# How to break a cognitive loops



## CounterPoint (Oct 13, 2010)

In replying to @_JungyesMBTIno's_ thread, I came up with a theory that a good way to break a cognitive loop is to troll the secondary function in order to get it to react, like jump starting an engine of a car.

A loop is just jargon for saying that extraverts ignore their internal values and introverts lose interest in the external world. A type needs balance between I/E values to be healthy. The secondary function gives extraverts an internal perspective and introverts an external perspective. 

When looping, the secondary function loses confidence and the type loses this balance. To break the loop, the secondary function needs to reassert itself (extraverts are reminded of whats important to them personally, and introverts are reminded of external obligations). 

My theory is you can do this by trolling the secondary, to piss it off by showing how a type is contradicting values inherent within the function. This will give the secondary attitude an emergent need to defend itself and in the process reaffirm those values. 

For instance, to get an IFJ out of a TI loop (being cold, overly technical or self focused), say something like: "why don’t care about anyone else but yourself?"

This statement is in direct contrast to what Fe stands for. However, what you say is not the point, the point is to do something that reminds them of the FE. The idea is that the IFJ will try to prove you wrong by reasserting their FE values and in the process break the loop. 

That’s the theory. Someone please rip it apart (thoughts, opinions, reactions?)


----------



## psynite (Feb 7, 2011)

I have been told that ('why don't you care about anyone else but yourself?') on numerous occasions, and it does one of two things. It makes me resent everything and withdraw deeper defensively, and/or it makes me see where the person is coming from. So it can go either way, but more likely it would provoke a defensive response when you aggravate the person so bluntly.


----------



## CounterPoint (Oct 13, 2010)

psynite said:


> I have been told that ('why don't you care about anyone else but yourself?') on numerous occasions, and it does one of two things. It makes me resent everything and withdraw deeper defensively, and/or it makes me see where the person is coming from. So it can go either way, but more likely it would provoke a defensive response when you aggravate the person so bluntly.



Hmm, good point. I guess it can do the exact opposite lol. 

But, here is the thing; a loop is basically an addiction to comfort, so to break a loop will feel very intrusive and uncomfortable. In this sense, maybe the extra dose of antagonism is necessary in a “look in the mirror” kind of way. The trolling need not be blunt, btw, just as long as it puts the secondary function back into the looper’s frame of reference, even if it causes them to withdraw even more (as long as they start evaluating it from a secondary perspective).


----------



## zynthaxx (Aug 12, 2009)

@CounterPoint:
The thought is good. The problem is that the subject must _want_ to break the loop. As you say, the loop is an addiction to comfort. If the avoidance of discomfort is pathological in the subject, trolling the secondary function will only have the effect of further withdrawal, as @psynite wrote.
I therefore argue that trolling the secondary function only works for a generally healthy individual who has relapsed into a loop, not for one who's never been outside it.


----------



## CounterPoint (Oct 13, 2010)

Thanks for the replies.

Yeah, I was writing from a standpoint of a situational loop, brought on by normal stressors. From a pathological perspective, a deep seeded loop, the type would probably do more than just devalue their secondary, but perhaps even project against it (speculating). 

I guess the question here is what happens to the secondary when in a loop? Is it just weakened, or is it completely suppressed and inaccessible? 

Other insights would be appreciated.


----------



## Kevinaswell (May 6, 2009)

Why would I want to troll myself into doing boring crap?

Is this a new form of trolling OP?

"WHY YOU TROLLING YOURSELF--WHY YOU TROLLING YOURSELF?!?!"


----------



## CounterPoint (Oct 13, 2010)

lol...

Well, the basis of the theory is that the best way to evoke a function is to annoy it. So if a type is in a loop and have lost access to the function, then trolling it will wake it up. What says your Ti about the issue?


----------



## Kevinaswell (May 6, 2009)

CounterPoint said:


> lol...
> 
> Well, the basis of the theory is that the best way to evoke a function is to annoy it. So if a type is in a loop and have lost access to the function, then trolling it will wake it up. What says your Ti about the issue?


I don't believe in the concept of cognitive functions within the MBTI model, it's baseless in objective reality.

But in reality all you're saying is in order to overcome apparent flaws that you don't like within your own personality (an obvious cognitive split----completely irrelevent to the MBTI model, but instead a psychological phenomenon that's the result of having two hemispheres), all you have to do is troll yourself with an internal dialogue that contradicts your dominant stance on the issue/situation/whatever.

