Integrating the Inferior

[Kalach]

If I were to turn that around to talk about inferior sensing...

One aspect of introverted intuition is the uncovering of some truer layer of content in events or things, right? If one were to consider their own introverted intuiting in introverted intuiting terms, would not one from time to time come across elements of perception that could only be accounted for as introverted perception by obscurantism of sorts where the seer deliberately hides what we'd otherwise know as an objective perception? ...

And I'll stop there because it starts getting non-self explanatory. It's actually true, but that last bit about "What we'd otherwise know as an objective element" doesn't state well what I mean. You only otherwise know it as an objective element by judging it to be. So the obscuring taking place is ye olde tertiary temptation....

To integrate the inferior is to come to terms with the tertiary? Which you do by communing more with the auxiliary? The inferior comes along for the ride whenever you're, um, auxiliarating, so....


It seems like if we're to talk of the inferior function then we do have to, at least start out talking about two things: the inferior function and the complex associated with the inferior function. Presumably you gain greater access to the former when you gain greater awareness of the latter.

Interestingly, I tend to enjoy aspects of stereotypical extroverted sensing. I like going out and experiencing the environment in the moment. This does NOT remove the paranoias and distress I experience around typical inferior extroverted sensing issues. For example, I still worry in quite an uncomfortable fashion when confronted, say, with an institutional lack of power. I foresee difficulties that I believe I will not be able to influence when really the only thing standing in my way is the willingness to make phone calls, take meetings, reach agreements, etc.

 

[Salomé]

in order to work with your inferior, you need to go against of your dominant function and become aare of your tert

Going against your dominant function will land you in confusion. In the standard model, your tertiary will simply back up your dominant outlook and "protect" you from stretching yourself (the so-called tertiary temptation). Thus the encouragement to consciously develop your aux in order to round out your relationship with reality.

I have heard this before, I think from Lenore. And I have looked into the auxilary function being the best to develop to achieve growth. It's still difficult for me to get a grasp on. But for me the new information you present,is that if you go through the inferior directly it tends to interfere...? Do you believe this to be true?

It comes direct from Jung:

I have frequently observed how an analyst, confronted with a terrific thinking type, for instance, will do his utmost to develop the feeling function directly out of the unconscious. Such an attempt is foredoomed to failure, because it involves too great a violation of the conscious standpoint. Should the violation nevertheless be successful, a really compulsive dependence of the patient on the analyst ensues, a transference that can only be brutally terminated, because, having been left without a standpoint, the patient has made his standpoint the analyst. . . . In order to cushion the impact of the unconscious, an irrational type needs a stronger development of the rational auxiliary function present in consciousness (and vice versa).

Have you had experience with it I mean? I can sorta understand how it can compromise the dom function a little...but wouldn't they sooner or later live in harmony? Like if you were Conciously using the inferior..?

They tend to oppose each other/ cancel each other out. If they could live in harmony the notion of type would cease to exist... The whole point is that there is a dialectic tension between them and you are forced, via the process of individuation, to choose one over the other.

I have never tried to use my inferior deliberately. It would be like voting for the Republican Party when I want the Democrats to win. Why would I do that? Would it make me more "well-balanced"? Or just confused...?

According to Lenore, and in line with my own observations, INTPs have greater access to Fi (she places it third in our "type lasagne" after Ti/Ne). Thus it is easier for an INTP to develop Fi than to descend to the Fe depths. Which just makes more sense for the type which is perhaps the most independent-minded of all. I'm prepared to accept that other INTPs develop differently. But I haven't seen any evidence to support that.

 

[Salomé]

is inferior sensing an actual function or is it the complex representation of the rejection of an actual function?

Since the inferior "function" is effectively non-functional (while buried in the unconscious) I would say it's closer to being an autonomous complex.
What are "functions" though, really? Just habits of mind. Habits of attention. If we think about the physical implementation in terms of the way the brain works, those parts that are unused atrophy or get co-opted to do other stuff.

If you were deprived of light, your brain would lose the capacity to process visual data and the visual cortex would get used for something else - auditory processing, perhaps, or olfactory. Your eyes would still function normally, but you'd be effectively blind, because you don't have functioning visual cortex. Similarly, if you are someone who constantly represses whatever "Se-ing" is in the brain, I would expect your capacity to "Se" to be undeveloped and difficult to access. The inferior isn't like some hidden talent we just haven't tapped into. It's genuinely inferior in every sense.

Same with Fe. You don't exercise that part of your brain that integrates emotional cues from others or that activates sympathy, (or whatever "Fe-ing" is), it's going to wither away and get further and further from conscious use. Of course, you still have a limbic system, you still have all this data pouring in, you're just not doing anything useful with it, you don't have neuronal paths feeding that data to higher cortical awareness - you're not paying any attention to it - until the system backs up / gets overloaded. Which is what happens when you fall into the grip of your inferior. You become a helpless child again, and that pushes you to learn new ways of coping.

