# Your inferior function is your 8th function, not your 4th.



## Zidane (Sep 9, 2015)

Because it's the complete opposite of your dominant function. I thought it was obvious, but there seem to be quite alot of people who think for example an ISTJ uses more Ne than for example an ISTP, because the function stack of the ISTJ is listed as:

Si
Te
Fi
Ne

while for ISTP

Ti
Se
Ni
Fe

So some people have concluded that the functions that are listed are your conscious functions, while those that are not listed are the subconscious/"shadow" functions... But this is wrong, the shadow functions are simply your inferior, followed by your tertiary to a much lesser extent. Why? Because they are opposite to your conscious functions. To put it differently, Ne works more against Si's interest than Ni does, because Si generally wants to keep things the way they are while Ne sees so many possibilities that it inevitably wants to change things because that's often the only way they can actually come to fruition. Or Fi would work the most against Te's interest, because Te is about efficiency and systems, while Fi is about values and people. And Ni is about the abstract world, while Se is purely the world of physical sensations. What this means is that someone who is an Se dominant, will have more trouble than other type, relating to INxJ, and vice versa. Again, some people think that an ESFP and INTJ are not so different because of the same functions listed, but just fucking get your head out of all the theories and you will see that they are as opposite as can be. (Now, this doesn't mean they should avoid each other, because I think alot of progress can be made by interacting with your shadow type...)

So this is why ENTP's generally get along easier with ISTP's than ISTJ's, because Si is the nemesis of Ne, while ISTP's are more or less neutral towards Ne. And for this same reason, ENTP has often been portrayed as the "villain", simply because Si is the most commonly used function. (ENFP's less so because feelers are generally perceived as friendlier) Dominant Ne'ers often trigger something in them, because we are the physical representation of their suppressed subconscious. In other words, we are the ones most likely to put them out of their comfort zone, and people don't like that...


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

yea but functions are actually not 8, but 4
E/I is the attitude of adaptation, so "Ni" is N in the protective attitude, "Ne" is N in the adaptive attitude, and so on.. so everyone's inferior is their least favored function in the least favored attitude

and because E/I is an attitude of adaptation that encompasses one's whole personality (adaptive vs self-protective), the function stack of alternating attitudes is a fallacious understanding of the premises, no SiTeFiNe - FiNeSiTe


----------



## 74893H (Dec 27, 2017)

Not everyone believes in shadow functions, it generally seems to be a fringe idea in MBTI theory. The more accepted idea is that it's more like as an ENTP your function preference is Intuiting > Thinking > Feeling > Sensing, and your Intuiting and Feeling are extraverted and your Thinking and Sensing are introverted. You can't have both introverted and extroverted Feeling for example, your Feeling function is either focused internally or externally, ergo Introverted or Extroverted. Your weakest function is your Sensing, and your Sensing is introverted, therefore your inferior function is Introverted Sensing. You don't have Extroverted Sensing, yours is introverted. That doesn't mean you're incapable of doing or thinking things associated with Extroverted Sensing, it just means that as yours is introverted yours prefers structure over exploration.


----------



## Zidane (Sep 9, 2015)

@Pizzasafari Well shadow functions simply means more subconscious functions, aka ones that happen more in the background and which you're not consciously aware of unless you are pretty developped. 
"Your weakest function is your Sensing, and your Sensing is introverted, therefore your inferior function is Introverted Sensing. You don't have Extroverted Sensing, yours is introverted. That doesn't mean you're incapable of doing or thinking things associated with Extroverted Sensing, it just means that as yours is introverted yours prefers structure over exploration."
See, you have subscribed to the whole theory that I'm trying to debunk here, because no, I don't prefer structure over exploration. Everyone knows INTJ's are more structural than ENTP's, that's why they are J... And the Te also helps. But yes, my weakest function is indeed Si, which means that Se is not my weakest function. Get it? This is because Se does not work against Ne, while Si does. Se is just different, while Si is opposite. So Se is neutral, and Si is negative (in the subconscious). What I'm saying is if you use Si as an Ne dominant, your Ne will automatically diminish, because Ne only exists as a differentation from Si, just like male only exists as a differentation from female, or cold as a differentation from hot. (No one's gonna say that if it's hot it's also cold... No it's either hot or it's cold.) So this is another way of finding out which your type is, instead of focusing on finding your strongest, you focus on your Achilles' heel, and then you automatically know your dominant function. For example, if everything about Fe puts you off or alien to you, then you are most likely a Ti dominant.


