• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Development of Cognitive functions throughout one's life

NewEra

New member
Joined
Dec 21, 2008
Messages
3,104
MBTI Type
I
So ever since I learned about MBTI, I've been interested in the progression of the first 4 cognitive functions in a person's MBTI throughout his/her life. For example, in an INTP... the functions are TiNeSiFe... and the theory goes that in a person's life, each function will develop in order (in an INTP, Ti is first to develop, Ne second, Si third, and finally Fe). I was wondering in detail how this process takes place (for any type)...

My main questions is at what ages do each of the functions generally start to develop? By age 50 for example, does one usually have their first 4 functions in place?
 

AphroditeGoneAwry

failure to thrive
Joined
Feb 20, 2009
Messages
5,585
MBTI Type
INfj
Enneagram
451
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
I'm not an expert by any means, but I find functions fascinating, and enlightening and downright necessary when one is struggling with typing. There are others here who I've talked to on these same questions. In the Functions of Type book by the Hartzlers they talk about the characteristics of each of the eight functions. I also have The 16 Personality Types by Berens and Nardi. In this book they say the first function develops from birth to age 12, the second from 12-20, the third from 20-35, and the fourth 35-50. I don't see how one could develop singly. Of course, you use all to a varying degree throughout your lifetime. I perceive though, that that is at least one reason why older people can seem so Wise; they simply have more facility and experience with using all their functions.

Some have said that instead of going from Ni>Fe>Ti>Se>Ne>Fi>Te>Si as Beebe posits, that you really work on a function group Ni/Ne instead. This makes sense to me. I use Ni and Ne and Fe and Fi more than say, S or T in either form.
 

VagrantFarce

Active member
Joined
Nov 19, 2008
Messages
1,558
I subscribe to what Lenore Thompson thinks, which is that you don't really develop the functions in a linear order, and that they don't develop passively.

My understanding is that we feel at home with our Tertiary and Dominant functions from an early age, and these tend to develop when sheltered as a child. However, these functions cannot solve all our problems through life, so through circumstance we tend to become "aware" of their Auxillary and Inferior functions. We're forced to come to terms with them if we are to grow and mature as individuals (especially for Introverts, less so for Extraverts), and certainly if we're going to deal with what life will throw at us. The alternative is to stick with what we're comfortable with, and not develop or broaden our perspectives as individuals. If we do that, we're not "equipped" to deal with anything beyond what the Dominant and Tertiary Functions are able to handle.

People have a hard time accepting the perspective their Inferior Function offers because it stands in opposition to their Dominant Function, which is basically their Ego and the source of their own Self-Identity. So when we're young, we tend to demonize and reject what the Inferior Function offers. As we age, life tends to crash against us and we're "forced" to develop a certain amount of humility, understanding that our Dominant and Tertiary Functions cannot solve all of our problems. This is just another way of accepting the perspective that the Inferior Function offers in life.

Anyway, dats wot i fink. :)
 

AphroditeGoneAwry

failure to thrive
Joined
Feb 20, 2009
Messages
5,585
MBTI Type
INfj
Enneagram
451
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
I subscribe to what Lenore Thompson thinks, which is that you don't really develop the functions in a linear order, and that they don't develop passively.

My understanding is that we feel at home with our Tertiary and Dominant functions from an early age, and these tend to develop when sheltered as a child. However, these functions cannot solve all our problems through life, so through circumstance we tend to become "aware" of their Auxillary and Inferior functions. We're forced to come to terms with them if we are to grow and mature as individuals (especially for Introverts, less so for Extraverts), and certainly if we're going to deal with what life will throw at us. The alternative is to stick with what we're comfortable with, and not develop or broaden our perspectives as individuals. If we do that, we're not "equipped" to deal with anything beyond what the Dominant and Tertiary Functions are able to handle.