It's some good speculation, but you're diving into the super complicated field of attitude change---one of my favorite sub-fields of psychology. You should google the field if you're into this stuff, I won't go nuts with it in this post. I'll just say I promise if attitude change were so easy, the world would be a very different place today.

To keep it simple I don't think there's too much to the idea... mostly because it just doesn't make much sense. 

You're treating each silly pseudo--''mbti cognitive function'' as it's own little mini-entity in human minds, it's seeming to me.

Which is just so far from how minds actually work.....

Sigh. This is why I despise MBTI/Enneagram/etc for making such unrealistic models so appealing to people looking for anwers about themselves and loved ones. Truly evil shit if you ask me.


----------



## CounterPoint (Oct 13, 2010)

Kevinaswell said:


> Sigh. This is why I despise MBTI/Enneagram/etc for making such unrealistic models so appealing to people looking for anwers about themselves and loved ones. Truly evil shit if you ask me.


I actually agree with you. Most of the time I’m convinced we’re fooling ourselves with randomness, especially when it comes to applying the theory to others. But, what JCF _*is *_ useful for is offering a starting point for introspection, a specific set of taxonomy that one can zoom in on for self improvement. Anything more than that and you might fall in a rabbit whole or get stuck in a circle jerk constantly second guessing your identity.

That said, a little speculation and theorizing never hurt. 



> I'll just say I promise if attitude change were so easy, the world would be a very different place today.
> 
> To keep it simple I don't think there's too much to the idea... mostly because it just doesn't make much sense.
> 
> ...


Point well taken.


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

CounterPoint said:


> In replying to @_JungyesMBTIno's_ thread, I came up with a theory that a good way to break a cognitive loop is to troll the secondary function in order to get it to react, like jump starting an engine of a car.
> 
> A loop is just jargon for saying that extraverts ignore their internal values and introverts lose interest in the external world. A type needs balance between I/E values to be healthy. The secondary function gives extraverts an internal perspective and introverts an external perspective.


This is probably the only thing I have seen about the so-called loop theory that actually makes sense to me, and coincides with Jung's theory. So I ask facetiously before one gets out of the loop, no one has given a viable theory of what it is like to be in that loop. I argue again that the introverted auxiliary (or tertiary) doesn't have enough power to sustain a loop with a dominant function-attitude. 

So can someone explain why they are actually using a function at all in this scenario, instead of recognizing the obvious that you are merely using your introversion or extraversion attitude alone with no function present? Of course most cannot because although they want to use Dr. Jung's terminology, they prefer to use MBTI tools to work the terminology. Again, and again, and again, Dr. Jung says the attitude develops at birth, the function (if it ever occurs is developed through habit) which could take years to develop. Not only is there no guarantee that a function develops, there is no promise that it ever becomes differentiated. 

What does everyone think Jung was referring to when discussing the *conscious*/*unconscious*? He is discussing a function, it was pure attitude (E/I). If a function is connected here then it is still not a loop, but an imbalance of using just the dominant function-attitude. So for one to obtain this so-called loop, Jung makes clear what is occurring:


> This, of course, does not exclude the fact that individuals certainly exist in whom functions stand upon the same [p. 515] level, whereby both have equal motive power in consciousness. But, in such a case, there is also no question of a differentiated type, but merely of a relatively undeveloped function. Uniform consciousness and unconsciousness of functions is, therefore, a distinguishing mark of a primitive mentality.


So if are going to use this theory, at least follow the principles of type. There is a clear explanation of what is occurring that at best takes only one function-attitude whereby the user is simply imbalanced, or as CounterPoint starts this thread, it's not the use of a function at all, instead the naturalness of one using only their attitude.

But let's say for the sake of argument that the functions do come into play in this scenario, the question becomes are we actually using the tertiary function? Dr. Jung also indicates:


> The products of all the functions can be conscious, but we speak of the consciousness of a function only when not merely its application is at the disposal of the will, but when at the same time its principle is decisive for the orientation of consciousness. The latter event is true when, for instance, thinking is not a mere rumination, but when its decisions possess an absolute validity, so that the logical conclusion in a given case holds good, whether as motive or as guarantee of practical action, without the backing of any further evidence.
> 
> This absolute sovereignty always belongs, empirically, to one function alone, and can belong only to one function, since the equally independent intervention of another function would necessarily yield a different orientation, which would at least partially contradict the first. But, since it is a vital condition for the conscious adaptation-process that constantly clear and unambiguous aims should be in evidence, the presence of a second function of equivalent power is naturally forbidden. This other function, therefore, can have only a secondary importance, a fact which is also established empirically. Its secondary importance consists in the fact that, in a given case, it is not valid in its own right, as is the primary function, as an absolutely reliable and decisive factor, but comes into play more as an auxiliary or complementary function.


