Describe your auxiliary function

[The_Liquid_Laser]

I think learning and practicing mathematics is the surest way to develop Ti. Alternatively I'd think that studying philosophy is also a pretty good method as long as you steer clear of certain philosophers like Nietzsche and Ayn Rand.

[quietgirl]

Originally Posted by The_Liquid_Laser

I think learning and practicing mathematics is the surest way to develop Ti.

I can see that. When I was studying Physics and taking a lot of math courses in college, I felt as though I used my tertiary Ti a LOT more than I do now. I think my personality was less "NF" at that time too. The funny thing about the tertiary function is that I think if you don't continuously develop it, it kind of goes into hiding when you don't use it. Maybe not, but I find it's harder to access now that I'm not using it often.

[nightning]

Te: pretty much tells me to shut up, stop thinking and get moving. "The answer is RIGHT THERE. Are you blind?" Ni likes time to ponder to play with connections. Te keeps me on track for the most part. It also gets irritated all the time. At myself, at other people. Does not tolerate inefficiencies. It's good at getting projects moving.

When it comes to people... I pretty much turn Te off... It's funny how you can kind of turn auxiliary functions on and off... but you can't ever do that with your dominant.

Originally Posted by Mort Belfry

In the OP I mentioned an activity to exprience Ne. Here is a page from the Lenore Thomson Wiki which talks about an activity for each function.

edit &

Does anyone have any others they'd like to suggest?

Suggestions... hmmmm I observe people quite a bit. People of different type, interact with them enough and you'll see how people differs in the way they use a dominant function vs an auxillary one... you can even do tertiary for some. Using that you can pull out the essentials to a particular function. And learn to imitate that way.

[Mort Belfry]

What I'm reading from this thread now is that of the extraverted functions Te seems to be the one people don't want to deal with people with.

Is this a cultural thing? Do people otherwise want to use it on people but can't? Does it mean having to develop tertiary or inferior introverted feeling? How would you want to use it with people?

[Haphazard]

Originally Posted by Mort Belfry

What I'm reading from this thread now is that of the extraverted functions Te seems to be the one people don't want to deal with people with.

Is this a cultural thing? Do people otherwise want to use it on people but can't? Does it mean having to develop tertiary or inferior introverted feeling? How would you want to use it with people?

People usually get angry when you try to use Te on them socially. There may have been various factors that led you to not bring the food to the meeting, but nonetheless, you still didn't bring food to the meeting. The point is that there is no food, and food was supposed to be there.

It's easiest to either try to gag Te and give them the benefit of the doubt, but when it comes in handy is when you're trying to treat people fairly. It's easiest to tell when you're spending too much time with one person and not enough time with another because there's a quantitative measurement at hand -- time. And things like that.

I'm pretty sure that Te's inefficiency with working with people is what leads a lot of TJ types to give off an aura of 'professionalness'. They can be kind, generous people, but generally to be 'nice' in the way that people call for they have to silence the voice in the back of their heads that's constantly nagging otherwise. Te tries to treat people evenhandedly without consideration as to what they're feeling, but people generally demand more. The criticism that Te generally spouts out is usually best off silenced in friendly situations unless you know the person on the other end can handle it.

[Mort Belfry]

Do you think it's to do with the current social trend and in other times and places, perhaps in Mideavel (I always forget how to spell that) times with all the wars and battles Te was a tremednous boon to have with people? And maybe in the time of the Inqusition in Europe, perhaps Ne was frowned upon?

[Haphazard]

Originally Posted by Mort Belfry

Do you think it's to do with the current social trend and in other times and places, perhaps in Mideavel (I always forget how to spell that) times with all the wars and battles Te was a tremednous boon to have with people? And maybe in the time of the Inqusition in Europe, perhaps Ne was frowned upon?

I don't know if Te is necessarily warlike -- it may be good for commanding and generally ignoring excuses, but it might be terrible at wartime strategy, as in anticipating things like demoralization. Chivalry may very much so be a Te invention rather than Fe because it dictates an equal and perscribed way to treat people rather than by 'knowing' what people are feeling.

I'm pretty sure that any time when consistency in dealing with people was favored over looking at them and considering their feelings and responding to that instead would be Te-favored rather than Fe-favored. This is why TJ is more common in law.

I'm not sure if this is the way most people with Te look at it, but if something happens that's wrong, it's not about blame -- it's about that something wrong happened, and that it needs to be cleaned up by somebody or dealt with in some manner. Whoever did the wrong may be severely embarrassed by whatever is pointed out, but avoidance doesn't solve anything. If it's no longer their problem even though they did wrong, and it will never be their fault again, it's pointless in letting them know that there was a problem because that's not going to solve anything.

[Mort Belfry]

Not warlike I know, but Te could have been more appreciated in those situations than now. From Shakespeare's Henry V character, the epitome of the Elizabethan hero king seemed to involve a lot of Te.

Thanks for the Te blame thing, I had an inkling that was the case, but I always find when that happens I try desperately to make it look like it wasn't my fault though.

[Haphazard]

Originally Posted by Mort Belfry

Thanks for the Te blame thing, I had an inkling that was the case, but I always find when that happens I try desperately to make it look like it wasn't my fault though.

When it comes to blame, nobody wants to admit it, even if Te doesn't necessarily care. Te just wants it fixed and doesn't want it to happen again. The problem is that whoever's fault it was loses credibility until they can prove themselves again, and it doesn't really matter what the other person thinks of it because Te doesn't care much about personal feelings of others (that would be Fe).

Te is not likely to bring up past mistakes for the purpose of blame but will look at them to decide whether you're a trustworthy person or not. I have some very good friends who I love to death, but I would not allow them to borrow any electronics of mine. It's not at all that I don't like them, it's just that I'd rather keep my stuff in one piece, thank you very much, and yet they always take it personally...

["?"]

Originally Posted by Mort Belfry

According to some, Lenore for one, the auxiliary function should be the easiest function a type can describe. The dominant is far too imposing to let us see it from the outside and the other functions are too far down the ladder of unconsciousness.

I wondered why I believed that to be true. I must have read it from her book. It actually seemed to make sense in my case because my Se is so apparent. However in re-reading Jung's theory, he describes the auxiliary differently:

Accurate investigation of the individual case consistently reveals the fact that, in conjunction with the most differentiated function, another function of secondary importance, and therefore of inferior differentiation in consciousness, is constantly present, and is a -- relatively determining factor. [p. 514]

For the sake of clarity let us again recapitulate: The products of all the functions can be conscious, but we speak of the consciousness of a function only when not merely its application is at the disposal of the will, but when at the same time its principle is decisive for the orientation of consciousness....

....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.....