People have a hard time accepting the perspective their Inferior Function offers because it stands in opposition to their Dominant Function, which is basically their Ego and the source of their own Self-Identity. So when we're young, we tend to demonize and reject what the Inferior Function offers. As we age, life tends to crash against us and we're "forced" to develop a certain amount of humility, understanding that our Dominant and Tertiary Functions cannot solve all of our problems. This is just another way of accepting the perspective that the Inferior Function offers in life.

Anyway, dats wot i fink. :)

So you believe that as an intp you utilize Ti and Si more often than Ti and Ne?
 

JocktheMotie

Habitual Fi LineStepper
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
8,491
So you believe that as an intp you utilize Ti and Si more often than Ti and Ne?

He is saying that since Ti and Si are introverted functions, the INTP can use these functions with very little effort and with good efficiency. That's when the INTP is in his comfort zone. Using a function that is opposite your orientation [ne, fe] involves more effort and challenge.


Not really sure about all that. I did read Thomson's book, and came away not all that impressed, though I do think tertiary temptation has validity.
 

VagrantFarce

Active member
Joined
Nov 19, 2008
Messages
1,558

AphroditeGoneAwry

failure to thrive
Joined
Feb 20, 2009
Messages
5,585
MBTI Type
INfj
Enneagram
451
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
:yes:

And it's more than just "using" Ne, since I'm sure I use Ne all the time. It's also about embracing the perspective on life that the Auxillary and Inferior Functions offer.

Hm. I got from that link that there is an immature and mature way to use the secondary function. And as one grows and utilizes each function more, he broadens the scope of said function. I've researched that wiki before and like it. Eric B (of type c) said she takes it her research back to Jung.

I just don't see that I use Ti hardly ever. I probably should use it more. I think I use Ni, Ne, Fe, Fi more than any T or S function. And i don't use Ni and Fi more than Ni and Fe, although Fi is introverted. But that might be because I met my husband when I was 18 and he is Ti dom. The thought has occurred to me that I have just relied on his Ti too much and, in effect, got lazy about my own. I'm sure functions and the theories of their usage sort of assumes an independent lifestyle; one developing in an environment unaffected by a constant companion. We know dysfunction can affect function preference, and I suspect the same is true of relationships with significant others, especially ltr. You know? Do we leave off some expected function development because the person we live with uses it better, and maybe it's more efficient for us to develop another one? Function theories and type theory are so primitive, unfortunately. I wish they could be fine-tuned. I sure do cause I'm sort-of obsessed about it.
 

sculpting

New member
Joined
Jan 28, 2009
Messages
4,148
VagrantFarce;981757 My understanding is that we feel at home with [B said:
our Tertiary and Dominant functions from an early age, and these tend to develop when sheltered as a child.[/B] However, these functions cannot solve all our problems through life, so through circumstance we tend to become "aware" of their Auxillary and Inferior functions.

I saw this in both of my kids from an early age. For each they seemed to use the tert function from as early as two.

At 13 my ENFP son started to get a handle on Fi around 11 or so and start to use it. Before then he would have terrible Te tantrums.

At 2.5 my toddler-seemingly an IXTJ, uses Te to structure his world and study things, but when upset will reach out for brief moments of intense Fi affirmation before becoming stoic and introverted again.

From a lifetime perspective, I find I am becoming more Te and even picking up threads of Si now and then at 33. Funny, I find my ISTJs finding Fi more and even Ne for one of them in our early 30s. We likely could not have meshed at 20 but now blend perfectly.

I have noticed all of the EXTPs I work with on external observation to develop more Fe in their 30s. In the women they become motherly. In the men some can become positively feminine by their 40s. I assumed several of our sales team were gay guys, but no, married with kids.
 

Seymour

Vaguely Precise
Joined
Sep 22, 2009
Messages
1,579
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
I think the exact ordering of the functions for the different types and what they all mean varies according to who you read. Thompson's functional ordering for INFJ would be:

Ni (dominant)
Fe (secondary)
Si (left brain alternatives)
Te
Fe (right brain double-agents)
Ne
Ti (tertiary)
Se (inferior)

(I've also seen models where the tertiary immediately follows the secondary, but inferior is at the very bottom of the stack. I can also buy that as a possibility.)