Are you shitting me? What do you mean by “a more forceful exercise of control”? Because it sounds like you’re saying that refusing to keep participating in a conversation which has basically turned into another person’s monologue is somehow exercising forceful control? Ideally both parties have control over their own participation and only their own participation- if one person ducks out because the interaction is no longer valuable enough to expend the energy or time, that’s their right. It’s like a consumer vote.

No. I'm not "shitting you". I don't really understand the aggression, tbh.
Withdrawing unilaterally from a conversation is an exercise of control, whether you like it or not. I didn't say it wasn't a legitimate option.

I’m still not entirely sure I buy into a strict theory about only certain functions playing a role according to the standard type hierarchy, because there’s just too much crossover here and there in practice.

I agree. We can have more than one inferior too, in various states of awareness.

Not really- as I experience it and the Jung description you posted states- the nit-pickiness is really more about needing the physical, objective environment around us a certain way. Inferior Se isn’t about nit-picking concepts.

Fair enough. Valid distinction (as opposed to nit-picky one).

Yes, it’s totally and completely available for someone to think this about themselves.

I take it you disagree. It doesn't really matter - you don't know me.
I entered this thread expressing agreement with your comments about how you thought the inferior played out with your own type. I then expanded to cover my own experience and all you have done is basically dismiss my experience and tell me that I'm wrong, as well as everything that you think is wrong with NTPs, based on nothing other than your own preferences/prejudices.

And I didn’t intend for that analogy to be about interacting with NTPs, per se (eta: personally I'd take more offense at being compared to a Soderbergh movie).

I happen to like Soderburgh movies...(case in point).

I’m getting the impression this seems more emotionally charged for me than it is- this ‘frustration’. The only reason it keeps coming back up is because I’ve tried describing my own observations of how NTPs can be short-sighted- and every time you respond to what I write by suggesting it might ‘seem that way’ to me because of some INFJ shortcoming (projection, inferior Se, etc)- so I respond to clarify, but you just keep wanting to point out how it might only ‘seems that way’ to me. I’m just trying to point out that INTPs do have their own version of tunnel vision going on occasionally. But apparently the only way you can cope with hearing that someone has this opinion is to tell yourself it’s addle-minded INFJness that gives me this impression, because that’s what you keep coming back to. ( ) So I’ll just let it go.

No, I accept it's your opinion. It's just that you're wrong if you think it has anything to do with inferior function expression (the subject of this thread.) I know this because I know exactly what it's like to have a confrontation with my inferior, and I've also read other INTPs expressing similar experiences. There are common themes. And "tunnel vision" is not amongst them. If anything, we lose our usual clarity of thought, precision, and capacity for intense focus. It feels a bit like your brain has been scrambled. It becomes impossible to concentrate. You are incapable of making a rational decision. It's frightening, horrifying, even. Tunnel vision would be a God-send compared to iFe.
You cannot know what it feels like from the inside. No matter how good you think your empathic skills are, you're kidding yourself. All you can be sure of is what it looks like to you. Anything else is sheer hubris. Why I keep coming back to this being some kind of projection, is because whenever people express a dogmatic opinion about your internal state that bears no relation to reality whatsoever, it usually is projection. Projection is, after all, the way we understand anything at all about what it is like to be human. The only way we can. Those of us humble enough to accept that not everyone sees the world the way we do, do not pretend to understand what's going on inside the hearts and minds of total strangers. Then there are the INFJs...

Which is why my reply to you was not that we don't do many of the things that piss you off, just that the fact they piss you off, in itself, is nothing to condemn them for, nor a reason to judge them "inferior"...

 

[INTP]

Going against your dominant function will land you in confusion. In the standard model, your tertiary will simply back up your dominant outlook and "protect" you from stretching yourself (the so-called tertiary temptation). Thus the encouragement to consciously develop your aux in order to round out your relationship with reality.

the standard model doesent include this tertiary temptation thing, its an theory added later by someone. imo the standard model would be jungs model, since thats where all of those things originate.

yes, going against your dom might be quite confusing, since you are going against your ego there and inferior is trying to find its way under the control of ego, which requires some affirmation for the inferior. in the standard model, this affirmation comes from tert:

Tertium non datur
The reconciling "third," not logically foreseeable, characteristic of a resolution in a conflict situation when the tension between opposites has been held in consciousness. (See also transcendent function.)


As a rule it occurs when the analysis has constellated the opposites so powerfully that a union or synthesis of the personality becomes an imperative necessity. . . . [This situation] requires a real solution and necessitates a third thing in which the opposites can unite. Here the logic of the intellect usually fails, for in a logical antithesis there is no third. The "solvent" can only be of an irrational nature. In nature the resolution of opposites is always an energic process: she acts symbolically in the truest sense of the word, doing something that expresses both sides, just as a waterfall visibly mediates between above and below.["The Conjunction," CW 14, par. 705.]