----------



## L P (May 30, 2017)

ESFP and INTJ are not that different. I also pretty sure if an ENTP gets along better with an ISTP than an ISTJ, Ti has something to do with it.


----------



## Zidane (Sep 9, 2015)

Lord Pixel said:


> ESFP and INTJ are not that different. I also pretty sure if an ENTP gets along better with an ISTP than an ISTJ, Ti has something to do with it.


Yeah, but the only reason why they are using Ti, is because they use Se over Si...


----------



## L P (May 30, 2017)

Zidane said:


> Yeah, but the only reason why they are using Ti, is because they use Se over Si...


What? What does Se have to do with Ti?


----------



## Zidane (Sep 9, 2015)

Lord Pixel said:


> What? What does Se have to do with Ti?


Huh? This is completely obvious. All Si thinkers use Te and all Se thinkers use Ti.


----------



## L P (May 30, 2017)

What? You're an ENTP.


----------



## Zidane (Sep 9, 2015)

Lord Pixel said:


> What? You're an ENTP.


...

"All Pi thinkers use Te and all Pe thinkers use Ti."


----------



## L P (May 30, 2017)

Zidane said:


> ...
> 
> "All Pi thinkers use Te and all Pe thinkers use Ti."


You use both Ti and Si.


----------



## Zidane (Sep 9, 2015)

Lord Pixel said:


> You use both Ti and Si.


Says who?

And btw, everyone uses all the functions, so you're not wrong. The question is, do you use your inferior more than the functions that are not listed under your type? And I would say, definately yes. You use your inferior the least of all your functions, because inferior means your weakness. If I use Si more than Se, then Si can't be my weakness can it?


----------



## xVladdy (Sep 19, 2018)

Care to explain your theory a bit more?
It is true that everyone accesses all of the 8 functions, but the problem is: how do they access them? In which order do they access them? What triggers people to use certain functions?
Until proven through a thorough logical analysis, this theory is worth very little.


----------



## Zidane (Sep 9, 2015)

xVladdy said:


> Care to explain your theory a bit more?
> It is true that everyone accesses all of the 8 functions, but the problem is: how do they access them? In which order do they access them? What triggers people to use certain functions?
> Until proven through a thorough logical analysis, this theory is worth very little.


Jung himself said that the inferior function is "practically identical with the dark side of the human personality". What he means is that it's not really a conscious function... Also, there is no exact order of all the functions, you're talking about a human brain here. But in general, I'd say the functions that are not listed are about neutral, aka they are semi-conscious, between your secondary and tertiary. The four function model is just a more simplistic way to put it, because eight functions just adds way too many variables, however, this doesn't mean you don't them all...

So for example, for ENTP (+ means conscious, - subconscious):

Ne + 2
Ti + 1
Fe - 1
Si - 2

in its more complex form it's actually more something like this:

Ne +2
Ti + 1
Ni/Te/Fi/Se 0
Fe - 1
Si - 2

Again, individual variations fuck up any exact order for a type.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Jung also didnt speak of having 8 functions since he separated attitude from them.


----------



## Zidane (Sep 9, 2015)

Red Panda said:


> Jung also didnt speak of having 8 functions since he separated attitude from them.


Yeah well if you create 8 functions you need to give everyone 8 functions simple as that. You can't just cop out like that and assume that an ESFP is never going to change the attitude of her Se function. Ofcourse she does else she will be dysfunctional and handicapped. What ultimately determines her an ESFP instead of an ISFJ is that she extraverts Sensing the majority of the time, aka that's her preference.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Zidane said:


> Yeah well if you create 8 functions you need to give everyone 8 functions simple as that. You can't just cop out like that and assume that an ESFP is never going to change the attitude of her Se function. Ofcourse she does else she will be dysfunctional and handicapped. What ultimately determines her an ESFP instead of an ISFJ is that she extraverts Sensing the majority of the time, aka that's her preference.


Nope, that's not Jung's theory, read post #2.

The whole thing about "extraverting a function" is a misinterpretation by Myers.

An ENTP by Jung would be an E+NT, and doesn't have I+T in their conscious, since their attitude is adaptable (Jung's E). If their attitude gets reverted (probs through really bad ways), it means they would turn I+NT, or similar to an INTJ in the mbti.