In Thomson's view, the bottom two are the "least conscious." This doesn't mean they can't be used and developed, but they tend to be seen as "other" and are most likely to be used in unconscious ways. The tertiary is likely to be used in defensive retrenchment when our first two functions are out of balance (that is, if we are focusing on our primary at the expense of our secondary to an unhealthy degree) by preventing growth by reinforcing fixed positions by telling us what we want to hear. When are first two functions are in balance, the tertiary function helps ground us in reality and helps us remain aware of our limitations.

So, for Thompson the normal day-to-day challenge is to engage our secondary function to a healthy degree.

It's also important for some functions to remain "other" and largely unconscious (at least in role), so that the unconscious can appropriate them to bring repressed material to our attention. That's one reason why consciously identifying with your inferior function isn't necessarily a great idea (at least in some models).

In Thompson's model, the "alternatives" are likely to be fairly conscious and reliable, and the double-agents are sometimes reliable but sometimes run amok.

I find, for example, that I can consciously shift into "Te" mode (my tertiary) to power through some practical matter, but it definitely involves a shift of gears, feels clunky and imprecise, and I'm always relieved to return to my normal state. I also tend to use Ti and, to a far lesser extent, Se (my "right-brain alternatives") without necessarily being aware of it, since they tend to back and blend with my primary and secondary functions.

So, I find that Thompson's model fits pretty well with my subjective experiences as a fairly high Ti INFP, but others have reported that they find Beebe's model a better fit.

I think it's pretty clear that what functions you actually develop and how much energy they take is modified by environment and direct experience. If your responsibilities (job/school/parenting) require you to use a function all day long, you tend to use it a lot and get better and more efficient at using it. I think that kind of facility isn't necessarily directly related to the role that function plays for you psychologically.

At any rate, opinions vary on both the typical order of development and archetypal role of the various functions.
 
Last edited:

Eric B

ⒺⓉⒷ
Joined
Mar 29, 2008
Messages
3,621
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
548
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Lenore's theory is not in opposition to Beebe's. She just reminds us that the archetypes are complexes employed byt he ego, and she clarifies him. So Based on his model with input from her, here is how I understand a person develops with the functions:

•The ego starts with its preferred comfort zone of the inner or outer world.
•The ego chooses its dominant function, which it uses in its preferred realm.

For example, if Thinking is chosen as the dominant, and in the internal world, then everything else is rejected by the ego: the external world and the other three functions; Feeling along with both perceiving, which remain undifferentiated. (They are engaged, but not as conscious ego functions, and not really distinguished in orientation, though Jung said they would be associated with the rejected orientation; this case being the outer world).


•Soon, an auxiliary will be chosen, which will be of the rejected perceiving mode of processing.
These two functions will become apart of heroic and parental complexes.
•A "child" complex will take on the opposite process from the auxiliary, and align it with the dominant attitude.

•The opposite function from the dominant, will be inferior and most rejected, yet in the opposite outer orientation will be what the ego believes will complete it.

The "shadows" are just the opposite orientations further rejected from the above:

•So the rejected orientation of the dominant then becomes apart of an oppositional complex.

•The function attitude rejected from the auxiliary then takes on a negative parent role.

•The aspects of the tertiary function not in the same orientation by the child take on a negative childlike nature.

•The inferior in the dominant orientation will remain the most rejected of all by the ego, and take on the most negative role.

You can also look at the development of the individual letters:

Brenda Muller of Personality Page suggests I/E and J/P develop first.
Then, the dominant function (adding a third letter).
Then, the auxiliary (completing the code).
 