(the opposites in this case would be dom and inferior)

when it comes to integrating inferior, tert works sort of as a conflict manager, not taking any sides on the dom-inferior battle, but offers an point of view to ego(which is governed by dom) based on inferior, but in a way that doesent conflict too much with the ego point of view. tert isnt repressed by the ego as much as inferior is, because the conflict between aux and tert isnt so huge, since the conflict really is between ego and personal unconscious and aux isnt as much used by the ego than dom is, functions are just tools which these two opposite sides(ego/shadow) use.

but i think what you are talking about isnt really about developing inferior, what you are talking about is tert unconsciously acting in an ass kissing way to dom/ego and thats no way to develop the inferior. you see tert is in the same attitude to dom, which makes it easy for ego to take both dom and tert side of the things is aux is repressed due to the fear of the opposite attitude.

ps. i had an personal experience about this, believed in beebean model and those whatevers, figured out myself that they are wrong, then read jung saying the same thing that i figured out myself.

 

[Evo]

Going against your dominant function will land you in confusion. In the standard model, your tertiary will simply back up your dominant outlook and "protect" you from stretching yourself (the so-called tertiary temptation). Thus the encouragement to consciously develop your aux in order to round out your relationship with reality.
It comes direct from Jung:


They tend to oppose each other/ cancel each other out. If they could live in harmony the notion of type would cease to exist... The whole point is that there is a dialectic tension between them and you are forced, via the process of individuation, to choose one over the other.

I have never tried to use my inferior deliberately. It would be like voting for the Republican Party when I want the Democrats to win. Why would I do that? Would it make me more "well-balanced"? Or just confused...?

According to Lenore, and in line with my own observations, INTPs have greater access to Fi (she places it third in our "type lasagne" after Ti/Ne). Thus it is easier for an INTP to develop Fi than to descend to the Fe depths. Which just makes more sense for the type which is perhaps the most independent-minded of all. I'm prepared to accept that other INTPs develop differently. But I haven't seen any evidence to support that.

Hmm. I think I have tried it (using Fi conciously). Do you just not like using Fe? Cause I think I like using Fi when I think about it, and I have sometimes felt better using it. Am I misunderstanding something?


I mean I understand what the overall picture with the whole Dem/Rep party thing of what's trying to be conveyed. But The way I understand MBTI is that the forth function in your case Fe, in mine Fi, would be the Aspirational Function. The function that "Drives" us. Where we have all of our inner desires. So I'm not sure about the analogy.




"The Aspirational Role (Inferior)
(sometimes referred to as the 4th function)

The aspirational role usually doesn't develop until around midlife.

We often experience it first in its negative aspect of projecting our "shoulds," fears, and negativities onto others.

The qualities of these fears reflect the process that plays this role, and we are more likely to look immature when we engage in the process that plays this role. There is often a fairly high energy cost for using it even when we acquire the skill to do so.

As we learn to trust it and develop it, the aspirational role process provides a bridge to balance in our lives. Often our sense of purpose, inspiration, and ideals have the qualities of the process that plays this role.


The Pattern
The pattern of the processes can be represented by a stick figure.

At the head is the process we lead with, commonly called the Dominant.

At the right hand is the process we use in a supportive way, commonly called the Auxiliary.

At the left hand is the process we use in a relief-giving way, commonly called the Tertiary.

And at the feet is what we aspire to, commonly called the Inferior.

Since this process is what we aspire to be doing well, it is often what “makes our feet go” even when we are unaware of wanting to go in that direction.

Think of the shadow processes as being situated just behind the stick figure to show that they are in the background. Just like a shadow, they are always there, but we are most often not actively using them."


Sense of purpose...is what I get from this. Yes we have a leading role but I kinda think that we are really directed by our inferior. Almost like everyother function is "serving" it.

So I'm not disagreeing with you...just tryin to understand what you understand. I think that going against the dom function leads to confusion too. I guess unless someone tries to Te their way to Fi in an ENTJ's case for example.

Since the inferior "function" is effectively non-functional (while buried in the unconscious) I would say it's closer to being an autonomous complex.
What are "functions" though, really? Just habits of mind. Habits of attention. If we think about the physical implementation in terms of the way the brain works, those parts that are unused atrophy or get co-opted to do other stuff.

If you were deprived of light, your brain would lose the capacity to process visual data and the visual cortex would get used for something else - auditory processing, perhaps, or olfactory. Your eyes would still function normally, but you'd be effectively blind, because you don't have functioning visual cortex. Similarly, if you are someone who constantly represses whatever "Se-ing" is in the brain, I would expect your capacity to "Se" to be undeveloped and difficult to access. The inferior isn't like some hidden talent we just haven't tapped into. It's genuinely inferior in every sense.

Same with Fe. You don't exercise that part of your brain that integrates emotional cues from others or that activates sympathy, (or whatever "Fe-ing" is), it's going to wither away and get further and further from conscious use. Of course, you still have a limbic system, you still have all this data pouring in, you're just not doing anything useful with it, you don't have neuronal paths feeding that data to higher cortical awareness - you're not paying any attention to it - until the system backs up / gets overloaded. Which is what happens when you fall into the grip of your inferior. You become a helpless child again, and that pushes you to learn new ways of coping.

Interesting analogy with the eyes.

I am not sure I would use the word coping though, it gives it a sense that there a problem that's unfixable or something.

you don't know me.