So if we speak of any sort of loop, I concede not only is the extraverted auxiliary neutralized for introverting types and vice-versa for extraverting types, but the unconscious attitude is neutralized, leaving it possible that all functions using the same attitude can be possibly used. So it's not a dom-tert loop, it's an introverted or extraverted loop. But Jung merely calls this phenomenon the natural over use of our conscious attitude.


----------



## CounterPoint (Oct 13, 2010)

Wow that was heavy lol. I'm not well read on Jung. As you alluded to, when describing the loop in the op, I had the tertiary temptation in mind. As far as I can tell from the examples in the book, the loop is a temporary state and the aux. is still accessible (what’s missing from the examples, of course, is the how). But I agree, this theory is pretty much useless until we can agree on how to define what a loop actually entails. 

As an aside, Thomson also agrees that equal or “balanced” use of functions is considered maladaptive.


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

CounterPoint said:


> Wow that was heavy lol. I'm not well read on Jung. As you alluded to, when describing the loop in the op, I had the tertiary temptation in mind. As far as I can tell from the examples in the book, the loop is a temporary state and the aux. is still accessible (what’s missing from the examples, of course, is the how). But I agree, this theory is pretty much useless until we can agree on how to define what a loop actually entails.
> 
> As an aside, Thomson also agrees that equal or “balanced” use of functions is considered maladaptive.


"Personality Type: An Owner's Manual" by Lenore Thomson is a hybrid between wanting to bridge Dr. Jung with Myers & Briggs, by using function-attitudes. The problem is anytime you place the function first (MBT), it makes for a completely different theory.

I see functions like observing whether an infant is left or right handed. It appears that the child may use either hand until at some point you notice they prefer a dominant hand. We use E/I at birth. It may not become noticeable until the child is several months old. The child flails their hands reaching for things with either hand. All functions are conscious, but there remains no dominant or differentiated function for years. At some point the child chooses to use judging or perceiving, then later the function becomes finite with a specific judging (T/F) or perceiving (S/N) function. The use of the specific function-attitude becomes habitual the same way habitually use our dominant hand.

Back to the dominant-tertiary theory, Dr. Jung says as an ISTP type, the Fe cannot be accessed using the Ti, and although the Ni is present, it sides with the Fe if the Ti is too dominant. That gives me an indication again that the only way a dominant tertiary loop can occur is if the dominant and extraverting auxiliary functions are weak. In that case again I ask and as you assert, are we using a function at all, or is it the use of the attitude or to a lesser degree too strong a dominant function. I have yet to see a description of this occurrence that cannot be explained as one function-attitude alone or the attitude.


----------



## Donovan (Nov 3, 2009)

if the Ti is too dominant, how would it cause the Ni to side with the Fe? are you saying that each has to be tied to another, lesser function, and because of this they would split evenly down the middle? the second to last sentence actually makes more sense to me: that you'd have to make clear what's actually happening (loop v.s. siding with dominant attitude--which is the opposite of getting caught in the grip of the inferior [in a very base sense], right?). 

i don't see why it's so hard to believe that it's possible to bypass a part of your character during a time/phase of your life in order to heal/escape/self-destruct or grow/develop something new/become a more fully fleshed-out person--i mean, don't people do that naturally all the time? we just call it "a part of life" or "growing up". 

why do our aux.'s have to be something that is inherently out of our control like our inferior (supposedly) is? the aux.'s and "ends" (dominant and infefior) wouldn't even operate the same way or at the same level, would they? the energy needed to sustain both aux.'s wouldn't even begin to match the energy needed to sustain the dominant (while repressing the inferior) because if they did they would no longer be aux.'s anyhow, so they wouldn't grow to any significant source of power within the psyche (in comparison to the dom/infer). if they don't/can't grow to any significant role because they play such a small one then maybe they're also not subject to the same rules as the dom/inferior, meaning that one would and could eventually lean more towards a function who's attitude matches that of their dominant. (although, maybe the only reason they can be "switched" up is because they are insignificant in comparison--maybe the ability to switch them is a sign that neither is preferred, which is what i think you were getting at based on Thompson. beware that sort of thinking though, i've never really heard any reason to believe the opposite, and not having a clearly _apparent _prefrence doesn't mean that a prefrence doesn't exist). 

i'm personally all for a "loop" in the sense that you may act ouside of you norm in an unconscious attemtp to foster growth 

edit: (i think what people really get hung up on are terms and miscommunications which is understandable since just about every word/descriptive process has about 4 popular definitions depending on who you talk to, not to mention that two people can vehemently argue about something only to realize that their "subjective" defintions, how they understood something, can actually completely match another's "subjective" definition once both are brought out into an objective light).