----------



## tahrah11 (Mar 3, 2018)

Your shadow functions actually support you first 4 functions. I believe works like this 1.supported by 8., 2. by 5., 3. by 6., and 4. by 7. For an ENTP I think it would mean searching the Se environment to seek out Ne possibilities, narrowing down on an Ni idea so that it's easier for Ti to organize it, using Te to maintain the Fe atmosphere, and having Fi emotions to keep memories alive. It is said that your 7th function is that one that you value the least and the one you'll struggle with the most


----------



## MD_analyst (Jan 29, 2018)

I don’t think all the shadow functions are always unconscious, nor are they always inferior. All the functions can be equally valued and equally exercised at conscious levels when they are all fully developed. When they are all fully developed and able to be used consciously with equal value (or some valued more so than others and some more consciously used than others), the dominant and auxiliary functions are still the most noticeable aspect of a person, while the tertiary and inferior functions are also noticeable, and all four are used in healthy ways so that the user and the outside world are in favor of how each of them are used. At the same time, the shadow functions can be used in healthy ways and can be noticeable to the user and the outside world, but are used in ways that rely on how the primary 4 functions are used, so if the top 4 are used in healthy ways, it is more likely for the shadow functions to be used in noticeably healthy ways (hence, they are called the "shadows" since their effectiveness relies on the effectiveness of the primary 4). So someone with all the functions developed can use all 8 in healthy and effective ways, but still have their type's primary 4 functions be most preferred by the user and the dominant and auxiliary being most noticeable to others and privately given extra cognitive attention by the user since the user gives extra personal value to those 2 (uses them effectively because the user personally prefers and respects the top 2), while still giving great overall value to all the other 8 functions (user has less of a personal preference for the other 6 but still uses them effectively because user respects the importance of the other 6).

So in sum, the shadow functions operate in a way that either influences the use of the primary 4, or in a way that is influenced by the use of the primary 4. They are used when the primary 4 functions are not enough to do what the user aims to do, whether consciously or unconsciously. This is definitely what I've seen with feelers-- lots of introverted feelers that I've met care a great deal about what other people think of them, which is a characteristic of Fe, so that's an example of their Fi being influenced by their shadow Fe. I read about this on psychologyjunkie (if that site has any credibility):

"Shadow functions can be highly destructive or a catalyst for growth and self-actualization. Their main goal is to stabilize us and prevent ego inflation and disruption of the ego from threats to our integrity. Our shadow will impact us when we are experiencing extreme stress and our normal “tools” fall short of handling our stressors. These are those times when we wonder why we’re acting strangely and out-of-character or in ways we don’t really identify with. The shadow can also “step in” when we become ego-inflated and need to have a “reality check” of our weaknesses."
_“When the tools available to our ego are not sufficient to defend us from assaults upon our personal integrity, the shadow usually steps in, unconsciously, with its alternative ways of operating, unfettered by moral constraints.”_
– Mark Hunziker, Depth Typology


----------



## Pastelle (Dec 12, 2016)

I don't really ascribe to the "shadow function" layout. I follow the Jungian format where there's a dominant and inferior but there's not really a strict stack. I.e, ESFP. Se-F-T-Ni. Your an ESFP as long as your dominant function is Se with aux F (general, I/E doesn't matter). With this, the inferior function would be the 4th, 7th if you count both orientations.


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

Great explanation! I still think the missing piece of the puzzle is that the functions aren't really things “used” by us, but are perspectives associated with different complexes. It's the complexes that are more or less consciously controlled, and form the “stack” when rated by their position in the ego structure (again, not by “strength” or frequency of “use”). 
So a term like “last function” can be misleading, and as we see, there are really different ways of reckoning that.


----------



## Eren Jaegerbomb (Nov 13, 2015)

Zidane said:


> Your inferior is the function that is opposite to your dominant and in the opposite E/I attitude. So if your dominant is Fi as an INFP, then that would be Te for you.


Then what would Se be? It's like the last on my stack.


----------



## Dalien (Jul 21, 2010)

Red Panda said:


> The problem is that these traits are NOT "Fi" and "Fe". They are assigned to them arbitrarily.
> "Fi" isn't about one's values, F in general cares about ethics from an emotional point of view, because F is the brain processes that relate to the more nurturing/empathetic/compassionate aspects of humans and place importance on them so much that the person becomes a "F type".
> 
> INFPs by DEFAULT are attuned to people's emotions because they are_ adaptable_ feelers. It's what makes them F+P. If they are not, then they don't qualify for the "INFP" type. Jung would never assign his Fi description to FPs! It's why INFPs, for example are stereotypically considered bleeding hearts and give people too much benefit of doubt.
> ...


