How Function Order dictates behaviour

[VagrantFarce]

I'm stealing most of this from Lenore Thompson, but does this seem accurate to any of you? I think it does seem accurate, but I'd like to hear how this behaviour reflects itself in other types.

Dominant: The lens through which we see the world. We instinctively assume that everyone shares this lens and are confused and frustrated when we meet people who refuse to gel with this worldview (e.g. an INTP can become incredibly frustrated with someone who doesn't think logically and holistically), what we use to convince ourselves that the inferior function isn't to be relied upon. We tend not to be too aware of this function unless made aware of it, either through introspection or external stimuli.

Auxillary: What we primarily identify with, the part of us that we tend to describe ourselves as (e.g. an INTP would describe himself as a creative thinker), what we tend to preach as a life philosophy (e.g. an INTP would preach that thinking creatively, or being open to new experiences, is the key to dealing with life).

Tertiary: The reasons we fall back on for not relying on our auxillary (e.g. an INTP would refuse to enter into an unusual experience because they don't know what would happen), a way of defending ourselves when we fail.

Inferior: Our all-or-nothing "alien hand", the most easily discarded, the one that we most criticize others for while hypocritically not living up to it (e.g. an INTP would say that people tend not to take into consideration other people's contributions or feelings, but when that INTP gets into a stressful situation they will easily discard what other people think).

 

[527468]

Yes I like this idea. Here is a page that explains the function positioning too. The 16 Type Patterns Tell me your opinion of this stuff.

 

[Polaris]

I can't speak for other INFPs, but my use of the processes is basically this:

Fi-- What you described for the auxiliary function.

Ne-- The inner lunatic that I set loose every once in awhile. A toy, basically; not something I take terribly seriously, although it can be useful at times.

Si-- An exhausting process that likes to attack me with shameful memories. It resembles an overactive superego. At the same time, though, it brings stability and helps me to form good habits. I do sometimes use it to stifle Ne, like you described. I have a deep need to be prepared for things, and because I have this need, I often prefer to save myself some work and stick to the familiar.

Te-- The process that I strive to master and manage to fail. I criticize others for failing to use it, yes--people who don't have goals in life, those without self-discipline, and anyone who is more busy dreaming and thinking than they are putting their ideas to use. I'm just as critical, though, of my own failings in this area.

 

[Southern Kross]

I would agree with that Vagrantfarce. I have always thought in similar terms.

I believe that the Dominant is our natural, instinctive way of engaging with the world and our Auxillary is the driving force behind it. I think that when we are feeling relaxed, safe, unjudged the Auxillary comes to the surface in a primary fashion and therefore seems to be a 'truer' part of any given personality.

 

[VagrantFarce]

A fun little thought:

The auxillary and tertiary functions manifested?

 

[Totenkindly]

I believe that the Dominant is our natural, instinctive way of engaging with the world and our Auxillary is the driving force behind it. I think that when we are feeling relaxed, safe, unjudged the Auxillary comes to the surface in a primary fashion and therefore seems to be a 'truer' part of any given personality.

What would you change the names to, then, to better reflect that relationship?

And are there differences in how this manifests/works in extroverts vs introverts?

 

[Eric B]

These four would agree with John Beebe's model (which is what cognitiveprocesses.com is using), and Lenore also acknowledged the four shadows, but she suggests that the archetypes are complexes.

The ego is promarily the dominant function, in its dominant orientation. The opposite orientation and the other functions are initially rejected, until an auxilary is chosen (in a "parental" complex). A "child" complex then orients the tertiary in the dominant attitude. The fourth function (both attitudes), as well as the reverse attitudes of the first three remain more unconscious.

Coming to understand it this way really helps in solidifying a best fit type. Our every act is not necessarily a manifestation of a complex, so you don't have to worry that you're "feeling" to much to be a thinker, or vice versa.

You can see more of Lenore's concept here:
Jung MBTI Theory | Lenore Thomson Bentz
Carl Jung Psychological Orientation | Lenore Thomson Bentz
Temperament Theory & Carl Jung Types | Lenore Thomson Bentz
John Beebe Archetypes | Lenore Thomson Bentz

Here, I discuss it further:
http://www.typologycentral.com/foru...s/1416-archetypes-functions-6.html#post748446