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

CounterPoint said:


> In replying to @_JungyesMBTIno's_ thread, I came up with a theory that a good way to break a cognitive loop is to troll the secondary function in order to get it to react, like jump starting an engine of a car.
> 
> A loop is just jargon for saying that extraverts ignore their internal values and introverts lose interest in the external world. A type needs balance between I/E values to be healthy. The secondary function gives extraverts an internal perspective and introverts an external perspective.
> 
> ...


Cool that I inspired you! Okay, I fundamentally like the idea - it's reasonable at least when viewing the idea of loops at face value which is possible, because it is getting at a very realistic phenomena anyhow. The loop theory in-and-of-itself is a controversial one though, largely because it implies that a person can be two different personalities at once that correspond to the person's natural I/E orientation, which really should not be possible in terms of preference (I mean, that would mean that a person has multiple personalities - their ego would be the dominant function, and the tertiary function would essentially be the person's alter-ego, which would uproot the inferior function from inferior status, which isn't possible). Also, the loop theory implies that the tert. function should act like an inferior function with the same orientation to the dominant if it's causing the loop, which would be a killer to the dominant function (everything about the dominant function has to be supported by the tert. function, since it's in the same orientation as the dominant, giving the dominant power over it in all circumstances - if they're occupying the same space together). It also guarantees that the aux. function will always save you from your "loops," which is a ridiculous imperative to assign to the aux function - where can the line be drawn between healthy dom/tert loops and unproductive ones? Either way you look at this, it has to be very carefully defined.


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

celticstained said:


> if the Ti is too dominant, how would it cause the Ni to side with the Fe? are you saying that each has to be tied to another, lesser function, and because of this they would split evenly down the middle? the second to last sentence actually makes more sense to me: that you'd have to make clear what's actually happening (loop v.s. siding with dominant attitude--which is the opposite of getting caught in the grip of the inferior [in a very base sense], right?).


Okay let’s make sure everyone understands that, I am not saying anything. It is Dr. Jung who makes the claim during an interview, which was pasted in the Carl Jung thread months ago:


> As a natural scientist, thinking and sensation were uppermost in me and intuition and feeling were in the unconscious and contaminated by the collective unconscious. You cannot get directly to the inferior function from the superior, it must always be via the auxiliary function. It is as though the unconscious were in such antagonism to the superior function that it allowed no direct attack. The process of working through auxiliary functions goes on somewhat as follows: Suppose you have sensation strongly developed but are not fanatical about it. Then you can admit about every situation a certain aura of possibilities; that is to say, you permit an intuitive element to come in. Sensation as an auxiliary function would allow intuition to exist. But inasmuch as sensation (in the example) is a partisan of the intellect, intuition sides with the feeling, here the inferior function. Therefore the intellect will not agree with intuition, in this case, and will vote for its exclusion. Intellect will not hold together sensation and intuition, rather it will separate them. Such a destructive attempt will be checked by feeling, which backs up intuition.
> 
> Looking at it the other way around, if you are an intuitive type, you can't get to your sensations directly. They are full of monsters, and so you have to go by way of your intellect or feeling, whichever is the auxiliary in the conscious. it needs very cool reasoning for such a man to keep himself down to reality. To sum up then, the way is from the superior to the auxiliary, from the latter to the function opposite to the auxiliary. Usually this first conflict that is aroused between the auxiliary function in the conscious and its opposite function in the unconscious is the fight that takes place in analysis. This may be called the preliminary conflict. The knock-down battle between the superior and inferior functions only takes place in life. In the example of the intellectual sensation type, I suggested the preliminary conflict would be between sensation and intuition, and the final fight between intellect and feeling.





celticstained said:


> i don't see why it's so hard to believe that it's possible to bypass a part of your character during a time/phase of your life in order to heal/escape/self-destruct or grow/develop something new/become a more fully fleshed-out person--i mean, don't people do that naturally all the time? we just call it "a part of life" or "growing up".
> 
> why do our aux.'s have to be something that is inherently out of our control like our inferior (supposedly) is? the aux.'s and "ends" (dominant and infefior) wouldn't even operate the same way or at the same level, would they? the energy needed to sustain both aux.'s wouldn't even begin to match the energy needed to sustain the dominant (while repressing the inferior) because if they did they would no longer be aux.'s anyhow, so they wouldn't grow to any significant source of power within the psyche (in comparison to the dom/infer).


