# Auxiliary Fe versus Lead Fe - Comparative Differences



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

I feel more confident talking about this function attitude since I've come to believe I've identified it within my own personality and the personalities of others.

There is a distinct difference between Fe in the lead role as the dominant function and Fe in the auxiliary role. Whatever function ends up being dominant dramatically shapes and influences the way in which all the other functions manifest themselves. Therefore, we ought to regard the dominant function as the basis for the entire persona of the individual, the focal lens through which everything else about that person is filtered through.

If Fe takes on a leading role, then we get an individual mostly meeting the description Jung gives of the extroverted feeling type. The leading function, Fe, becomes the sort of "master" function attitude that the other functions become "slaved" to. Just in case this happens to be Fe, then everything about the individual - all the details about their personality - begin to show this definite sign of being "slaved" to Fe and unable to go beyond or outside of a Fe-type mentality very easily.

Contrasting this against Fe in, for instance, the auxiliary role, then the way in which Fe influences the dominant function attitude depends on the dominant function attitude itself. If it happens to be Si for instance, you will get a very different kind of person with a very different general mentality than if it were Ni. This is because someone with Ni is viewing Fe values through the lens of subjective impressions they get about what a feeling means conceptually, while Si views Fe values through the lens of subjective impressions they get about what a feeling means in terms of physical sensations. Ni is reading into feelings with anticipation, and Si is focus on the feelings themselves.

What these two perceptive approaches have in common is that Fe "serves" the "agenda" of the leading function, in this case either Si or Ni. Whatever that agenda is, Fe seems to be the most useful in bringing about, hence it becomes the auxiliary. If Fe were the leading function, it would just be the reverse, with Si or Ni serving the agenda of Fe.

Just a few things to keep in mind when trying to figure out someone's type. <3


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

Okay, my first question for you: What's your real type? You've went from INTJ to INTP to INFJ (and now, since you're an INFJ, you put <3s in your posts, like that actually says something about your type, LOL), so really, I'm not sure I can trust you know what you're talking about (like your last "big hit" thread).

Secondly, you're spewing misinformation once again: The dominant function is NOT the whole persona of a person. No, it isn't. In fact, it's "behind" the persona of a person, not necessarily THE persona of the person (I mean, if you think about that enough, that doesn't really make sense - why would a cognitive process be a persona when it's supposed to be defending the ego, and thus, the persona on a very small scale, as it is a function of ego, not persona?).

Thirdly, Jung pretty much answers this with his dominant function portrayals - there is all you need to know about what kind of person you might sort of get based on dominants - auxiliaries were ONLY supplementary to Jung - just there for assistance to the issues the dominant might try to deal with. It's probably possible for people to identify more with their aux. than their dom (or really, with any function other than their dom) just based on their own personal motivations at a given time. I mean, it really depends on how we define "identify" anyway, because everyone identifies with them all, but one just feels the most first nature to resort to than the others to handle situations and whatnot, basically.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> Okay, my first question for you: What's your real type? You've went from INTJ to INTP to INFJ (and now, since you're an INFJ, you put <3s in your posts, like that actually says something about your type, LOL), so really, I'm not sure I can trust you know what you're talking about (like your last "big hit" thread).
> 
> Secondly, you're spewing misinformation once again: The dominant function is NOT the whole persona of a person. No, it isn't. In fact, it's "behind" the persona of a person, not necessarily THE persona of the person (I mean, if you think about that enough, that doesn't really make sense - why would a cognitive process be a persona when it's supposed to be defending the ego, and thus, the persona on a very small scale, as it is a function of ego, not persona?).
> 
> Thirdly, Jung pretty much answers this with his dominant function portrayals - there is all you need to know about what kind of person you might sort of get based on dominants - auxiliaries were ONLY supplementary to Jung - just there for assistance to the issues the dominant might try to deal with. It's probably possible for people to identify more with their aux. than their dom (or really, with any function other than their dom) just based on their own personal motivations at a given time. I mean, it really depends on how we define "identify" anyway, because everyone identifies with them all, but one just feels the most first nature to resort to than the others to handle situations and whatnot, basically.