I’m understanding what you’re saying for the most part. 
Didn’t Myers put the P and J in her theory?
Jung had thinking, sensing, feeling and intuition as the functions, correct?


----------



## Zidane (Sep 9, 2015)

Armeen Arlerrt said:


> Then what would Se be? It's like the last on my stack.


 If Se is your last then does this mean you also test stronger intuition than feeling? If so, then that would make you an infj according to how the types are functionally listed.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Dalien said:


> I’m understanding what you’re saying for the most part.
> Didn’t Myers put the P and J in her theory?
> Jung had thinking, sensing, feeling and intuition as the functions, correct?


Yes, correct.

Jung defined, at a fundamental level (evolutionary/survival), extraversion and introversion as attitudes that relate to adaptation. 

The extravert is someone who has a "good relationship with the object" where 'object' literally any stimulus outside himself, so it can be anything, from data from the physical world to other people. So the extravert doesn't wish to change the object, instead he changes himself to adapt to it. The introvert on the other hand, has a sort of defensive relationship with the object, as Jung put it he "wishes ascendancy on it", he wants to be above it in a way, so that the object can't hurt him, from a survival standpoint I guess. This means the introvert is less able/willing to change himself to adapt and instead prefers to change and affect the object itself, so that it reinforces his position. E= adaptation, I= reinforcement. Es have an attitude of intropunition - doubting themselves when interacting with the object, which leads to change and adaptability. The Is have a more extrapunitive attitude - doubting the object and wanting it to change instead of them.

Where Jung went wrong I think, is that he attributed to the E a behavior of sociability & increased fertility, as he said "he wants to propagate himself in every way". I think this actually contradicts the above, at least in part. Propagating for the E is a side effect of just putting himself out in the world. But the I has just as much, and maybe MORE reason to propagate himself. Because propagation is a fine way to affect the object and ascend on it. Moreover, generally being sociable is also an opportunity for the introvert to reinforce himself, like with connections or ascending on a social hierarchy. So I think Jung was at least partly wrong to conflate outgoingness with E/I. 

In practice, people have a mix of E/I and are not entirely one or the other, however, Jung did believe that one of them dominated the personality quite clearly, and I think he was right at that. He said the conscious has one attitude, while the unconscious the other. So his types were more like E+NF = NeFe. His individual descriptions of the functions-attitudes were not always true to his fundamentals however, maybe because of that conflation he did with outgoingness, IDK. His TE for example carries characteristics of introversion, like wanting to impose his will on the world, which according to the above is certainly not E...

In MBTI, we have the E/I measuring outgoingness and P/J adaptability, or at least some behaviors that relate to it, because I'm not sure Myers really understood the above. They say she fit Jung's "Irrationals" to P and "Rationals" to J but I don't think that's true in practice, plus the MBTI descriptions do pair all the Ps as adaptable and Js as (well, they don't say it) not adaptable. So this is definitely a mess.

She defined the P/J as which function has the extraverted attitude, because she thought Jung said they have to be different, which she took from a single sentence, as she cites in her book. The section 11 of chapter 10 where she took it from makes it obvious he didn't refer to the attitude of adaptation, but that someone can't have 2 judging or 2 perceiving functions in his conscious...
Moreover, it's possible she thought people have 1 conscious (dom) 3 unconscious functions, which Jung also mentions in the same section but quite clearly states this isn't the norm at all. 

Really, IDK why she thought of that, except that she had a strong bias herself for balancing the good and bad, so she misinterpreted all that to favor her bias. At least it seems she was like that from her biography, which says that every time someone mentioned a negative for a type she'd mention a positive.. her motives for the creation of mbti, after all, were to help people, she wasn't exactly driven to impartially analyze the theory.


----------



## Eren Jaegerbomb (Nov 13, 2015)

Zidane said:


> If Se is your last then does this mean you also test stronger intuition than feeling? If so, then that would make you an infj according to how the types are functionally listed.


But I thought in MBTI INFJs had Se as their inferior. I meant that Se was the 8th function, the very last function listed out of every single function. So for example Fi-Ne-Si-Te-Ni-Fe-Ti-Se. (Not my actual preference of functions.)


