# The Grant, and Myers 'stack' are built upon a translation error.



## incision (May 23, 2010)

Turi said:


> What do you mean except for, that difference is _crucial_ with regards to how Myers interpreted the stack, it is the reason today, people believe in some cancerous IEIE or EIEI stack that makes no sense and has no support.
> 
> 
> I'm having such a hard time understanding why nobody is able to comprehend this. Just read the OP.


What does auxiliary function mean to you?


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Duo said:


> What does auxiliary function mean to you?


Irrelevant and off topic.


----------



## Knave (Sep 9, 2017)

Nevermind


----------



## incision (May 23, 2010)

Turi said:


> This is how Myers saw it, due to the translation error - keep in mind I'm just using an introverted 'dominant' for the example here, whatever your preferred dominant function is, is most 'conscious':
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Turi said:


> Irrelevant and off topic.


No it's not. Stare at your chart. You're confusing aux and tert, even though the quote clearly swirls around aux.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Duo said:


> No it's not. Stare at your chart. You're confusing aux and tert, even though the quote clearly swirls around aux.


No, I'm not confusing anything. 
-_-


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

I'm not really sure what you're trying to say @Duo. Jung's vision clearly has an auxiliary function that's more _conscious_ than the tertiary function, or maybe "greater than equal to" in consciousness with strong emphasis on the "greater", in pure mathematical terms.

This is part 1 of one 2-part argument for Jung's vision also containing auxiliary functions which are oriented more than tertiary functions in the same direction of the dominant (extraverts having a more extraverted aux than tert, and introverts having a more introverted aux than tert).


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

> The unconscious functions likewise group themselves in patterns correlated with the conscious ones. Thus, the correlative of conscious, practical thinking may be an unconscious, intuitive-feeling attitude, with feeling under a stronger inhibition than intuition.
> 
> ..
> 
> ...


Maybe it's just me - but this outlines both dominant and auxiliary functions as being conscious.
This demonstrates, sufficiently, that Myers was incorrect with regards to this singular aspect of the auxiliary functions orientation.

It is absolutely outlined as being conscious - meaning, it maintains the same orientation as the dominant function.

The conscious ST has unconscious NF, as outlined, so on and so forth - ergo, both S and T share the _same _preferred I/E attitude - same deal with N and F.

I will re-quote this section:


> Conversely, in order to cushion the impact of the unconscious, an irrational type needs a stronger development of the rational auxiliary function present in consciousness. The unconscious functions exist in an archaic, animal state.


So to cushion the impact of the two unconscious functions, the two conscious ones need to bandy together - by developing the auxiliary function (*present *in consciousness!!!)

It is also made clear that the unconscious functions exist in an archaic, animal state as per the above quote and this is supported by basically everything Jung ever did or wrote with regards to anima/animus, shadows, duality, etc etc.


I am in agreement that the author is correct in his assertion that Myers, was _unknowingly_, absolutely and definitively _incorrect _in her deduction that the attitude of the auxiliary function opposes that of the dominant function.

Jung meant it opposes the dominant functions traits in every aspect _*other*_ than introverted/extroverted attitude - ergo, a rational Thinking type that prefers introversion, would have either Sensation or Intuition as supporting the dominant Thinking, in the auxiliary position, and it's attitude will be _shared in consciousness_ with the dominant - ergo, Ni or Si supporting the Ti.

*Not * N(E) or S(E).


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

I wish I'd known this theory was basically 'the norm' outside of personality forums that are tainted by sketchy charlatan internet blogs, wouldn't have wasted time making this thread. 

Here's a picture from another book that supports the idea. 











Dom and aux are in the same direction, that's an ESTJ with Te and Se. 

Myers fucked it up due to a translation error and loads of people that blindly followed that mistake are too far gone and will keep their eyes shut.


Good to know I'm heading down the right, accurate and correct path with everything.


----------



## Kizuna (Jul 30, 2011)

Turi said:


> Good to know I'm heading down the right, accurate and correct path with everything.


