[Functianalyst]

The tertiary placement seems to be quite ambiguous and hard to understand. The word itself literally means in 3rd place, which can create an inference that based on typology principles, any function-attitude in the 3rd placement must be weaker than the two preceding placements (dominant-auxiliary). This theory is usually followed by MBTI enthusiasts. The MBTI system also implies that the auxiliary placement will always be developed. Based on “Gifts Differing” one may easily infer that the auxiliary can be equal to or in the case of introverting types, at least give an appearance of being greater than the dominant function. This ambivalence is generally the result of discussions surrounding the J/P process.


MBTI System

The Myers-Briggs Foundation describes the hierarchy of placements this way:

One preference has the most influence on you. This is called the dominant function.

The next strongest preference is called the auxiliary function. It is important because it serves to support and balance the dominant.

The 3rd strongest is the tertiary function.

One preference is the least strong. This is the fourth function, often called the inferior function.

The foundation describes the tertiary this way:

The 3rd-preferred, or tertiary, function tends to be less interesting to individuals, and they tend to have fewer skills associated with it. The letter of this function does not appear in your type. It is the opposite function from the auxiliary function. If, for example, your auxiliary function is Thinking, then your tertiary will be Feeling.

Development of this function tends to come later in life (about midlife) after you have grown and feel comfortable with the dominant and auxiliary. As you grow and develop, you learn that there is a time and place to use your 3rd and fourth functions.

About this time, the question arises in life, is this all there is? The tertiary function can guide you toward areas of your life you have avoided, areas that require skills you do not feel comfortable using. For example, a Thinking type with tertiaryIntuition may begin taking literature courses. A Thinking type with tertiary Sensing may begin doing carpentry or weaving.

This theory again implies that we will have less use of the tertiary placed function than the auxiliary. MBTI enthusiasts who have written about this placement provide little information. In their books “Beside Ourselves” and “Personality Type: An Owner’s Manual”, Naomi Quenck and Lenore Thomson writes about the tertiary, explaining how the placement works in the MBTI system. However in a rewrite of her book titled “Was That Really Me?”,Dr. Quenck seems to defer her thoughts on this placement to how Jungian theorists see its usage. Dr. Quenck concludes that the role of the tertiary is ambivalent in varied systems. This is a reference to some theorists interpreting Jung to indicate a person using an introverting function to dominate will use all extraverting functions afterwards, and vice-versa for the extraverting type.

Because MBTI associates the 3rd placed function with the inferior function. Many infer that any use of the 3rd function is a result of the inferior function and the use of the tertiary is negative and immature at best. This thought also implies that for the tertiary function to work, the auxiliary function must relinquish its power. That is vaguely true since theoretically the auxiliary and tertiary functions will be compensatory opposites. Therefore the more we use one function, the less we will use the other (on a sliding scale). When reading MBTI theory, one may infer that the dominant and auxiliary placements are conscious and differentiated.


Jungian Typology

Jungian enthusiasts such as John Beebe, refers to the tertiary placement as well. Like the four-letter codes we generally reference to allude to a particular type (ISTP, ENFP, etc.), the tertiary theory has become a staple in how we view the application of type. However unlike MBTI enthusiasts, Jungian Analysts indicate in their diagrams that the 2nd and 3rd functions are equal (or an axis), the auxiliary and tertiary functions are shown at the side as arms with equal usage, whereas the inferior function is at the bottom. This should give some indication that Jungian enthusiasts may believe the 2nd and 3rd functions are equal. Dr. Beebe refers to the 3rd function as the Puer Aeternus/Puella Aeterna function (aka Eternal Child). In his 8-model function study, Dr. Beebe describes the role in himself this way:

My introverted thinking was symbolised by a Father in one dream that found him in conflict with an upset feeling-type son, whom I eventually recognised as an image of my 3rd function. The particular son figure in the dream was a persistently im-mature man in analysis at the time, whose oscillation of woundedness and creativity fit well the description Marie Louise von Franz had given in her classic study of the ‘problem of the Puer Aeternus’ (1970), the Latin term referring to an eternal boyhood befitting an immortal. I decided that this dream was referring to an aspect of my own feeling that was inflated, vulnerable and chronically immature.

