• 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.

Jung Functions that shouldn't go together

Alternatum

New member
Joined
Mar 11, 2011
Messages
67
MBTI Type
Ixxx
Enneagram
6
I have read that some functions cannot co-exist within the same person to any significant degree, of which I am most interested in:

Si with Ni
Se with Ne

This is despite them operating from almost the same part of the brain, and having some key similarities.

I am however disatisfied with any explanations read thus far as to why co-use of some functions is not possible, as opposed to merely inefficient.

So if anyone has an opinion about this, I would like to know:

a) Why they cannot work well together in the same person, just to give some background. If you can individually address Si/Ni or Se/Ne, rather than just say they contradict each other, that would be marvellous :)

b) Could they co-exist to a significant degree, and if not why not. Note that citing a) as evidence will not suffice as an explanation, as this is based on the faulty premise that everyone is well-functioning, with no internal conflicts.

c) Isn't it worth considering the co-existance of incompatible functions as a possible reason why some people are so hard to type as anything? Note that Isabella Briggs-Myers acknowledges that some people do not develop a clear type.
 

Eric B

ⒺⓉⒷ
Joined
Mar 29, 2008
Messages
3,621
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
548
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
It's the way the ego is structured. It chooses one dominant function (S, N, T or F) and one dominant orientation (i/e attitude). The others are suppreseed into the unconscious.

However, it is various complexes within the ego that can reorient the function attitudes. (Which is why the tertiary usually ends up in the dominant attitude).
The complex associated with the auxiliary keeps it in the opposite attitude from the dominant. That's why you can't have Si and Ni as the preferred functions. One will be preferred, and the other will be associated with a shadow complex, or at least a "left brain alternative" that comes up when the preferred function can't solve the problem.
 

Alternatum

New member
Joined
Mar 11, 2011
Messages
67
MBTI Type
Ixxx
Enneagram
6
Thanks for responding EricB, but this is merely (what you see as) the what, it is not really the why. I accept that actual proof of any of this is sadly unrealistic (and maybe I'll never buy into the theory for this reason), but in the absence of proof some proper rationale is at least required. To put it another way, what do you think would happen if these functions did compete for space in one person, if you were to temporarily suspend your disbelief?

Does Si find itself dis-anchored and disorientated by becoming aware of another view-point of the same object or situation (thanks to Ni)?
Does Ni find itself unable to properly see cause-effect patterns and thus project into the future, by having it's perceptions limited by Si?

I am also presuming that you disagree with Isabella Briggs-Myers about how some people never properly establish a dominant function.
 

Thalassa

Permabanned
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
25,183
MBTI Type
ISFP
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
sx
WHY DO YOU AUTOMATICALLY PRESUME SI IS LIMITING?
 

Alternatum

New member
Joined
Mar 11, 2011
Messages
67
MBTI Type
Ixxx
Enneagram
6
WHY DO YOU AUTOMATICALLY PRESUME SI IS LIMITING?

Ouch!

I'm just reflecting the way it is described, which is that Si typically interprets things in a singular way, while Ni tends towards multiple interpretations. I wasn't meaning to imply that this necessarily means narrow-minded, which any type can be (Si-doms can be very open-minded) - I didn't mean that they were limited in terms of potential, intelligence etc. I HATE people being horrible to S-types, and might even be one myself!

Unless anyone is going to give a proper rationale for incompatible functions, I have no choice but to make my own suggestions even whilst acknowledging that they might be rubbish and that I might get some stick for it. I wasn't stating anything as fact, just speculation. I am ignorant (despite reading lots of material) and want to be told something new - educate me!
 

Alternatum

New member
Joined
Mar 11, 2011
Messages
67
MBTI Type
Ixxx
Enneagram
6
Now I've re-read my post, I can understand your anger Marmie Dearest. I'm just an idiot sometimes.
 

Thalassa

Permabanned
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
25,183
MBTI Type
ISFP
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
sx
I'm not angry. I'm asking you why you would presume that. I'm going to come back and explain this more later, and I said in my rep.

