Personality Cafe banner

1 - 8 of 8 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
87 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
This has probably be asked before but I couldn't find anything on it.

Why are the functions ordered the way they are?
Why can't we have for example:
Fi
Ne
Ti
Se?

The pattern seems to have alternating extraverted and introverted functions. So I guess it's part of the theory they don't touch. Is it also part of the theory that certain arrangements aren't allowed?

Sorry in advance if this is a redundant or idiotic question. ANy help would be much appreciated though :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
87 Posts
Discussion Starter #2
I found something about this...

"The theory states that the inferior is the other half of a dichotomy, the dominant. Therefore, if your dominant is a T function, your inferior is an F function. If your dominant is an N function, your inferior is an S function."

So I guess for my example above, a dominant F would have to have an inferior T? I think..

Everyone ignore this :p
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,374 Posts
It's a worthy question, I think - the notion is, I guess, that thinking/feeling and sensing/intuition are both dimensional scales, so favouring one pole more definitionally means favouring the other less, and so dominant's opposite must be inferior... but then, when we order function stacks, we not only compare T to F and S to N, but also we compare elements across scales - which is higher, S or T? N or F? And what is there to say that a person can't be "stronger"/place greater emphasis on the judging dimension (T/F) as a whole than the perceiving dimension (S/N), such that the stack goes (say) Fx-Nx-Tx-Sx? If - as it seems we do when we form a cognitive function stack - we are going to compare relative strengths/prominence across dimensions, then the strict fact that T/F and S/N are defined as opposed poles on a scale doesn't automatically lead to the dominant's opposite having to be inferior.

With that said, there's no specific reason to suppose it works any differently to how it's ordinarily claimed to work, but I do think it's at least worth speculating upon - after all, is there any compelling reason to accept that the purported function stack rules are accurate, especially given the kind of things that are often disputed (e.g., orientation of the tertiary, whether "shadow functions" models that include all eight functions in a stack are valid)? But, as a general rule, practically all function stack theories tend to hold to the idea that the inferior is the opposite of the dominant, and so we're a fair way from the established theory when considering non-standard stackings like that one.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JasmineDarlene

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,700 Posts
To simplify;

Function stacks involve judging and perceiving functions.

Introverted Judging Functions include Ti {introverted thinking} and Fi {introverted feeling}; they are collectively referred to as Ji

Extroverted Judging Functions include Te, and Fe {Je}

Introverted Perceiving Functions include Ni and Si

and Extroverted Perceiving Functions, Ne and Se

Basically, you need the extroverted to express the introverted. Fi is expressed by Te; and Ti is expressed by Fe.
As far as perceiving goes, Ne uses Si, and Se uses Ni to help navigate the world.

If you used only Fi and Ti rather than Fi and Te, you would have no way to express your judgments about the world; it would be especially troublesome because you wouldn't exactly be able to communicate with anybody.

And remember, it's just a theory. So you can have Ne-traits while being an Se user or vice-versa; I for one wholly use Se, and I overuse it, at that--but I do still once in a while walk into walls and lose my keys.

I hope that helps a bit; it seems like you've already figured out the gist of it :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,491 Posts
The function stack that has "alternating extraverted and introverted functions" is the Harold Grant function stack, carried on by shining lights like Linda Berens and Dario Nardi.

The Grant stack wasn't Jung's model (Ni-Fi-Te-Se), it wasn't Myers' model (Ni-Fe-Te-Se), and it's never been endorsed by the official MBTI folks.

If you're interested, you can read more about that here.

And just in case you're interested in quite a lot more input from me about the relationship between the dichotomies and the functions, the place of the functions (or lack thereof) in the MBTI's history, and the tremendous gap between the dichotomies and the functions in terms of scientific respectability, you can find it in this post, this post, and the long INTJforum post they both link to.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
87 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
The function stack that has "alternating extraverted and introverted functions" is the Harold Grant function stack, carried on by shining lights like Linda Berens and Dario Nardi.

The Grant stack wasn't Jung's model (Ni-Fi-Te-Se), it wasn't Myers' model (Ni-Fe-Te-Se), and it's never been endorsed by the official MBTI folks.

If you're interested, you can read more about that here.

And just in case you're interested in quite a lot more input from me about the relationship between the dichotomies and the functions, the place of the functions (or lack thereof) in the MBTI's history, and the tremendous gap between the dichotomies and the functions in terms of scientific respectability, you can find it in this post, this post, and the long INTJforum post they both link to.
Ahhh, seems I need to do a little more independent research. All my information is based on what others have said so apologies for spreading misinformation :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,856 Posts
You have to remember, for one, that the functions and attitudes themselves are but artificial divisions of an otherwise undivided reality. We pay attention to one side of things or the other. There's no tangible things that can be scientifically measured. (though you can get a sense of what's being "used" through brain scans).

The common stacking order is simply based on a concept of 'mirroring'. You choose your dominant attitude (i or e), and function (S, N, T, F). For whatever you choose, it's opposite is suppressed, or put lower down in consciousness.
So the inferior will be the direct opposite of both function and attitude, which sort of "collect" together in a lower space int he psyche.

Since the dominant will be either judging or perceiving, and we need both forms of processing, the auxiliary will simply be the most preferred of the other two possible functions, and the attitude will be opposite, for the sake of balance.
The tertiary will be the opposite of this, and since the aux. is not as central to the ego as the dominant, then the tertiary won't be as suppressed as the inferior. Hence, the debate of Jung holding there to be "two auxiliaries".

The functions connect with various complexes in the ego. The tertiary hooks up with a sort of "childish" complex, which tries to maintain the ego's dominant orientation, and this is what is believed, orients the function into the dominant attitude.
Again, since it is like a second auxiliary, that is why Jung might make it look something like NiFi. (in the common stacking order, it would really be NiTeFi).
Other complexes shape the roles the other four possible function-attitudes will tend to play in type-specific ways.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,220 Posts
F and T are opposites. N and S are opposites. Try thinking of them being on a see-saw.
 
1 - 8 of 8 Posts
Top