Linda V. Berens and Dario Nardi also refer to the 3rd placement as tertiary, but has dubbed this placement as the “Relief Role” and describes it as:

The relief role gives us a way to energize and recharge ourselves. It serves as a backup to the supporting role and often works in tandem with it. When we are younger, we might not engage in the process that plays this role very much unless our life circumstances require it or make it hard to use the supporting role process. Usually, in young adulthood we are attracted to activities that draw upon this process. The relief role often is how we express our creativity. It is how we are playful and childlike. In its most negative expression, this is how we become childish. Then it has an unsettling quality, and we can use this process to distract ourselves and others, getting us off target.

There are other analysts who have written about this placement as well. In her book “Jung’s Typology, Dr. von Franz never uses the word tertiary. Instead in Chapter IV called “The Role of the Inferior Function”, Dr. von Franz says, “As long as one has not developed the two auxiliary functions, they too will be open doors. In a person who has only developed one superior function, the two auxiliary functions will operate in the same way as the inferior function.” The analysis by Beebe, Berens/Nardi and von Franz come from Carl Jung’s “Psychological Type Theory”. In his theory, Dr. Jung also never refers to a tertiary function. Dr. Jung implies that we have auxiliary or a complimentary functions that are never antagonistic to the dominant function-attitude. Dr. Jung provides an example that sensing and intuiting can be auxiliaries for a thinking type, but never feeling. Dr. Jung also gives an example of how an ISTP or ESTJ will use the functions in saying:

A grouping of the unconscious functions also takes place in accordance with the relationship of the conscious functions. Thus, for instance, an unconscious intuitive feeling attitude (N-F) may correspond with a conscious practical intellect (T-S), whereby the function of feeling suffers a relatively stronger inhibition than intuition.

Many Jungian Analysts such as Dr. von Franz assert that the dominant and two auxiliary functions can be developed to a point of being differentiated or being able to stand alone, unlike the inferior function which will always need a more dominant function to work properly. These type functions are what Dr. Jung refers to as un-differentiated, because they cannot work on their own.


Practical Application

For the past couple of months, I have been reading bits and pieces of information to determine if there truly exists a viable understanding of how the 3rd placement works in relation to the second. Again there are those who believe the 3rd placement works for the inferior. This seems to contradict Dr. Jung’s theory since the inferior is not something we consciously uses, but something that just happens to us. I have no doubt that there may be information available to conclude how the 3rd placement works. Yet for now when discussing type, it seems apparent that any discussion of the 3rd function as a “tertiary”, is a discussion of MBTI, not Jungian. When discussing type using the Jungian method there is no evidence that a tertiary placement exists, but two equally applied functions. What does this mean in how we apply the theories? Going back to the dom-tert loop, this theory is most likely correct when applying the Myers & Briggs theory since the tertiary seems to be suppressed because of the auxiliary function.

Another conclusion may be made that when Jung referred to himself as being capitalized by thinking and using a great deal of intuition, it would infer he would be INTP as we know it. However when applying the Jungian theory, a dominant-tertiary loop cannot exists since as I have repeatedly indicated in the past that this would imply the dominant and tertiary functions will have to be close or equal to one another for the tertiary placement to consciously take over causing a recurring loop. This is in direct defiance of Jung’s principle of the auxiliary when saying:

This absolute sovereignty always belongs, empirically, to one function alone, and can belong only to one function, since the equally independent intervention of another function would necessarily yield a different orientation, which would at least partially contradict the first. But, since it is a vital condition for the conscious adaptation-process that constantly clear and unambiguous aims should be in evidence, the presence of a second function of equivalent power is naturally forbidden' This other function, therefore, can have only a secondary importance, a fact which is also established empirically. Its secondary importance consists in the fact that, in a given case, it is not valid in its own right, as is the primary function, as an absolutely reliable and decisive factor, but comes into play more as an auxiliary or complementary function.

This also gives us some insight as to what Jung may have been alluding to in describing himself. There has been debate that Jung was possibly ISTP because of how he described himself as a young person. Those who indicate he was ISTP, but changed to INTP later are seeing this transformation from the MBTI standard where Dr. Jung initially used Ti-Se then began using Ti-Ne. This implies he changed types. I propose a different explanation that remains consistent with Dr. Jung’s principles, in that, from the start to finish Dr. Jung dominated with Ti, developed his Se in younger years and then his Ni in midlife. Instead of limiting this process within the confines of there being only 16 types, it appears that based on his own principles Dr. Jung initially Ti-Se, then began using Ti-Ni. Dr. Jung prescribes to there being at least three distinct types in what we see as ISTP.

 

[madhatter]

Thank you, Functianalyst. Very succinctly put, as always.