In the meantime, why don't you compare Si and Ni and Se and Ne in this very helpful link to Jung.

It's easier for me to tell Si and Ni apart than Se and Ne, personally. I think that may be because I'm a Pe dom.

The functions are lenses through which one sees the world, preferences almost like "world views." I hate to call them world views though because that's imprecise...it makes people think stupid things like all SFJs are conservative Christians...but by world view I mean that functions aren't just things you switch off to "use" to do various tasks like talking to people or driving a car...they're more holistic than that, more of a way of perceiving and judging all information.
 

INTP

Active member
Joined
Jul 31, 2009
Messages
7,803
MBTI Type
intp
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx
my theory is because of this:

97045433.jpg

(source: https://springerlink3.metapress.com...xs145xovhso45x1t4ef45&sh=www.springerlink.com)
(picture is head ofc, its pictured from behind)
a) introverted
b) extraverted

and because of the way neurons communicate, they either send a signal or the signal is too weak not to pass at all, its called all or nothing principle:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4M1zzT9J_y4

and there is signals firing ALOT and ALOT of them wont pass further after certain point. some neurons work as inhibitory, which tries to stop other signals and some work as exhibitory, which try to get the signals going further. basically there are thousands of neurons connected to one neuron, both inhibitory and exhibitory, if enough exhibitory signals fire to the neuron(compared to inhibitory signals to same neuron), the signal is passed further. if there isnt enough exhibitory, nothing happens.

now when you look at the picture, you can see that the messages either go from visual cortex(with introverts) or go to visual cortex(with extraverts).

and if you think about this all or none principle. some signals coming from visual cortex gets cut off, this is basically taking out the irrelevant out from incoming signal and passes to other regions of brains for further processing.

and if you look how jung defined what introversion does
http://www.nyaap.org/jung-lexicon/a/#abstraction
irrelevant shit of what is perceived gets cut off

and with extraversion, what is processed before(or whats left from signals after they get cut off) ends up to visual cortex

and if you look what jung said about extraversion:
http://www.nyaap.org/jung-lexicon/e/#empathy
its basically the same thing.
"The man with the empathetic attitude finds himself . . . in a world that needs his subjective feeling(this isnt feeling function) to give it life and soul. He animates it with himself. [ Ibid., par. 492.]"

but naturally its not all this simple, but maybe you get some idea out of this. and there isnt any good evidence of what brain parts process which functions, its just all hypothesis. i think its more that functions are certain parts working together in certain ways.
 

Alternatum

New member
Joined
Mar 11, 2011
Messages
67
MBTI Type
Ixxx
Enneagram
6
Thanks for your responses guys.

I had a while ago skim-read much of the Jung link giving the overview of functions, but decided to print it off/read it properly this time, starting with the bit about introverts, and Si/Ni. I would say it definitely enhanced my understanding, but most interesting was the following statement, talking about both Si/Ni:

"from an extraverted and rationalistic standpoint, such types are indeed the most fruitless of men"

Which though merely a point of view (not of Jung himself necessarily), intruiges me because ISxJs are hardly considered "fruitless" in modern society, where they (if anything) tend to be considered very fruitful indeed. I couldn't help but wonder whether the 'ISxJs are all devoted servants' schtick is overdone, and perhaps based on some assumptions that were never even stated by Jung, and I found in this overview nothing that strongly supported such a view. I think the assumption is based on how Si is supposed to develop only in people who value stability and predictability above all else, and find Si the best way of anchoring themselves against a sea of chaos, but why is this actually assumed?

I still don't see Si and Ni as necessarily mutally exclusive either, based on this material. I suppose it depends on the degree to which you are set in a particular 'world view' as compared to other views, but the goals/concerns attributed to the types (e.g. stability/security, deeper knowledge, personal meaning) certainly are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
 

Alternatum

New member
Joined
Mar 11, 2011
Messages
67
MBTI Type
Ixxx
Enneagram
6
It's easier for me to tell Si and Ni apart than Se and Ne, personally. I think that may be because I'm a Pe dom.

