary, and that's what creates the so-called "loop" others talk bout.

You say "ad-hoc"; but I think the reason Grant has stuck (and thus probably where he got the idea), is because it's what fits observation.

From Gifts Differing (p.22), showing Katherine Briggs' putting together their theory:



> When Jung's theory was published in 1923, she...made an intensive study of it. She interpreted [various data] to mean that the auxiliary process runs the introvert's outer life. She looked at the outer lives of her "meditative" [the previous "type" category she created, that ended up encompassing all introverts] friends to see if this was true and concluded that it was.
> Briggs also found that when the introvert's auxiliary was a perceptive process, it gave rise to a perceptive attitude and an outer personality that resembled, in a quiet way, the "spontaneous" personality of the perceptive extravert. When the auxiliary was a judging process, it produced a judging attitude and an outer personality that was the opposite of "spontaneous".


Grant's specific model involves the attitude of the tertiary; the auxiliary was determined by Briggs, as we see. Their observations explained simply _that_ it was in that order. When it came to explaining *why*, that's where Beebe's theory came in.



xVladdy said:


> But wait
> What do you even define as "conscious"? Something that you can control? I mean, how would this even look like?
> Is it true that the inferior function (along with the shadow functions) are part of the unconscious?
> From what I've read, the unconscious is chaotic and holds the hidden desires of the individual. This is like an engine to a car.
> How is it possible for an individual to have their function stack as E-I-I-I? Or E-E-I-I? Or any other combination that isn't completely E or I?


 Consciousness is something that is graduated. The inferior will naturally tend to be much less conscious than the dominant. In order to choose a dominant, then its opposite will have to be the most suppressed. This is why I compare it to physical directions. If looking east, then west is the one you're most unconscious of, while north and south are partially conscious (out of the corners of your eyes).
There is much more to the unconscious than just functions, and it also includes the complexes. "The shadows" associated with functions (below the inferior) are simply those that become associated with very negative complexes.


> But here's another thing: why is it only the dom and the tert functions that loop? Why can't it be the aux and the inf? Although, I suppose the individual must first be under the grip (and so under the control of the unconscious). Why can't the aux and the inf loop?


 It's possible, but then this is again thinking of the functions as "gears", and we shift one, then the other, etc. The reason why the dominant and tertiary get called a "loop" is because of the dominant, which is the main world view of the ego, the center of consciousness. If unbalanced, the ego may bypass the input of the auxiliary, and run to the tertiary, which is the next one int he dominant attitude. The auxiliary is itself a "support", and so won't really have the power to jump to the inferior. It's if the ego itself, for whatever reason, chooses to use the aux and inferior, or the associated complexes for those two are operating at a given time.


> And now...
> Depending on which function an individual is developing, is it possible for them to be typed differently?
> I'm thinking here of an ENTP. He is currently developing his Ti (finding out that thinking his new ideas through and placing them into an already existing framework is actually a good thing). Naturally, now discovering his aux function and the powers it holds, it would make sense that the ENTP will pay more attention to their Ti and, thus, score on tests as INTP.


 Again, it's the complexes that will fix Ti to aux. and Ne to dominant. That will still be the ego's main perspective, even when the auxiliary is being developed.



> And another thing
> In the case of ambiverts, how would their function stack look?
> Suppose we have an ENFP which scores both as his type and as INFJ on tests. They identify with traits from both types but still can't decide which function is their dom.
> What I mean by this is: is a function completely extraverted or completely introverted?
> ...


Introversion and extraversion simply means turning inward to the subject, or outward to objects, in basically saying "yes" or "no" to data (which all the functions can be narrowed down to doing). That in itself is either/or, so there is no "ambiverted" _function_. I/E also refers to the classic sense, where the _person_ is I or E (which is based on neurological stimulation), and this becomes a product of the ego (which will then place its dominant function in that preferred orientation), and ties to the classic temperament factor of "expressiveness". _This_ can be in differing degrees, where you can basically have somewhat of an an "ambivert", who is moderate in reacting to stimulation and expressing to others. But there will still be a preference on whether his dominant S, N, T or F is externally or internally derived.


----------