I was thinking the same thing about Jung's type when the topic came up earlier, that he used Ti-Ni, since I am an ISTP also characterized by "a great deal of Intuition". I would say that Ni is just as strong as Se for me.

 

[Functianalyst]

Thank you, Functianalyst. Very succinctly put, as always.

I was thinking the same thing about Jung's type when the topic came up earlier, that he used Ti-Ni, since I am an ISTP also characterized by "a great deal of Intuition". I would say that Ni is just as strong as Se for me.

Mad, you and I have discussed this quite a bit over the past year and I think we have a similar make-up in our function development being Ti-Ni-Se-Fe.

 

[madhatter]

Mad, you and I have discussed this quite a bit over the past year and I think we have a similar make-up in our function development being Ti-Ni-Se-Fe.

I would agree. I think that also explains my extreme introversion compared to the ISTPs whose function development is Ti-Se-Ni-Fe.

 

[Donovan]

@Functianalyst

thank you so much for writing this. these are some things that i've been thinking about for a while (though i doubt i could have to delivered it so clearly).

for a while now i've been thinking that a four-cognitive-combination would be best described by saying that you have a "ruling function"--T/F/N/S (pick one)--the opposite will aid the ruling letter/function, just not as clearly or as evident--one will not be aware of it. the middle functions will will be opposite of the ruling function in terms of J/P, and they are there to augment the ruling function in more concious terms than the underlying inferior. so you almost have a very clear "larger" function that with two "visible helpers" and one "large invisible helper".

(if this isn't clear just say so, how and why, and i'll try to make it ledgeable because what you wrote and what i just typed seem to be very similar... to me at least ).

so this would all take into account the variety you get, not only between types, but within types as well.

anyhow, cool thread man.

 

[LiquidLight]

Have you read Personality Type - Third Mental Function | Roger Pearman

 

[Donovan]

that's an interesting article.

it calls into question how everyones been interpreting jung.

one of the things i got from that that pertains to this thread is that no one is sure what he meant about the inferior being "opposite" to the dominant.

with how MBTI looks at: Px-Jy-Jx-Py
or it could be: Px-Jy-Py-Jx

if it is the first, then it would still fit with one of the meanings of this thread and with what jung said, that the dominant couldn't be paired with a function that would be "antagonistic", such as P+P or J+J. this still leaves room for interpreting a possibility of a person having T-S-N-F to also be able so shift to T-N-S-F... all that would matter is how we interpret jung's words and it still made frustrating to some, or interesting to others to also hear him say that more than the 16 could exist... which would also be a possible answer to conflicting studies and evidence.

i guess it all comes down to the correct way to initially view it, if there is just one way.

 

[LiquidLight]

that's an interesting article.

it calls into question how everyones been interpreting jung.

one of the things i got from that that pertains to this thread is that no one is sure what he meant about the inferior being "opposite" to the dominant.

with how MBTI looks at: Px-Jy-Jx-Py
or it could be: Px-Jy-Py-Jx

if it is the first, then it would still fit with one of the meanings of this thread and with what jung said, that the dominant couldn't be paired with a function that would be "antagonistic", such as P+P or J+J. this still leaves room for interpreting a possibility of a person having T-S-N-F to also be able so shift to T-N-S-F... all that would matter is how we interpret jung's words and it still made frustrating to some, or interesting to others to also hear him say that more than the 16 could exist... which would also be a possible answer to conflicting studies and evidence.

i guess it all comes down to the correct way to initially view it, if there is just one way.

Yea because as I pointed out on another thread, to Jung the interplay of the dominant/inferior was the most important factor in typology not the behavior of the auxes. He just sort of says "oh yea and there are auxes" in PT but doesn't really take it more than that. I do think he does spell out though that the Inferior function will be the opposite of the dominant fairly well though, personally. I mean in every one of the types he does an exposition of the type from the standpoint of the dominant, but then says "and such and such a type will have a very primitive, archaic, XX opposite function." For instance he clearly says the Extraverted Sensation types will have a primitive and archaic Introverted Intuition.