I have remembered (not that I'm stalking you - I just remember this sort of thing) that you previously typed as ENFP. In line with your world-view take, do you think you were completely wrong about having an Ne 'world view', or do you just think you have a stronger Se world-view? Could there perhaps be a sliding scale between the two, with you placed a bit more towards one side of the view than the other?
 

OrangeAppled

Sugar Hiccup
Joined
Mar 20, 2009
Messages
7,626
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
4w5
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
I would say it definitely enhanced my understanding, but most interesting was the following statement, talking about both Si/Ni:

"from an extraverted and rationalistic standpoint, such types are indeed the most fruitless of men"

Which though merely a point of view (not of Jung himself necessarily), intrigues me because ISxJs are hardly considered "fruitless" in modern society, where they (if anything) tend to be considered very fruitful indeed. I couldn't help but wonder whether the 'ISxJs are all devoted servants' schtick is overdone, and perhaps based on some assumptions that were never even stated by Jung, and I found in this overview nothing that strongly supported such a view.

ISxJs are viewed as fruitless in a sense.....these unfair assumptions are made on this very messageboard: they are not creative, they don't have imagination, they just go along with tradition & society unquestionably, they resist new ideas, etc. Even the "devoted servant" bit you mention shows the idea that they are viewed as not producing anything new, but just filling the role of a cog in a machine. That is "fruitless" in a way, depending on what standpoint you want to see it from. I agree they are not viewed as useless in the sense that they are often seen as very capable of accomplishing practical things.

I quote Van Der Hoop a lot, because I have it saved on my computer :tongue:, so here are some traits he associated with Si types (paraphrased a bit in parts for the sake of brevity), which show that although they are often seen as hard workers, they can also be dismissed as dull, rigid, simple & unoriginal:

- Little external evidence of their inner satisfaction, even appearing unhappy to others when they are content
- They tend to under-estimate rather than to over-estimate themselves
- Often reserved & conservative, caring for duties down to the smallest detail in a routine, customary way
- Show a passive resistance to anything new, which can only be overcome by absolutely convincing experience
- Never readily depart from their routine, except in relation to persons and things in their own immediate sphere that they feel a connection to
- In more abstract matters, they find it difficult to form an opinion of their own - they follow authorities who show a knowledge of facts & give an impression of being thorough
- Only in rare cases, ie. Si artists, does the distinct and personal quality of their inner emotion come to expression.
- Tend to create lives with solid comfort, sometimes leading to tedious caution if they become too deeply attached to minor details
- Difficulty in understanding their own potentialities and worth
- They prefer to stick to the familiar, and find it difficult to adopt anything new.
- They do not feel any confidence in abstract matters, and are easily upset if drawn into discussion of them, or if the value of their authorities in these matters is questioned
- Lack of a comprehensive vision (clear use of intuition) and their introversion stand in the way of adapting to external, new things.
 

wildcat

New member
Joined
Jun 8, 2007
Messages
3,622
MBTI Type
INTP
I have read that some functions cannot co-exist within the same person to any significant degree, of which I am most interested in:

Si with Ni
Se with Ne

This is despite them operating from almost the same part of the brain, and having some key similarities.

I am however disatisfied with any explanations read thus far as to why co-use of some functions is not possible, as opposed to merely inefficient.

So if anyone has an opinion about this, I would like to know:

a) Why they cannot work well together in the same person, just to give some background. If you can individually address Si/Ni or Se/Ne, rather than just say they contradict each other, that would be marvellous :)

b) Could they co-exist to a significant degree, and if not why not. Note that citing a) as evidence will not suffice as an explanation, as this is based on the faulty premise that everyone is well-functioning, with no internal conflicts.

c) Isn't it worth considering the co-existance of incompatible functions as a possible reason why some people are so hard to type as anything? Note that Isabella Briggs-Myers acknowledges that some people do not develop a clear type.

A good question.