That's what millions of people who were very _wrong_ also thought or are thinking... Their conviction didn't make it _true_.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Kizuna said:


> That's what millions of people who were very _wrong_ also thought or are thinking... Their conviction didn't make it _true_.


It's hardly an unfounded conviction, though. 
Steeped in fact and logic, son.


----------



## Kizuna (Jul 30, 2011)

Turi said:


> It's hardly an unfounded conviction, though.
> Steeped in fact and logic, son.


The only way to find out what is true and what isn't (pertaining to functions and type etc) is to closely observe people. Like, literally, observe (including oneself). Not theorize and deconstruct into oblivion, but observe what is actually going on whether it aligns with our genius ideas or not.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Kizuna said:


> The only way to find out what is true and what isn't (pertaining to functions and type etc) is to closely observe people. Like, literally, observe (including oneself). Not theorize and deconstruct into oblivion, but observe what is actually going on whether it aligns with our genius ideas or not.


Observations, of myself and others, are what spawned my conviction this theory was correct a while back - it's not new - what I've posted here merely confirms it by providing a reason.

Theorizing has occurred only _after _observation, and not a moment before, though I hesitate to call it theorizing, I would liken it more to an inquisition, if anything - one under which, the Grant and Myers 'stack' falls apart upon cross-examination.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Turi said:


> Myers fucked it up due to a translation error and loads of people that blindly followed that mistake are too far gone and will keep their eyes shut.
> 
> Good to know I'm heading down the right, accurate and correct path with everything.


Just in case Turi has managed to confuse anyone — and on top of the fact that it's pretty silly, for several reasons, to take the position that both Baynes and Hull made a careless _translation error_ — another reason why it's silly to think that Myers based her auxiliary-attitude stance on _conscious vs. unconscious_ considerations is that Myers took the position that, in a "normal, well-balanced" person, the auxiliary function (including its E/I orientation) would be primarily _conscious_, and not unconscious.

Have you read Gifts Differing, Turi? Myers spent considerably more words on the nature and role of the auxiliary function than Jung ever did, and here's some of what she told us:

The descriptions are designed to apply to each type at its best, as exemplified by normal, well-balanced, well-adjusted, happy, and effective people. So *the basic description assumes good development of both the dominant and auxiliary processes*. Actually the types come in widely different states of development. If the auxiliary process is undeveloped, the person will lack balance between judgment and perception, and also between extraversion and introversion. If the dominant process is also undeveloped, there will not be much left of the type except its weaknesses.

Well-developed or not, everyone has a _shadow side_. Just as *the conscious personality is the product of the best-developed processes*, the _shadow_ is the product of the least-developed part, which a person rejects and disowns. The shadow uses relatively childish and primitive kinds of judgment and perception, not intentionally in the service of conscious aims, but all on its own in an escape from the conscious personality and in defiance of conscious standards.
...
*A person's type is the product of conscious orientation to life*: habitual, purposeful ways of using one's mind—habitual because they seem good and interesting and trustworthy. The shadow is something that happens when a person isn't looking.

*Some introverts pay so little conscious attention to extraverting that they achieve little or no development of their extraverted auxiliary process. Their extraversion will be largely unconscious and their shadow processes may be more apparent than their conscious personalities*.​
So... as Myers saw it, an introvert's "extraversion" would only be "largely unconscious" if they were one of those non-"normal" introverts who lacked "good development" of their auxiliary — because if they developed their extraverted auxiliary, that would bring their extraverted side up out of the "shadow" (their unconscious side) and make it part of their "conscious orientation to life."

That perspective is obviously inconsistent with your notion that Myers viewed the auxiliary function as an unconscious function, and that she derived her opposite-attitude E/I conclusion from conscious/unconscious considerations.

And for anyone who hasn't been following my exchange with Turi, the Myers discussion that I've quoted in this post is just icing on the cake. Jung clearly referred to the auxiliary as one of the two "conscious functions," and it's nonsense to suggest that Myers somehow missed those references — and what's more, the sentence that Turi claims was _mistranslated_ (by _both_ well-respected Jung translators) isn't inconsistent (read in context) with those other _conscious function_ references.