Those of us humble enough to accept that not everyone sees the world the way we do, do not pretend to understand what's going on inside the hearts and minds of total strangers

Which is why my reply to you was not that we don't do many of the things that piss you off, just that the fact they piss you off, in itself, is nothing to condemn them for, nor a reason to judge them "inferior"...

I think you should have started out with this last sentence first lol I know that keeping in mind, that you're talking to people that need extenal validation first(myself included) is not Ti's way...lol But it can make it hard for someone that naturally needs that to then recieve critisim or critiquing. First of all cause you're right we don't know you. So how can we be sure the motives are in the right place? And then I think it also goes back to the thing we were talking about in Common INTJ issues. About how if things were just presented in a different light, motives would not be mistaken. My frustration with situations with Ti is that it thinks putting things in a different light is "coddling" someone. When it really isn't. It's just wording things differently for each individual person so that you don't get the same lashback again. So it's for Ti's self really, until someone gets to know the real you, knows that Ti is not always attacking when critiquing. This is just my opinion and it may not have anything to do with what you guys were talking about. lol

 

[garbage]

ISTJ

That's old news. Pff.

 

[Kalach]

Since the inferior "function" is effectively non-functional (while buried in the unconscious) I would say it's closer to being an autonomous complex.
What are "functions" though, really? Just habits of mind. Habits of attention. If we think about the physical implementation in terms of the way the brain works, those parts that are unused atrophy or get co-opted to do other stuff.

Habit seems too weak a force to found a cognitive system.

I have the vague idea that complexes look like molecules. They are bundles of cognitive items such as memories, thoughts, simple emotions, and they are possibly bound like Jung says around an archetype. Which is to say, in my words, the other thing that keeps these cognitive items together is some primitive form to which they all refer, and perhaps they are bound to that form by reason or perception or both. But we'd also find present in these bundles some cognitive items that weren't put there by conscious activity. They're like detritus in the conscious system--those aspects of experience that exist because the body (and maybe the mind) is capable of admitting them, but which the mind is not consciously interested in. For example, I rarely ever attend directly or at length to the details of physical memory, but there're still there. Archaic, not especially embellished or built up, subject to many effects that i don't understand and often avoid, but still there anyway.

Functions on this scheme are the dominant cognitive qualities of complexes. Such complexes as exist in my mind will contain a lot of built up conceptual elements, and some recordings of abstracted standards, a few recognizable value judgments, and a handful of structures that are energized by immediate flows of physical information. And that's just the pieces of the complex that are available to consciousness. In terms of present content, the complex itself will be no smaller than those elements just described, and could possibly in fact be much larger.

I conceive of the mind as being in theory one large complex, but in practice a great many smaller, interrelated complexes, some not, and some subject only to whatever goes on when the light of conscious attention shines elsewhere.

Why is there such a system? Don't know. Why is conscious attention selective? Don't know, other than suggesting that a conscious system will collapse if there isn't a built in and inescapable channeling of libido. Why do complexes have dominant cognitive qualities? Maybe they don't. Probably there are some complexes that are not isomorphic to the person's overall type. But if consciousness demands a certain partisanship in willing attention then the closer they come to conscious attention, the more typed a complex becomes.

So then what of an "inferior function"? I fudged the description up above when I said in my own mind there are "a handful of structures that are energized by immediate flows of physical information". It seems right to describe "Se" that way--as structures that are energized by immediate flows of physical information--but I don't know what this "energized" is, nor what these "structures" would really be.

 

[garbage]

Again, I'm gonna keep my commitments and respond accordingly to y'all when I can, but I must say the following while it's on my mind. It's a sidebar that's about my personal viewpoint and doesn't exactly approach the problem in a theoretical way. It might answer [MENTION=4945]EJCC[/MENTION]'s thing more directly than my first post did.

If the thing that I was asked to clarify was how inferior Ti manifests, then I personally have no clue other than that I simply regard it as "not important in and of itself." For me, it may (may!) be (theoretically) loosely connected to certain aspects of my worldview, including my pragmatist stance; the sentiment that the truth is but one frame of reference (and that it may not be the most useful one, but often is); that logic is just one of a multitude of frameworks and perspectives ; and so on. I'm certainly described as analytical and logical in the colloquial sense, but I view a logical construct's purpose, relevance, utility (especially that which benefits humanity) as significantly trumping the exercise of logic in and of itself. I view logic as too often 'down in the weeds'.

I struggle to make connections between inferior Ti and these other phenomena, though, because the connections just reek of toothpicks and mint gum. Forcing some such peg into some such hole, etc. So.. I say the above with about 25% confidence. Can't give it any more than that.

But among my hats, I'm a scientist and model-builder, and I delve into philosophy by trade. Go figure. Knowing myself, I sincerely doubt that Ti could ever be considered to be scary, something that I don't "use" or "face", or that is even immature for me. It's just that I'm simply very much keen on the "so what?" factor above (virtually) all else.

If there's some good insight into what inferior Ti is supposed to be, regardless of whether it applies to me, then I'm all ears because I don't know what the fuck.

/halfasssd bologna mobile phone post

 

[Kalach]

^ ENFP

Inferior Ti manifests as fear that everything you did was a lie.

