Personality Cafe banner

Dominant-Tertiary Loops and Common Personality Disorders

283080 Views 380 Replies 137 Participants Last post by  Lunacik
Dominant-Tertiary Loops and Common Personality Disorders​

People often ask, why can't my top two functions both be introverted (or extroverted)? The answer is that they can, but that this invariably causes personality imbalance/disorders, and if this is the case for you, you may not be the type you think you are.

Lately I've been noticing that a lot of typological mistakes and misreads are the result of a couple of incorrect assumptions about functional structure. I'd like to dedicate this article to describing the phenomenon known as Dominant-Tertiary Loops, where the natural secondary function is suppressed, poorly developed or otherwise not valued as highly by the individual's ego as the tertiary function.

First let's remember that the standard function arrangements of the 16 types merely represent the ideal balances for each of sixteen different ways to conceptualize ourselves and reality. In reality, they don't always show up in exactly that order of emphasis. Let's look at an example:

To start with I'll use my own type, ENTP. Here's our functional breakdown:
Dominant Ne
Secondary Ti
Tertiary Fe
Inferior Si

But what happens if Ti is poorly developed? This most commonly happens because the tertiary function's common directional orientation with the dominant can make it seem more comfortable than the secondary! Our perception (obviously) relies on Ne, but with Ti not doing its job, we're forced to relinquish judgment to the tertiary (and less able) Fe.

We end up with Ne+Fe as the most dominant attitudes. If you don't see why this is a problem, consider the significance of intro/extroversion:

Extroverted attitudes attempt to make the inner self more like the outer world's objective ideal.
Introverted attitudes attempt to make the outer world more like the inner self's subjective ideal.
A balanced psyche requires significant influence from both internal and external stimuli--too much introversion and we retreat entirely into ourselves and ignore all outer world influence to an unhealthy degree; too much extroversion and we are not able to remain in touch with what is important to our subjective internal selves, and become far too dependent upon external conditions and attitudes of others.

All too commonly I see people make the mistake of assuming that using T more than F automatically makes an xxTx type. In a healthy, balanced individual that's true, but when an ego becomes more dependent on the tertiary than the secondary, that's no longer the case.

For instance, I once mistook an INFJ for INTJ because he had poor secondary Fe and relied primarily on Ni+Ti. At the time I used only MBTI sliding scales and didn't know functions yet, so since I saw primarily N and T I figured he would be an NT type. To the casual observer he would appear to be using N over S, and T over F, so he must be an NT type, right? Wrong! He is not an NT type unless his iNtuition and Thinking are oriented in opposite directions.

One really interesting result of this confusion is that each dom-tert loop type starts to look very similar to the dom-tert loop form of the type sharing only its first letter! For example:

INTJ: Ni (Te) Fi Se

ISFP: Fi (Se) Ni Te

This is exactly why many unbalanced personalities have difficulty fitting themselves into a single Jungian archetype. Unsurprisingly, if the INTJ above would improve his Te, and the ISFP would improve his Se, each would balance out the monopoly introverted attitudes currently have on his perspective and lead himself to much greater personal balance and contentment.

For example: A certain user on typologycentral agonized over her type for months, creating numerous long threads and repeatedly changing her mind. My initial impression was ENFP, which I shared but which she promptly rejected. After reading about function attitudes she described Te and Ne as her most prominent functions--at this point I changed my guess to ESTJ, which may seem like a bizarre jump if you don't understand dom/tert loop functions, but it's really not:

ENFP: Ne (Fi) Te Si

ESTJ: Te (Si) Ne Fi

So if you pick up mainly Ne and Te in someone, don't presume that he's an NT type--in fact, he's probably not. Depending on which is dominant, he is most likely either ENFP (Ne+Te with poor Fi) or ESTJ (Te+Ne with poor Si).

Ironically, this user's primary personality imbalance was poorly developed secondary Fi--it turned out she actually was an ENFP providing a perfect example of over-dependence on extroverted attitudes. She reported placing far too much emphasis on the approval of others and couldn't introspect enough to figure out which type was really her. Without a strong introverted function she was left a poor sense of individual self, and showed it through her dependence on the opinions of others to determine her type. She was looking everywhere but the right place--inside.

So how does this over-dependence on introversion (or extroversion) manifest itself in each type? I believe this phenomenon is responsible for (or at least involved with) a lot of common personality disorders:

ENTP/ESFJ: Ne/Fe or Fe/Ne--Narcissistic Personality Disorder. This type often behaves impulsively and manipulatively, needing constant approval and admiration from others, running around investing in new thing after new thing but never developing the self-confidence of a strong subjective perspective. Fe used negatively may use its awareness of the cultural standards of others to intentionally offend or upset them, in order to service Ne's curiosity about the patterns in their responses. If Ti/Si were working properly, it would give the user a balancing sense of personal, subjective importance and free him of his dependence upon the adulation and unconditional acceptance of others. (Horrible example: Patrick Bateman from American Psycho.)

INTP/ISFJ: Ti/Si or Si/Ti--Schizotypal Personality Disorder. I see this most commonly in INTP dom/tert loops (Ti+Si), resulting in totally giving up on attempting to obtain the social/interpersonal connections that inferior Fe drives them to unconsciously desire. Schizotypal people are seen (and typically see themselves) as having such unusual thoughts and behaviors that widespread social acceptance is nearly impossible. Ti thinks, "I cannot find any logical explanation for social rituals" and Si reinforces this self-isolating, risk-averse behavior by constantly reminding the user: "Remember how badly this went last time you tried?" If Ne were doing its job, it would remind the user to continue experimenting to find a new approach. In the ISFJ version, Si becomes ultra risk-averse and refuses to try anything new or unfamiliar. If Fe were doing its job, the ISFJ would learn that some risk is necessary in order to uphold obligations to others and avoid living in total solitude. Deep down, these types really do want social connection and ritual (Fe), but have found themselves so poor at it that they simply give up trying.

ESTP/ENFJ: Se/Fe or Fe/Se--Histrionic Personality Disorder. This tends to manifest itself in terms of exaggerated, aggressive sexual behavior and physical impulsiveness. Since reflecting the outer world is the only thing that matters, whatever will shock, impress, or otherwise affect others enough to include the user in their social rituals is what has to be done. Real empathy is rare as this type requires constant thrills or conflict--in the ENFJ version, this often results in excessive sensitivity to perceived "rudeness" or failure to respect the user's preferred cultural custom (Fe), combined with tertiary Se responding aggressively through implied threats of brute force. (e.g., Vito Corleone: "I'll make him an offer he can't refuse"--gives a surface appearance of respecting the cultural standards of negotiation, but implies that refusal to accept this "offer" would be quite unpleasant for the recipient!) If Ti/Ni were doing its job, the user would find a sense of balance and comfortability with himself, granting him the ability to discover what is subjectively important to him, rather than constantly shifting with the tide of cultural and social trends.

ISTP/INFJ: Ti/Ni or Ni/Ti--Schizoid Personality Disorder. These types are socially incompetent for lack of trying, because they see little to no value in significant interaction with others. They live in their own abstract worlds, constantly second-guessing themselves as Ti poses a framework for a problem and Ni shoots it down as too definitionally precise. Without any real external input, these two functions will dream up all sorts of elaborate systems and implications for them, only to repeat their own self-defeating behavior, never bothering to emphasize putting any of its intense ideas into practice. Frequent disregard for rules, laws and other forms of behavioral standards is common, as no function provides any significant sense of external influence. If Se/Fe were doing its job, the user would recognize the value of connecting with others and of paying attention to their needs, preferences, habits and appearances.

ESFP/ENTJ: Se/Te or Te/Se--Obsessive-Compulsive Personality Disorder (not the same thing as OCD)! I've seen people mistake ESFPs in Se+Te dom-tert loops for ESTPs because they can be so insistent upon controlling their surroundings. These types epitomize enneagram type 8, as they are aggressive, blunt, confrontational and not the least bit afraid of hurting anyone's feelings. Inside they require the approval of others to a much higher degree than they let on, as Te insists on controlling and organizing external surroundings to ridiculous proportions, while Se pushes any naysayers out of the way with aggressive force and a take-no-prisoners attitude. Territorial and looking for any reason to display their power, these types are some of the most difficult to deal with of all dom-tert loops. If Fi/Ni were doing its job, these types would stop to consider that their actions have negative implications for others, and that aggressively taking charge is not always the best solution in every situation.