NewEra

New member
Joined
Dec 21, 2008
Messages
3,104
MBTI Type
I
I'm not an expert by any means, but I find functions fascinating, and enlightening and downright necessary when one is struggling with typing. There are others here who I've talked to on these same questions. In the Functions of Type book by the Hartzlers they talk about the characteristics of each of the eight functions. I also have The 16 Personality Types by Berens and Nardi. In this book they say the first function develops from birth to age 12, the second from 12-20, the third from 20-35, and the fourth 35-50. I don't see how one could develop singly. Of course, you use all to a varying degree throughout your lifetime. I perceive though, that that is at least one reason why older people can seem so Wise; they simply have more facility and experience with using all their functions.

Some have said that instead of going from Ni>Fe>Ti>Se>Ne>Fi>Te>Si as Beebe posits, that you really work on a function group Ni/Ne instead. This makes sense to me. I use Ni and Ne and Fe and Fi more than say, S or T in either form.

Yeah I have heard about those ages too. I guess the ranges are wide because it varies in different people. And regarding your second paragraph, that is interesting because it would go against traditional Jung function order.


I think the exact ordering of the functions for the different types and what they all mean varies according to who you read. Thompson's functional ordering for INFJ would be:

Ni (dominant)
Fe (secondary)
Si (left brain alternatives)
Te
Fe (right brain double-agents)
Ne
Ti (tertiary)
Si (inferior)

I think you mean Ni Fe Si Te Fi Ne Ti Se ?? Do you have any links on this Thomson's ordering?


Lenore's theory is not in opposition to Beebe's. She just reminds us that the archetypes are complexes employed byt he ego, and she clarifies him. So Based on his model with input from her, here is how I understand a person develops with the functions:

•The ego starts with its preferred comfort zone of the inner or outer world.
•The ego chooses its dominant function, which it uses in its preferred realm.

For example, if Thinking is chosen as the dominant, and in the internal world, then everything else is rejected by the ego: the external world and the other three functions; Feeling along with both perceiving, which remain undifferentiated. (They are engaged, but not as conscious ego functions, and not really distinguished in orientation, though Jung said they would be associated with the rejected orientation; this case being the outer world).


•Soon, an auxiliary will be chosen, which will be of the rejected perceiving mode of processing.
These two functions will become apart of heroic and parental complexes.
•A "child" complex will take on the opposite process from the auxiliary, and align it with the dominant attitude.

•The opposite function from the dominant, will be inferior and most rejected, yet in the opposite outer orientation will be what the ego believes will complete it.

So what would be the role/ordering of all the functions according to Thomson?


The "shadows" are just the opposite orientations further rejected from the above:

•So the rejected orientation of the dominant then becomes apart of an oppositional complex.

•The function attitude rejected from the auxiliary then takes on a negative parent role.

•The aspects of the tertiary function not in the same orientation by the child take on a negative childlike nature.

•The inferior in the dominant orientation will remain the most rejected of all by the ego, and take on the most negative role.

Interesting... can you explain more about the roles of these shadow functions? Not much is written about them.
 

Eric B

ⒺⓉⒷ
Joined
Mar 29, 2008
Messages
3,621
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
548
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Yeah I have heard about those ages too. I guess the ranges are wide because it varies in different people. And regarding your second paragraph, that is interesting because it would go against traditional Jung function order.

I think you mean Ni Fe Si Te Fi Ne Ti Se ?? Do you have any links on this Thomson's ordering?

So what would be the role/ordering of all the functions according to Thomson?
In the book, it seems to be the one listed above. It was apparently called the "lasagna model" because she basically took the "shadows" (the "other four", usually left out of function discussions) and placed them between the dom/aux and tert/inferior. You can see this described here:
What's New In Type and Temperament

The other main source for information on the book is the "Exegesis Wiki":
The Lenore Thomson Exegesis Wiki

More recently, she seems to accept Beebe's model, though she doesn't go into a hard "order" either way. I assumed Beebe's roles matched hers (e.g. "Crows Nest"=Trickster/demon), though she didn't exactly say that. She does seeem to say that degradation into either set of archetypes is something that occurs during "ego-disintegration" and "individuation". Beebe and his followers seem to hold these things as something that can come up in daily stress, and that seem to make more sense to my experience. If I understand correctly, ego-disintegration would be more dire instances of stress, and of course, in Beebe's theory, they will come up then too. Individuation I do not understand yet, but it seems to be the goal connected with what we would call "developing the functions", though she says it is not really about "developing" functions.