 

[Salomé]

If there's some good insight into what inferior Ti is supposed to be, regardless of whether it applies to me, then I'm all ears because I don't know what the fuck.

I'm not sure why you keep changing your type. Are you certain you're Fe-Dom?

According to Quenk:

General optimism, enthusiasm, and interest in people give way to low energy, pessimism, and depression. Uncharacteristic withdrawal from usual activities and becoming highly critical of others are consistent responses for male and female ESFJs and ENFJs. “I’m different in being Introverted. I don’t make contact, call friends, go to social events, meetings, the theater. I may accept an invitation, but only if someone urges me. I get concerned about my health. I have no plans, no vision, the future is bleak. I am numb, without feeling or zest for life,” said an ESFJ. An ENFJ said, “I am quiet and withdrawn and want to be alone and reflect on what is happening.” Commented another, “I feel phony and uncomfortable, like a fish out of water. I am unable to be my usual spontaneous self.” Another ENFJ said, “I don’t make eye contact. I can’t share what is going on inside me. I feel tight and negative.” An ESFJ said, “I want to be alone—I’m uninterested in anyone else.”
Jung’s (1976a) comment on the inferior function of Extraverted Feeling types touches on all three of these features:

The unconscious of this type contains first and foremost a peculiar kind of thinking, a thinking that is infantile, archaic, negative. . . .The stronger the conscious feeling is and the more ego-less it becomes, the stronger grows the unconscious opposition. . . . The unconscious thinking reaches the surface in the form of obsessive ideas which are invariably of a negative and deprecatory character. (p. 359)

Tertiary Sensing and Intuition serve to support the negative judgments that are made. The tertiary Intuition of ESFJs generates vague, negative “hypotheses” that affirm their convoluted “logical” critical stance about themselves and others. ENFJs bring their tertiary Sensing to bear by coming up with negative past and present “facts” that support their complicated and largely illogical critical judgments. As energy continues to be withdrawn from the dominant and auxiliary functions, inferior Introverted Thinking intrudes in the form of excessive criticism, convoluted logic, and a compulsive search for truth. The comparison between dominant and inferior Introverted Thinking is shown in Table 8.

Ti-dominant Types
• Impersonal criticism
• Logical analysis
• Search for accuracy and truth

Ti-inferior Types
• Excessive criticism
• Convoluted logic
• Compulsive search for truth

Excessive Criticism

Effective dominant Introverted Thinking types critique ideas, products, systems, and methods. The inferior Introverted Thinking of Extraverted Feeling types appears in the form of a sweeping condemnation of people. In the grip of inferior Thinking, ESFJs and ENFJs may “dump” on other people, slam doors, yell, make biting comments, and say terse, blunt, or even cruel things to others. They often become physically tense, grit their teeth, clench their fists, and appear visibly agitated. Both Extraverted Feeling types frequently mention “laying a ‘guilt trip’” on those closest to them as responses to being in the grip.

In the grip of inferior Thinking, the Extraverted Feeling types’ attempts at logical analysis take the form of categorical, all or none judgments that are often based on irrelevant data. A highly idiosyncratic “logical” model may be developed internally, but the resulting conclusions may violate good logic. In describing this quality, Von Franz (1971) stated that because Extraverted Feeling types’ Thinking is neglected, “it tends to become negative and coarse. It consists of coarse, primitive Thinking judgments, without the slightest differentiation and very often with a negative tinge” (p. 45). “My thinking becomes rigid and I insist on solving problems alone, with none of my typical sharing,” said one ENFJ. “I maintain a front, even though I feel unworthy. I am verbally critical, organize more, and become rigid, perfectionistic, and angry. I want the world to go away.” Another ENFJ described being “inside my head analyzing—adding two and two and getting five and knowing its right.”

That last line is a classic example of the overconfidence Fe-doms can express in logic that is completely wrong. The more wrong and flawed their model, the more convinced they are that it's right and there is no reasoning with them.

The other thing they tend to do is seek an expert and have a tendency to accept whatever they say without question.

Instead of searching for a specific person who might provide them with needed answers, many Extraverted Feeling types report turning to lectures or books relevant to their current problem or isolating themselves to contemplate about issues that concern them; these types are often avid readers of self-help books. ESFJs and ENFJs agree that when stress occurs in some area of their lives, they search bookstore shelves for answers. One ENFJ had a wall full of books in his office. His colleague wondered how he could possibly have read all of them. The ENFJ reported that when under pressure to solve a big problem, he virtually devours the books, having many of them open at once, searching for expert advice on the problem at hand.

When a stressful area is chronic or serious, Extraverted Feeling types tend to be attracted to support groups. In the company of others having similar experiences, they can find validation for their perceptions, as well as the latest expertise and thinking about the problem area.

 

[Salomé]

the standard model doesent include this tertiary temptation thing, its an theory added later by someone. imo the standard model would be jungs model, since thats where all of those things originate.

By "standard", I meant the one most people here use - let's call it Myers' model. There is no standard model, as such. If you are using Jung's, the tertiary is extroverted in nature (or some would say, it doesn't have a specific attitude).

