Why Typing Should be through the Tertiary-Opposite (The Point of Least Resistance)

[Eric B]

Surely you've noticed certain people genuflect in the presence of Lenore Thomson. If she said cancer cells dance an Irish Jig, some people would actually believe it. Top o' the mornin' to ya lassie.

Because, her definitions of things seem to be more solid, especially with all the confusion in the area of functions.

Others have said this as well, and at first, I thought they were just another person's take on things, and had to sort through on my own to figure which were best. After trying on different expressions of the concepts, and then even having a long discussion with her, I find hers are best.
I don't agree with everything she says, as she does not accept the common temperament-based theories as we know the, and though she discusses Beebe's model, she doesn't totally agree with that either. But I'm not giving those up for anyone.

The ship theory was an attempt to create an eight function model before Beebe (and then Berens and the others) became popular. It does seem to have some sort of practical validity, when you see a lot of people's inferiors and sometimes even tertiary coming up weakest in Nardi's test, and people tend to expect the relative strengths to match Beebe's order (and then #8 and possibly 7 also end up coming out strong), and then wonder what their type really is (or whether they fit type at all).

I still don't quite understand what you have against her. I forgot who you prefer. You mentioned it once, but it's easy to forget when you just knock something else, and don't provide a better answer.

 

[Such Irony]

I am the king of Sensotardia.

As far as I am aware, I do not believe I have any subjects and my kingdom is mine alone.

PS: Failure to see the irony is considered a crime in my kingdom. *waves kingly cane menacingly, knocking over several vases in the process*

The irony is right here! :hi:

 

[KDude]

I'd definitely side with subtle sensotard behavior, but people who have trouble balancing themselves or running into things and such need to go to the doctor. There's something in their ears.

 

[Jaguar]

Because, her definitions of things seem to be more solid [...] Others have said this as well...

I see. So the more of a following that exists, the better.
Jonestown and Heavens Gate were so lovely . . .

I still don't quite understand what you have against her.

It's nothing personal.

I forgot who you prefer.

Me. I think for myself and question everything.
Names have never impressed me, Eric. But you sure do like to drop Lenore's name at every turn.

"Lenore told me . . ."
"Lenore told me . . ."
"Lenore told me . . ."
"Lenore told me . . ."

I've often wondered if you have a poster of her on your wall.

 

[KDude]

I wish I knew what she looked like.. I might buy a poster myself.

 

[Sunny Ghost]

Is tertiary opposite like Ne for ISFP? If so, this makes sense. Of all the functions, I think this is my least favorite. Funny, as it used to be Si... but now that I'm older, I have a distaste for Ne and don't trust it.

Wonder if it has something to do with my INFP ex...

 

[InvisibleJim]

Hmmm... so would the eighth function be like something you rarely use and just don't understand at all? And as for the tertiary opposite, would this be the function that someone is the least skilled in using (aside from the last function), or rather something that causes them great discomfort? For example, I use a sort of internalized version of Fe (not to be confused with Fi) all the time, but I HATE it. I also hate it when people get all mushy-gushy, touchy-feely with me. Would you assume Fe to be my tertiary opposite or no because I tend to use it a lot?

Being an opposite to the ID, I think it just shines through naturally. There is no arguing that to others, Ne dominants appear to embody Se and vice versa. Much is the same between Fe users ability to grapple Te situations and the reverse. It's almost a natural role compliment when the personality is in the normal mode even if it is ill recognized by the user.

 

[Eric B]

I see. So the more of a following that exists, the better.
Jonestown and Heavens Gate were so lovely . . .

Me. I think for myself and question everything.
Names have never impressed me, Eric. But you sure do like to drop Lenore's name at every turn.

"Lenore told me . . ."
"Lenore told me . . ."
"Lenore told me . . ."
"Lenore told me . . ."

I've often wondered if you have a poster of her on your wall.

You conveniently cut out the part where I said I didn't agree with her on everything. Particularly temperament and the full application of the Beebe "shadows".
But when we have a sea of often conflicting function definitions, and all the confusion that results, if someone comes up with good explanations or definitions, then if I see that they fit better, I'm going to go with those.
You also conveniently skipped where I said that I tried on a bunch of interpretations, and these simply fit better. So just like you, making up my own mind. Only it's a different process from the way you do it. And in fact, this was something she explained to me. (Not about you, but about Ni in general, being an NTJ herself).