So I basically hold Beebe's order, since it is parallel. (The four shadows are the functions in the same order as the [primaries, but with the attitudes reversed). The brain lateralization theory would simply introduce additional "tandems" of functions. So the dominant would degrade directly into the "demon" or 8th function, and the aux. into the 7th.

Interesting... can you explain more about the roles of these shadow functions? Not much is written about them.

The basics, by he himself:
http://www.ccc-apt.org/system/files/Beebe+-+Evolving+the+8-function+model+APT.pdf
http://www.ccc-apt.org/system/files/Type+and+Archetype+-+Part+One+-+The+Spine.pdf
http://www.ccc-apt.org/system/files/Type+and+Archetype+-+Part+Two+-+The+Arms+.pdf

Here, I try to describe each function in each possible shadow position:
http://www.typologycentral.com/foru...s/1416-archetypes-functions-7.html#post844121
 

Seymour

Vaguely Precise
Joined
Sep 22, 2009
Messages
1,579
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
Most of the rest has been addressed by Eric B (thanks, Eric!), but...

I think you mean Ni Fe Si Te Fi Ne Ti Se ?? Do you have any links on this Thomson's ordering?

That was what I meant... a bad point to typo. I apologize.

In the book, it seems to be the one listed above. It was apparently called the "lasagna model" because she basically took the "shadows" (the "other four", usually left out of function discussions) and placed them between the dom/aux and tert/inferior. You can see this described here:
What's New In Type and Temperament

The other main source for information on the book is the "Exegesis Wiki":
The Lenore Thomson Exegesis Wiki

More recently, she seems to accept Beebe's model, though she doesn't go into a hard "order" either way. I assumed Beebe's roles matched hers (e.g. "Crows Nest"=Trickster/demon), though she didn't exactly say that. She does seeem to say that degradation into either set of archetypes is something that occurs during "ego-disintegration" and "individuation". Beebe and his followers seem to hold these things as something that can come up in daily stress, and that seem to make more sense to my experience. If I understand correctly, ego-disintegration would be more dire instances of stress, and of course, in Beebe's theory, they will come up then too. Individuation I do not understand yet, but it seems to be the goal connected with what we would call "developing the functions", though she says it is not really about "developing" functions.

I think Thompson does make a distinction between normal, day-to-day, relatively conscious use and development of the functions vs their role in individuation. I think in her view, our egos tend to make up their minds (to so speak) and keep heading in the same direction as long as possible. Eventually, our previously adaptive behaviors and definitions of ourselves are not sufficient, and we need to change something.

The ego doesn't want to change even when it's current approach and toolbox of functional use isn't sufficient, and that's where our unconscious tends to grab the reins, and express itself archetypically (or at least against our conscious aims). At that point, our current conception of who we are needs to adjust or expand.

I feel that Jung's description of the process of individuation is nebulous and confusing. (By the way, if there was anyone who needed a good editor to force conciseness and clarity, it was Jung.) There are different aspects of it, but the basic concept is that we start as mostly unconscious. Then we embrace some aspects of ourselves, meaning we reject others (these become things like the Shadow, our Anima/Animus, etc). Over time we become aware of the rejected parts, and are forced to acknowledge them. Eventually, we learn how to claim them as parts of ourselves, even if they never become equally favored and preferred.

So, in general, the process of individuation involves choosing initially and making conscious (we are not usually aware of this because mostly it happens during childhood), developing the initial choice, become aware of the rejected, and then accepting the rejected in some way (including by expanding our definition of who we are, or seeing the rejected parts as part of a greater whole or cycle).

