# Dominant Fi vs. Tertiary Fi



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

surgery said:


> I'm not sure what you mean here by "studied type dynamics beside Jung" because there are a lot of people that have written extensive analyses of his work and MBTI. Linda Berens, John Beebe, Gary and Margaret Hartzler, Walter Lowwn, Roger Pearman, S.P. Myers, Naomi Quenk and Lenore Thomson are just some of the people who have published literature related to Jung's theories.
> 
> I own (and, thus, can only reference) two books on type: _8 Keys to Self-Leadership_ by Dario Nardi and _Personality Type: An Owner's Manuel by Lenore Thomson. _As far as research into neuroscience and cognitive function goes, Dario Nardi claims that there's neurological evidence
> for the functions, but I've yet to see his actual studies. However, Lenore Thomson writes:
> ...


Well, my issue with the modern MBTI theorists is that they are completely working in the realm of the theoretical, not observing this stuff in real people so far as I know (nor do they attempt to compromise views much either, which means there's obviously no highly accurate consensus on this stuff to begin with). According to the latest studies by Dario Nardi, Ni is a right-brained function essentially (full-brained) and Fi is one of the most left-brained ones out there, so I have no clue where you're getting your information. Also, what the tertiary really means in type is dubious at best - temptation is a theory, and there's no guarantee that one auxiliary has to be suppressed over the other (can't this just happen at will at any given time? what does that really say about a person anyhow?). Most of your information is theoretical, because Nardi's study threw most of it out the window with his brain study, which from what I can deduce, placed the functions this way on the left and right, generally speaking:

Fi and Te: left brain (he noticed that INFPs tend to be some of the most left-brained decision makers - very linear)

Ti: left brain

Fe: ? (more right-brained in ENFJs)

Si and Ne: scattered

Ni: whole 

Se: scattered (more right)


----------



## surgery (Apr 16, 2010)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> Well, my issue with the modern MBTI theorists is that they are completely working in the realm of the theoretical, not observing this stuff in real people so far as I know (nor do they attempt to compromise views much either, which means there's obviously no highly accurate consensus on this stuff to begin with).
> 
> According to the latest studies by Dario Nardi, Ni is a right-brained function essentially (full-brained) and Fi is one of the most left-brained ones out there, so I have no clue where you're getting your information.




The point is the Jung's work was completely theoretical and based only on observation. I don't know what research Katherine Briggs and Isabel Briggs Myers used to develop the MBTI. But, since then, these authors that have cited studies based on observation with real people and PETs that support left-brain or right-brain dominance, and that support the and then base their theory on those findings. Yes, their analyses of this information _in light of_ the MBTI is still highly theoretical, but it's not completely "unsubstantiated nonsense". 

Moreovoer, I've never seen type theorist blatantly dismiss someone else's findings. For example, Lenore Thomson published her book in 1998 and she hasn't updated since then. Is it because she's unwilling to compromise her views? Idk, but it seems silly to assume that. It also doesn't mean that her theories are completely outdated. Maybe you've read other books that have come out more recently that conflict strongly with Nardi's research, so if you could share that'd be great.

If Nardi's new study really has "thrown" all the previous research out the window and shown that the functions are active in different places than thought before, then I'd be more than willing to read it, but like I said, I just don't have those resources. Until then, though it make sense to continue to with Thomson's theories as they have always been very consistent with my life experiences and type. It's not that I want to be dogmatic, but rather because it makes the most sense in terms of what research that _I have seen_ about the left and right brain.

"Language functions such as grammar, vocabulary and literal meaning[8][9] are typically lateralized to the left hemisphere, especially in right handed individuals.[9] While language production is left-lateralized in up to 90% of right-handed subjects, it is more bilateral, or even right lateralized in approximately 50% of left-handers.[10] In contrast, prosodic language functions, such as intonation and accentuation, often are lateralized to the right hemisphere of the brain.[11][12]
The processing of visual and auditory stimuli, spatial manipulation, facial perception, and artistic ability are represented bilaterally, but may show a right hemisphere superiority.[10]"

Just like I said before, he work isn't meant to be a cut and dry prescription with all people. But she's working around findings that reflect the *majority.
*
In Anubis' case, this means Nardi's work is relevant and Thomson's work is relevant. One isn't necessarily better than the other? Why?