It's an Ne/Ni clash. (Should add this to all the Ni and Ne/Ni threads that have been cropping up here and on PerC lately).
Ne pieces together different patterns, so long as they seem to fit.
Ni looks for "what's been left out" in the pattern presented that would go against the conclusion or theory made; or where the pattern "wants" to go, rather than where it "can" go. Hence, a reference to the internal inferring, and the "aha!" when this "missing" piece is found.

So to me, it looks like someone just trying to shoot holes in Ne's conclusions for no good reason at all (and without even a better alternative). Yet it is simply an internal reason I cannot see, or have ignored evidence of. Perhaps you haven't quite put your finger on yet. (I.e. what you call "thinking for yourself").
Does that sound about right?

That is one example of how she is really good with making this stuff understandable.
And you did once mention someone you 'approved' of. It might have been Myers or Quenk, or maybe just Jung himself, IIRC.

 

[entropie]

It's a nice theory, I just dont get whya its easier to find the opposite of the third function to get the whole type. That sounds like a Ni idea which is not readily-graspable if not explained properly.

I like this description about the entp, the PoLR one from wikisocion, I can sign it 100%. I especially like the part about decency. That had alw<ys made me feel that I could be a SJ too at times.

Fi Introverted ethics: Place of least resistance

The ILE feels nervously in the sphere of human relations. He usually interprets his relations badly, therefore he allows relations to develop with care, he waits until he learns something for sure rather than assuming. Thus he behaves with restraint in front of people he doesn’t know.

He cannot always discern the state of another person; he may therefore offend others in the manner by which he expresses what he’s discovered for he doesn’t seem to take into account other’s feelings in regards to the situation. But this is never the consequence of evil intent, envy or arrogance. ILE simply believes that he is speaking about something objectively, and that the truth will not offend anyone…

ILE places vast value on the decency of a person. The criterion of decency, as a rule, is overstated. If someone seeks his company he assumes that mutual respect exists. He strongly suffers offense and injustice. He will not reconcile with others, unless the offender apologizes before him.

ILE frequently has a wide circle of friends. He loves to consider different problems with them. They, alongside reading, radio and television, provide him with an excellent source of information.

 

[InvisibleJim]

It's a nice theory, I just dont get whya its easier to find the opposite of the third function to get the whole type. That sounds like a Ni idea which is not readily-graspable if not explained properly.

I like this description about the entp, the PoLR one from wikisocion, I can sign it 100%. I especially like the part about decency. That had alw<ys made me feel that I could be a SJ too at times..

You may have noted that I often intentionally communicate in such an open ended way; I'm glad to see people are sharing that they have also seen similar accuracy in the PoLR, which is exactly what I'm describing.

 

[Jaguar]

So to me, it looks like someone just trying to shoot holes in Ne's conclusions for no good reason at all (and without even a better alternative). Yet it is simply an internal reason I cannot see, or have ignored evidence of. (I.e. what you call "thinkig for yourself")
Does that sound about right?

And you did once mention someone you 'approved' of. It might have been Myers or Quenk, or maybe just Jung himself, IIRC.

Do you even hear yourself? Provide an alternative?

How about the obvious, which is people will develop their own variation, depending on a multitude of factors including environment, familial expectations, external demands and yet be a healthy, happy, functioning human being. Try that on for size. Deviating from a theory, yours or anyone's, doesn't mean there is anything wrong with the person. But this forum is inundated with pathology-based thinking:

"Oh, no! Your "order" is wrong, wow, you must be one seriously fucked up person!"

Ridiculous.

I approve of individual comments, not people. Context matters.
Case in point:

Katharine D. Myers wrote:

Developmental models imply there is one particular pattern to be followed for 'healthy' development. According to type theory, however, each person develops variations of the pattern whether through choice or adaptation. It is important not to apply any model, including this one, too rigidly to oneself and certainly not to others. A particular adaptation may be serving one well; another may have been useful in the past but is no longer productive.