----------



## Zidane (Sep 9, 2015)

Yes infj has Se as their inferior. Im simply saying the inferior is your 8th function, not your 4th. I dont see any reason for why a function that isnt even related to your dominant can be your last function. T is tied to F and S is tied to N. So if you are an N dominant, all F and T are in between your N and S. It just gets more complex when you attach attitude to it. So then instead of simply saying S is your last one, it becomes either Si or Se. So for an Ni dominant Se becomes the last, which means that Si is somewhere in the middle. While for an F dom, all N and S are in the middle, with T at the bottom. Which means that for Fi dom, Te is the bot, with Ti (and Se) somewhere in the middle. 

So if you are sure Se is your inferior (aka your last), then Id say its a pretty safe bet youre an Infj. And btw, infj is infp in socionics, so the P/J dont mean much. (On the other hand, if you are sure Fi is your dom, then there's nothing I can argue with.) And btw, I also don't agree with the way socionics stacks the 8 functions. I think Red Panda's view is the best. It's actually similar to mine, except I just make it more complex.


----------



## mistakenforstranger (Nov 11, 2012)

The inferior function is, according to Jung, unconscious and repressed, so one shouldn't really have conscious access to it, or if they do, one has to make themselves conscious of it, which is also what leads to integration, but it will still retain an opposing orientation to the dominant function of the individual. It's not easy to integrate the inferior function for that reason. One can see this basic aspect of Jungian typology completely ignored on this website below that believes there are types who can be "subtypes" of their inferior function. I could grant that there could be a tertiary function subtype, depending on the individual's age as I think one can develop lower functions with time (It still won't be valued on the level of someone who has it as their dominant function), but I think that's completely inaccurate that there would ever be an inferior function subtype. Those individuals they list are likely all mistyped by either their dominant, auxiliary or tertiary function, but they are saying otherwise in order to give validity to their theory. Here are a few examples of this ridiculousness and the celebrities they list as being examples of that subtype:

http://cognitivetype.com/2017/11/13/feni-ti/
http://cognitivetype.com/2017/11/13/fesi-ti/
http://cognitivetype.com/2017/11/13/sife-ne/

I also think the idea of function "axes" is another misleading concept for this reason, when we see people conflate Fe/Ti or Fi/Te together as having a similar set of characteristics within the type merely because they share that "axis" when they are again functions completely in opposition to each other. Fe should be considered distinct from Ti (and in the Fe-dom, represses Ti), Fi from Te (and in the Fi-dom, represses Te), Ni from Se (and in the Ni-dom, represses Se), etc., so I agree with OP here:



Zidane said:


> What this means is that someone who is an Se dominant, will have more trouble than other type, relating to INxJ, and vice versa. Again, some people think that an ESFP and INTJ are not so different because of the same functions listed, but just fucking get your head out of all the theories and you will see that they are as opposite as can be. (Now, this doesn't mean they should avoid each other, because I think alot of progress can be made by interacting with your shadow type...)





Zidane said:


> What I'm saying is if you use Si as an Ne dominant, your Ne will automatically diminish, because Ne only exists as a differentation from Si, just like male only exists as a differentation from female, or cold as a differentation from hot. (No one's gonna say that if it's hot it's also cold... No it's either hot or it's cold.) So this is another way of finding out which your type is, instead of focusing on finding your strongest, you focus on your Achilles' heel, and then you automatically know your dominant function. For example, if everything about Fe puts you off or alien to you, then you are most likely a Ti dominant.


As far as shadow functions, I think that tends to muddy the waters, and is likely attributing some quality we observe to another "function" that can be explained by a different function or attribute in the individual's four-function model/typological makeup (depending on what you define as the type's four functions, but dominant/inferior should be very clear), which is what @*Red Panda* did here and was my thought as well. An INFP uses "Fe", as was claimed earlier, more likely because they're a Feeler and Feeling types tend to care about such "Fe" matters:



> The problem is that these traits are NOT "Fi" and "Fe". They are assigned to them arbitrarily.
> "Fi" isn't about one's values, F in general cares about ethics from an emotional point of view, because F is the brain processes that relate to the more nurturing/empathetic/compassionate aspects of humans and place importance on them so much that the person becomes a "F type".