JungyesMBTIno said:


> Also, what the tertiary really means in type is dubious at best - temptation is a theory, and there's no guarantee that one auxiliary has to be suppressed over the other (can't this just happen at will at any given time? what does that really say about a person anyhow?).
> 
> Most of your information is theoretical, because Nardi's study threw most of it out the window with his brain study, which from what I can deduce, placed the functions this way on the left and right, generally speaking:
> 
> ...


If that's true then it opens up a lot of interesting possibilites because it suggests that people may not dominated by the left side of their brain. But, if that's so, it just raises more questions. For example, it doesn't really explain how people can have the right whole hemisphere of their brain removed, but still be able to function normally. When people That's what Lenore Thomson's theory is getting at. The studies have shown that when one side is in use, the other side just switches off. Additionally, I still think that if someone is consistently lead by a dominant function, it makes sense that he or she would use a function that has an opposing attitude for auxiliary support the majority of the time. Otherwise, like I said before, we'd be trapped by our Introversion or Extraversion. 

If it turns out, however, that we don't have consistent preferences most of the time for a dominant and auxiliary function and I am using my whole brain for the Ni most of the time, but tend to switch between Fi and Te as needed, then I would be a extremely gifted person, which is great! But this just raises the question if function preference is not a matter of hemisphere preferences, what prevents us from using all the functions equally? If this is possible, why do people show significant differences instead of small ones? Why aren't people naturally more diversified in their perspectives and talents? If there's nothing stopping us from switching between Fe or Te or Se or Si as needed, why don't we all adapt to external situations in the same way. And if any of us are equally likely to use these functions, why are there difficulties in communication?

Questions like this are why it's still theoretical and even Nardi's research can't explain it yet. As far as I have read, he still agrees that when one function is preferred, it's opposite is unconscious. No where in Thomson's book does it say that because my Te is inferior, I can never use it in a healthy way. The Tertiary Temptation isn't a dogma for her. However, because both authors belief that functions come in pairs, I am more inclined to believe that there is an order to our cognitive functions.


----------



## Impact Calculus (Mar 29, 2012)

Boolean11 said:


> read this:
> Socionics Types: ILI-INTp (INTJ:aka INTp)
> Socionics Types: EII-INFj (INFP:aka INFj)
> 
> ...


There is no direct translation between socionics and MBTI.


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

Impact Calculus said:


> There is no direct translation between socionics and MBTI.


There is once you actually read it, the way they use the letters is different. But their notion of shadow functions is what I don't quite agree own since they diametrically oppose the main functions. Being an INFJ, you don't use Te or Fi since their nature opposes your own functions.


----------



## Impact Calculus (Mar 29, 2012)

Boolean11 said:


> There is once you actually read it, the way they use the letters is different. But their notion of shadow functions is what I don't quite agree own since they diametrically oppose the main functions. Being an INFJ, you don't use Te or Fi since their nature opposes your own functions.


In MBTI, somebody with a lead introverted judging function will always be considered a perceiver.

In MBTI, somebody with a lead extraverted judging function will always be considered a judger.

See where I'm going with this? In MBTI, lead judging = Judger only applies for extraverts. This means that introverts could essentially be either a judger or a perceiver in the socionics theory.

Considering the contrast between these theories, there also isn't any way of validating any supposed links between them. As much as I'd like to say that socionics Ti = MBTI Ti, it just isn't necessarily true.


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

Impact Calculus said:


> In MBTI, somebody with a lead introverted judging function will always be considered a perceiver.
> 
> In MBTI, somebody with a lead extraverted judging function will always be considered a judger.
> 
> ...