S and N share one continuum.
I and E share one continuum.

Bill and Laura share a bread. It is one bread. Laura cuts the bread in nine parts. Bill eats one part. How many parts can Laura have?
9 - 1 = 8

The function order of the eight functions is a nine-play.
Si is the 1st function. Where is Ne?
9 - 1 = 8

Where is Ni?

Si and Ne is a complementary party.
Ni and Se is an inverse complementary party.
 

Alternatum

New member
Joined
Mar 11, 2011
Messages
67
MBTI Type
Ixxx
Enneagram
6
ISxJs are viewed as fruitless in a sense.....these unfair assumptions are made on this very messageboard: they are not creative, they don't have imagination, they just go along with tradition & society unquestionably, they resist new ideas, etc. Even the "devoted servant" bit you mention shows the idea that they are viewed as not producing anything new, but just filling the role of a cog in a machine. That is "fruitless" in a way, depending on what standpoint you want to see it from. I agree they are not viewed as useless in the sense that they are often seen as very capable of accomplishing practical things.

I quote Van Der Hoop a lot, because I have it saved on my computer :tongue:, so here are some traits he associated with Si types (paraphrased a bit in parts for the sake of brevity), which show that although they are often seen as hard workers, they can also be dismissed as dull, rigid, simple & unoriginal:

- Little external evidence of their inner satisfaction, even appearing unhappy to others when they are content
- They tend to under-estimate rather than to over-estimate themselves
- Often reserved & conservative, caring for duties down to the smallest detail in a routine, customary way
- Show a passive resistance to anything new, which can only be overcome by absolutely convincing experience
- Never readily depart from their routine, except in relation to persons and things in their own immediate sphere that they feel a connection to
- In more abstract matters, they find it difficult to form an opinion of their own - they follow authorities who show a knowledge of facts & give an impression of being thorough
- Only in rare cases, ie. Si artists, does the distinct and personal quality of their inner emotion come to expression.
- Tend to create lives with solid comfort, sometimes leading to tedious caution if they become too deeply attached to minor details
- Difficulty in understanding their own potentialities and worth
- They prefer to stick to the familiar, and find it difficult to adopt anything new.
- They do not feel any confidence in abstract matters, and are easily upset if drawn into discussion of them, or if the value of their authorities in these matters is questioned
- Lack of a comprehensive vision (clear use of intuition) and their introversion stand in the way of adapting to external, new things.

Jung makes Si sound interesting and possibly the source of inspiration and finding personal meaning in life, though SJs in general are discredited with assuming superiority and universal applicability of their world-view/life focus. I don't think that's necessarily true.

Also, the experiences and impressions of Si should be amenable to forming fantasies, right? Maybe Si-doms are not always as fixated on reality as suggested, if their experiences/impressions inspire interesting possibilities. Yeah I know Si-doms aren't supposed to be interested in possibilities, but what if they are bored/disatisfied with the here and now?
 

Little_Sticks

New member
Joined
Aug 19, 2009
Messages
1,358
I strongly believe Jung didn't intend his theory to explain anything archetypal, but rather give an overall impression of how a certain person's behavior is oriented based on the abstraction of unconscious motivations. That said, you can change and you might use other functions well in different scenarios, but for a lot of people there are recurring patterns of behavior that fit into a particular type's functions resulting from willfully pursuing particular ego functions while suppressing other functions into the unconscious. It's very abstract and it's not a provable thing, but it can help recognize certain behaviors in people and prove sometimes helpful in psychoanalysis when a person has a problem.
 

wildcat

New member
Joined
Jun 8, 2007
Messages
3,622
MBTI Type
INTP
Someone could be on both continuums :devil::

We all are:
If Si is the 1st function, Ne is the 8th function.
Se and Ni take on the inverse position: tables turn.
Se assumes the 4th position, Ni the 5th. :newwink:
 

Alternatum

New member
Joined
Mar 11, 2011
Messages
67
MBTI Type
Ixxx
Enneagram
6
I strongly believe Jung didn't intend his theory to explain anything archetypal, but rather give an overall impression of how a certain person's behavior is oriented based on the abstraction of unconscious motivations.