But as you point out as to the two middle functions, (and I think this seems far more likely in real life) that same Se-dom could be Se-T-F-Ni or Se-F-T-Ni and potentially even (and this really blows the MBTI stuff into mid air) Se-Te-Fi-Ni or Se-Fe-Ti-Ni. Then all of a sudden you realize why he didn't spend much time focusing on the auxiliary functions (because in the grand scheme of things they're not that important). Jung's theory of types is far more 3-dimensional and open-ended than MBTI type dynamics (and the research here https://www.capt.org/JPT/article/JPT_Vol69_0109.pdf seems to suggest that Jung was right all along anyway). I think you'd have to start with a minimum of 32 or 64 types. But like I said unless you are prescribing a strict regiment to how the types MUST manifest with the regard to the two middle functions in order to establish rigid type categories, a la MBTI, it really doesn't matter. The only functions that really matter are the dominant and inferior. The others just sort of 'color' the person. If your dom is Se, the inferior will be Ni, and where T and F fit in don't really mean a whole lot because they are auxiliaries. Minority spheres of influence.

 

[Functianalyst]

Thanks Liquid. I will have to read it in its entirety, but I instantly read something that I completely disagree with. The author said:

The importance of these principles for the third and fourth functions is multilayered. Jung specifically notes that a judging function is paired with a perceiving function and that this similar pairing is repeated in unconsciousness. He notes that the auxiliary serves the dominant and by parallel it would make sense that the third serves the fourth function, as the fourth is the most unconscious of functions and therefore the dominant energy force in the unconscious.

I completely disagree with that assertion since as pointed out in my initial post, Jung says, "whereby the function of feeling suffers a relatively stronger inhibition than intuition." when referring to the ISTP type. The inferior function can never be conscious and definitely not differentiated because the dominant function must suppress it at all times. So for the author to say the tertiary function serves the inferior is a serious conflict with Jung's theory.

But I don't want to lose sight of my reasons for writing this thread which is to put forth there is no tertiary function since the word literally means in third place. Jung's work does not indicate what we know as the tertiary to be in third place since that would make it weaker than the auxiliary. Again as von Franz indicates, we do not have an auxiliary-tertiary, but two auxiliaries that are capable of being equal to one another, but weaker than the dominant and greater than the inferior functions.

 

[Functianalyst]

@Functianalyst

thank you so much for writing this. these are some things that i've been thinking about for a while (though i doubt i could have to delivered it so clearly).

for a while now i've been thinking that a four-cognitive-combination would be best described by saying that you have a "ruling function"--T/F/N/S (pick one)--the opposite will aid the ruling letter/function, just not as clearly or as evident--one will not be aware of it. the middle functions will will be opposite of the ruling function in terms of J/P, and they are there to augment the ruling function in more concious terms than the underlying inferior. so you almost have a very clear "larger" function that with two "visible helpers" and one "large invisible helper".

(if this isn't clear just say so, how and why, and i'll try to make it ledgeable because what you wrote and what i just typed seem to be very similar... to me at least ).

so this would all take into account the variety you get, not only between types, but within types as well.

anyhow, cool thread man.

Thanks Celtic and you hit the nail on the head since Jung says the auxiliary(s):

Experience shows that the secondary function is always one whose nature is different from, though not antagonistic to, the leading function : thus, for example, thinking, as primary function, can readily pair with intuition as auxiliary, or indeed equally well with sensation, but, as already observed, never with feeling. Neither intuition nor sensation are antagonistic to thinking, i.e. they have not to be unconditionally excluded, since they are not, like feeling, of similar nature, though of opposite purpose, to thinking -- for as a judging function feeling successfully competes with thinking -- but are functions of perception, affording welcome assistance to thought. As soon as they reached the same level of differentiation as thinking, they would cause a change of attitude, which would contradict the tendency of thinking.

 

[MuChApArAdOx]

Question for anyone to answer. How do we know what " mid life " is ? what is that number, what is mid life, 30, 40 , 50 ? I notice the article said we will develop our Tertiary mid life. I feel like i'm developing my Te much strong since i turned 30. It was something i primary leaned towards before then. Does this make sense ?

 

[LiquidLight]

Mid-life as Jung describes it is basically the point in which we realize that we are going to die. To him most of the first half of life is spent, basically trying to figure life out. To get a job, married, learn how to interact with people, become educated, etc. But then there is a point where you realize that, at some point all this has to amount to something. That your days are finite and in fact running out. Often this is what brings about the so-called mid-life crisis, the feeling of "shit I only have 20 or 30 more years." This is generally not something that younger people think of (death and old age are often something that seem years away). So the reason he says people begin to deal with their lesser preferred functions in mid-life is, a, because many of the issues during the first half of life that keep us from our lesser functions stop mattering the older we get (i.e. we're less interested in trying to live up to our parents' ideals, or find a mate or whatever) and secondly because you realize you only have so much time left, you start trying to do everything you wish you had done when you were younger, which often means touching the inferior function/s in ways that you might not have.