For Jung, this process happens with the Shadow, the Anima, the archetypal spirit (wise old man or earth mother) and finally the Self. Note that the Self here doesn't mean the individual self or ego, it means more a transformative unifying view/process that stands apart from the ego and moves toward true wholeness.

Individuation isn't a one time thing, but an ongoing process that happens over and over again in different parts of the psyche.

So one can see how a similar process could happen with the 8 functions. We make our initial choices, develop them, become aware of their opposites, and learn how to deal with those opposites. At first, the opposites of our primary functions are entirely the threatening Other, but eventually we see acknowledge them as parts of ourselves (however under-developed), and grant them some role in our lives (however minimal).

So I basically hold Beebe's order, since it is parallel. (The four shadows are the functions in the same order as the [primaries, but with the attitudes reversed). The brain lateralization theory would simply introduce additional "tandems" of functions. So the dominant would degrade directly into the "demon" or 8th function, and the aux. into the 7th.

I do think Beebe's order does better represent the order in which individuals of given types become aware (on some level) of the functions. As an Fi-dom, my early encounters with Te (and demands that I use Si) were intrusive, jarring, and definitely the Other. My awareness of Ti and Se (for example) came later, because they tend to blend more (internally, anyway) with my most preferred functions.

I do think Thompson's order does better represent a typical order of preference for functional use and development, though. For most INFPs, for example, their Te is not going to be their fourth best/preferred/most-efficient function, even though we can and do use it consciously. There are going to be exceptions to that :)hi: thehigher) and it certainly isn't set in stone. Any number of environmental and personal factors seem to make a difference... otherwise there wouldn't be anything to debate on this and we would all agree.

I do like the "tandems" concept, as well, because my Ti tends to subtly back my Fi a lot, and Se steps in and expands what I can take in via Ne on occasion. It took me a long time to become aware of that, since it's a subtle process and it doesn't feel like a big clashing or shifting of gears. I also realize that in others (and between others) Ti and Fi, for example, aren't necessarily best buds.

Where I'm still struggling with Beebe is assigning specific archetypes to specific functions. I'm fine with his primary few, but the shadow functions feel arbitrary and don't fit with my personal experience. I've tried warping my brain around to try to MAKE them fit with my personal experience, but it just doesn't work for me. I've posted on it before, but my guess is that the nature of the operation of the function itself and one's early encounters with it are going to have an effect on its archetypal association and expression.
 
Last edited:

NewEra

New member
Joined
Dec 21, 2008
Messages
3,104
MBTI Type
I
In the book, it seems to be the one listed above. It was apparently called the "lasagna model" because she basically took the "shadows" (the "other four", usually left out of function discussions) and placed them between the dom/aux and tert/inferior. You can see this described here:
What's New In Type and Temperament

The other main source for information on the book is the "Exegesis Wiki":
The Lenore Thomson Exegesis Wiki

More recently, she seems to accept Beebe's model, though she doesn't go into a hard "order" either way. I assumed Beebe's roles matched hers (e.g. "Crows Nest"=Trickster/demon), though she didn't exactly say that. She does seeem to say that degradation into either set of archetypes is something that occurs during "ego-disintegration" and "individuation". Beebe and his followers seem to hold these things as something that can come up in daily stress, and that seem to make more sense to my experience. If I understand correctly, ego-disintegration would be more dire instances of stress, and of course, in Beebe's theory, they will come up then too. Individuation I do not understand yet, but it seems to be the goal connected with what we would call "developing the functions", though she says it is not really about "developing" functions.

So I basically hold Beebe's order, since it is parallel. (The four shadows are the functions in the same order as the [primaries, but with the attitudes reversed). The brain lateralization theory would simply introduce additional "tandems" of functions. So the dominant would degrade directly into the "demon" or 8th function, and the aux. into the 7th.