What are you going to do now, Eric - accuse Myers of purposely shooting holes in her own family's theory for "no good reason"? She's advocating flexibility in the application of theory, which is an attitude I espouse. The point is, you have always used a rigid, paint-by-numbers, approach to typology and demand that every person fit into your little framework, or else. Everything has to fit, fit, fit, or the world will end. You'd take someone who needs a size 12 shoe, jam their foot into a size 9 shoe, and say Wow! Wooohooo! It fits!!" No, it doesn't fit.

And the point is, it doesn't have to.

 

[entropie]

You may have noted that I often intentionally communicate in such an open ended way; I'm glad to see people are sharing that they have also seen similar accuracy in the PoLR, which is exactly what I'm describing.

No problemo, just dont expect me to understand, I am not one of the brightest

 

[strychnine]

I wonder if upbringing could influence this? I'm pretty sure I appreciate Ne and trust it (at least in other people). My dad is an ENFP and I have a few NFP friends/acquaintences so I wonder if that would make me appreciate my tertiary opposite. If not, I think my POLR is Fe.

 

[Such Irony]

I know for INTP's Se is often high (I seem to be a big exception)

That's surprising. The majority of INTPs I've encountered admitted to low Se. I don't post on INTPc, maybe the INTPs are coming out different on the functions test there,

 

[entropie]

That's surprising. The majority of INTPs I've encountered admitted to low Se. I don't post on INTPc, maybe the INTPs are coming out different on the functions test there,

Often having a high Ne also does give you some traits of a high Se. it's just different how your intentions are. A high Se would look for tangible information around the world that do intrest him, a high Ne would do the same, but not for tangible information, but more for new connections that sparkle an idea or an insight into a more complex apparatus. I once had a best friend who was estp and he was totally into conspiracy theories, while I explained him how I want to build the warp drive. We both on a daily basis had a battle against each other who had the newest, latest and hottest information, but he was so much better you cant imagine. He had like a trillion of friends who supplied him with a zillion of information, he was able chat with over 20 people simoultaneously in ICQ and remember every single one for the stuff he said (well sometimes he could be a slight bit off).

But he totally sucked at sceptically question some things of his conspiracy theories, to put them into a bigger picture to see for example how they are altering his own life; how his intrest in conspiracy theories does him make appear in front of others (a lot of people made fun of him). He was seldom able to derive a solution or an idea for a problem or issue he had, he always relied on input, he hadnt the ability to see his situation or the World in abstract terms, any discussions like that he always annihilated in a second demanding concrete facts.

We both had in common that we were total observer, yet both in totally different Worlds.

 

[Eric B]

Do you even hear yourself? Provide an alternative?

How about the obvious, which is people will develop their own variation, depending on a multitude of factors including environment, familial expectations, external demands and yet be a healthy, happy, functioning human being. Try that on for size. Deviating from a theory, yours or anyone's, doesn't mean there is anything wrong with the person. But this forum is inundated with pathology-based thinking:

"Oh, no! Your "order" is wrong, wow, you must be one seriously fucked up person!"

Ridiculous.

I approve of individual comments, not people. Context matters.
Case in point:

Katharine D. Myers wrote:

What are you going to do now, Eric - accuse Myers of purposely shooting holes in her own family's theory for "no good reason"? She's advocating flexibility in the application of theory, which is an attitude I espouse. The point is, you have always used a rigid, paint-by-numbers, approach to typology and demand that every person fit into your little framework, or else. Everything has to fit, fit, fit, or the world will end. You'd take someone who needs a size 12 shoe, jam their foot into a size 9 shoe, and say Wow! Wooohooo! It fits!!" No, it doesn't fit.

And the point is, it doesn't have to.

If that's what you think; you haven't read what I've been saying at all. I always use terms like "evidence" and point out there won't be perfect adherence to any of the orders.

Not too long ago, there was one or two people whose order came out TiTeNeNiSeSiFiFe, or something like that, and I think there was someone on the F side like that as well)/ I did not try to force them into any "paint by numbers" or anything like that. I pointed out that probably was just reflecting their general function preference, and that they were strong in both attitudes of each. If someone else's results come out similar to the ship order; I'll point that out (and since people are mentioning Socionics, that's another one where #7/8 in Beebe's order ends up 3rd and 4th). There were a couple of people whose order was so out of place, I really could't make anything of it, and I probably turned to temperament/Interaction Styles instead.

