Thompson’s “Lasagna” model explains whacked out function orders, appearance of X term
Ok, I've been on hiatus for awhile, been reading a lot, and been doing some soul searching. I've been dissecting my past and present actions, and have finally settled on a type that I am fairly certain about (for the time being anyway). I'm not going to get into all the hairy details of my discovery process, but I wanted to share with the group some of my findings, and in doing that hopefully help some people who may be on the fence about their type, or just present another option to those who may not be familiar with Thomson's approach.
After reading Lenore Thompson’s book Personality Type: An Owner’s Manual, I discovered that she had a different view of the function orderings than what I have seen in other theories. Rather than ordering the functions as Dominant, Auxiliary, Tertiary, Inferior, then shadow functions, she orders them as Dominant, Auxiliary, right (or left) brain alternatives, left (or right) brain double-agents, Tertiary, Inferior. See the orderings for each of the types here. To me, this makes a lot more sense, based on what I’ve seen in myself and others. How many people here would say for sure that their function orderings went exactly as they “should” (Dom, Aux, Tert, Inf, then shadow)? I certainly cannot. What I can verify based partially on cognitive functions tests, but more so my own self reflection, is that my functions do not line up as they are “supposed to”, and that they much more closely resemble Thompson’s.
Thompson’s model leaves a lot more room for variation—from what I gathered by reading her book—and to me that makes sense. It explains a lot of inter-type differences, and allows for a much more unique, fluid system, that grows and changes as we age and mature. I think age and/or maturity are going to be a big factors that determine whether your functions more closely resemble the typical model or Thompson’s.
She presents a useful analogy: your functions are workers on a ship. Your dominant function is the captain, your auxiliary function is your second in command. The other functions (besides your tert and inf) are simply working for your dominant function, but that they actually do a lot of the work. However, your tert and inf functions are sort of the rebels of the bunch, they, rather than working for the captain, work to prevent the captains aims. This causes mental dissonance, so they are relegated to a tiny boat behind our ship, held on by a single line of rope. Out of sight, out of mind. But they are still there behind you, paddling as hard as they can in the opposite direction. She says that in order to grow, we must take hold of our auxiliary function (not our tertiary or inferior functions) and use it wisely, and that that use will force us to consider the perspectives offered by our tert and inf functions. Dissonance is uncomfortable, but it is how we grow as a person. She offers several examples of (fictitious?) people’s struggles, and how they can be alleviated by using their auxiliary functions not just as a yes-man to the dominant function, but a function in its own right, with its own capacity for decision making (i.e. Riker saying “Picard! I think we should do it this way, not yours.”) . Parliament of Attitudes provides a really great explanation of Thomson's hierarchy of functions--comparing it to a Parliament, with a dominant party (your dom function) and 7 other minor parties (with tert and inf as insurgents on the fringes of consciousness). I highly recommend reading it.
I would like to see how you would rank your cognitive functions, especially if you are conflicted with your type, and would like to see how they might fit in with Thompson’s pattern of orderings. I’ll start.
My functions go roughly something like this:
Ne > Ti >= Ni > Se = Fi > Te > Fe > Si
Which… doesn’t really fit with any type perfectly (based on Myers-Briggs, Berens, and others). BUT. My dominant function is Ne. I am now fairly certain I am an extrovert. My next 2 functions are introverted Thinking and introverted iNtuition, followed closely by extroverted Sensation. Already, I know that I must be Ne dominant, so if we go by dominant function alone, that leaves me with only one feasible option: ENTP (Ne-Ti-Fe-Si). It might look like EXTP (and many newcomers to type may see their type as an X for one of the functions, before learning of the cognitive functions) or even ENXP or ESXP, but look at my rock bottom function in reference to the top function. The function that I am absolutely opposed to: Si. My next most resisted function is Fe, which is not too far away from Si. So the 2 functions I am resisting are Fe and Si, which match perfectly with ENTP’s tertiary and inferior functions. So, if we use Thompson’s model, my function ordering makes perfect sense (albeit the middle is a bit scrambled around). And, it could (and did) make me very confused about my type. To me, her model is much more realistic, and while she specifies the order of the middle layers of “type lasagna” from what I read, she doesn’t seem to refer to those orders as set in stone.
This is my modified theory of Thompson’s model: I would imagine that heavily intuitive people are probably going to use both Ne and Ni to a bigger extent than both Se and Si, which heavily sensor-oriented people are going to use both Se and Si more than both Ne and Ni. Those that are a little more wishy washy on the intuitive/sensor preference will probably have a reasonably high preference for one of the sensing (or intuition) functions in addition to their main intuition (or sensing) function. Same thing for the F/T dichotomy. So what I’m saying is, I think the center section of functions are going to vary more between individual people, and may depend on many factors (such as environment, parental involvement or lack thereof, parent-forced activities, etc). Since they (the center functions) are really just “slaves” to the dominant function’s wishes anyway, they aren’t ultimately as important (especially if we are considering self-growth) as the tertiary or inferior functions, although those may be furthest away from our consciousness at times. That doesn't mean that tert/inf functions can't have a huge influence on our decisions and actions, it's just that we aren't going to notice them or recognize their hold over us until we start to experience that dissonance.
At some point, I'm going to write something up about the functions (which, as Thomson calls them, function-attitudes), because I was greatly mislead about what the functions actually are and what they do. Briefly, I want to just mention that they should be thought more of "attitudes" that color the way we see things and what importance we place on certain modes of operation, not so much as a "function", for instance, in a mathematical sense (I do X frequently, therefore I am using f(x) function). Be on the lookout for another post from me on this topic (if anyone is interested). Don't worry, I won't use math notation. :crazy:
Cheers.