The basics, by he himself:
http://www.ccc-apt.org/system/files/Beebe+-+Evolving+the+8-function+model+APT.pdf
http://www.ccc-apt.org/system/files/Type+and+Archetype+-+Part+One+-+The+Spine.pdf
http://www.ccc-apt.org/system/files/Type+and+Archetype+-+Part+Two+-+The+Arms+.pdf

Here, I try to describe each function in each possible shadow position:
http://www.typologycentral.com/foru...s/1416-archetypes-functions-7.html#post844121


Thanks a lot for the links.
 

the state i am in

Active member
Joined
Feb 12, 2009
Messages
2,475
MBTI Type
infj
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
eric, are there competing theories to beebe's function model? does socionics posit only four functions per person, upon which the quadras are built?

i don't find lenore's idea of left or right brained alternatives convincing.

i also think it's interesting recognizing how we approach jung. seymour's post ties jung to the context of psychoanalysis. i find the enneagram does a better job with ego complexes bc it creates more complex relationships/mappings. the only way to approach beebe is to ascribe alternative function orders, which i think you treat well when you focus on differentiation. making the unconscious conscious. a strong inheritance of 19th century philosophical ideas, particularly transcendental idealism. yet i see the ego complexes of the enneagram as much more informative when cross-referenced and articulated in conjunction with mb types. enneagram does a better job at explaining the construction of desire as we think about them as an energetic system attempting to auto-correct itself.
 

greenfairy

philosopher wood nymph
Joined
May 25, 2012
Messages
4,024
MBTI Type
iNfj
Enneagram
6w5
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Interesting. I think as a child I acted like an extrovert who didn't quite know how to be human yet. I was very friendly, even to strangers until age 7, and I had a lot of friends. Then we moved to another state and suddenly people thought I was weird. So I retreated into a fantasy world in which I was a popular extrovert.

From 7-12 I was IN-P for sure. Before that probably E-P. From 12-18 I started using my Ne to develop Fe and try to be social again. I can't say I've ever been S. I think I was Ne+Ni up until 12, and then started developing Fe.

I couldn't say which judging function I used growing up. I can't see clear evidence of either. From 12-18 I became analytical, so i guess I started using Ti. I also developed strong opinions about how the world should be and people should be treated, Fe style. I don't think I used Fi that much, because my own emotions weren't all that important to me. Everything I would feel would be translated to this is either congruent or incongruent with how things should be for people.

Early college I developed a philosophical system based on Ti + Fe, but didn't really start to be able to be rigorously logical until a couple of years ago. That said, I still don't think I used Fi that well either. I preferred Ti to Fi, I just wasn't completely good at it. And I wasn't completely good at Fe or Te either. I was only really good at Ni and Ne.

At 23 or so, I got into my spiritual group and started releasing all my repressed emotion. It felt really trippy and at times traumatic, but liberating and real. I further developed my Ni and the rest of the functions, and finally connected to Si. I started developing Fi, but balancing it with the T and N functions.

As I developed my Fe and learned social skills, I also developed Se in order to live int he real world and the present.

From about 23 to a few months ago, my inferior Fe + repressed emotion really came out, and I learned to manage emotions and my anger issues. A couple of years ago (I'm 27) is when I finally got it together so to speak. I exercised my Ti and Te enough to really enjoy and excel at school, I'm pretty comfortable with F judgment, and my N is balanced with S.

So I don't know what this all looks like. Am I a repressed extrovert? An INFJ? An atypical INTP or just an atypical human? Once again, using myself as an example of someone confusing.


*I'll definitely look at those links. Some I've glanced at and they look good.
 

Eric B

ⒺⓉⒷ
Joined
Mar 29, 2008
Messages
3,621
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
548
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
eric, are there competing theories to beebe's function model? does socionics posit only four functions per person, upon which the quadras are built?
I apparently never saw this response, and now, you're not here. Anyway, the answer to both questions in one stroke is that Socionics "Model A" is the other competing 8 function theory to Beebe's (besides Lenore). It's similar to Lenore, in that functions #7 and 8 (in Beebe's model) are placed after the dom. and aux. But the others are ordered differently.
 
Top