Uh…. no. We develop a dominant function (not attitude) out of habit the same way we develop a left or right handed dominant, at some point as a toddler. Although one may teach themselves to be ambidextrous in some things, they still have a dominant hand which reacts. The more it becomes habitual the less conscious we are in using our dominant hand. If you pick up something to throw at a target by reacting, you are going to use your dominant hand. If you do use the other hand not only does it require you to expend energy in the motion used to throw it, but you also have to expend energy to focus on the targeted area. Function-attitudes work the same in my opinion, so contrary to the assertion being made the dominant (if truly developed and has been differentiated as the dominant) is not using energy. It will take far more energy to use a lesser function-attitude. That should be evidenced even in MBTI theory when it is claimed that an introvert will tire quickly from using too much extraversion and an extravert will tire quickly from having to go within too much. 


celticstained said:


> if they don't/can't grow to any significant role because they play such a small one then maybe they're also not subject to the same rules as the dom/inferior, meaning that one would and could eventually lean more towards a function who's attitude matches that of their dominant. (although, maybe the only reason they can be "switched" up is because they are insignificant in comparison--maybe the ability to switch them is a sign that neither is preferred, which is what i think you were getting at based on Thompson. beware that sort of thinking though, i've never really heard any reason to believe the opposite, and not having a clearly _apparent _prefrence doesn't mean that a prefrence doesn't exist).


Did you notice how often you used the word “maybe”? It never ceases to amaze me the energy expended to come up with elaborate maybes when understanding the basic principles of type takes no more effort. I don’t think anyone believes that every function-attitude has a significant role to play. But there can only be one boss (the dominant) and the remaining functions work for the dominant until a time they become conscious and differentiated themselves. Can any function-attitude develop itself to equal the dominant, of course not. If so I ask how could you discern INFJ from an ISTP, INTP from an ISFJ, or ENTP from ESFJ since based on your thoughts, their functions with the same attitude should be able to develop equally? 


celticstained said:


> i'm personally all for a "loop" in the sense that you may act ouside of you norm in an unconscious attemtp to foster growth
> 
> edit: (i think what people really get hung up on are terms and miscommunications which is understandable since just about every word/descriptive process has about 4 popular definitions depending on who you talk to, not to mention that two people can vehemently argue about something only to realize that their "subjective" defintions, how they understood something, can actually completely match another's "subjective" definition once both are brought out into an objective light).


But Celtic the man has already labeled someone acting outside of the norm. It’s called being influenced by the “Collective Unconscious” or simply playing roles. That has nothing to do with a loop and you will be the fifth person that I have asked who so adamantly endorses the loop theory, to describe what it is like to be in such a loop based on the type you believe you are without listing things that all introverts or extraverts are capable of doing at any given time. For someone that firmly believes in the theory, you as well as others should at least be able to rattle off things that must be a result of the dominant and tertiary functions alternating.


----------



## Donovan (Nov 3, 2009)

> Uh…. no. We develop a dominant function (not attitude)


but don't we develop the dominant in a particular direction that is defined by attitude? 



> That should be evidenced even in MBTI theory when it is claimed that an introvert will tire quickly from using too much extraversion and an extravert will tire quickly from having to go within too much.


but will an introvert relagate energy to a function that is in line with the attitude of their dominant and the opposite for an extrovert when they become... out of balance for lack of a better word? (i don't think i actually mentioned that the "loop" would mix attitudes, that would actually go against the basics for the theory, wouldn't it?)



> Did you notice how often you used the word “maybe”?


i actually hadn't noticed it until you pointed out--thanks. i don't know, i've never really veiwed it as a problem before but now that i know it irritates people i think i may look into sorting it out. at first i was kind of puzzled why you'd even mention it since it didn't seem to have much to do with this little discussion, but then it hit me--could this be a potential "irk-some" quality that some find in others based on their cognitive functions in relation to their own age, such as potulating as to something that is really unprovable on a site that's made for such discussion?!