INTP function orders under various schemes:

Myers
Ti/Ne/Si/Fe

Jung
Ti/Ne/S[e]/Fe

Beebe/Berens
Ti/Ne/Si/Fe/Te/Ni/Se/Fi

Thomson
Ti/Ne/Fi/Se/Ni/Te/Si/Fe

You have to state which scheme you are using for "tertiary" to mean anything as the order differs in each. For example, if you are talking about Thomson, I agree Fi is the way to develop the feeling function for INTPs and to reduce the potency of the inferior. If you are talking about Jung, Se is definitely a great stress-reliever for me, plus it pulls me out of myself to engage with the world on its terms, rather than mine, which is exactly what I need. But if you are talking about Beebe, (as you appear to be by stating the tertiary attitude mirrors the dom, despite also claiming Beebe is wrong...), then no, Si doesn't help develop a more rounded personality for INTPs and I don't know anyone who subscribes to this view.

The quote you used is misapplied. It doesn't refer to the tertiary function but to a "third way" in conflict resolution. This third way is more likely to be mediated by the auxiliary function (dom=thesis, inf=antithesis, aux=synthesis) than anything else (in Jung's thought too - as indicated by my previous quote.)

Hmm. I think I have tried it (using Fi conciously). Do you just not like using Fe? Cause I think I like using Fi when I think about it, and I have sometimes felt better using it. Am I misunderstanding something?

Thats not for me to say, but if you are an ENTJ you are not a typical one.
It's not that I don't like using it - it's that I can't use it. If anything, IT uses me. Or it used to, before I became conscious of it. Now I just recognise what's going on and get over it.

The way I understand MBTI is that the forth function in your case Fe, in mine Fi, would be the Aspirational Function. The function that "Drives" us. Where we have all of our inner desires.

You too are mixing your models / theories up. One of the reasons it's difficult to have a conversation about this stuff is because no one can agree on what goes where. But in my view, it doesn't make sense to claim all of your inner desires are invested in your least used function (unless there's something very wrong with you, and type doesn't cover pathology). The inferior is the part that feels *least* like you (which is why it gets projected).

Sense of purpose...is what I get from this. Yes we have a leading role but I kinda think that we are really directed by our inferior. Almost like everyother function is "serving" it.

If you are ENFP, then your association with Fi makes sense, because it's your aux, not your inf.

 

[INTP]

By "standard", I meant the one most people here use - let's call it Myers' model. There is no standard model, as such. If you are using Jung's, the tertiary is extroverted in nature (or some would say, it doesn't have a specific attitude).

INTP function orders under various schemes:

Myers
Ti/Ne/Si/Fe

Jung
Ti/Ne/S[e]/Fe

Beebe/Berens
Ti/Ne/Si/Fe/Te/Ni/Se/Fi

Thomson
Ti/Ne/Fi/Se/Ni/Te/Si/Fe

You have to state which scheme you are using for "tertiary" to mean anything as the order differs in each. For example, if you are talking about Thomson, I agree Fi is the way to develop the feeling function for INTPs and to reduce the potency of the inferior. If you are talking about Jung, Se is definitely a great stress-reliever for me, plus it pulls me out of myself to engage with the world on its terms, rather than mine, which is exactly what I need. But if you are talking about Beebe, (as you appear to be by stating the tertiary attitude mirrors the dom, despite also claiming Beebe is wrong...), then no, Si doesn't help develop a more rounded personality for INTPs and I don't know anyone who subscribes to this view.

The quote you used is misapplied. It doesn't refer to the tertiary function but to a "third way" in conflict resolution. This third way is more likely to be mediated by the auxiliary function (dom=thesis, inf=antithesis, aux=synthesis) than anything else (in Jung's thought too - as indicated by my previous quote.)

actually isabel myers briggs and katharine myers both thought that jung was saying that tert is in opposite attitude to dom, so what MBTI actually says that INTPs tert is Se, not Si. this is pretty common misconception about MBTI. but there are some authors in MBTI community who see tert being in same attitude as dom, for some reason this opinion has gained more popularity over internetbeings than what MBTI originally said.

from article 'Isabel Briggs Myers and type development' by Katharine Myers:

when it comes to jung, he isnt being too clear about the orientation of tert and there are multiple views on what jung meant, the MBTI view where tert is opposite to dom, the view where aux and tert has no orientation their own, the most common view where tert is same attitude to dom, the view where aux and tert has no orientation without being differentiated and them being able to be differentiated to either E or I, regardless of what dom is, view where dom and aux are in same attitude and tert and inferior are the opposite, the view where tert fluctuates between attitudes. usually when jungians talk about typology, they often make no reference to orientation of tert of aux, for example INTP is introverted thinking with intuition(not extraverted or introverted intuition).

also lenores model doesent say that INTP has Fi tert, she says that dom is Ti, aux Ne, tert Si and inferior Fe and refers to Fi and Se as right-brain alternatives(crows nest functions) and Ni and Te as left-brain alternatives(double agents).

this kinda eliminates your thought about my relation to beebes model, as its just one of many who assign I as tert to introvert types.