ISFP/INTJ: Fi/Ni or Ni/Fi--Paranoid Personality Disorder. These types are your typical conspiracy theorists; they cling deeply to their personal values and can find a conspiracy to assault or attack those values everywhere they look. Chronically distrustful of others' intentions for no legitimate reason, these types are certain they are the only ones who really know "the truth." The inferior function, Te or Se, can sometimes lead to an unconscious desire to attract the attention of or lead/organize others in efforts to expose the nefarious conspiracies they invariably see everywhere. If Te/Se were doing its job, these types would be able to look around them and observe empirical evidence that most of their theories are probably not reflected in reality, but as they rely almost entirely on internal validation, Ni will go to any lengths to justify Fi's emotion-based suspicions. (I mentioned Dale Gribble from King of the Hill in a previous article--he's a perfect example.) There's also this guy Victor on typologycentral who's such a perfect example of this it's absolutely ridiculous. ;)

ENFP/ESTJ: Ne/Te or Te/Ne--Borderline Personality Disorder. The ENFP I described above may have been one of these types. They simultaneously desire to control and dazzle others with their extraordinary leadership and grandiose performances. For the ENFP, this tends to take the form of insisting on consistent, scheduled attention from others for his/her artistic or creative gifts, while for the ESTJ it tends to manifest itself in terms of indignation when others refuse to follow every detail of the user's "visionary" leadership style. This combination, ironically, makes the user extremely dependent upon others for meaning, never really finding a sense of internal balance, no matter how hard he works to create and delegate. While Te leads these types to desire structure and discipline, Ne continually contradicts it by insisting on impulsive displays of creative freedom. Often self-denigrating over the inability to control Ne's impulsive explorations, Te will go to any lengths to keep the user in a position of power and influence, where others must defer to his authority. If Fi/Si were doing its job, these types would recognize that what they're looking for cannot be found outside themselves--they must learn to sometimes live for themselves and only themselves, and forget about external results for a moment.

INFP/ISTJ: Fi/Si or Si/Fi--Avoidant Personality Disorder. Often scarred by some intensely negative past experience with opening up too many of their private emotions, this type compulsively avoids social situations and interaction with others. They are fiercely sensitive and may exaggerate or misconstrue perceived negative emotional intent in the words or actions of others. They will sometimes project their negative feelings onto others (Fi), as Si tells them that if I were to behave this way, I would have to be very upset, so anyone who behaves that way must also be. These types often have a chronic problem with trusting the intentions or motivations of others, refusing to share private information with even their closest friends and family. They are so deeply sensitive that they refuse to risk being hurt by attempting deep connections with others--you'll see this a lot in ISTJs with Asperger's. If Ne/Te were doing its job, these types would maintain a heathy grip on the importance of letting go of the past and trying something new in the name of accomplishing a greater goal, but some of these remain total recluses for most (if not all) of their lives.

^Side note on the above: I believe this is the case for the currently banned user JTG1984, as he consistently describes his strongest functions as Si and Fi. He identified as ISFJ, but I believe he simply assumed that using more F than T must make him an F type, which it doesn't. He displays little to no Fe, and thus is probably not an FJ type. He seems most likely to be an ISTJ dom-tert loop, Si+Fi.

I guess that about covers it for today. If anyone wants to share their experiences with any of these or suggest a different personality disorder to associate with any group, knock yourselves out.

Until next time,
See less See more
  • Like
Reactions: 5
1 - 20 of 381 Posts
Blech!...I think I might be an ENFP with more of a dependence on Te than Fi...
Might have to do with your difficulty deciding on your type...if you seem torn between xNFP and xSTJ, that's probably the case.
  • Like
Reactions: 3
Improve the secondary function.
  • Like
Reactions: 2
Well...I'm trying to decide between ENFP and ESTJ now. But I'll leave you alone lol
It's cool...I wouldn't be here at the moment if I didn't want to discuss this.

Anyway, you can see from the common function sets that every NFP has an STJ child inside, and vice versa.

The same goes for NTP/SFJ, NFJ/STP and NTJ/SFP. As you grow and develop your weaker functions, the so-called "opposite" type suddenly seems much more wise and reasonable than you'd previously thought, as each of you can teach the other about the weaker attitudes that you are growing into.

This is kind of a magnified form of the way the type that differs only by your first letter is a helpful teacher early in life. As ENFP and INFP, for example, are each dominant in the other's secondary function, they quickly recognize each other's slightly stronger ability in the other skill and thus become friends easily.

Remember that it's important to get a good handle on the secondary before you start working too much on the tertiary--this is the way to avoid a dom-tert loop.
  • Like
Reactions: 5
Which is more important: Ne or Te?

How about Fi or Si?
  • Like
Reactions: 2
Should I consider ESFP/ENTJ for my mother and maybe also my brother? Although what you said about ESTJ also matches, the difference between this two cases are a bit diffuse.
I dunno, what evidence of which functions do you see in them?
Definately describes an ISFP I know.. I questioned her type because she really seemed lacking in Se, but is extremely paranoid!

Can an INTP get stuck in an Ne-Fe loop?
Seems like that would make him an ENTP, since it would require Ne and Fe to supersede Ti.
To the INTJ above:

I appreciate you writing this response, but the answer is really just one word: Ne.

I've learned not to bother trying to convince NTJs of this sort of thing anymore, so let's just agree to disagree. Suffice it to say, Ne finds the patterns well before Te has had time to quantify them. :crazy:
  • Like
Reactions: 1
I think when I was younger, maybe around 8th grade and high school, I went through an extroverted phase. I was very silly, kind of a class clown, trying to push buttons with people, seeing how much I could get away with. I got the feeling some people were annoyed by me. Even a teacher once said to me how I was shy and quiet and just opened up.

Since then I have gone back to being more introverted, I realize now that my extroverted side is not for everybody. Did people think my extroverted side was too eccentric?
Yes, that's what leads ENTPs to appear introverted. We learn that Ne is just too weird for a lot of people and we don't have the Feeling skills (not early on, anyway) to get them to relate to it.
  • Like
Reactions: 1
Did the aforementioned poster use facts and information, or conjecture?
NeTi likes to share the patterns it's discovered with others, but doesn't really care about proving them empirically. Ne is a lot faster than Te. If we've figured out for ourselves that it works, we don't really care if you want to wait around for scientific consensus--we've already found the pattern, tested it out repeatedly and internalized a framework to explain its mechanisms for our own use.

When you ask for more precise external evidence (Te questioning), the Ne response is simply: "Duhhh, look around you and pay attention. You'll see it." The connections are already so obvious to us that we don't really need to wait around for Te to quantify them all at dinosaur speed. We simply see the connection, point it out to others and keep going.

Whether or not you get it is immaterial. Ti is unconcerned with whether or not its systems are "conjecture", because it doesn't care about externalized logical consensus the way Te does. So feel free to dismiss all of it if you want. It's your loss. :tongue:

While my Si is trying to indicate to me just how you will likely respond and my Fi is telling me that you have your own perspective which is worth hearing, I am able to see the subjective and objective ways in which an idea which could be discussed in more helpful examples to illustrate proper understanding to a fellow PerC user are being placed aside in favor of your use of your own Si in relation to your previous interactions with forum users which you feel with some certainty, based upon your own deduction or upon taking the type listed on their profile at face value, are INTJ.
Your "Si" is not doing anything here. Your attempt to infer what his likely response will be based on the context of this conversation and its probable relationship to the future is just typical Ni.

Your whole paragraph here is basically Te complaining that Ti doesn't try hard enough to illustrate its ideas in terms that will satisfy a Te mindset. And you're absolutely correct--the problem is, nothing will satisfy a Te mindset until scientific understanding of human psychology advances far enough to render typology entirely irrelevant, so you're waiting around for something that will ultimately defeat the purpose of the entire exercise.