> I don’t think anyone believes that every function-attitude has a significant role to play. But there can only be one boss (the dominant) and the remaining functions work for the dominant until a time they become conscious and differentiated themselves. Can any function-attitude develop itself to equal the dominant, of course not. If so I ask how could you discern INFJ from an ISTP, INTP from an ISFJ, or ENTP from ESFJ since based on your thoughts, their functions with the same attitude should be able to develop equally?


i'm not sure where this part of the paragraph even came from. where in the qouted part of my text did i say otherwise?

in any case, i don't "firmly believe" in the theory. i just think it can (possibly) explain some behaviors that crop up in people and as far as i know (which i'll admit isn't a lot, i'm not here trying to convince people of my stance by the way, more just speaking of the possibility that something may work in a way that we haven't looked at/thought of/etc.--you know, for fun ). 

so, correct me if i'm wrong, but if the main sources of energy in our psyche are the dom/infer, what is powering our aux.'s? is it residual runoff of energy that our mind just happens to put to use? if so, then then our mind's energy is being split very unevenly and the extra energy is being funneled off into a means that happens to help us. when we're first coming of age we have our dominant and our aux (may be nonexistant--i say "may" so that we can lump all levels of growth and precousiouness [sp?] under one banner and move on). is our aux. in an opposite attitude for a survival based matter, an attempt for our mind to naturally find a balance (introverts will have a "push" that causes them to extrovert and vice versa)? what about once we get older and we begin to develop our tertiary, which is aligned to the same attitude as our dominant. could we not find a sense of familiarity/security in that self-refrencing (or in the extroverted) realm that may cause us to use our dominant function in line with another function that woud not cause one to exit their learned, familiar behavior? and then to fix the problems that could be associated with spending too much time "outward"/"inward" you could consult your aux. in order to right the imbalance? 

i don't know, to me that makes sense. it's just a way to classify behavior in regards to cognitive functions--if the word "loop" is what you're having a problem with, as in "they loop back on each other", they might just be a faulty way of capturing what's happening--i don't think anyone actually believes you're caught on some kind of equal energy pull that one is unable to leave. 

anyhow, can't wait to here your thoughts.


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

celticstained said:


> but don't we develop the dominant in a particular direction that is defined by attitude?


Yes, but the attitude is already present, it’s the function that develops, not the other way around. You don’t have intuition then develop extraversion, you have extraversion then develop intuition that results in Ne. That is why Ni and Ne are completely different functions and von Franz emphasized that as much when saying although Fi and Te are opposites, Fi and Fe are completely different and Fi does not relate to Fe. 


celticstained said:


> but will an introvert relagate energy to a function that is in line with the attitude of their dominant and the opposite for an extrovert when they become... out of balance for lack of a better word? (i don't think i actually mentioned that the "loop" would mix attitudes, that would actually go against the basics for the theory, wouldn't it?)


Sure it can theoretically, but as I said in post #10, what people describe is not a dominant-tertiary loop, it’s either the dominant function being describe when imbalanced or more realistically just introversion or extraversion with no function. So if anything it’s an introverted or extraverted loop. But in that case, one may be able to use all the introverting and extraverting functions except the 8th function.


celticstained said:


> i actually hadn't noticed it until you pointed out--thanks. i don't know, i've never really veiwed it as a problem before but now that i know it irritates people i think i may look into sorting it out. at first i was kind of puzzled why you'd even mention it since it didn't seem to have much to do with this little discussion, but then it hit me--could this be a potential "irk-some" quality that some find in others based on their cognitive functions in relation to their own age, such as potulating as to something that is really unprovable on a site that's made for such discussion?!


It was not to imply you were being irksome, it was to point out what you are confirming yourself which is that everything regarding the theory of dominant-tertiary loop is mere theory that cannot work in actuality and defies the basic principles of Dr. Jung’s work. 


celticstained said:


> in any case, i don't "firmly believe" in the theory. i just think it can (possibly) explain some behaviors that crop up in people and as far as i know (which i'll admit isn't a lot, i'm not here trying to convince people of my stance by the way, more just speaking of the possibility that something may work in a way that we haven't looked at/thought of/etc.--you know, for fun ).


Of course you are, but the more people speak of it as possibility the greater it is mistaken as actually something that occurs. In that case I want to at least challenge people to actually think about what they’re saying when they even reference to it. Going back to post #10, people who claim to have a dominant-tertiary loop are essentially claiming they have yet to develop a dominant function, ergo how can they claim a type?


celticstained said:


> so, correct me if i'm wrong, but if the main sources of energy in our psyche are the dom/infer, what is powering our aux.'s? is it residual runoff of energy that our mind just happens to put to use?