First, please stop attempting to derail the conversation with your personal attacks.

Second, you are acting like there's no way to interpret the work besides the way you have. Here we fucking go again.

Finally, DROP IT.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

Well, I mean, you're posting this to help people, but making somewhat inaccurate statements (yea, the teasing on my part was totally unnecessary though, I will back off there anyhow). You're not "wrong," but I've done the research and find some of what you're saying kind of contrived or missing the mark.


----------



## Anubis (Nov 30, 2011)

Ahaha. I love how some guy named JungyesMBTIno comes in here and acts like the MBTI police for the United States of Jungland. There is so much more to be understod about personality, buddy. This girl is trying to figure herself out AND trying to tread new ground. Leave her threads alone. 

Tl;dr JungyesMBTINOOOOOOOOOOO is an asshole.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

@FixationForcep

Cut in out (and grow up, this IS a Jung forum for those interested in accuracy from sources as well). First off, this "misinforming" has been going on long enough with @Abraxas around here that I think someone needs to speak up. Secondly, nothing I said outright contradicts anything he said, it's an improvement on it. There are too many contradictions in what he's saying relative to what the MBTI experts say (like the aux. being an "agenda" function - I mean, what does that even mean? (and please @Abraxas, don't call me stupid for not getting you - prove that you get you or better yet, the theories). I thought the head honcho of a type is the dominant or the tert. is said to be a secret agenda function according to Dr. John Beebe).


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

I mean, where is there ANY evidence that a person will have a huge "struggle" trying to go beyond the dominant function? I heavily doubt this, because functions are all about personal adaptation, they shouldn't hinder it.


----------



## MegaTuxRacer (Sep 7, 2011)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> @FixationForcep
> 
> Cut in out (and grow up, this IS a Jung forum for those interested in accuracy from sources as well). First off, this "misinforming" has been going on long enough with @Abraxas around here that I think someone needs to speak up. Secondly, nothing I said outright contradicts anything he said, it's an improvement on it. There are too many contradictions in what he's saying relative to what the MBTI experts say (like the aux. being an "agenda" function - I mean, what does that even mean? (and please @Abraxas, don't call me stupid for not getting you - prove that you get you or better yet, the theories). I thought the head honcho of a type is the dominant or the tert. is said to be a secret agenda function according to Dr. John Beebe).


Pastor: This is the word of the Lord.
Congregation: Amen.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

I mean, if @Abraxas didn't claim that this would be a "help source," I wouldn't have even responded at all. It would be just another debate thread.


----------



## MegaTuxRacer (Sep 7, 2011)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> I mean, if @Abraxas didn't claim that this would be a "help source," I wouldn't have even responded at all. It would be just another debate thread.


That's the thing. I happen to agree with @Abraxas. It's one thing to say, "I disagree because of A, B, and C," and it's another thing to say, "You're totally wrong because there is no basis in previously established theory, which by the way is open to interpretation and subjectivity." It's like in the previous thread: praise be unto JungyesMBTIno, for she hath spoken. Give me a break. Different people have different interpretations to the same information, and a person's observations are obviously going to differ from yours. So who's right? Both of you, because it's subjective and opinionated. He has tried to explain this to you, but it's like throwing cotton at a steel reinforced concrete wall. You just don't let anything in. There is a greater world than what is inside your head. Deal with it.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

First off, I'm being deliberately misinterpreted (I never said he was "wrong"). Secondly, no, type really is about "you either got it or you don't." There are true and false categories in type, but unfortunately, people pretty much have to go back to basics with Jung to figure out what they are. I mean, it's truly not accurate to say that the dom. is the persona the way @Abraxas was saying. Jung has it all defined. In fact, what you show to the outside world is persona, not type. It was specifically defined by Jung and other psychologists who have defined personality.


----------



## MegaTuxRacer (Sep 7, 2011)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> First off, I'm being deliberately misinterpreted (I never said he was "wrong"). Secondly, no, type really is about "you either got it or you don't." There are true and false categories in type, but unfortunately, people pretty much have to go back to basics with Jung to figure out what they are. I mean, it's truly not accurate to say that the dom. is the persona the way @Abraxas was saying. Jung has it all defined. In fact, what you show to the outside world is persona, not type. It was specifically defined by Jung and other psychologists who have defined personality.


