Personality Cafe banner

Can the dominant function be under developed compared to the aux?

2297 Views 19 Replies 9 Participants Last post by  Dora
I was reading the ENTJ descrption on Personality Page (Portrait of an ENTJ) and found the following statement interesting:

ENTJs are very forceful, decisive individuals. They make decisions quickly, and are quick to verbalize their opinions and decisions to the rest of the world. The ENTJ who has not developed their Intuition will make decisions too hastily, without understanding all of the issues and possible solutions. On the other hand, an ENTJ who has not developed their Thinking side will have difficulty applying logic to their insights, and will often make poor decisions. In that case, they may have brilliant ideas and insight into situations, but they may have little skill at determining how to act upon their understanding, or their actions may be inconsistent.
What I found most interesting was the bolded part of the quote. It has always been my understanding that our dominant function was the one that came most naturally to us, thus I assumed that it would always be the strongest, always. However this statement seems to imply that it is possible, at least in some cases, for the dominant function to be under developed compared to the aux function.

Is it possible for an aux function to be (or seem) more developed than a dominant function?
Has anyone observed this in their experience with typology?
Is this just an ENTJ phenomenon? Or could this happen with other types as well?

Any insight, thoughts, opinions, etc are appreciated.
  • Like
Reactions: Dora
1 - 2 of 2 Posts
What gave you that particular impression; do people here seem too one-dimensional to you in general?
Still, no idea if that is practically possible, most people here seem to excel at their dominant functions and at best lack in their aux/tert.
If they're "lacking at best", it would seem obvious that they're nil at worst. A lack to nil of aux/tert use would produce relative one-dimensionality (one cognitive function in severely overprominent use) - would it not?

Anyhow, if that is not what you see, then what is?
Nope, neither have I implied that, since I've said 'at best', which isn't the equivalent of 'only'.
1 - 2 of 2 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.