I used to try really hard to convince Te-ers of my ideas on typology, but I don't anymore. It's kind of funny how you guys show up and declare, "Well, you haven't provided enough empirical evidence to convince me", implying that we have some sort of responsibility to do so if we want anyone to take our ideas seriously. Either you catch on and start reaping the benefits yourself or you don't and we move on to someone who does. The best advice I can give is try to consider it in Ni terms and ignore Te's insistence that you need precisely quantifiable/universally applicable laws before you can make use of a conceptual idea (this should be easier for you than for the ENTJs, at least.)

Personally, I've just learned to not bother caring about whether NTJs believe anything I'm saying regarding typology. NTPs would do well to learn that if it's working for them, they don't need to prove its validity to others.
See less See more
  • Like
Reactions: 1
Ok, so just how can one determine if one is an INTP or shy ENTP? I've had that 'too weird' experience in school too and clammed up. My Ne seems very active (I can't tell if it's more dominant than Ti though). Also, I've been told my F is well developed for an INTP.
It's pretty hard to tell sometimes. Basically I'd have to meet you in person and spend some time with you.

Some of my friends still think I'm INTP. You may never really figure it out, but know that the E/I digit is by far the least significant in your type. As long as you know you're an NTP that's all that really matters.
  • Like
Reactions: 1

So what you classsify me as?
Someone who needs to recognize that function tests are garbage and don't really test anything meaningful.

But if I had to take a very rough guess, based purely on these numbers, I would go with ISTJ. Here's why:

1) You scored stronger in each introverted function than its extroverted counterpart, which doesn't make a whole lot of sense. This suggests that you're probably an introverted type.

2) Because the gap between your Fi and Fe scores is so huge (much larger than the one between your Ti and Te), I'm assuming you are probably an Fi type, which would make you also a Te type.

3) The gap between your Si and Se is larger than between your Ni and Ne, so I'm going to guess that you are an Si type, which would make you also an Ne type.

4) Ergo, you probably fall into the Si+Fi+Te+Ne group, making you either an STJ or an NFP.

5) You don't really sound like an NFP at first glance, and as I said you're probably an introvert since all four I scores came higher than all four E I'd go with ISTJ.

Your absolute scores don't really matter here. It's the relative strength of direction of each function that we're looking for. You might very well score "high Ni" without using any Ni at all. The questions are designed to test your ability/preference for certain actions, because the authors assume those actions will tend to correlate with ability to see from certain perspectives, but there's no way to really test that.

You might learn to perform a skill from the perspective of Si that the test makers believed to be representative of Ni, in which case you would score a point for "Ni use." This is because function tests suck ass.
See less See more
  • Like
Reactions: 3
This is basically what Lenore Thomson called Tertiary Temptation and Defense, minus the personality disorders. I made a crappy post about it a while ago. Ever since I first read about it I couldn't help but see myself through the lens of Tertiary Temptation.
Yep, her work has been a big help to me.

Wouldn't that make him INTP? The very fact that his Ti is so high and Fe so low implies Ti really is his dominant, and the fact that Si is higher than Ne means he's succumbing to Tertiary Temptation. His Ne is lower than you'd expect (but still fairly high) because he's ignoring the extraverted realm, and Se is extremely low for the same reason and because he's intuitive. His Ni is only so high because he's refusing the opposite realm and he's intuitive so he identifies with it. Why Fi is so high I don't know, but I think it's more error or the fact that he's so introverted that all introverted functions score high for him.
The inferior function isn't nearly as weak or unused as the shadows, so no, I don't think low Fe implies INTP.

Edit: It's generally accepted that the opposites are Ti and Fe, Te and Fi, etc. In fact it's actually quite common for dominant Ti's to also identify strongly with Te, and so on. It's because it's the same function, essentially, just oriented differently, and not an opposing function.
We're using different definitions of the word "opposite" because it means different things in different contexts.

Ti and Fe are opposites, yes, but they also coexist within the same person, whereas Ti and Fi or Ti and Te never do. Ti's outlook is far, far more opposed to Te's (and Fi's) than to Fe's, so yeah, Te is very much an opposing function. Ti users will grow into a healthy use of Fe, some sooner and some later. They will never really fully grasp Fi or Te firsthand, because FiTe represents a worldview that completely contradicts the way TiFe derives its logic and ethics.

Ti dominants who "identify strongly" with Te don't really know what Te is. If they did they'd recognize the complete contradiction in worldviews implied by Ti vs. Te, as well as Ti vs. Fi and so on. It sounds like you're erroneously considering functions as individual skills rather than as overarching mindsets, which is leading you to mistakenly think it's possible to be simultaneously strong in Ti and Te. It's not. Those two perspectives clash far more than Ti and Fe (which actually are two parts of one larger unified judgment process, TiFe, once the person matures and becomes fully functional.)

Ti and Fe are compatible because Ti encourages deriving logic from inside the self and ethics from outside.

Fi and Te are compatible because they do the opposite.

Ti and Fi are not compatible because they disagree fundamentally about how subjective internal value judgments should be made (impersonally or personally.)

Te and Fe are not compatible because they disagree fundamentally about how objective external judgments should be made (impersonally or personally.)

Ti and Te are not compatible because one sees logic as something that should be derived purely from the self and believes that allowing external factors to influence logic is absurd, while the other doesn't see how logic can exist without some externalized context and objective consensus.

Fi and Fe are not compatible because one sees ethics as something that should be derived purely from the self and believes that allowing external factors to influence ethics is absurd, while the other doesn't see how ethics can exist without some externalized context and objective consensus.

More information in these articles if you need it:
See less See more
  • Like
Reactions: 3
Thanks for your insights SW. Your thoughts on how the auxiliary/tertiary work together are worth considering more. I do have some thoughts that are not in agreement with what you have said. Hopefully this will lead to a great discussion.
I am not sure what you mean when you say our top two functions can have the same attitude. The top two have different attitudes (E/I) because of the unwritten rule that two bodies cannot occupy the same space in time. In this case the body is the direction of energy. The extravert/introvert combination works well because one function is focused on internal energy while the other on external energy. Thus we are not alluding to the two top functions when both energies are directed the same way. Instead we are referring to the dominant (always must come into play since no other function can supersede it) and tertiary, or to a lesser level the auxiliary and weak (4th) function.
Right, that's exactly what I meant. When I said "top two functions" I simply meant the functions that get the most use; I didn't mean that the dominant and auxiliary in our functional layout can actually be oriented in the same direction.

So by "top two functions" I didn't mean dom+aux, I just meant dom+tert in the cases where the tert gets more emphasis than the aux.

I completely agree with this notion, but what if it happens nothing to do with a particular function process such as Ne, but is based merely on the individual’s disposition toward their attitude? In other words, if a person preferring ENTP has a very clear affinity to extraversion, they will have little use or development of their auxiliary function, thus go to the next extraverted function which is the tertiary, or in this case Fe.
imho everything has to do with functional attitudes.

But regarding strong disposition toward extroversion, that doesn't necessarily imply an underdeveloped secondary function. That's not necessarily the case. Many people still achieve strong proficiency with the auxiliary, even if they're not showing it to others most of the time.

I have a very strong disposition to introversion, therefore I use my auxiliary function in defense much of the time, precluding me from wanting to experience things even for an ISTP. On the other hand my Ni is very strong. Again this is because of my propensity to introversion, not because I prefer Ni. I think you are seeing the reasons for the preference for tertiary the same way I described above. However since I am not into typing others and suspect as to whether most people can read types, I would simply refer back to your example of INFJ-INTJ. The Ni dominance can make even Fe users appear cold (hence their mantra – INFJs appear warm on the inside and cold on the outside). People have a misunderstand of what Fe is. The only difference between Fe and Te are that Fe’s will generally consider the human factor. More importantly, Fe and Te are used for the same reasons to judge things externally. If the Fe type is more focused on the ethics or morality of a situation, there is no indication that they can make a ruthless decision (i.e., you stole, you should go to jail).
I would have to strongly disagree with that part. I think INFJs tend to appear warm on the outside due to Fe being used primarily to interact with others. And "ruthless decision" is quite relative--Fe might easily make decisions that Fi or Ti users find ruthless, as long as they're based on an externalized moral or cultural standard. Fe is focused on the human factor, yes, but "Protecting my cultural group" might result in a number of decisions that seem quite inhuman--the mind can justify a lot of things in terms of its dominant function if it twists them far enough. Recall that Hitler was most likely ENFJ!