I referred to the threads on the conscious/unconscious attitudes. For an attitude to truly develop, it must suppress the other attitude. That is paramount in every section where Dr. Jung describes each function-attitude. Introverting functions suppress anything having to do with extraversion or objects and extraverts do the opposite. But there are no pure types, so we do have use of the opposite attitude to a certain extent, but it can never be equal to the dominant attitude.


celticstained said:


> if so, then then our mind's energy is being split very unevenly and the extra energy is being funneled off into a means that happens to help us. when we're first coming of age we have our dominant and our aux (may be nonexistant--i say "may" so that we can lump all levels of growth and precousiouness [sp?] under one banner and move on). is our aux. in an opposite attitude for a survival based matter, an attempt for our mind to naturally find a balance (introverts will have a "push" that causes them to extrovert and vice versa)? what about once we get older and we begin to develop our tertiary, which is aligned to the same attitude as our dominant. could we not find a sense of familiarity/security in that self-refrencing (or in the extroverted) realm that may cause us to use our dominant function in line with another function that woud not cause one to exit their learned, familiar behavior? and then to fix the problems that could be associated with spending too much time "outward"/"inward" you could consult your aux. in order to right the imbalance?
> 
> i don't know, to me that makes sense. it's just a way to classify behavior in regards to cognitive functions--if the word "loop" is what you're having a problem with, as in "they loop back on each other", they might just be a faulty way of capturing what's happening--i don't think anyone actually believes you're caught on some kind of equal energy pull that one is unable to leave.
> 
> anyhow, can't wait to here your thoughts.


Again you guys really should at least try read the man’s theory since it is clear and answers the repeated questions. Here is a snippet from Dr. Jung on how the conscious works in the extraverted type:


> Now, when the orientation to the object and to objective facts is so predominant that the most frequent and essential decisions and actions are determined, not by subjective values but by objective relations, one speaks of an extraverted attitude. When this is habitual, one speaks of an extraverted type. If a man so thinks, feels, and acts, in a word so lives, as to correspond directly with objective conditions and their claims, whether in a good sense or ill, he is extraverted. His life makes it perfectly clear that it is the objective rather than the subjective value which plays the greater role as the determining factor of his consciousness. He naturally has subjective values, but their determining power has less importance than the external objective conditions. Never, therefore, does he expect to find any absolute factors in his own inner life, since the only ones he knows are outside himself. Epimetheus-like, his inner life succumbs to the external necessity, not of course without a struggle; which, however, always ends in favour of the objective determinant. His entire consciousness looks outwards to the world, because the important and decisive determination always comes to him from without. But it comes to him from without, only because that is where he expects it.
> 
> All the distinguishing characteristics of his psychology, in so far as they do not arise from the priority of one definite psychological function or from individual peculiarities, have their origin in this basic attitude. Interest and attention follow objective happenings and, primarily, those of the immediate environment. Not [p. 418] only persons, but things, seize and rivet his interest. His actions, therefore, are also governed by the influence of persons and things. They are directly related to objective data and determinations, and are, as it were, exhaustively explainable on these grounds. Extraverted action is recognizably related to objective conditions. In so far it is not purely reactive to environmental stimuli, it character is constantly applicable to the actual circumstances, and it finds adequate and appropriate play within the limits of the objective situation. It has no serious tendency to transcend these bounds. The same holdsgood for interest: objective occurrences have a well-nigh inexhaustible charm, so that in the normal course the extravert's interest makes no other claims.


----------



## Donovan (Nov 3, 2009)

> All the distinguishing characteristics of his psychology, in so far as they do not arise from the priority of one definite psychological function or from individual peculiarities, have their origin in this basic attitude


that would go along with what you said about developing the attitude and then the function, but it also goes on to imply that no function with an attitude matching the dominant (aside from the inferior) could manifest... unless he's saying that no other _extraverted_ characteristic can arise. 

if that is what he meant then any extraverted characteristic would have to be a manifestation of the dominant extraverted attitude--which makes it seem as if it's an extension of that dominant mental energy that... becomes one of the "aux.'s"? it would kind of fit the mold that our aux.'s are just "off-shoots" of our domiant/inferior and it's only once they've become differentiated enough to stand alone do they actually become functions...? (i know, it's theory land lol)

i think the problem may be in how we're each talking about the "loop". i see it as if an introvert spends too much time "within" then he/she could acquire behavioral oddities/nerosis/phobias/etc. that could be handled by finding ways to "extravert" in a fashion that isn't too extreme (or too far from the security of familiarity)--in other words, by seeking what's "without" the individual could remove their mental selves from a "rut". 

this also meets up with (the layman's) version of MBTI, in that one could, for whatever reason (be it growth, bad family life causing escapism within/without, an imbalance between the dominant/inferior), begin to side with an aux. (no matter how developed/differentiated it is) who's attitude matches that of their dominant and this could lead to problems in the above paragraph. 

now, even if that is possible, i agree it doesn't meant that a "loop" (or whatever you'd like to call it) was the cause--it could just be pure introversion/extroversion or any other reason but why think that because pure introversion can explain it that a dominant function with an even slightly differentiated aux. that shares the same attitude could not explain it, or how would know in any case?

since you do have more knowledge i think it would work better if you were to tell me the reasons why it couldn't work based on the principles of how the psyche is structured instead of having me shoot around in the dark.