You sound a lot like somebody who hasn't really dug through into socionomics and learnt that there are similar at core. Perhaps are you still a bit uncertain about your type INFp(MBTI INFJ) in socionomics.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

As a Fi dom I'd like to chip in my 2cents. 

For me Fi is about what is worth my *effort/attention/good-will* in the moment.
I have the impression that Fi Ne somehow creates a more global view to project Fi onto.

For me it is all about the moment and my present situation.
If I have to go global I will have to engage my Ni and Te to deal with it.
On a global perspective my Fi values don't mean squat.
It is all about my present situation.

So if someone says sit down, I might say that I prefer to stand.
If you insist that I sit i kinda feel that you are violating my self-determination as a person.

This is extreme and I don't care that much about sitting unless it causes pain for example.
Then it is "I'LL STAND THANK YOU VERY MUCH!!!!!"


----------



## Impact Calculus (Mar 29, 2012)

Boolean11 said:


> You sound a lot like somebody who hasn't really dug through into socionomics and learnt that there are similar at core. Perhaps are you still a bit uncertain about your type INFp(MBTI INFJ) in socionomics.


If the contrasting perspective on rationality is so irrelevant, why is it that Ti -> detachment in MBTI, yet Ni -> detachment in socionics?

Also why is Se fourth from the top for an INFj in socionics? If MBTI cross applies as well as you say, shouldn't Si be higher up for INFPs (mbti)?

Also, isn't it true that the 16 socionics types are supposed to be used as reference points? If socionics was designed to be tangible, then how can we expect to roughly cross-apply elements from a completely different typing system?


----------



## Adasta (Nov 22, 2011)

hornet said:


> For me it is all about the moment and my present situation.


This is a very ISFP view (which isn't surprising!).

For me, the present situation acts more as a guage of how I would rather things be. So, if I'm in a setting I don't enjoy, I will make a note not to go there again. It then gets scrapped from Fi+Ne projections of feelings because it not longer has any value.



hornet said:


> I have the impression that Fi Ne somehow creates a more global view to project Fi onto.


Not global _per se_, but rather timeless.


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

Impact Calculus said:


> If the contrasting perspective on rationality is so irrelevant, why is it that Ti -> detachment in MBTI, yet Ni -> detachment in socionics?
> 
> Also why is Se fourth from the top for an INFj in socionics? If MBTI cross applies as well as you say, shouldn't Si be higher up for INFPs (mbti)?
> 
> Also, isn't it true that the 16 socionics types are supposed to be used as reference points? If socionics was designed to be tangible, then how can we expect to roughly cross-apply elements from a completely different typing system?


Socionomics likes to talk about your shadow functions. It tries to explain why it's difficult for you to display behaviour associated with them, but where it goes wrong is in not fully acknowledging that the true nature of the shadow functions are totally alien to a person's psyche and they are not in any way develop-able or use able. Mimicking the shadow functions is one thing but using them seems totally illogical. 

Anyway the thing is that in socionomics, they list your first true functions first, then for some bizarre reason, the go to your 2 shadow functions. Afterwards their continue with your tertiary and inferior and then lastly end with the shadow functions that entirely oppose your lead functions. I think that's were you saw the confusion


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

Adasta said:


> For me, the present situation acts more as a guage of how I would rather things be. So, if I'm in a setting I don't enjoy, I will make a note not to go there again. It then gets scrapped from Fi+Ne projections of feelings because it not longer has any value.
> 
> Not global _per se_, but rather timeless.


This made me think hard on how that would work.
To no avail... XD

How Ne and time work is beyond me.
Now my understanding of Ne got messed up. 
But that is okay as I view Ne as a messed up function anyway! 

But on a serious note. 
Can you elaborate on what you mean when you say timeless?


----------



## Adasta (Nov 22, 2011)

@hornet

Yes.

Ne deals with possibilities and connections. Fi deals with emotions, values and meaning.

When Ne gets added to Fi, it starts showing all off the possibilities that Fi has. Take love as an example - it's easy to relate to it. Fi would be the feeling, understanding, and knowing of this feeling "love". It would nuance it, and analyse it. 