Von Franz says that in order to develop a function, you pretty much have to live that function for a while. At least a few years, including its associated issues (like Feeling devaluing Thinking). This is why so few people really get to integrate their inferior because you've built a whole life around say Ne, to all of sudden become an earthy Si-type represents a very profound change (you'd literally have to take time out of life to do this) most people really only touch on it, but rarely get to 'live' their inferior function (and even if they could often doing so is so painful and weird many would just say "screw it.").

So in short, the point you realize "my life is finite" and not "i might die" (like in an accident or something) but "i'm going to die..." that's when people begin to take the steps to really begin to deal with their inferior functions.

 

[Functianalyst]

Question for anyone to answer. How do we know what " mid life " is ? what is that number, what is mid life, 30, 40 , 50 ? I notice the article said we will develop our Tertiary mid life. I feel like i'm developing my Te much strong since i turned 30. It was something i primary leaned towards before then. Does this make sense ?

I have always subscribed to the fact that a chronological age is not something to gauge by since there are wise young people and old fools. I think there are some who may never develop their lesser functions and will remain one-sided by using their dominant function only. We encounter these type of people all the time and instantly realize there is something wrong with them because the one-dimension of their personality is so apparent.

 

[madhatter]

I have always subscribed to the fact that a chronological age is not something to gauge by since there are wise young people and old fools. I think there are some who may never develop their lesser functions and will remain one-sided by using their dominant function only. We encounter these type of people all the time and instantly realize there is something wrong with them because the one-dimension of their personality is so apparent.

I swear I have an ExFJ aunt who fits that description to a T. I love her, but it is very hard to be around her sometimes. Her extreme Fe is almost painful to me.

 

[Eric B]

I have no doubt that there may be information available to conclude how the 3rd placement works. Yet for now when discussing type, it seems apparent that any discussion of the 3rd function as a “tertiary”, is a discussion of MBTI, not Jungian. When discussing type using the Jungian method there is no evidence that a tertiary placement exists, but two equally applied functions. What does this mean in how we apply the theories? Going back to the dom-tert loop, this theory is most likely correct when applying the Myers & Briggs theory since the tertiary seems to be suppressed because of the auxiliary function.
However when applying the Jungian theory, a dominant-tertiary loop cannot exists since as I have repeatedly indicated in the past that this would imply the dominant and tertiary functions will have to be close or equal to one another for the tertiary placement to consciously take over causing a recurring loop. This is in direct defiance of Jung’s principle of the auxiliary when saying:

The loop would be from the Puer complex that encompasses the tertiary function. This leads to the so called "tertiary temptation", where it forms that "loop" with the dominant, maintaining the dominant attitude (which the complex itself orients the tertiary into, else it would default to the opposite attitude as was previously believed).

I completely disagree with that assertion since as pointed out in my initial post, Jung says, "whereby the function of feeling suffers a relatively stronger inhibition than intuition." when referring to the ISTP type. The inferior function can never be conscious and definitely not differentiated because the dominant function must suppress it at all times. So for the author to say the tertiary function serves the inferior is a serious conflict with Jung's theory.

Jung's work does not indicate what we know as the tertiary to be in third place since that would make it weaker than the auxiliary. Again as von Franz indicates, we do not have an auxiliary-tertiary, but two auxiliaries that are capable of being equal to one another, but weaker than the dominant and greater than the inferior functions.

Again, the function order of the ego identity is structured by the complexes. The hero and parent are the most "mature", and thus the associated functions will tend to be "stronger". They are reflected in a compensatory fashion by the child (Puer) and inferior (anima). So they will tend to be "weaker", as the complexes convey a sense of "vulnerability". Yet the Puer does "inflate" itself, making its functional perspective seem "stronger" and possibly match the auxiliary (or even dominant) at times.

 

[Donovan]

The loop would be from the Puer complex that encompasses the tertiary function. This leads to the so called "tertiary temptation", where it forms that "loop" with the dominant, maintaining the dominant attitude (which the complex itself orients the tertiary into, else it would default to the opposite attitude as was previously believed).