Since both INJs dominate with Ni, Jung says that Ni and Si can be very cold and calculating. Confusing INJs should be no different than confusing ITPs, ETJs, or any types that dominant with the same functions since their auxiliary functions do the same thing.
That's certainly true at first, but the more you get to know someone and learn the patterns in type/behavior/phrasing/appearance/everything the more you can effectively guess types. (I'm assuming Ne helps a lot with this.)

Excellent point, although the example was not the best since Berens says, “Se and Te are often used when there is a focus on facts and an empirical approach. Se is a perceptive process and may consist of data gathering with questions, whereas Te is a judging process in which the purpose of questions is to establish logic.”
I don't quite understand how Berens' example improves upon mine.

However the combination together would make for a different type that is distinguishable since Ni again can be cold. But to coincide with your thoughts, as ISTP I use Ti-Ni, and INFJs use Ni-Ti so I can appreciate that there may be some internal confusion from that aspect. However this determination is unequivocally distinctive when considering the temperaments SP-NF. The same should be obvious for someone prefer NT (INTJ) and SP (ISFP). The distinction between the two latter examples would also be prevalent in their interaction styles.
Haha yeah, that's why NF is a terrible temperament division (as is NT.) All it means is "having some form of N and some form of F as the dominant and auxiliary functions"; its two forms have completely different functional makeups. Although Fe+Ni and Ne+Fi can lead to a number of surface behavioral similarities, their underlying motivations are dramatically different and thus imo it makes no sense to include them in the same temperament. If the INFJ's Fe is very poorly developed, and he relies primarily on Ni+Ti, he will clearly not display many characteristics of the "NF temperament", as his F function is under-emphasized.

Referring back to a thread by Frannyy recently, I admit that I am the worse at focusing on functions. But sometimes it’s simply a zebra. In other words, we can hypothesize, theorize or provide insights, but there is a simpler answer. In the case you provide, the proof would be in the persons core values. SJ and NF types would have distinctive temperaments that would easily discern ESTJ and ENFP.
SJ might, but not NF. That's the problem with NF and NT as temperament categories:

SJ = having Si as dom or aux

SP = having Se as dom or aux

NT = having some form of N and an opposing form of T as dom and aux

NF = having some form of N and an opposing form of F as dom and aux

The NT can mean two completely different things that contradict each other in many ways: Ne+Ti or Ni+Te. (Likewise NF can mean Ne+Fi or Ni+Fe.) While these produce some similar surface behaviors, when we examine cognitive motivation we find enormous differences between them.

SP and SJ are reasonable categories as they imply one particular function every time, but NT and NF don't really make sense from a cognitive functions/motivational standpoint. Once you get this, labeling surface behaviors instead of focusing on motivations seems really trivial and pointless by comparison.

Also again these two have different interaction styles as well. Furthermore Ne and Te are very different functions. After posting for years on the ENTP.ORG forum, most ENPs have no doubt that they are using Ne (an experiential and wholistic function) to Te (a very exacting function). Except you are comparing it to a function that would have little or no concern about what others thought, Te. Admittedly I thought that I was INTJ, then INFJ when I first learned about type. This may have been due to over relating to my Ni tertiary. But in truth it had to do with my lack of knowledge of functions. Once I was able to discern Ti from Ni, it was easy to discern that I could not be either INJ. However battling with whether I was INTP/ISTP took five years of self-observation. One’s auxiliary function, especially for two such vastly different types as ESTJ and ENFP, should never be in question.
Interaction styles are misleading and unreliable means of determining people's functional makeups. I don't think you could confuse ENFP and ESFJ that easily, since they have different F orientations, but it's actually much easier to confuse ENTP and ESFJ in some cases, because they share the same function attitudes, not because they have more letters in common. This is a huge point.

It makes far more sense to be "borderline ENTP/ESFJ" than it does to be "borderline ESFP/ESFJ" despite the latter pair having three letters in common and the former having only one. More letters in common does not imply more similar personality in all cases.

I think most of your arguments here stem from a lack of knowledge of functions, since you're still assuming all xNFx types have common underlying motivations simply because they can appear similar on the surface at first.

Ne and Te are very different functions, yes, but ESTJ and ENFP are not as "vastly different" as you seem to believe, especially when it comes to dom/tert loops. That was the whole point. If the auxiliary function is poorly developed or underutilized, the dom/tert loops begin to make those types look very similar. Your justification that "but their temperaments are different so that doesn't happen" fails because Keirsey's temperaments rely on the auxiliary function being strongly expressed (i.e., an ENFP who doesn't express his F is not going to look "like an NF" on the surface.)

In fact ESTJ and ENFP are more similar than ESTJ and ESTP. In childhood, complete opposite types don't understand each other at all, because they have not grown into the weaker functions much yet, but as we mature and reach adulthood, the "complete opposite" types suddenly seem much wiser and more similar to us than we at first imagined.

ENTP child = Ne Ti; ESFJ child = Fe Si. Can't understand each other at all.

ENTP adult = Ne Ti Fe Si; ESFJ adult = Fe Si Ne Ti; suddenly, after recognizing that there is value in the tertiary and inferior perspectives, each sees in the other a mentor who can teach him about improvement of these recently appreciated weaker perspectives. They "grow into" each other.

I will read over your descriptions in more detail, because you raise an excellent point SW, but I am still not sure how two functions with the same attitude can work in tandem. At best they are capable of working alternately. I dominate with Ti. Many times when remaining in the introverted attitude, I skip Se and go to Ni. I don’t and can’t use Ti-Ni in combination, but I can use Ti-Se or Se-Ni. Excellent article that deserve a lot of responses. This will be my 1,000 posts that I personally feel is deserving of a response to your thread. However I must admit that it was a toss up between responding to your thread and waiting to find a thread by Frannyy, so I could flirt.
They work in tandem only in unbalanced and unhealthy ways. They reinforce each other's bias toward one E/I orientation. That is why dom/tert loops are negative in the first place.

As for whether functions are literally used "at the same time" or not, I think we are probably under a combination of influences from all four functions most of the time. I think you can find motivations from more than one function in most people's actions, which can make it harder in some ways and easier in others to type people.

Also, honored that you spent your 1,000th post here. :laughing:
See less See more
  • Like
Reactions: 3
You sound more anti-dichotomous that I am. Hopefully you will stay around to pick up where I have left off in explaining how using mere dichotomies, preclude the user from getting a full understanding of type usage. You cannot use dichotomies to explain actions, that takes function processes. Explain how that can be please. If I have a strong propensity toward toward extraversion or introversion, I will have little use of my alternate functions using the other attitude. This is why we get caught in the loops you describe and become unhealthy. What Jung describes as conscious and unconscious is based on the attitudes. Function attitudes are merely a by-product of the attitude when combined with a function. To the contrary the auxiliary function has been rendered useless based on being overwhelmed by too much attitude of the other attitude that dictates the function we dominate with. Your "N" merely means that you repress sensing. But until the N is given a direction of energy, you will be unable to determine which funciton will be repressed. In this case, Ne as a dominant function represses Se which is the reason for Beebe's theory.That was as you know, is merely the warm and fuzzy description that INFJs have created for themselves. You're not disagreeing with me, you're disagreeing with how INFJs see themselves. That has been my point for years that you cannot make these snap decisions based on superficial encounters. But to claim you can do something that even type enthusiasts and even Jung finds almost impossible, has more to do with an inflated ego than being capable SW. The more you understand functions, the more you will appreciate that the dynamics of personality makes it virtually impossible to type other people. Hell we struggle to type ourselves even when we are versed in the functions.
1) I didn't say you can't use dichotomies to explain actions; I said you can't use them to explain cognitive motivations. They work ok for surface actions, but they're not good at explaining internal motivations.