also when it comes to developing Si in my personal experiences, realizing the introverted attitude of my S was what allowed me to develop my Fe more. it was the realization of the subjectivity in my sense perceptions that allowed me to re-examine my views towards Ti and basically debunk shit loads of stuff that i had previously thought as simple objective facts and because i thought that they were objective facts, instead of subjective impressions of sensations i couldnt understand what the heck my Fe was doing and actually thought that it was Fi doing that stuff, when it was in reality just Fe guiding my introverted thinking. realizing this i could see more clearly how Fe was guiding my Ti and start guiding my Fe in more conscious ways. also i should mention that the realization about Si, i.e differentiation of it was instantly followed by realization of the correct path towards differentiating Fe as well.

you cant seriously think that the realization(for young INTP) about the subjectivity of his formerly thought "facts" wouldnt make an INTP more well rounded person. imo this realization is crucial in the development of INTP, as it kinda makes the INTP be more aware of the possibility that his logic might not the the ultimate truth of things, but just an theory of things that at least seemingly follows logic. also if an INTP realizes this, it will force him to do more comparison of his ideas to external world before accepting them as very very plausible theories(some might say facts, but i dont really like the word as it refers to something proven and nothing can be proven with 100% accuracy, because i can give counterargument for that by saying that you might be living in a matrix type of world and you would need to prove that and everything no matter how silly things i come up with in order to give 100% proof of the theory, and well, you cant really prove whether you live in matrix or not).

this jung quote that you talk about i assume is this "In order to cushion the impact of the unconscious, an irrational type needs a stronger development of the rational auxiliary function present in consciousness (and vice versa)."

actually this doesent debunk what i just said, you see jung saw both 2nd and 3rd functions as aux. also i dont disagree about the importance to developing 2nd function also in the individuation process. the general consensus is that you first develop dom, then aux, then tert, then inferior and trying to develop inferior straight away will only cause too much confusion for ego and that you need the auxiliary functions(2nd and 3rd) to "soften the blow".

when it comes to the quote i gave, this idea of tertium non datur applies to all conflicts between opposites of conscious and unconscious in jungs model of the psyche. you see the conflict between opposites is between ego and unconscious, dominant function is guided by the ego and it represses its opposite(inferior) to unconscious. by the principle of compensation, the inferior is pushed from the unconscious, but is repressed by the ego, so they need some mediator between the two in order to get over the repression of inferior.

Opposites
Psychologically, the ego and the unconscious. (See also compensation, conflict, progression and transcendent function.)


Whatever attitude exists in the conscious mind, and whichever psychological function is dominant, the opposite is in the unconscious. This situation seldom precipitates a crisis in the first half of life. But for older people who reach an impasse, characterized by a one-sided conscious attitude and the blockage of energy, it is necessary to bring to light psychic contents that have been repressed.

The repressed content must be made conscious so as to produce a tension of opposites, without which no forward movement is possible. The conscious mind is on top, the shadow underneath, and just as high always longs for low and hot for cold, so all consciousness, perhaps without being aware of it, seeks its unconscious opposite, lacking which it is doomed to stagnation, congestion, and ossification. Life is born only of the spark of opposites.["The Problem of the Attitude-Type," CW 7, par. 78.]

This in turn activates the process of compensation, which leads to an irrational “third,” the transcendent function.

Out of [the] collision of opposites the unconscious psyche always creates a third thing of an irrational nature, which the conscious mind neither expects nor understands. It presents itself in a form that is neither a straight “yes” nor a straight “no.”["The Psychology of the Child Archetype," CW 9i, par. 285."The Psychology of the Child Archetype," CW 9i, par. 285.]

Jung explained the potential renewal of the personality in terms of the principle of entropy in physics, according to which transformations of energy in a relatively closed system take place, and are only possible, as a result of differences in intensity.

Psychologically, we can see this process at work in the development of a lasting and relatively unchanging attitude. After violent oscillations at the beginning the opposites equalize one another, and gradually a new attitude develops, the final stability of which is the greater in proportion to the magnitude of the initial differences. The greater the tension between the pairs of opposites, the greater will be the energy that comes from them . . . [and] the less chance is there of subsequent disturbances which might arise from friction with material not previously constellated.["On Psychic Energy," CW 8, par. 49.]

Some degree of tension between consciousness and the unconsciousness is both unavoidable and necessary. The aim of analysis is therefore not to eliminate the tension but rather to understand the role it plays in the self-regulation of the psyche. Moreover, the assimilation of unconscious contents results in the ego becoming responsible for what was previously unconscious. There is thus no question of anyone ever being completely at peace.

you should note that this "third" is something that conscious mind does not really understand, nor expect, aux more often than not(and especially when trying to differentiate the inferior) is something that the conscious mind understands and tries to use.

then there is this thing called transcendent function(which comes out of tertium non datur), which is not a single function, but an combination of functions used together. there isnt any info about which functions are used there, but from personal experience and from following jungs model of the psyche its the tert/inferior working together, in somewhat similar fashion that dom Ti and aux Ne create intuitive thinking, you see intuitive thinking(or intuition and thinking separately) is something that INTP quite naturally understands as it is his ego point of view, however sensing feeling is something that INTP does not expect, not understand very well, at least before some level of differentiation being made first on the two.

