# The order of functions



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> The order of the functions, to me, in MBTI, is way too vaguely presented. MBTI acts like dominant, aux., tert., and inferior as mere labels capture the primary reality of these functions in people, and I think that's totally wrong. Jung loosely referred to one as "dominant," etc. just to specify a person's orientation to the world via the function when trying to figure out who actually uses it as a dominant vs. an inferior, as he would have called aux./tert./inferior (I'm not sure if he ever brought up the word tertiary at all - from what I recall from Ch. 10 PTs, he didn't and Jungian analyst Marie Von Franz just refers to the middle functions as "auxes"). The reason the auxes are called auxes at all would mainly be because these help the primary _orientation_ of the person, not because they are "orders/ranks of orientation" a person will _prefer_ (MBTI's favorite word) as alternate orientations to the dominant (in terms of ego goals, a person will probably have preferences or expectations around certain functions over others, but that isn't stopping the others from entering the picture). There is no dominant without the inferior though, but there can still be a dominant without conscious auxes (not the best-case scenario, but I'm pretty sure Jung referred to this). I personally think the functions largely represent the will of individuals, even the inferior. This makes me think that the functions are not really concrete entities (they're more like codifications for mentalities built around the concepts of sensation, intuition, thinking, and feeling) - they're just ways a person directs their thoughts that everyone has access to and does more or less consciously.


As usual, JungyesMBTIno, there's a lot more smoke than light in the quoted post.

Jung believed that a _typical_ person had an auxiliary function that played a significant conscious (albeit less conscious than the dominant) role in supplementing the dominant. "For all the types met with in practice," he explained in Chapter X, "the rule holds good that besides the conscious, primary function there is a relatively unconscious, auxiliary function which is in every respect different from the nature of the primary function."

As for the tertiary, he went on to note that "the unconscious functions [— i.e., the tertiary and inferior functions—] likewise group themselves in patterns correlated with the conscious ones. Thus, the correlative of conscious, practical thinking [— i.e., a T-dom with an auxiliary S —] may be an unconscious, intuitive-feeling attitude, with feeling under a stronger inhibition than intuition [— i.e., a tertiary N and an inferior F.]"

In _Individual Dream Symbolism in Relation to Alchemy_ (1952), Jung said:



Jung said:


> If we think of the psychological function as arranged in a circle, then the most differentiated function is usually the carrier of the ego and, equally regularly, has an auxiliary function attached to it. The 'inferior' function, on the other hand, is unconscious and for that reason is projected into a non-ego. It too has an auxiliary function. ...
> 
> In the psychology of the functions [in a man,] there are two conscious and therefore masculine functions, the differentiated function and its auxiliary, which are represented in dreams by, say, father and son, whereas the unconscious functions appear as mother and daughter. Since the conflict between the two auxiliary functions is not nearly as great as that between the differentiated and the inferior function, it is possible for the third function — that is, the unconscious auxiliary one — to be raised to consciousness and thus made masculine. It will, however, bring with it traces of its contamination with the inferior function, thus acting as a kind of link with the darkness of the unconscious.




As noted in my last post, I don't think anybody would disagree that Myers' and Jung's descriptions of the functions were substantially different in multiple ways. But your posts show little understanding of the nature of the differences. Jung certainly believed that the auxiliary and tertiary functions typically had important roles to play (and _different_ roles), his perspective wasn't significantly less hierarchical than Myers', and I'd say his perspective wasn't significantly less "vague" than Myers either — which may be part of the reason you're as confused as you are.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

reckful said:


> As usual, JungyesMBTIno, there's a lot more smoke than light in the quoted post.
> 
> Jung believed that a _typical_ person had an auxiliary function that played a significant conscious (albeit less conscious than the dominant) role in supplementing the dominant. "For all the types met with in practice," he explained in Chapter X, "the rule holds good that besides the conscious, primary function there is a relatively unconscious, auxiliary function which is in every respect different from the nature of the primary function."
> 
> ...


Sure Jung said all of this. So my question to you is, what does it actually mean (and I don't want your subjective opinions, which I'm getting a lot of)? Frankly, I think Jung would say nothing more than what he just stated.