2) A strong propensity for introversion or extroversion doesn't necessitate that the secondary function be weak or unused. If that propensity is extreme to the point that the secondary becomes neglected, then we get into dom/tert loops, but simply having a strong preference for introversion doesn't necessitate a lack of skill with the secondary extroverted attitude (even if that is the case for you.)

3) I don't feel it necessary to prove to you that I have a high success rate in typing people quickly. It basically depends on how stereotypical the person is--the more they fit the mold for that type, the easier it is for me to pick up on it quickly. Extroverted perception, and especially Ne, is really good at this. Whenever I hear "omg there's no way you can read types like that!" it's almost invariably from extreme introverts with poor command of their outer world perspectives. Yes, you can. Work on your extroverted perception and you'll get there too.

The more experience you get with it the more it just happens. I don't even have to think about it; I just recognize functions very quickly. I'm not always right, but if Ne guesses right more often than not (which mine does), it's worth trusting.

If and I emphasize "if", you know someone on an intimate enough level, you may be capable of determining whether the person observed prefers a particular dominating type, but it's doubtful that you will be able to determine the unconscious function or auxiliary with great accuracy. Contrary to your loathing of Keirsey, this is where it's necessary to determine the person's temperament preference. If determining types were that easy, don't you think Jung would have provided the tools to do so? Jung did not want to claim what a type looked like beyond the dominant function, because he said he would have to start with 256 descriptions. Yet as we know temperament is not about function processes. However it does have it’s good points. Interesting you have an issue with Keirsey maintaining the NF, NT temperaments, and I am suspect of his changing the SP and SJ temperaments. I have no problem with Keirsey’s theory in it’s rightful place of looking at type from a very general term, but the moment he wrote at least the SP descriptions, he made ISPs sound more extraverted than they are. This was because of his focus on the common function (Se). As I said above, we come to the same conclusion about Keirsey’s work, from differing points of view. As I see it Keirsey provides two functions for consideration with NT and NF types, a function and a generalization of a function with the SJ and is redundant in his label of SPs since sensing is a perceiving function. As for your assertion in the comparisons, of course Ne-Ti will be different than Ni-Te, however that may be less revealing when saying the same for Ti-Ne and Ni-Te since you are depending on dominant functions that are not as apparent to the observer. You are depending on a a function that even Jung says is inferior in it's use. Surely you are not claiming that INTJs will have an equal use of their Te or INTPs of their Ne, or ENTPs for that matter of their Ti. Surely you should know that interaction styles as well do not use function processes? As I said, it's not always about functions and taking such a rigid view that everything non-function related must be dismissed is a curious stance. Interaction styles focus on how we influence others (Directing/Informing), how we define relationships (Initiating/Responding) and where we focus our attention (Control/Movement). Since Berens is a student of temperament, I can understand your reluctance to buy in, but I have found interaction styles and even temperament is a great tool to confirming ones type. As an example, someone having a problem with determining whether they are INFJ or INFP can do some healthy self-analysis to fit whether they prefer the “Chart the Course” or “Behind the Scenes” interaction styles. But most people have no interest in working on themselves preferring to take the easy way out in merely claiming a title INFJ and asking absurd questions of why their type continues to change since they have little use of functions. I have been saying that as well for years is that SP types have less in common with SJ types than NF and/or NT types. But this is based on Keirsey’s matrix in alluding to certain temperaments being polar opposites when in actuality, we use more than one temperament to adapt to varied institutions. LOL, boy I have been accused of a lot of things but lacking knowledge in functions is not one of them. No this stems from your believing that temperament is based on function processes. The system itself was never created to apply Jung’s functions, but it does not mean it’s completely bad. It simply means as again I have said for years that they do not correlate. Jung’s theory is based on specifically how we use function attitudes and Keirsey takes a very general approach. The problem always stems from people mixing and matching. To the contrary, I think that all types using the same top four functions are very similar. I have a lot in common with INFJ, ENFJ and ESTP since we all use the same top four functions. I think that ENTP, INTP, ESFJ, ISFJ have more in common. Be careful of making assumptions before you read other posts. Maybe I should clarify what is meant by tandem, meaning they work simultaneously. Jung depicts this in saying:Alternating between to functions with the same attitude is not what is meant by working in tandem. Again Te-Ne, Ne-Fe, Ti-Ni, etc. can only working in alternates creating as you have so eloquently disclosed a vicious loop that takes some use of a function with a differing attitude to remove from that loop. That function will have to be the auxiliary, since even at it’s best the fourth function is not strong enough to break the loop. I agree we use four functions in combination, but you cannot Fe while you are Ne-ing, and you cannot Si while you are Ti-ing. The attitudes will not allow for two things to be done simultaneously, instead alternately. But for the reasons you just explained, is why we cannot type others with complete accuracy since at best we will not know whether the person uses Ne-Ti or Fe-Si. However we do use our dominant+auxiliary functions in tandem, otherwise how can you discern types. I agree 100% that it’s important to understand the function processes and move away from the elementary use of dichotomies, but to confirm one’s type, we need systems such as temperament and interaction styles to allow us to observe ourselves objectively and not get caught in the loops that you have articulated. Great topic and I look forward to reading your theories SW.
1) Typing people is not easy and requires a lot of experience and understanding. I didn't become proficient at it without a lot of study and practice. With new people, some are more stereotypical than others. The more stereotypical a person is, the easier it is to peg his type quickly.

2) You're missing the fact that temperaments, because they focus on surface behavior, require the dominant and auxiliary functions to be expressed in normal/healthy proportions in order for the surface behavior associated with that temperament to be clearly displayed. Your own Ti+Ni loop is getting in the way of your understanding here: You say Keirsey's SP temperament makes ISPs seem "more extroverted than they are", but I suspect this is mostly your own personal bias due to your own underdeveloped Se.

In fact this illustrates the problem with "temperament" theory in general--it presumes healthy, standard development of the top two functions and ignores dom/tert loop cases. Most ISPs actually are about as extroverted as the SP temperament suggests, but you're not because your Se is underdeveloped.

You cannot observe "NF behavior" in an NF type whose F function is suppressed. You, for instance, sound more like an NT than an SP, but that's because you've suppressed your Se for whatever reason and are running primarily on Ni+Ti. If I were to try to guess your temperament based purely on Keirsey's theory, and I didn't understand functions, I would probably think you're an NT--but you're not.

This further illustrates my point that "temperament reading" is dependent upon which functions are actually expressed by that individual, and its efficacy (if any) completely breaks down when it comes to individuals who suppress the natural secondary function (like you.)

3) You neglect the difference between Se and Si in your evaluation of Keirsey's SP and SJ temperaments. They're far more different than you're giving them credit for--J/P is by far the most significant letter in the four-letter type codes.

4) No, I'm not claiming that INTJs have as much Te as they do Ni, etc...I don't understand where you got that. My point was simply that NT is a nonsensical category because it doesn't differentiate between Ni+Te (or Te+Ni) and Ti+Ne (or Ne+Ti.) They may display some similar surface behaviors but as their motivations for everything are completely different, "NT" as a category doesn't make much sense.

5) I am aware that temperament/interaction style theory does not purport to depend on function usage; the problem is, everything depends on function usage whether we want it to or not, including the actions you observe in others when deciding their temperaments/interaction styles. The characteristics you observe in others as "NF" or "NT" are not going to be observable in NF types who suppress their F functions or NT types who suppress their T functions.

I find it interesting that you yourself are living evidence against the validity of temperament theory, as in its terms you would appear to be an NT type, and yet you are not. You are suggesting that temperaments and interaction styles can completely bypass function usage and get some sort of magical read totally uninfluenced by the person's functional usage, but that's impossible. Nothing is uninfluenced by the person's function usage!

6) We really don't need temperaments or interaction styles at all, imo. The authors of these systems didn't intend for them to depend on function usage, but they still do regardless, because everything does.

Temperament/interaction style = focus on surface actions
Function usage = focus on motivation for those actions

By suggesting that temperament is unrelated to function usage, you're implying that when using temperament theory we're reading surface actions that are uninfluenced by a person's underlying motivations--except, whoops!--everything is influenced by a person's underlying motivations.