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

Here is what works ime.

To break someone out of their dominant-tertiary loop, simply say or do something that will make them engage their auxiliary or inferior function. For an INFJ sitting in Ni-Ti loop, create a lot of Fe and Se in their environment, and you will see them coming out of their Ni-Ti shell. You can, for example introduce your INFJ to someone ENFJ or ESTP type, who will naturally supply Se and Fe, and your INFJ will feel more energetic, happy, and outgoing instead of introverting in their dominant-tertiary loop. Same works for other types.

In terms of socionics, auxiliary and inferior functions comprise type's "vital loop", so exposing someone to their 2nd and last functions naturally refreshed them and encourages them to be more engaging.


----------



## CounterPoint (Oct 13, 2010)

Functianalyst said:


> I concede not only is the extraverted auxiliary neutralized for introverting types and vice-versa for extraverting types, but the unconscious attitude is neutralized, leaving it possible that all functions using the same attitude can be possibly used. *So it's not a dom-tert loop, it's an introverted or extraverted loop.* But Jung merely calls this phenomenon the natural over use of our conscious attitude.


If I say that a dominant I/E attitude has taken monopoly (too extraverted or too introverted), it’s equivalent to saying a dom-tert loop. If an ESTJ is being too extraverted, for example, that just means TE-NE (which happens to be the dom-tert). Of course this is assuming you stick to the 4 function model, which would be congruent with Jung.



> Jung also posited that the functions formed a hierarchy within a person's personality—the most important function is referred to as the "dominant", with the remaining three filling the roles as "auxiliary," "tertiary," and "inferior" functions.


 wiki



cyamitide said:


> Here is what works ime.
> 
> To break someone out of their dominant-tertiary loop, simply say or do something that will make them engage their auxiliary or inferior function. For an INFJ sitting in Ni-Ti loop, create a lot of Fe and Se in their environment, and you will see them coming out of their Ni-Ti shell. You can, for example introduce your INFJ to someone ENFJ or ESTP type, who will naturally supply Se and Fe, and your INFJ will feel more energetic, happy, and outgoing instead of introverting in their dominant-tertiary loop. Same works for other types.
> 
> In terms of socionics, auxiliary and inferior functions comprise type's "vital loop", so exposing someone to their 2nd and last functions naturally refreshed them and encourages them to be more engaging.


I like this better than the op.


----------



## entpIdeas (Jun 6, 2011)

Functianalyst said:


> This is probably the only thing I have seen about the so-called loop theory that actually makes sense to me, and coincides with Jung's theory. So I ask facetiously before one gets out of the loop, no one has given a viable theory of what it is like to be in that loop. I argue again that the introverted auxiliary (or tertiary) doesn't have enough power to sustain a loop with a dominant function-attitude.
> 
> So can someone explain why they are actually using a function at all in this scenario, instead of recognizing the obvious that you are merely using your introversion or extraversion attitude alone with no function present? Of course most cannot because although they want to use Dr. Jung's terminology, they prefer to use MBTI tools to work the terminology. Again, and again, and again, Dr. Jung says the attitude develops at birth, the function (if it ever occurs is developed through habit) which could take years to develop. Not only is there no guarantee that a function develops, there is no promise that it ever becomes differentiated.
> 
> ...


I have always interpreted it similarly to you, I felt Jung saw this as a predilection to behavior, the attitude being natural and automatic, whether conscious or not. The "work" involving balance always comes with the challenge of acknowledgement that as social animals our self centered predilections come with a cost, thus the OP makes a point in "trolling" as a way to instigate the challenge, although I don't see it happening the way described, but more as an awareness of the natural predisposition and now consciously act upon it. Yes, it all really comes to "wanting" and "choosing" the more difficult path for the preferred result. We are by nature resistant to it as Jung describes. 

Tertiary loops aside for a moment, do you think we can even conceive of the alternate attitude in the primary? I'm convinced it would be like describing a sense to someone who has never experienced it. I'm not saying congruent conclusions can't be reached, but seeing the alternative methodology to reach said point is elusive to me. Please share your views. I might be missing something very simple, but I'm relatively new at this.


----------