The 8 function model and how it tends to be used is similar to how tritype in the Enneagram world is used to explain differences between types, when those differences can be attributed to something else within that type itself, in my opinion. I'm not saying there couldn't be a 8-function model, but this is more how I see it being used across different places in MBTI recently. CS Joseph and his followers being one of the main culprits I've seen of this recently.



Red Panda said:


> Yes, correct.
> 
> Jung defined, at a fundamental level (evolutionary/survival), extraversion and introversion as attitudes that relate to adaptation.
> 
> ...


If an introvert is seeking to affect the object, I would think they would be utilizing an extroverted function in that case. Otherwise, the introvert can still refuse to adapt themselves to the object _and_ not have any affect on it. I suppose in that sense I don't see them as contradictory positions. What comes to mind reflective of this is this passage in the Ni-dom description, and although he doesn't say extroverted function, he does say another rational function (likely a Feeling rational function in the example given) is necessary for this happen:



> *Although it is not altogether in the line of the introverted intuitive type to make of perception a moral problem, since a certain reinforcement of the rational functions is required for this, yet even a relatively slight differentiation of judgment would suffice to transfer intuitive perception from the purely æsthetic into the moral sphere.* A variety of this type is thus produced which differs essentially from its æsthetic form, although none the less characteristic of the introverted intuitive. The moral problem comes into being when the intuitive tries to relate himself to his vision, when he is no longer satisfied with mere perception and its æsthetic shaping and estimation, but confronts the question: What does this mean for me and for the world? What emerges from this vision in the way of a duty or task, either for me or for the world? *The pure intuitive who represses judgment or possesses it only under the spell of perception never meets this question fundamentally, since his only problem is the How of perception. He, therefore, finds the moral problem unintelligible, even absurd, and as far as possible forbids his thoughts to dwell upon the disconcerting vision.* It is different with the morally orientated intuitive. He concerns himself with the meaning of his vision; he troubles less about its further æsthetic possibilities than about the possible moral effects which emerge from its intrinsic significance. His judgment allows him to discern, though often only darkly, that he, as a man and as a totality, is in some way inter-related with his vision, that [p. 510] it is something which cannot just be perceived but which also would fain become the life of the subject. Through this realization he feels bound to transform his vision into his own life. *But, since he tends to rely exclusively upon his vision, his moral effort becomes one-sided; he makes himself and his life symbolic, adapted, it is true, to the inner and eternal meaning of events, but unadapted to the actual present-day reality. Therewith he also deprives himself of any influence upon it, because he remains unintelligible. His language is not that which is commonly spoken -- it becomes too subjective. His argument lacks convincing reason. He can only confess or pronounce. His is the 'voice of one crying in the wilderness'.*


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

mistakenforstranger said:


> If an introvert is seeking to affect the object, I would think they would be utilizing an extroverted function in that case. Otherwise, the introvert can still refuse to adapt themselves to the object _and_ not have any affect on it. I suppose in that sense I don't see them as contradictory positions. What comes to mind reflective of this is this passage in the Ni-dom description, and although he doesn't say extroverted function, he does say another rational function (likely a Feeling rational function in the example given) is necessary for this happen:


Only if you don't stick to the initial premises/observations that relate to adaptation. Extraversion isn't about outwardly expressing anything, and nor is introversion about introspection. To be fair, Jung didn't manage to stick to them either, imho. 
The way the introvert affects the object is not necessarily overt, but by "twisting" it by selectively accepting only the information that reinforces his position. 

I will quote myself from a different thread to make it clearer:



> Examples of actual introverted irrationals IRL:
> To give you an example, (which I've posted in this forum again and had an ISFJ relate with) my ISTJ mom literally hears different words than those I say. It can be just adding a "no", like me saying "I like this" and her hearing and repeating "You don't like this???", or it can be entirely different words with no relevance whatsoever, just because it's what she *expected* to hear. I asked her why she does the previous, she told me she "needs the confirmation, I guess". So she forces me to repeat myself, by misrepresenting me (affecting the object). This has been going on for decades and she just won't change it despite it being super annoying!! As for the expected part, her mind is just on certain things and so her brain literally blocks out the actual reality to substitute it with what she expects. Recently I had to read her 3 times, 5 short lines of guidelines on how to use a hair nutrient spray for hair loss because she was using it entirely incorrectly and wouldn't believe what I read the 1st time. She didn't even take it herself to read, just wanted me to re-read it, lol.
> 
> My aunt the other day:
> ...