So there's no reason to think that Myers misunderstood what Jung's view of the auxiliary was in _conscious/unconscious terms_ (the attitude is another story) — and in any case, it's clear that Myers viewed the auxiliary as part of a normal person's "conscious orientation," and believed that an important reason (if not the most important reason) to develop the auxiliary function was to bring someone's opposite attitude (e.g., extraversion for an introvert) out of the trouble-prone "shadow" (unconscious) and into consciousness.


----------



## incision (May 23, 2010)

Turi said:


> No, I'm not confusing anything.
> -_-


Yes you are. I understand your end goal but your attempted reasoning to get to that end goal is a clusterfuck of blurring function stacking, conscious/unconscious with function attitudes, never mind the belief that you figured out the 'error' that Jungian experts missed.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

@reckful - son..

From Gifts Differing:



> Jung’s only allusions to this fact are cryptically brief. As a result, almost all his followers except van der Hoop seem to miss the principle involved. They assume that the two most developed processes are used in the favorite sphere (both extraverted or both introverted) and that the other sphere is left to the mercy of the two inferior processes. Jung writes:
> 
> "For all the types appearing in practice, the principle holds good that besides the conscious main function there is also a relatively unconscious, auxiliary function which is in every respect different from the nature of the main function. (1923, p. 515)
> 
> ...



So practically everybody else is wrong, right?

Also - if you will notice, Jung didn't suggest function-_attitude_ in the quote at all.
So why draw the conclusion that the orientation of the function _attitude_ changes from dom to aux?


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Turi said:


> @reckful - son..
> 
> From Gifts Differing:
> 
> ...


???

Are you kidding me?

Our exchange hasn't concerned whether Myers (or Jung) was wrong or right about the orientation of the auxiliary.

I don't believe in _auxiliary functions_ with attitudes at all, and you're certainly aware of that, because we've discussed it in numerous threads.

The issue under discussion is whether the Myers stack resulted from (1) a mistranslation, compounded by (2) Myers concluding that, based on that purported mistranslation, the auxiliary must have the opposite attitude from the dom _because it's an unconscious function_.

Why are you pretending otherwise, rather than admitting that you screwed up?


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

reckful said:


> ???
> 
> Are you kidding me?
> 
> ...


Because I didn't screw up. I still think it's right, and, my previous response is perfectly relevant, because IMO, it's due to the relatively 'un'conscious translation error, that Myers has decided the auxiliary is in the opposing function-_attitude_ to the dominant despite no such suggestion from Jung.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

I came across this:



> The thinking of the introverted type is positive and synthetic in developing ideas which approximate more and more to the eternal validity of the primordial images. *But as their connection with objective experience becomes more and more tenuous, they take on a mythological colouring and no longer hold true for the contemporary situation*.
> 
> Hence his thinking is of value for his contemporaries only so long as it is manifestly and intelligibly related to the known facts of the time. Once it has become mythological, it ceases to be relevant and runs on in itself.
> 
> ...


I understand this is to do with T(I) taken _too far_, removed too far from T(E) (relevant to a different thread, actually) - however it does indeed state that all functions _other _than the dominant introverted Thinking, have a primitive extroverted character - when the dominant introverted Thinking is taken to the extremes.

Am I the only one who reads this to say that when an introverted Thinking type gets too far 'introverted Thinking' - then, all of the other functions are of an opposing attitude, basically this is outlining somebody with no balance whatsoever - and that balance, is to do with the _extroversion _of their Thinking - _not _the other functions - the other functions possess a primitive, extroverted character because the introversion of the Thinking has separated too far from an extroversion of Thinking.


Myers used the final bolded section of that quote, to support the idea that the auxiliary function is of an opposing function-attitude to the dominant - I postulate, that this is a misguided interpretation, as it appears to me, Jung is describing what happens to the function-attitudes that are not dominant, when _introversion of the Thinking is taken too far - when they lose connection with the objective experience_ - I do _*not *_believe Jung is actually suggesting the auxiliary function, of the introverted Thinking, _ordinarily _possesses a 'primitive extroverted' character.