Temperaments/interaction styles are a decent starting point but they become irrelevant the more you become proficient with functions. You do seem to understand functions well, but I don't understand how you can assume they simply drop out of the picture when you use temperaments/interaction styles.

Temperaments/interaction styles start to break down and make a lot of mistakes when you get to types that don't emphasize the auxiliary function in typical healthy fashion. Again, think about where the information you use to decide temperament is coming from in the first place--what motivates the behaviors that you categorize into temperaments? A person's functional perspectives--they motivate everything. When you use temperaments/interaction styles to categorize their surface behaviors, you're just categorizing the surface manifestations of their most externally expressed functions, which may or may not actually correlate with their real functional motivations.
See less See more
They don’t work for surface actions, they don’t work at all. E-N-T-P is nothing but a title. There is no action when using dichotomies because they’re inanimate until a direction of energy is given to the function. When you intuit or think what does that mean, unless you say you Ne or Ti? Come on now, that should be obvious. You’re kidding right?
No, I'm not. Temperaments sort people based on what they do and how they do it (rather than why they do it.) That is surface action. Temperament theory ignores function directions; that is the very reason NT and NF are nonsensical categories in functional terms.

And yes, that is obvious, and it adds weight to my entire overarching point that NT and NF are ineffective categories because they fail to differentiate between Ni/Ne, Ti/Te and Fi/Fe.

"ENTP" is a title that, in temperament terms, suggests a certain set of behavioral patterns, but does not acknowledge the differences between Ni/Ne and Ti/Te. For this reason it doesn't cover internal motivations effectively, only externalized actions.

The secondary function is naturally subordinate to the dominant function in the first place. It can’t be stronger than the dominant function and Jung actually implies that everything less than the dominant function as being inferior. There are theories that we merely use more the dominant function and everything subsequent to that is a free for all. But for the sake of argument I am in agreement that our secondary or auxiliary function is stronger than the other functions and there is a hierarchy. Nevertheless you should know this since it is Jung 101: I am not sure why you state that a strong attitude does not necessitate a weak auxiliary or secondary function. Are you not aware of Jung’s conscious/unconscious theory? He isn’t referring to functions. He is discussing attitudes.
We are using the term "weak" in different contexts. I simply mean that a strong preference for introversion doesn't necessitate being terrible at the secondary extroverted function. You seem to have assumed that because that is the case for you, it is the case for everyone who has a strong intro/extroversion preference, but note that preference does not equal ability. If you worked hard on it, you'd be able to improve your Se despite your strong natural preference for introversion.

Clearly the secondary and all others are still weaker than the dominant.

That should be indicative when he refers to the conscious and unconsciousness of the extraverted type: This is a vast difference than what you originally claimed. We can all most likely determine someone’s type that is exaggerated, but most people’s functions are not exaggerated. It’s rare for someone to be a pure type, so your high success rate being claimed has to be only a handful of people. I wasn’t’ expecting you to prove you can read people. I wanted you to hear what you were claiming, and I stand by my original statement, it’s impossible to read the average person. Simulated, you may believe you can leap tall buildings at a single bound, stop locomotives or any other feat. But there is a difference in believing you can do it and actually doing it. What’s up with this reference to the Ne as though it’s a super strength. Ne does the same thing that Se does.
Yes it does, and if your Se weren't subjugated beneath your Ni, you might be able to type people more easily too.

This isn't going to make sense from a purely Ti+Ni standpoint, unfortunately. You self-describe as a Ti+Ni ISTP, acknowledging your Pe function is underdeveloped! External pattern recognition becomes much easier once the Pe function reaches a point of strength. You're going to need to stretch your perspective beyond pure introversion to understand this.

However since we are on that subject, you do know that Ne merely considers possibilities followed by a lot of “what ifs” and going off on tangents. If you think you’re using that function to read people, it’s most likely you’re doing exactly what ENPs do, go on tangents. The problem is they’re not always real or coincide with reality. You really are just selling snake oil aren’t you? I have discussed this with you and or your cronies at typolgycentral in the past, but I will rehash from my discussions there as well.
I'm no longer going to respond to your allegations that typing people is impossible. Grow some Se.

Jung = specifics (cognitive functions), MB = type (dichotomies) and Keirsey = general (core functions of groups of types). There is nothing hard about understanding that Keirsey never remotely refers to a cognitive function in his work. His theory is okay until he makes the mistake of actually attempting to define the individuals using type. That is not what temperament is about and it sure is not about anything remotely close to Jung’s work. You should know this as well. As for your assertion that I must be in your so-called loop based on my interpretation of Keirsey’s ISTP description, I have posted articles such as this. Have you actually ever read about the theory of temperament? Let’s not get caught up in your own hype of the loop, because right now you’re sounding a bit loopy in these claims.
Yes, I've read Gifts Differing and Please Understand Me. I am familiar with Keirsey's system and I find it inferior.

Jung's work was largely concerned with unconscious motivations for our value systems, ways in which our inherent biases affect our perspectives and beliefs in such a profound way that it's hard for us to grasp how much influence they have. That is why function attitudes are at the heart of everything--even if you don't realize the extent to which your preferred attitudes affect your outlook on everything (like your lack of extroverted perception precluding you from observing external patterns well enough to type people, for instance.)

I am not saying these things the enthusiasts and followers of type are saying them. Again, let’s stop pretending here. Temperament is about core values. Temperament was around before the USA was thought of, let alone Jung, Myers-Briggs or Keirsey. It’s always been about core values, never about functions and Keirsey made an ill attempt to correlate them. But it is the fault of readers who do not understand his theory that makes a mockery of it, not Keirsey. Read something on the subject and you will see that Keirsey rarely if ever, alludes to the functions or dichotomies. Okay, this is where I stop taking you serious in your claims of knowing about type. TEMPERAMENT IS NOT ABOUT INDIVIDUAL TYPES! Get it straight it’s about core values in GROUPS of types. It has nothing to do with functions, it never has and it never will. You should know this. TEMPERAMENT IS TEMPERAMENT, IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH JUNG’S THEORY, FUNCITONS DO NOT COME INTO PLAY AND EVERYTHING IS NOT ABOUT FUNCTIONS…… Read S.W. then you would know that most ISTPs relate to the NT temperament. It’s common knowledge. Do you truly think you’re the first to mistype me as a NT, and what does that say about your success rate?
Temperament in Keirsey's terms is about categorizing surface behaviors. I have read his work and I'm well aware that he doesn't make good use of function orientations; that is the problem with his theory.

You've missed my point regarding temperament and functions. The point is that while I understand temperament theory overtly ignores functions, temperament theory is an inferior and less effective method because by ignoring function attitudes it leads us to categorize a number of people incorrectly.

Temperament theory does have some value in terms of categorizing obvious surface behavioral patterns, but it breaks down when it comes to core values because it's too simplified. I'm aware that this idea has been around since Ancient Greece, and it is useful on a basic level, but once you understand how to use functions in practice its utility becomes quickly marginalized.

Here is another instance of you failing to note a cross-contextual connection between two seemingly unrelated ideas: you lack extroverted Perception and it shows. I never claimed that temperament theory consciously takes function attitudes into account; I merely suggested that it is an inferior system precisely because it doesn't! You're putting a lot of words in my mouth and misinterpreting a lot of my points. I said that trying to categorize people without taking function attitudes into account is an inferior method, which is my main problem with function theory. I do not and have never believed that temperament theory has anything to do with functions; the whole reason I have issues with it is that it ignores the E/I orientations of each function!

I do read and I don't appreciate your continual insistence that I don't.

I didn't mistype you as an NT; in fact, I used the fact that temperament theory would lead one to mistype you as an NT as an argument to show that temperament theory is less effective than function theory. In order to understand your Ti+Ni type, we need to know function theory. You don't fit well into any of the temperaments and neither do many people, but function theory explains your situation well. ergo, function theory > temperaments.