----------



## myjazz (Feb 17, 2010)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> I have no idea what the INTJ example means at all. Any type can state cold, hard facts (I think Te types in general, dom-inferior, are more likely to bluntly state facts, just because they operate from a "your feelings are your business, mine are mine" mentality with Fi). I have also never met an INTJ who comes off as "cold" by accident (same with inferior F types for that matter). I have heard it said though that Ni doms might seem a bit distant at times, just because they tend to "live in their heads" so much and tend to distance themselves from present conditions, so they might seem like they're not connecting with the people around them (same goes with Si doms). That's all a bunch of cartoonish nonsense. I've met some dominant Fs who are pretty blank and emotionless. This all mainly just sounds like a general Fe orientation that can apply to any Fe type.


I think the part after I mentioned INTJ can clear this up "Now lets say an INTJ is the opposite of this they desire logic over emotional consideration or Thinking over Feeling. This is why , not just INTJ's no pointing any one or type out. 
You mention by "accident" clarify?
By what you said in your post such as "I've met some dominant Fs who are pretty blank and emotionless" . For starters if you read what I posted and read what I posted previously could help clear this up. F type has nothing to do with having emotions !!!!!!!!!!!!
I think you missed my whole point so I will summarize it.... F types prefer Feelings over Thinking while implying logic. T types prefer Thinking over Feelings while implying logic. To add more clarification Feelings does NOT mean having emotion's and Thinking does not mean having a thought or capacity to think.


----------



## myjazz (Feb 17, 2010)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> Sure Jung said all of this. So my question to you is, what does it actually mean (and I don't want your subjective opinions, which I'm getting a lot of)? Frankly, I think Jung would say nothing more than what he just stated.


Honestly I was see a lot of "subject" personal beliefs coming from you than anyone else so far in this thread.


----------



## myjazz (Feb 17, 2010)

Also am I the only one who is even attempting to help clarify the OP question?
Sure so far I started with the easy part F and T, hey gotta start somewhere right....


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

myjazz said:


> Honestly I was see a lot of "subject" personal beliefs coming from you than anyone else so far in this thread.


No, I'm just giving interpretations. That other guy is trying to convince me that I have comprehension problems with Jung and MBTI, which I don't (I've worked through those a long time ago).


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

> Jung believed that a _typical person had an auxiliary function that played a significant conscious (albeit less conscious than the dominant) role in supplementing the dominant_


By "typical," Jung meant someone with a dominant function, not typical in the ordinary sense of the word.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

myjazz said:


> I think the part after I mentioned INTJ can clear this up "Now lets say an INTJ is the opposite of this they desire logic over emotional consideration or Thinking over Feeling. This is why , not just INTJ's no pointing any one or type out.
> You mention by "accident" clarify?
> By what you said in your post such as "I've met some dominant Fs who are pretty blank and emotionless" . For starters if you read what I posted and read what I posted previously could help clear this up. F type has nothing to do with having emotions !!!!!!!!!!!!
> I think you missed my whole point so I will summarize it.... F types prefer Feelings over Thinking while implying logic. T types prefer Thinking over Feelings while implying logic. To add more clarification Feelings does NOT mean having emotion's and Thinking does not mean having a thought or capacity to think.


Woa, what? I mean, INTJs aren't even inferior F types - I don't know why they're coming up in your example as people who will squash "emotional" reasoning. I see what you're saying, but it's too vague to assign to type (I mean, it's not true that even inferior F types don't consider what you're getting at, but they just repress their relationship to actively engaging from a feeling perspective by-and-large).


----------



## myjazz (Feb 17, 2010)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> Woa, what? I mean, INTJs aren't even inferior F types - I don't know why they're coming up in your example as people who will squash "emotional" reasoning.


I never said that INTJ's Introverted feeling is there last well 4th function aka Inferior. Your lack of basic understanding of cognitive functioning and comprehending what people say is the reason why you do not know why they're coming up in an example. Is this really just a way to try to redeem yourself from not reading what I said in the first place. Honestly no matter what type as my example you would be acting the same....troll much? The functions of an INTJ and INFJ is in big bold and mostly blue print below. Now can you really concur in a none troll way, what you are saying to be true against anything I said. If so please do.
*INTJ*

*Dominant: Introverted Intuition**Auxiliary: Extraverted Thinking**Tertiary: Introverted Feeling**Inferior: Extraverted Sensing*


*INFJ

*
*Dominant: Introverted Intuition**Auxiliary: Extraverted Feeling**Tertiary: Introverted Thinking**Inferior: Extraverted Sensing*


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

myjazz said:


> I never said that INTJ's Introverted feeling is there last well 4th function aka Inferior. Your lack of basic understanding of cognitive functioning and comprehending what people say is the reason why you do not know why they're coming up in an example. Is this really just a way to try to redeem yourself from not reading what I said in the first place. Honestly no matter what type as my example you would be acting the same....troll much? The functions of an INTJ and INFJ is in big bold and mostly blue print below. Now can you really concur in a none troll way, what you are saying to be true against anything I said. If so please do.
> *INTJ*
> 
> *Dominant: Introverted Intuition**Auxiliary: Extraverted Thinking**Tertiary: Introverted Feeling**Inferior: Extraverted Sensing*
> ...