The point is, all I'm doing is looking at the nearest model people's order does fit, to assure them there's nothing wrong, and it is not necessarily incompatible with whatever type they're trying on. So that would be the point you made with the quote from Myers. Again, it's just a different way of arriving at that conclusion from yours. An Ne perspective, which you apparently don't hold. (And you totally misconstrued my words about "shooting holes" in something. That was specifically about an Ni/Ne conflict, not just anything that [you think] contradicts something I say. Myers isn't the one who is here scoffing at other interpretations, and again, you do this more than you present your point)

 

[KDude]

But he totally sucked at sceptically question some things of his conspiracy theories

That's funny.. and fits. I think conspiracies, generally speaking, are kind of Ni (if only because there's a strong, single vision there. Rather than Ne, which will skim and swish around multiple notions.. even if there are conspiracies involved). And I think it's common to find it in even ESPs.

Not exactly related, but there was something about this in Quenk's book. Except it wasn't about general conspiracy theories. It was about conspiracy on a more mundane level. ESFP spouses, for example, who fell back on inferior Ni if their significant other or friends aren't showing up as such and such time. "He's cheating on me", "they don't like me anymore", etc.. It used one example of an ESTP girlfriend who got so paranoid she went and chased her boyfriend down at his friend's house.

The book touches upon even stranger manifestations of inferior Ni as well.. Where some ESPs start thinking they've been blessed with some kind of special knowledge about something. Ni can be so rare (compared to INJs) that it can be even more dramatic for them apparently.

 

[Eric B]

That's surprising. The majority of INTPs I've encountered admitted to low Se. I don't post on INTPc, maybe the INTPs are coming out different on the functions test there,

I remember, probably over there, seeing a lot of INTP's with strong Ni and Se. This was before I was completely solidified on my type, and it had to make me wonder a bit. Se and Ni are my weakest. But I think this is just from experience. (Contrary to someone who thinks I deny this kind of factor!) For some reason, I became so immersed in Ne, and then a very strong nostalgic Si to go along with it as well, I just never became more conscious of their shadows as others did. The Fi is relatively strong, though (after TiNeSi).

Evan might be one of those with the strong Ni and Se. (I see he is back, and has gone back to INFJ as well. IIRC, the Ni and Se were part of the reason he wavered between NTP and NFJ)

 

[Jaguar]

If that's what you think; you haven't read what I've been saying at all. I always use terms like "evidence" and point out there won't be perfect adherence to any of the orders.

How long have you and I been members? You try and get everything to fit, match, or correlate with MBTI so often I couldn't count them all if I tried, to wit:

See, Athenian, it does correspond to type fairly well! (INJ=Melancholy; NF=Phlegmatic. For Wolfy, another match; once again, ISF=Phlegmatic, SP=Sanguine).
Though, for Orangey, it would actually fit INTP. I remember you used to wear that type. What made you change over?

Then Orangey had to set you straight that she wasn't INTP. Stop the presses, her result didn't "fit." I had a Chol/Sang/Mel combo. Every system we know of does not have to correlate with MBTI. You even came into a DiSC thread last year, and just had to make all the DiSC results "fit" with MBTI. I still remember wondering if you were obsessed with making everything correlate. ( The thought of Night as an ESFJ was hilarious, I must say.)

Not too long ago, there was one or two people whose order came out TiTeNeNiSeSiFiFe, or something like that, and I think there was someone on the F side like that as well)/ I did not try to force them into any "paint by numbers" or anything like that.

I'm talking about a long-term pattern of yours. You want everything to match, fit, or correlate. Your one example doesn't negate the pattern's presence over time. If you want to remain blind to it, hey, knock yourself out.

 

[KDude]

I'm talking about a long-term pattern of yours. You want everything to match, fit, or correlate. Your one example doesn't negate the pattern's presence over time. If you want to remain blind to it, hey, knock yourself out.

It seems to me that all manner of Si/Ne likes playing around with correlations and systems like that. Nothing new. ESTJs and INTPs perhaps more than others (just a guess.. I could be wrong).