What you refer to in this thread is not new. Jungian Psychologists were discussing this before either of us knew about type. The theory is based on an individual having a greater propensity of one attitude that prevents them from developing their auxiliary. That is evident in Jung’s Conscious and Unconscious theory. They get caught in the loop as you say, because their E or I attitude is so pervasive that they find any need to introvert unfulfilling. Read Gift’s Differing, Lenore Thomson or anyone else. Development of functions is not a given or guarantee but the attitudes are always present. It’s natural for some types to skip over their auxiliary function. Myers-Briggs made that clear in encouraging readers to make a conscious effort to develop the auxiliary function, to prevent this. Your Fe would not be able to take over your Ti, causing the loop without the common denominator of extraversion. My Ni would not be active without the common denominator of introversion. Your Ti is naturally weaker than the Ne and my Se is naturally weaker than my Ti because they dominate. But those functions would be just that, if it were not for the attitudes making them stronger. Do you truly think intuition or thinking would mean anything to you if they were not directed with the energy of the attitude? This is why Keirsey was able to use simple functions in his work, because the theory is not based on cognitive functions, they’re based on simple dichotomies.
I have read both Gifts Differing and Personality Type: An Owner's Manual, so any time you want to cut the condescending instructions to read further, that'd be greatly appreciated. <3

Anyway, no, I don't think that N or T would mean much if not defined by an I/E attitude, which supports my entire point that temperament theory is inferior to function theory because it neglects the directional attitudes of functions.

Since we can clearly both agree that N and T don't mean anything to us without associated I/E attitudes, doesn't this illustrate very clearly the problem with the NT and NF categories? NT and NF do not differentiate based on function attitude, so they are meaningless and ineffective groupings.

It's like you're making my points for me and then repeating my own positions back to me as if correcting me, when in reality you're merely restating things I've already said. I'm afraid you've misunderstood a lot of my positions here.

Lastly, I don't think extreme introversion or extreme extroversion is "natural" for any types, although it is relatively common. I think focusing on developing the auxiliary is the way to achieve personal balance and harmony, and I think you're threatened by my suggestion that there's something wrong with your extremely introverted perspective.

Without a solid extroverted perspective balancing you out, you're unable to pick up externalized patterns of information enough to type people effectively. You understand everything in theory but you can't apply it in practice--which, go figure, is exactly what happens to Schizotypal personalities, which I would guess shows a high correlation with Ti+Ni loops.

Your knowledge on this topic has a lot of depth, but you lack the breadth and cross-contextual perception of a mediating extroverted function, and it really shows. You need to work on that Se. :wink:
See less See more
Shadow functions aren't weaker than the first four. They're shadow because they're underlying. All functions co-exist within everyone at all times. There is a reason the inferior function manifests in a very diminished way until later in life when you have a very good grasp on your dominant. You learn to balance the two slowly, and you prefer the one over the other. And believe me, I very well know the difference between function-attitudes and the idea of functions people on these forums seem to have.
You don't seem to have substantiated your claim that shadows aren't weaker than the first four. You stated that claim and then made several unrelated statements about the inferior function.

Anyway, no, I strongly disagree that shadows are used frequently or commonly. The "subconscious motivations" people try to explain via shadow attitudes are most often easily explained via the subconscious influence of the tertiary and inferior. Only in moments of unusual perspective shift are the shadows utilized, imo.

I can agree with describing the shadows as "underlying", but how exactly does that make them stronger than the tertiary or inferior? The whole definition of a shadow function is that the ego has chosen to repress that orientation of that process--this repression of one orientation of each process would not be necessary if the two opposing orientations were compatible. The tert and inf are clearly far more consciously usable, and can be applied in a positive way once the user matures and learns how to identify them in himself. I've never really seen anyone gain natural command of any shadow perspective, as much as everyone seems to think they do. It still takes a lot of effort and it's still quite unnatural no matter how much you try to force it, whereas the tert and inf functions do become pretty natural as we grow and develop and balance our personalities out.

A dominant Ti often will answer higher on Te than either Fe or Fi, but that doesn't mean Te is "higher" or more developed. It means they're a thinker and the Thinking function is stronger, so both orientations will be more relatable to them. I've studied people's results from these kinds of tests and they almost invariably score higher on the opposite orientation of their dominant and secondary than either orientation of the opposite function, and it's not because they don't understand the question. The attitude that the tests measure are simply more relatable, even if the function-attitude isn't as "high" in their ordering as the results imply.
Function test results are utterly irrelevant. It doesn't matter at all where any given function comes up when you're trying to test the relative strength of perspectives that can't really be tested empirically, so I don't buy "But my function test said so!" as an argument for Ti doms having strong Te.

Look at the way Ti and Te approach logical reasoning. Their perspectives on it contradict each other because one says logic comes from inside and the other says it comes from the outside.

Compatibility has nothing to do with it, and no function-attitude is incompatible with any other. It's about strength of identity with each attitude. It is well within reason to identify strongly with the attitude of Te if you are dominant Ti. The attitude is not incompatible. However, when your dominant function is Ti, which values objective logic, it would feel strange to consciously make decisions based on subjective feelings of others or societal norms, and especially to admit it on a test. The Ti attitude demands an accordance with the laws of logic as they see them no matter what, even if it clashes with the thoughts and feelings of others or society in general. It's not about incompatibility, but they are opposing in some sense.
The attitude is quite incompatible. Talk to Ti and Te doms about their ideas on the nature of logical reasoning and how impersonal ideas should be treated. You'll find that they totally disagree with each other's approaches. I don't care what your function test said; all function tests are inherently bunk because the questions presume that answering in a certain way necessitates natural ability with a certain perspective, and it doesn't at all.

As your Fe develops, you learn when it is beneficial to sacrifice total logic for relating to others, however. It is common, and logical, for a Ti attitude to rate Fe questions lower on these tests, even if they in practice understand the value of Fe, but they generally do not have a problem with the Te attitude. This is because both attitudes value objective logic in their own right, even if they apply it differently. What it comes down to is how the test represents the attitudes. In my experience, dominant Ti's rate Te and Fi nearly identically or Te a little higher.
That's cause the tests are garbage. Ti users absolutely do have a problem with the Te attitude; the value systems implied by these outlooks completely contradict each other. Ti and Te both value impersonal reasoning, yes, but they grossly disagree on the source of where that logic should be derived from--the self or the outside world. I suggest reading the sticky on function attitudes here if you have trouble understanding why Ti and Te contradict each other completely:

As a personal example, I usually score in this order: Ne > Ni > Ti > Te > Fe > Fi > Si > Se, with minimal variance between tests. It's not that I don't understand the questions or that I actually think my Ni or Te are "higher" in order than the rest, but that the attitudes feel more familiar because they are from the same function but different orientation.
Self-report evaluations mean nothing. If I tell a self-report test that I'm great at brain surgery, it's going to tell me I'm a brain surgeon. You need to get over the idea that function tests mean anything.

I stand by everything I said about his results. Based on those results alone, however accurate they may be to his true personality, I would say INTP. The fact that Ti is so high and Fe is so low on those results, I would put Ti as his dominant. It requires logical hoops to assume it's his tertiary or even "lower" in the order, based on those results alone. The majority of the rest of the attitudes are nearly identical, with the exception of the very low Fe and Se. The fact that Se is so low does signify to me that he is probably not an S. As I said, it's entirely common for a dominant Si to score Se higher than most other functions, and definitely not as low as he did.
I don't know what his type is, but function test results have very little if anything to do with it. If you're an NTP and you think Ni and Te attitudes "feel familiar", you don't understand what Ni and Te actually represent or how heavily they clash with everything central to your worldview. It's not that you don't understand the questions; it's that the whole idea of a self-report questionnaire is totally ineffective in determining functional perspectives!

The functions represent total worldviews, and each pair represents two opposing ways of conceptualizing the same mental process. You do not utilize both T perspectives regularly because Ti and Te are complete, overarching mindsets that clash with each other's most basic fundamental ideas on the nature of reality. The two different orientations of each function contradict each other strongly; that is why the ego needs to repress the non-preferred attitude and only access it occasionally during moments of profound perceptual growth.

Ti and Fe may seem contradictory at first, as when we are young we rarely see any value in our tert/inf functions, but as we grow and develop we discover that Ti and Fe are entirely compatible and indeed combine into one larger unified judgment process that encourages deriving logic from the self and ethics from the outside world.