I'm not arguing against your point. I just literally see no point here. I mean, sure, this is the MBTI perspective (if you can even call it a perspective - more like some kind of metric to quantify navigating through the functions in an almost nursery rhyme fashion of thinking), but Jung indeed did have a strikingly different perspective on this stuff (after all, it was in Ch. 10 that Jung stated that the aux functions are merely just developed perspectives people are likely to have outside of the dominant one - it wasn't even an imperative for people to have them clearly developed - that's how he started that paragraph on using the aux. to get to the inferior function in analysis with type).


----------



## myjazz (Feb 17, 2010)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> I'm not arguing against your point. I just literally see no point here. I mean, sure, this is the MBTI perspective (if you can even call it a perspective - more like some kind of metric to quantify navigating through the functions in an almost nursery rhyme fashion of thinking), but Jung indeed did have a strikingly different perspective on this stuff (after all, it was in Ch. 10 that Jung stated that the aux functions are merely just developed perspectives people are likely to have outside of the dominant one - it wasn't even an imperative for people to have them clearly developed - that's how he started that paragraph on using the aux. to get to the inferior function in analysis with type).


Ok lets go Jung then,
*The Extraverted Thinking Type
*It is a fact of experience that all the basic psychological functions seldom or never have the same strength or grade of development in one and the same individual. As a rule, one or other function predominates, in both strength and development. When _supremacy _among the psychological functions is given to thinking,_ i.e._ when the life of an individual is mainly ruled by reflective thinking so that every important action proceeds from intellectually considered motives, or when there is at least a tendency to conform to such motives, we may fairly call this a _thinking type. _Such a type can be either introverted or extraverted. We will first discuss the _extraverted thinking type._
In accordance with his definition, we must picture a, man whose constant aim -- in so far, of course, as he is a [p. 435] pure type -- is to bring his total life-activities into relation with intellectual conclusions, which in the last resort are always orientated by objective data, whether objective facts or generally valid ideas. This type of man gives the deciding voice-not merely for himself alone but also on behalf of his entourage-either to the actual objective reality or to its objectively orientated, intellectual formula. By this formula are good and evil measured, and beauty and ugliness determined. All is right that corresponds with this formula; all is wrong that contradicts it; and everything that is neutral to it is purely accidental. Because this formula seems to correspond with the meaning of the world, it also becomes a world-law whose realization must be achieved at all times and seasons, both individually and collectively. Just as the extraverted thinking type subordinates himself to his formula, so, for its own good, must his entourage also obey it, since the man who refuses to obey is wrong -- he is resisting the world-law, and is, therefore, unreasonable, immoral, and without a conscience. His moral code forbids him to tolerate exceptions; his ideal must, under all circumstances, be realized; for in his eyes it is the purest conceivable formulation of objective reality, and, therefore, must also be generally valid truth, quite indispensable for the salvation of man. This is not from any great love for his neighbour, but from a higher standpoint of justice and truth. Everything in his own nature that appears to invalidate this formula is mere imperfection, an accidental miss-fire, something to be eliminated on the next occasion, or, in the event of further failure, then clearly a sickness.
If tolerance for the sick, the suffering, or the deranged should chance to be an ingredient in the formula, special provisions will be devised for humane societies, hospitals, prisons, colonies, etc., or at least extensive plans for such projects. For the actual execution of these schemes the [p. 436] motives of justice and truth do not, as a rule, suffice; still devolve upon real Christian charity, which I to do with feeling than with any intellectual 'One really should' or I one must' figure largely in this programme. If the formula is wide enough, it may play a very useful rôle in social life, with a reformer or a ventilator of public wrongs or a purifier of the public conscience, or as the propagator of important innovations. But the more rigid the formula, the more, does he develop into a grumbler, a crafty reasoner, and a self-righteous critic, who would like to impress both himself and others into one schema.