-Photo
Thompson’s “Lasagna” model explains whacked out function orders,
Appearance of X term
Appearance of X term
Ok, I've been on hiatus for awhile, been reading a lot, and been doing some soul searching. I've been dissecting my past and present actions, and have finally settled on a type that I am fairly certain about (for the time being anyway). I'm not going to get into all the hairy details of my discovery process, but I wanted to share with the group some of my findings, and in doing that hopefully help some people who may be on the fence about their type, or just present another option to those who may not be familiar with Thomson's approach.
After reading Lenore Thompson’s book Personality Type: An Owner’s Manual, I discovered that she had a different view of the function orderings than what I have seen in other theories. Rather than ordering the functions as Dominant, Auxiliary, Tertiary, Inferior, then shadow functions, she orders them as Dominant, Auxiliary, right (or left) brain alternatives, left (or right) brain double-agents, Tertiary, Inferior. See the orderings for each of the types here. To me, this makes a lot more sense, based on what I’ve seen in myself and others. How many people here would say for sure that their function orderings went exactly as they “should” (Dom, Aux, Tert, Inf, then shadow)? I certainly cannot. What I can verify based partially on cognitive functions tests, but more so my own self reflection, is that my functions do not line up as they are “supposed to”, and that they much more closely resemble Thompson’s.
Thompson’s model leaves a lot more room for variation—from what I gathered by reading her book—and to me that makes sense. It explains a lot of inter-type differences, and allows for a much more unique, fluid system, that grows and changes as we age and mature. I think age and/or maturity are going to be a big factors that determine whether your functions more closely resemble the typical model or Thompson’s.
She presents a useful analogy: your functions are workers on a ship. Your dominant function is the captain, your auxiliary function is your second in command. The other functions (besides your tert and inf) are simply working for your dominant function, but that they actually do a lot of the work. However, your tert and inf functions are sort of the rebels of the bunch, they, rather than working for the captain, work to prevent the captains aims. This causes mental dissonance, so they are relegated to a tiny boat behind our ship, held on by a single line of rope. Out of sight, out of mind. But they are still there behind you, paddling as hard as they can in the opposite direction. She says that in order to grow, we must take hold of our auxiliary function (not our tertiary or inferior functions) and use it wisely, and that that use will force us to consider the perspectives offered by our tert and inf functions. Dissonance is uncomfortable, but it is how we grow as a person. She offers several examples of (fictitious?) people’s struggles, and how they can be alleviated by using their auxiliary functions not just as a yes-man to the dominant function, but a function in its own right, with its own capacity for decision making (i.e. Riker saying “Picard! I think we should do it this way, not yours.”) . Parliament of Attitudes provides a really great explanation of Thomson's hierarchy of functions--comparing it to a Parliament, with a dominant party (your dom function) and 7 other minor parties (with tert and inf as insurgents on the fringes of consciousness). I highly recommend reading it.
I would like to see how you would rank your cognitive functions, especially if you are conflicted with your type, and would like to see how they might fit in with Thompson’s pattern of orderings. I’ll start.
My functions go roughly something like this:
Ne > Ti >= Ni > Se = Fi > Te > Fe > Si
Which… doesn’t really fit with any type perfectly (based on Myers-Briggs, Berens, and others). BUT. My dominant function is Ne. I am now fairly certain I am an extrovert. My next 2 functions are introverted Thinking and introverted iNtuition, followed closely by extroverted Sensation. Already, I know that I must be Ne dominant, so if we go by dominant function alone, that leaves me with only one feasible option: ENTP (Ne-Ti-Fe-Si). It might look like EXTP (and many newcomers to type may see their type as an X for one of the functions, before learning of the cognitive functions) or even ENXP or ESXP, but look at my rock bottom function in reference to the top function. The function that I am absolutely opposed to: Si. My next most resisted function is Fe, which is not too far away from Si. So the 2 functions I am resisting are Fe and Si, which match perfectly with ENTP’s tertiary and inferior functions. So, if we use Thompson’s model, my function ordering makes perfect sense (albeit the middle is a bit scrambled around). And, it could (and did) make me very confused about my type. To me, her model is much more realistic, and while she specifies the order of the middle layers of “type lasagna” from what I read, she doesn’t seem to refer to those orders as set in stone.
This is my modified theory of Thompson’s model: I would imagine that heavily intuitive people are probably going to use both Ne and Ni to a bigger extent than both Se and Si, which heavily sensor-oriented people are going to use both Se and Si more than both Ne and Ni. Those that are a little more wishy washy on the intuitive/sensor preference will probably have a reasonably high preference for one of the sensing (or intuition) functions in addition to their main intuition (or sensing) function. Same thing for the F/T dichotomy. So what I’m saying is, I think the center section of functions are going to vary more between individual people, and may depend on many factors (such as environment, parental involvement or lack thereof, parent-forced activities, etc). Since they (the center functions) are really just “slaves” to the dominant function’s wishes anyway, they aren’t ultimately as important (especially if we are considering self-growth) as the tertiary or inferior functions, although those may be furthest away from our consciousness at times. That doesn't mean that tert/inf functions can't have a huge influence on our decisions and actions, it's just that we aren't going to notice them or recognize their hold over us until we start to experience that dissonance.
At some point, I'm going to write something up about the functions (which, as Thomson calls them, function-attitudes), because I was greatly mislead about what the functions actually are and what they do. Briefly, I want to just mention that they should be thought more of "attitudes" that color the way we see things and what importance we place on certain modes of operation, not so much as a "function", for instance, in a mathematical sense (I do X frequently, therefore I am using f(x) function). Be on the lookout for another post from me on this topic (if anyone is interested). Don't worry, I won't use math notation. :crazy:
Cheers.
-Photo