Reading comprehension helps because he wasn't saying that the dominant function is the _entire_ persona, rather the _basis_ for the entire persona.



Abraxas said:


> Therefore, we ought to regard the dominant function as the *basis* for the entire persona of the individual, the focal lens through which everything else about that person is filtered through.


You said that the dominant function is behind the entire persona.



JungyesMBTIno said:


> The dominant function is NOT the whole persona of a person. No, it isn't. In fact, it's *"behind"* the persona of a person, not necessarily THE persona of the person (I mean, if you think about that enough, that doesn't really make sense - why would a cognitive process be a persona when it's supposed to be defending the ego, and thus, the persona on a very small scale, as it is a function of ego, not persona?).


"Basis", "Behind", "Butt", does it really matter what the word is? Looking at your descriptor, I visualize outside looking in. Using @Abraxas's I think the foundation upon which a persona is built. You're arguing semantics. That's what's wrong.

Here is where I am not misunderstanding you: you continually police @Abraxas's thought with petty misunderstandings rooted in your own inability to comprehend, parse, whatever what he's saying; and you then respond in an absolutist, dogmatic, and petty fashion that just creates unnecessary conflict and detracts from what could otherwise be an extremely interesting discussion. I have no doubt that you know what you're talking about, but it is baffling that you misunderstand him over and over again and continually are ignorant to that fact. The nature of your criticism is not nuanced or careful. This is a trend that has just been going on long enough. So please stop so that we can have actual interesting conversations and not personal attacks regarding type. I think your actions have demonstrated that you're not capable of defference in that regard.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

Well, I still think that's a stretch. The persona is entirely "based" on the dominant function? Really now...I mean, if that were true, it would probably be pretty easy to type a person from the persona (that being said, in some cases, maybe it might be, but frankly, Jung usually classified those people as those with inflated egos). I mean, you can get a bunch of people in one family with the same personas, but all different types. One I've seen before is the family of intellectuals, where everyone acts kind of intellectual, but they're all totally different types (as in, have a different dominant function differentiated). I'm pretty sure the dad in that family is an INTP, the mom an INFP, and the daughters both INFPs. By persona, I mean like social image (e.g. the artistic shy recluse, etc.).


----------



## Kris312 (Dec 7, 2012)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> First off, I'm being deliberately misinterpreted (I never said he was "wrong").


You did say he was spreading misinformation, and thus that he is misinformed. Since being misinformed is akin to being false, you certainly did say he was "wrong". This is an inescapable fact.

Also, your arguments consist almost entirely of ad hominem. It is also stunningly clear that you have some sort of ill-conceived personal vendetta against him, which would cloud your position; this is a shame, because you bring up many valid and sound points. I agree with a lot of what you're saying.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

Kris312 said:


> You did say he was spreading misinformation, and thus that he is misinformed. Since being misinformed is akin to being false, you certainly did say he was "wrong". This is an inescapable fact.
> 
> Also, your arguments consist almost entirely of ad hominem. It is also stunningly clear that you have some sort of ill-conceived personal vendetta against him, which would cloud your position; this is a shame, because you bring up many valid and sound points. I agree with a lot of what you're saying.


No, he's not "wrong" in his logical conclusions, he's just spreading misinformation that way, because due to some of his claims, he's obviously not informed about various things of great importance, like the difference between the persona and ego and how this relates to type. He's stretching the truth about how closely associated the persona is with the dominant function.


----------



## Kris312 (Dec 7, 2012)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> No, he's not "wrong" in his logical conclusions, he's just spreading misinformation that way, because due to some of his claims, he's obviously not informed about various things of great importance


If he's not "wrong", then he would be spreading correct information. Correct information is usually regarded as being right. It therefore follows that he's right, and that you're the one who is wrong. Is that what you're saying, that you're wrong? That's a very compelling argument.