I think maybe it's a similar problem to the Enneagram, where you have basic fixations/psychodynamics, which over the years have been translated into observable manifestations by various writers, popularising the system. In the case of Jung functions, it was Myers-Briggs but others have chipped in as well.

Being aware of the problems of manifestion-mapping concerning the E-gram makes me wonder about MBTI as well.
 

Alternatum

New member
Joined
Mar 11, 2011
Messages
67
MBTI Type
Ixxx
Enneagram
6
Okay so it's fairly obvious that lots of people don't fit the Myers-Briggs stereotypes (by which I mean pretty much any description of the four-letter types).

This either means:

  • Jungs functions were interpreted too narrowly in terms of behaviours/type specifications
  • Not everyone has one dominant function/type or there are 'merged' versions of some (similar) functions

I would also like to add that personality typology is sometimes a unhealthy endeavour for people with trouble functioning/mental problems. I'm just speaking from my own experience but I've heard of this elsewhere - you can become unreasonably pre-occupied with finding a 'type' that will explain why you are mal-functional, unhinged or whatever, or just to define a coherent identity. I'd had more success with the Enneagram but am aware that this is an unhelpful distraction for some (and that's driven me up the wall too), even if the Enneagram caters more for the unhealthy than MBTI does.
 
Last edited:

Andy

Supreme High Commander
Joined
Nov 16, 2009
Messages
1,211
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w6
I have read that some functions cannot co-exist within the same person to any significant degree, of which I am most interested in:

Si with Ni
Se with Ne

This is despite them operating from almost the same part of the brain, and having some key similarities.

I am however disatisfied with any explanations read thus far as to why co-use of some functions is not possible, as opposed to merely inefficient.

So if anyone has an opinion about this, I would like to know:

a) Why they cannot work well together in the same person, just to give some background. If you can individually address Si/Ni or Se/Ne, rather than just say they contradict each other, that would be marvellous :)

b) Could they co-exist to a significant degree, and if not why not. Note that citing a) as evidence will not suffice as an explanation, as this is based on the faulty premise that everyone is well-functioning, with no internal conflicts.

c) Isn't it worth considering the co-existance of incompatible functions as a possible reason why some people are so hard to type as anything? Note that Isabella Briggs-Myers acknowledges that some people do not develop a clear type.

Interesting questions. I think you can get a sort of coexistance - though it's more to do with confusion than anything else. The first thing to consider is that functions are about what you want, rather than how you go about doing it. Combining two Pi functions involves having two similar but distinct motivations at the same time.

Si -certainty of knowledge. To plan ahead, I must be sure of what is true or untrue, what is known to work, fail or is completely unknown. If my knowledge is sound, so will be the decisions I make upon it. This way I can find the most certain path to success.
Ni - certainty of understanding. To plan ahead, I must be confident in my understanding of what might happen and how I can respond to the various results. I need to know how the various elements are interconnected. This way I can find a path to the best possible result within an acceptable risk and effort.

This creates a pull in two different directions. Si wants to maximise the chances of success. Ni is more interested in the profit to risk ratio. You can't always do both at the same time. One of these two attitudes has to dominate, otherwise a decision cannot be made. If you can, then you can't tell an ISJ from an INJ, as they both pick the same path.

In certain individuals who have poor Pi, their often exists a confusion between the two Ji attitudes. Inessence, the person cannot tell the concious and shadow functions apart, which will sometimes result in them following the shadow function, only to find out later that they did not find it very satisfying. Ths is very common when dealing with inferior and opposing functions.
 

Mal12345

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 19, 2011
Messages
14,532
MBTI Type
IxTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
We all are:
If Si is the 1st function, Ne is the 8th function.
Se and Ni take on the inverse position: tables turn.
Se assumes the 4th position, Ni the 5th. :newwink:

Oh, now I get it.
 
Top