Te and Fi form a similar symbiotic relationship, deriving ethics from the self and logic from the outside world. These attitudes are not compatible with Fe and Ti by any means because they structure their conceptions of logic and ethics in fundamentally different ways, based on fundamentally different criteria.

And low Se shouldn't signify "probably not an S", it should just signify "probably not an SP." You need to differentiate between Se and Si.
See less See more
Great article SimulatedWorld, thank you! I've had alot of trouble finding my type. Ive been at the search now for two months and atm I am reading "Please understand me II" because I still feel that something is "off" (It's also nice knowledge to have of course)

I got a question: Let's say you are an INFJ and you get into dom/tert loop. You are neglecting or suppressing your Fe. Can this make a "whole other" person out of you? What I mean is, in his book Keirsey talks about values and interests:

Rationals -> Sciences, Technology and Systems
Idealists -> Humanities, Morale and Personnel

Rationals -> Calm, Reason, Achievement, Knowledge, Deference, Wizard
Idealists -> Enthusiastic, Intuition, Romance, Identity, Recognition, Sage

I always typed as INTP and my interests and values ARE those of Rationals. I am not interested in Humanities or Morale or Personnel whatsoever. Ive been into sciences, technology and systems ever since I was a kid and got my first computer. With the values its the same thing except then maybe for "Identity" and "Recognition", those I can identify with in great length too. Although "Knowledge" is huge for me too.

If it "can" change a person so fundamentally I wonder if it's the change in values that caused the disorder or the disorder that changed the values. I feel like NT values have been mine for a very very long time, as long as I can remember actually, but at the core I know I am NF.

If it were not for my "extreme dislike of conflict", "extreme dislike of critisism" or my "SP Wannabe behavior" or "my giant need to help out the underdog" and other really typical (I)NF(J) stuff I would definitely have rested my case with INTP. But now I rather think that I am an INFJ stuck in a dom/tert loop, suppressing my Fe.

Also thanks for the links in your replies. By reading those, I now finally have some understanding of cognitive functions. I am definitely using Ti and Fe is inside me too but I tend to ignore that - be stronger, think about me instead of others :) After I found out that ENFP might not have been my type after all, I doubted INTP again but this time I knew something was wrong: OR the mbti was flawed (Ti?) OR I had a disorder.

I think its the second one...
First of all I would just move past temperament theory and embrace functions. Read Lenore Thomson's Personality Type: An Owner's Manual and that will get you started in the right direction.

As I explained in some other posts in this thread, temperament theory doesn't work very well for dom/tert loop types, because in its descriptions of behavior it presumes that the dom and aux functions are most accentuated. For example, ISPs will be described as "action-oriented, needing physical thrills, impulsive" and so on but this won't be the case if their auxiliary Se is underdeveloped (as in the case of functianalyst!)

Secondly, if you have seemingly NT interests and yet "know at your core" that you are NF, you might actually be an INTJ with poorly developed secondary Te. This would create an Ni+Fi loop, so that inside you feel like you use more F than T, and thus assume this makes you an F type.

I doubt that you are an INTP if you feel so F on the inside. The other major possibility I see is that you are, as you suggested, INFJ with poorly developed Fe. This seems more likely to me, as Ni+Ti would prompt an interest in impersonal systems construction, but you might still "know" deep down that you're really a Feeler. This explanation is also consistent with the way you say you intentionally repress Fe.

If you are in fact an INFJ, I'd try to work on letting that Fe out instead of repressing it--that's the way to find balance and greater happiness.

See less See more
  • Like
Reactions: 2
Now that's calling the kettle Black. You may want to read back through the thread to see who has been making the rigid assertions about cognitive functions. To the contrary, that is your title. I was discussing these things at typologycentral, when you were still relating type to kiddy shows SW. Now that's real. Do you truly think readers are such sheeple that they cannot go review our posts at typologycentral? As I said, I typed as "?", so people can look for themselves. If someone wants to see how I developed over the years, they can go to ENTP.ORG and see my posts, or to INTPC where I posted as "?" and INTrPosr. I think you have developed a great deal of understanding about functions, but don't think for once anyone is fooled that you have been doing it for years. That's evident in your demeanor. Once you do develop a respect for Jung's work (if you do), then you will realize your notions of typing others is just plain stupid.
Um...I've been doing it for about 2 years. That'd be plural, as in more than one year. I started reading about it in the summer of '08 and joined typologycentral that fall; I've just spent an extraordinary amount of time on it since then.

As for sheep and so on, I have no idea what you're talking about and I don't see the relevance to this thread. I don't think most of the people here are sheep--I think they will read what I've written and evaluate its usefulness for themselves, and so far the response has been overwhelmingly positive.

Nevertheless, I will make this easy and cut to the chase. Making a comparison of temperament to cognitive functions is futile, as is it with MBTI. They're different systems with different measures, determining different things. I am not a Keirsey fan as well, but your assertions that one is inferior to the other is suspect since it's an apple/orange comparison. The same goes for Socionics and any other system that uses the type codes as examples. Just because they have integrated the codes does not make their systems about type. MB is about type. In conclusion claiming one is inferior to another makes no sense since there is no comparison.
It's not really my problem if your Pe sucks too much to grasp the similarities and patterns between different contexts. MBTI sucks compared to function analysis because it's shallow, ignores internal motivations, and ends up mislabeling a lot of people as a result. All in all it's a less effective, less applicable model of cognition. It's the training wheels version of function theory for people who don't know any better.

As we established before, since Keirsey fails to account for the dom/tert types, who do not fit into any of his temperament molds, and also ignores the two possible directional orientations for each function, his system is incomplete and misleading.

And I don't remember having spoken to you on typology central. Do you have a different username there?

Jung's work is great for specific reasons as is Keirsey and Berens. MBTI has simply become the nexus for anything type related. Keirsey's work is not surface, he delves into the motivations of each group. You should know that. Besides continuing to say that Jung's work is purely based on motive and motivations of the user is untrue. Jung says it can be for motivation or purpose and actions of the user. Knowing the cognitive functions is great, but I have been studying Jung for years and still have questions. It allows me to get a better perspective of how the functions truly work, i.e. types are far more than merely forced dichotomies. If you want to make comparisons, it's MBTI that Jung's work should be compared to.
If Keirsey is delving into motivations then he's doing a bad job by grouping NTPs with NTJs and NFPs with NFJs.

I still have lots of questions too, but they involve figuring out more ways to observe, understand and apply the different functional perspectives. They don't much involve worrying about different ways to categorize surface behavior--underlying motivation is far more interesting and requires a lot more than four oversimplified categories to model effectively.

Most of what you've done in your last couple of posts is miss my points, misquote me and repeat my own points back to me condescendingly while somehow missing the fact that I already agreed with them in the first place. Like I'll say, "Temperaments are inferior because they ignore dom/tert types" and you'll say "SURELY YOU REALIZE THAT TEMPERAMENTS DON'T INCLUDE FUNCTIONS!!!!!!!!", and I'm like, um yeah, that was my whole point. That's why they suck.
See less See more
  • Like
Reactions: 1
Just to add to this, I have a very tough time figuring out other peoples type strictly based on MBTI. It takes a long time to know someone to do this. I've read all the function descriptions, but I still had trouble distinguishing Te/Ti Fe/Fi. In some of your posts, you demonstrated the function attitudes (or should I say some of the responders did, and you pointed it out.) Suddenly that made the function differences make a ton of sense. I now realize I've many times butted heads with Te users in the past. I just didn't realize they were Te users. At those times, I couldn't understand why people who were supposed to be intelligent couldn't grasp concepts I was trying to explain to them, or why they'd do things in a way that seemed pointless to me. Now I understand it's a completely different way of thinking. Now it's alot easier to recognize in others, making them easier to type. Same deal with Fi/Fe.

So now I'm interested in ways to easily spot the perceiving functions in action (I can recognize Ne, but not the rest so easily)
This is what strong extroverted perception does. You suddenly notice the patterns and recognize the function attitudes in others and it all just makes sense.

It takes some practice, but it's quite possible to do this. I would suggest to functianalyst that he consider the limitations created by his own lack of any strong extroverted perspective, and the effect this has on his ability to understand how typing others works.
1 - 20 of 381 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.