----------



## MegaTuxRacer (Sep 7, 2011)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> Well, I still think that's a stretch. The persona is entirely "based" on the dominant function? Really now...I mean, if that were true, it would probably be pretty easy to type a person from the persona (that being said, in some cases, maybe it might be, but frankly, Jung usually classified those people as those with inflated egos). I mean, you can get a bunch of people in one family with the same personas, but all different types. One I've seen before is the family of intellectuals, where everyone acts kind of intellectual, but they're all totally different types (as in, have a different dominant function differentiated). I'm pretty sure the dad in that family is an INTP, the mom an INFP, and the daughters both INFPs. By persona, I mean like social image (e.g. the artistic shy recluse, etc.).


You're conflating "built upon" with "growing from the seed of". There's a big difference. The foundation of something is the structure upon which it stands. That doesn't at all imply that someone who is dominant Fe is going to archetypically be your stereotypical ExFJ. A lot of people think I am archetypically an INTJ in more ways than I am an ENTP upon first glance. When they spend more time with me, it becomes clear to them that I am Ne dominant. Most of that persona I project has more to do with environment than hereditary traits. However, the non-hereditary parts--the functions being a big part of that (the only part I can distinguish really) and particularly Ne--form the base upon which that is built. That's what he's saying.


----------



## Anubis (Nov 30, 2011)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> @_FixationForcep_
> 
> Cut in out (and grow up, this IS a Jung forum for those interested in accuracy from sources as well). First off, this "misinforming" has been going on long enough with @_Abraxas_ around here that I think someone needs to speak up. Secondly, nothing I said outright contradicts anything he said, it's an improvement on it. There are too many contradictions in what he's saying relative to what the MBTI experts say (like the aux. being an "agenda" function - I mean, what does that even mean? (and please @_Abraxas_, don't call me stupid for not getting you - prove that you get you or better yet, the theories). I thought the head honcho of a type is the dominant or the tert. is said to be a secret agenda function according to Dr. John Beebe).


Ahhh, come on man, I'm not trying to make ya feel bad. It's just that you can _only_ get boners from the ideas of Jung and JungyesMbTIno. Other ideas and possibilities aren't very stimulating, right?


----------



## Peter (Feb 27, 2010)

Abraxas said:


> I feel more confident talking about this function attitude since I've come to believe I've identified it within my own personality and the personalities of others.
> 
> There is a distinct difference between Fe in the lead role as the dominant function and Fe in the auxiliary role. Whatever function ends up being dominant dramatically shapes and influences the way in which all the other functions manifest themselves. Therefore, we ought to regard the dominant function as the basis for the entire persona of the individual, the focal lens through which everything else about that person is filtered through.
> 
> ...


Basically what you´re saying is that the position of a function determines what it does.

Yes, I agree with that, sort of!

The position of the function is important because it determines what input information it has to deal with. In the second position, the information a function deals with includes what the first function has come up with as well. In the first position, a function deals just with what has been perceived. (it may use past experiences in order to process this information, but it's information that has no additional information from other functions.)

So Fe in the first position is totally different from Fe in the second position.

I like that you bring this up because a lot of people (like 99% of them) seem to think that Functions do what they do regardless of their position. They also often think that they use different functions for different situations. Also something that is totally wrong. It's virtually impossible to deal with situations using just one function. Only instant reactions may be the result of 1 function only and I'm pretty sure that will then always be the main function of the person. Luckily the brain is full of inhibition procedures to prevent that from happening too often. :happy:

Actually many instant reactions have specialized areas of the brain and are so automatic no cognitive function really is involved. But it's possible that depending on your main function, one has certain instant reactions more developed than others. So indirectly there's still a relationship between them.


----------



## mental blockstack (Dec 15, 2011)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> now, since you're an INFJ, you put <3s in your posts, like that actually says something about your type, LOL


lol, to be honest that was the first thing I noticed too. Along with the kawaii avatar. Not going intentionally ad-hominem at'um, just noticeable how it happens to coincide with the change.

Yeah, the lead function seems to be kind of the person's "identity," with the auxiliary doing its creative handy work.


----------