Again, the function order of the ego identity is structured by the complexes. The hero and parent are the most "mature", and thus the associated functions will tend to be "stronger". They are reflected in a compensatory fashion by the child (Puer) and inferior (anima). So they will tend to be "weaker", as the complexes convey a sense of "vulnerability". Yet the Puer does "inflate" itself, making its functional perspective seem "stronger" and possibly match the auxiliary (or even dominant) at times.

that's interesting and it could still explain cases without undermining anything that's been said. these complexes are reliant upon a base mold, such as functions 1&4 and 2&3 being different as far as J/P and having the aux/tert falling into the middle, not so much on the aux. always being "this" and the ter always being "that", right? won't these complexes... in a sense, take what's given and "mold" according to plan?

 

[Eric B]

Yes, the complexes shape the way the functions play out.

 

[Functianalyst]

The loop would be from the Puer complex that encompasses the tertiary function. This leads to the so called "tertiary temptation", where it forms that "loop" with the dominant, maintaining the dominant attitude (which the complex itself orients the tertiary into, else it would default to the opposite attitude as was previously believed).

A loop theory implies that a function-attitude other than the dominant can consciously take over. Otherwise there can be no loop since that implies something that is outside of the users ability to control. If any placement is in use it's because the Ti is allowing the lower placement to come to the forefront the same way Ti allows Ne to be present in the INTP. Ne can't just arbitrarily take control of the Ti.

Again, the function order of the ego identity is structured by the complexes. The hero and parent are the most "mature", and thus the associated functions will tend to be "stronger". They are reflected in a compensatory fashion by the child (Puer) and inferior (anima). So they will tend to be "weaker", as the complexes convey a sense of "vulnerability". Yet the Puer does "inflate" itself, making its functional perspective seem "stronger" and possibly match the auxiliary (or even dominant) at times.

And what evidence do you have that the 3rd placement only seems to be stronger. But any appearance that anything is as strong as the dominant function merely means the user has yet to develop enough to indicate a type. Nothwithstanding as stated, any discussion of a tertiary function can only be done in the system of MBTI and not in Jungian.

 

[Donovan]

they shape the way the functions play out but aren't reliant upon the aux/tert being a particular Judging of Percieving function, just that the aux/tert will be one while the dom will be the other? if that's the case, then this is still likely, while also supporting the "J-P-P-J & P-J-J-P" model over the "J-P-J-P/etc."...? (just speculation, i don't know a whole lot about the complexes)

 

[Eric B]

A loop theory implies that a function-attitude other than the dominant can consciously take over. Otherwise there can be no loop since that implies something that is outside of the users ability to control. If any placement is in use it's because the Ti is allowing the lower placement to come to the forefront the same way Ti allows Ne to be present in the INTP. Ne can't just arbitrarily take control of the Ti.

The ego is a complex, which is the center of our conscious life. IT of course chooses its dominant function and attitude. The hero and persona are also complexes, which also become associated with the ego's dominant. The parent and child are complexes which associate with the auxiliary and tertiary. As it was once put to me, "the products of undifferentiated functions are perfectly capable of reaching consciousness, but only in so far as they're linked to the 'operating charter' of the network our differentiated function has set up".
So it's the complexes (which structure the ego's network) that bring the functional products into consciousness, not the functions becoming conscious on their own, or "taking over" anything.

And what evidence do you have that the 3rd placement only seems to be stronger. But any appearance that anything is as strong as the dominant function merely means the user has yet to develop enough to indicate a type. Nothwithstanding as stated, any discussion of a tertiary function can only be done in the system of MBTI and not in Jungian.

All I'm going by on that is that people claim it seems "stronger". But as I've been saying the whole time, it's really not about "strengths" anyway, because what we're really measuring strength by is behavior or "skills", which is not the same as the functions.

Even LL's linked site says:
In addition, users of type often forget that inferior or unconscious functions are inferior to consciousness not inferior in strength in the psyche (Jung, 1971 p.450).

(BTW, just ordered the Nardi book on brain research!)

Also, wanted to point out, the site says (in a table lower down):

Myers descriptions of this type consistently suggest that ENFPs demonstrate an eagerness for possibilities, improvisation, energy in novelty and innovation and no mention of Extraverted Thinking behavior. If the Third is in the same Extraverted attitude, it is reasonable to expect some aspects of the function to be evident.

This ignores that Te, in that lower, "vulnerable", less mature position (Associated with the "child" archetype) is not going to be the same as in a preferred position (another reason you can't always go by behavioral "strength", and why I believe the tertiary and inferior often come out #7 and 8 in Nardi's test, supporting Lenore's old order). Of course, this quote is looking for what else, but behaviors, but Te in a child or inferior position may be more about looking up to the logical, orderly, etc. decisions of others, or being more playful with it (where Te in a preferred position will be more "serious").