Since feelings are the first to oppose and contradict [p. 438] the rigid intellectual formula, they are affected first this conscious inhibition, and upon them the most intense repression falls. No function can be entirely eliminated -- it can only be greatly distorted. In so far as feelings allow themselves to be arbitrarily shaped and subordinated, they have to support the intellectual conscious attitude and adapt themselves to its aims. Only to a certain degree, however, is this possible; a part of the feeling remains insubordinate, and therefore must be repressed. Should the repression succeed, it disappears from consciousness and proceeds to unfold a subconscious activity, which runs counter to conscious aims, even producing effects whose causation is a complete enigma to the individual. For example, conscious altruism, often of an extremely high order, may be crossed by a secret self-seeking, of which the individual is wholly unaware, and which impresses intrinsically unselfish actions with the stamp of selfishness. Purely ethical aims may lead the individual into critical situations, which sometimes have more than a semblance of being decided by quite other than ethical motives. There are guardians of public morals or voluntary rescue-workers who suddenly find themselves in deplorably compromising situations, or in dire need of rescue. Their resolve to save often leads them to employ means which only tend to precipitate what they most desire to avoid. There are extraverted idealists, whose desire to advance the salvation of man is so consuming that they will not shrink from any lying and dishonest means in the pursuit of their ideal. There are a few painful examples in science where investigators of the highest esteem, from a profound conviction of the truth and general validity of their formula, have not scrupled to falsify evidence in favour of their ideal. This is sanctioned by the formula; the end justifieth the means. Only an inferior feeling-function, operating seductively [p. 439] and unconsciously, could bring about such aberrations in otherwise reputable men.

The inferiority of feeling in this type manifests itself also in other ways. In so far as it corresponds with the dominating positive formula, the conscious attitude becomes more or less impersonal, often, indeed, to such a degree that a very considerable wrong is done to personal interests. When the conscious attitude is extreme, all personal considerations recede from view, even those which concern the individual's own person. His health is neglected, his social position deteriorates, often the most vital interests of his family are violated -- they are wronged morally and financially, even their bodily health is made to suffer -- all in the service of the ideal. At all events personal sympathy with others must be impaired, unless they too chance to be in the service of the same formula. Hence it not infrequently happens that his immediate family circle, his own children for instance, only know such a father as a cruel tyrant, whilst the outer world resounds with the fame of his humanity. Not so much in spite of as because of the highly impersonal character of the conscious attitude, the unconscious feelings are highly personal and oversensitive, giving rise to certain secret prejudices, as, for instance, a decided readiness to misconstrue any objective opposition to his formula as personal ill-will, or a constant tendency to make negative suppositions regarding the qualities of others in order to invalidate their arguments beforehand-in defence, naturally, of his own susceptibility. As a result of this unconscious sensitiveness, his expression and tone frequently becomes sharp, pointed, aggressive, and insinuations multiply. The feelings have an untimely and halting character, which is always a mark of the inferior function. Hence arises a pronounced tendency to resentment. However generous the individual sacrifice [p. 440] to the intellectual goal may be, the feelings are correspondingly petty, suspicious, crossgrained, and conservative. Everything new that is not already contained formula is viewed through a veil of unconscious and is judged accordingly. It happened only in middle of last century that a certain physician, famed his humanitarianism, threatened to dismiss an assistant for daring to use a thermometer, because the formula decreed that fever shall be recognized by the pulse. There are, of course, a host of similar examples.
Thinking which in other respects may be altogether blameless becomes all the more subtly and prejudicially, affected, the more feelings are repressed. An intellectual standpoint, which, perhaps on account of its actual intrinsic value, might justifiably claim general recognition, undergoes a characteristic alteration through the influence of this unconscious personal sensitiveness; it becomes rigidly dogmatic. The personal self-assertion is transferred to the intellectual standpoint. Truth is no longer left to work her natural effect, but through an identification with the subject she is treated like a sensitive darling whom an evil-minded critic has wronged. The critic is demolished, if possible with personal invective, and no argument is too gross to be used against him. Truth must be trotted out, until finally it begins to dawn upon the public that it is not so much really a question of truth as of her personal procreator.


----------



## myjazz (Feb 17, 2010)

Now did anything I say go against Jung. Quit the contrary...So care to try again


----------