You would come to the conclusion that it's actually intrigue you are feeling, which is an aspect of the greater feeling known as love. When this has been identified, Ne expands the concept and generates theoretical situations where this feeling is present, or can be explored. Since this daydream is indeed a dream, it is not bound by time. 

Therefore, it's possible to experience this emotion now, while daydreaming and without having direct stimulus, or consider the notion that one day, in the future, it could be felt. Then what would it be like? What would it feel like? What would this notion of intrigue consist of in this new scenario? 

There are many, many more questions one could ask, but that's the general gist.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

@Adasta


> There are many, many more questions one could ask, but that's the general gist.


I see. An abstract daydream involving Fi.
You really removed all doubt I've ever had about having Ne.
I've never daydreamed in that way ever. I've had concrete daydreams about situations I might find myself in
and how I'd feel if such and such did or said something.

Thank you very much! =D


----------



## Adasta (Nov 22, 2011)

@hornet

From what I can gather, ISFPs tend to daydream about being asked their opinions on something and being able to give an insightful response.

I think INFPs care more about, for want of a better word, the prevailing mood of the interaction.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

Adasta said:


> @_hornet_
> 
> From what I can gather, ISFPs tend to daydream about being asked their opinions on something and being able to give an insightful response.
> 
> I think INFPs care more about, for want of a better word, the prevailing mood of the interaction.


The prevailing mood...
Man you are making my head hurt. 

But to be honest after an interaction all I want to know is if I had fun
and if not, was that my fault, or the crowd and the situation.
If I find no fault in myself, in other words some one "stopped" me from having fun.
Then I would deem similar situations as undesirable.

I don't really think the mood is any showstopper as often I just ignore it.
And if I don't it is kinda my own fault. 
If some person puts down major obstacles to fun, then it is harder to ignore.

But I guess it depends on your perspective and how flexible you are in amusing yourself.
So what I'm saying is that I avoid situations I feel unable to amuse myself in.

Now the mood may be a downer in amusement for sure.
But I wouldn't equate that with your abstract daydream scenarioes.

I think all Fi doms are affected by the prevailing mood of a situation.
But it seems to me that *you make the mood almost symbolic.*
As for me the mood is just how I percieve the collected emotions of everyone gathered in the moment.
If that mood is so strong that I can't have fun it is a problem.
*If I actually get bored....* Imagine such a thing!. :-O
Then there will be consequences in how I relate to those responsible. 
I do not take lightly on boredom inducers.


----------



## Reasons2be (Feb 19, 2013)

"The more INJs try to protect their inner world, the more they lose the Intuitive perspective they're trying to maintain. They lose their capacity to shift perspectives. They have the sense that truth is a core experience, archetypal, impossible to express in a way that captures its full significance. Their vision becomes a psychological castle and they stand in the highest parapet, warning people that they aren't worthy to come in." (p.273)
____

This is precisely what I have been experiencing lately. Im 20 now, and used to be able to see the world through many perspectives. im working on it, though.


----------



## Loupgaroux (Mar 9, 2013)

Adasta said:


> From what I can gather, ISFPs tend to daydream about being asked their opinions on something and being able to give an insightful response.


Guilty. Guilty as charged.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

Loupgaroux said:


> Guilty. Guilty as charged.


Yeah it sounds familiar, but it isn't just being asked my opinion mind you.
I concoct all sorts of interactions in my head and how I would/could react to them.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

in my experience, Fi in the Tertiary position often has a more fiery, visceral quality to it than dominant Fi (of course, other factors will play a role too. an Fi dom 7 is likely to be more aggressive than an IxTJ 9w1). underneath the colder exterior of IxTJ, Fi is a driving force of motivation and a source of warmth shown to those close to them (or even more subtly as a sign of respect). 

if I were to represent them as pictures

dominant Fi



























tertiary Fi


----------



## mushr00m (May 23, 2011)

Wow.


----------