Myers also uses this quote, to support the exact same point:


> When the mechanism of extraversion predominates… the most highly differentiated function has a constantly extraverted application, while the inferior functions are found in the service of introversion.
> 
> Myers, Isabel Briggs; Myers, Peter B.. Gifts Differing: Understanding Personality Type (Kindle Locations 522-524). Hodder & Stoughton. Kindle Edition.


Out of context, this might certainly support an EIxI 'stack' of sorts, however it is exactly that - out of context.

My translation is slightly different, but here's the entire passage, with the section Myers used bolded to easily identify it.

This varies from my own translation of _Psychological Types_ - here's mine:


> It is an outstanding peculiarity of unconscious impulses that, when deprived of energy by lack of conscious recognition, they take on a destructive character, and this happens as soon as they cease to be compensatory. Their compensatory function ceases as soon as they reach a depth corresponding to a cultural level absolutely incompatible with our own.
> 
> From this moment the unconscious impulses form a block in every way opposed to the conscious attitude, and its very existence leads to open conflict.
> 
> ...



Once again, Myers has got it 'wrong', _in my opinion_ - and for the very same reason - it's due to the dominant function-attitude being taken _too far_ - so both of her quotes, being used to support the orientation of the auxiliary functions attitude, are being used _incorrectly_.

What Jung means, in the above quote - as I'm sure _any _of you will conclude - is that when the extroverted characteristics of the Extraverted type (Thinking, in this example) neglect the introverted characteristics of the type (also Thinking, imo) - *THEN *the unconscious impulses form a block that opposes the conscious attitude (extroversion, in this example).

I'll do my best to attempt to simulate this in the below picture, using an ENTJ as an example:










Jung is absolutely *not *stating that this is _*ordinarily *_the case!

He is not implying the _ordinary _function-attitude of the auxiliary function opposes the dominant, under normal circumstances - rather, he is implying that when the dominant function-attitude is taken too far - *then *all other functions oppose the dominant function-attitude formulating a 'block' of primitive introverted characteristics.

Notice how the 'good' part has Te-Ne-Si-Fi all "kinda" in harmony, so to speak, no 'block' - Ne is supporting Te.
The 'bad' part has a block formed due to the introversion of Ni, all three functions that are not the dominant, take on the same primitive introverted character - they become separate from the Extraverted Thinking due to the neglect that occurs when one removes their dominant function from the others too far - the auxiliary breaks apart and shifts further into the unconscious function-attitude.


*To simplify it *- I believe he is implying the auxiliary function-attitude _changes _when the dominant function-attitude basically leaves it behind.

So, we could deduce from this, he actually believed the auxiliary functions attitude *ordinarily *shared the same orientation as the dominant.

Myers has taken supporting evidence out of context, and that context is _crucial_ as it has led her to mistakenly believe the orientation of the auxiliary function is in the exact _opposite _attitude Jung believed it to be in.

Myers has taken the negative, inferior, darker 'turning' of the auxiliary function-attitude, and presumed it as the ordinary orientation (incorrectly).

*Edit*: another picture of what I believe Jung saw, here I have blue as conscious, and red as unconscious - the idea is that as the unconscious creeps up, due to being neglected by the conscious Te, it consumes Ne and swallows it into the general Function-attitude of the unconscious - ENTJ, again, for consistency:


----------



## MusiCago (Jan 3, 2017)

Turi said:


> I came across this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


How does this example work in introverts? From my understanding in this post (correct me if I'm wrong), the "good" INFJ stack would be Ni-Fi (conscious) Te-Se (unconscious)?


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

MusiCago said:


> How does this example work in introverts? From my understanding in this post (correct me if I'm wrong), the "good" INFJ stack would be Ni-Fi (conscious) Te-Se (unconscious)?


INFJ would be Fi-Ni-Se-Te, but when Fi is taken too far, too dominant, Ni joins the 'dark' side of the unconscious extroversion and becomes Ne.


----------