----------



## mistakenforstranger (Nov 11, 2012)

Red Panda said:


> Only if you don't stick to the initial premises/observations that relate to adaptation. Extraversion isn't about outwardly expressing anything, and nor is introversion about introspection. To be fair, Jung didn't manage to stick to them either, imho.
> The way the introvert affects the object is not necessarily overt, but by "twisting" it by selectively accepting only the information that reinforces his position.


I still don't see that as affecting the object, though. That's an introvert staying in their dominant function who is being stubborn and doesn't want to affect the object, or have the object affect them. An introvert can affect the objective world, or object, if they utilize their secondary function (I can't remember if Jung stated if it was extroverted, but I would think it would have to be for balance), which is what Jung states from that passage I quoted, where one transfers from a perceiving function to a judging one:



> Although it is not altogether in the line of the introverted intuitive type to make of perception a moral problem, since a certain reinforcement of the rational functions is required for this, yet even a relatively slight differentiation of judgment would suffice to transfer intuitive perception from the purely æsthetic into the moral sphere.





> I will quote myself from a different thread to make it clearer:


LOL, yeah I've encountered that with ISxJs, and it shows in all introverted perceivers. If you find two introverted perceiving types in an argument with each other, it's like they're both talking to a wall. A wall created of their own perceptions of the situation.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

mistakenforstranger said:


> I still don't see that as affecting the object, though. That's an introvert staying in their dominant function who is being stubborn and doesn't want to affect the object, or have the object affect them. An introvert can affect the objective world, or object, if they utilize their secondary function (I can't remember if Jung stated if it was extroverted, but I would think it would have to be for balance), which is what Jung states from that passage I quoted, where one transfers from a perceiving function to a judging one:
> 
> LOL, yeah I've encountered that with ISxJs, and it shows in all introverted perceivers. If you find two introverted perceiving types in an argument with each other, it's like they're both talking to a wall. A wall created of their own perceptions of the situation.


You'll have to look at it from a bigger picture, like the examples I gave, while they don't technically affect the truth (object), their selective perspective/interpretation of it can create a sort of "alternate" reality, which in structures like society & human relationships is important: teaching, working, etc. They desire to shape the world according to their perception, whether they realise it or not, whether they achieve it or not. Jung calls it "subjectification of consciousness".
Jung spoke of the attitude of E/I dominating the whole conscious, while the opposite one being unconscious. From his section about the introvert's unconscious attitude:

_As a result of the ego's defective relation to the object -- for a will to command is not adaptation -- a compensatory relation to the object develops in the unconscious, which makes itself felt in consciousness as an unconditional and irrepressible tie to the object. The more the ego seeks to secure every possible liberty, independence, superiority, and freedom from obligations, the deeper does it fall into the slavery of objective facts. The subject's freedom of mind is chained to an ignominious financial dependence, his unconcernedness of action suffers now and again, a distressing collapse in the face of public opinion, his moral superiority gets swamped in inferior relationships, and his desire to dominate ends in a pitiful craving to be loved. The chief concern of the unconscious in such a case is the relation to the object, and it affects this in a way that is calculated to bring both the power illusion and the superiority phantasy to utter ruin. The object assumes terrifying dimensions, in spite of conscious depreciation. 

Detachment from, and command of, the object are, in consequence, pursued by the ego still more violently. Finally, the ego surrounds itself by a regular system of safeguards (Adler has ably [p. 479] depicted these) which shall at least preserve the illusion of superiority. But, therewith, the introvert severs himself completely from the object, and either squanders his energy in defensive measures or makes fruitless attempts to impose his power upon the object and successfully assert himself. But these efforts are constantly being frustrated by the overwhelming impressions he receives from the object. It continually imposes itself upon him against his will; it provokes in him the most disagreeable and obstinate affects, persecuting him at every step. An immense, inner struggle is constantly required of him, in order to 'keep going.' Hence Psychoasthenia is his typical form of neurosis, a malady which is characterized on the one hand by an extreme sensitiveness, and on the other by a great liability to exhaustion and chronic fatigue."_


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

I suppose you're referring to this site (I'm sorry I can't make it any bigger)?


----------



## Zidane (Sep 9, 2015)

So Jung thought extraverts could propagate themselves huh. Hmm, is that why they are so high in number?


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Zidane said:


> So Jung thought extraverts could propagate themselves huh. Hmm, is that why they are so high in number?


mbti E and Jung's E are not the same


----------