 

[Evo]

The quote you used is misapplied. It doesn't refer to the tertiary function but to a "third way" in conflict resolution. This third way is more likely to be mediated by the auxiliary function (dom=thesis, inf=antithesis, aux=synthesis) than anything else (in Jung's thought too - as indicated by my previous quote.)
Thats not for me to say, but if you are an ENTJ you are not a typical one.
It's not that I don't like using it - it's that I can't use it. If anything, IT uses me. Or it used to, before I became conscious of it. Now I just recognise what's going on and get over it.

You too are mixing your models / theories up. One of the reasons it's difficult to have a conversation about this stuff is because no one can agree on what goes where. But in my view, it doesn't make sense to claim all of your inner desires are invested in your least used function (unless there's something very wrong with you, and type doesn't cover pathology). The inferior is the part that feels *least* like you (which is why it gets projected).



If you are ENFP, then your association with Fi makes sense, because it's your aux, not your inf.

So this was what I was trying to get to.

I just believe that the order goes a certain way - I mix this theory with the "roles" or of the functions with the "lasagna". And you don't that's all. I now see why we don't always agree. I don't have my models mixed up. I like BOTH models...

The Leading Role (Dominant)Te
The Supporting Role (Auxiliary)Ni
The Relief Role (Tertiary)Se
The Aspirational Role (Inferior)Fi
The Opposing RoleTi
The Critical Parent Role Ne
The Deceiving Role Si
The Devilish Role Fe


With the lasagna

Dom
Devil
Relief and so on.


So for me it makes sense to label each function with a "job description"

Then if you apply the lasagna to it...it works the same way ... Lenore says I use Fe when stressed or when Te doesn't serve me anymore. Just like INTP's use Fi<---also known as the "the devil comes out in people" <--or the bad side of people...

This is how I see it. I definately know my Fi is behind all of my desicions. But I primarily use Te.

I cannot be an ENFP...I'm a judger...hardcore. I am not like most ENTJ's you're right.

If you have a way to maybe fill in some gaps to my point of view go right ahead. But I'm not really looking for negative feedback here...because I like my meshing of theories and I know I'll take what you say personally if you don't think mine's right...I'm just not ready lol.

Do you go by any particular model more than another?

 

[garbage]

Let's see if I've caught up. ?

The nature of the inferior is hardly minutiae. It's at the heart of most of the problems of each "type". If you think the notion of "type" has any validity at all, you must address the consequences of unbalanced development that are implied within it. The inferior function is the means to do so. It's hard to imagine anything of greater consequence in typology...

In fact, I have wondered if type emerges as a result of the inferior deficit - I.e. this is the seed around which the personality crystallises. So that the dominant function emerges as a defence against the pre-existence of the inferior-ity (rather than the inferior being a consequence of one function's 'natural' dominance).

I'm mostly in agreement.

The inferior itself isn't minutiae at all, and if the model has merit, the inferior is important for exactly the reasons you say. From a practical standpoint (which is, personally, the standpoint that I tend to value), recognizing what it is that we hide from or repress is extremely important. It's akin to the Enneagram, where we have a set of self-images that protect us from some core. I like that 'inferior deficit' idea; it's intriguing and it's worth fleshing out.

The minutia--the parts that make me want to stab myself in the throat--come in our typical approach to studying this stuff. I believe that we put the cart before the horse when we try to ascribe little behavioral details to, say, the inferior function. We have a hard enough time truly understanding the parts of cognition that are most manifest; I think that we ought to refine and further validate our models of those first, because that will give us promise for modeling the rest of our psyche satisfactorily.

It is reconciled by the i.
Jung (and followers) use "rational" to imply "subject to conscious control" and operating according to a predictable logic. It follows that whatever is not under conscious control / acting in harmony with conscious goals is not rational.
(He considered Sensing and Intuition to be "irrational" functions).

So it's a simple name clash, two different uses of the word "rational." Got it. That solves the problem quite nicely.

In their manifestation.

I can't discount others' experiences and states of mind, but I do wonder whether we're ascribing the right causes to them.

I've personally looked at the descriptions for manifestations of inferior Ti, Se, and Si (those that would theoretically most apply to me) from "Was It Really Me?" and from a few websites. They seem to be very lazily built upon what such-and-such a type would theoretically look like under stress, and I can't force any of those three to resonate with me at all.

But I actually found this thing to be a decent resource. It's nice and simple, and it forms explanations 'from the real world inward' instead of 'from the theory outward'--which I personally find to be refreshing.

I'm not sure why you keep changing your type. Are you certain you're Fe-Dom?

In-joke, mostly.

edit: Also, from below:

^ *cough*

this.

One of the reasons it's difficult to have a conversation about this stuff is because no one can agree on what goes where.

This. This needs to be shouted from the rooftops over and over again. We conflate our models and terminology to the point that nobody actually knows what anyone else is talking about, which murks up discussion hardcore.

I'm intrigued by your perspective here because it seems to be an easy resolution to the problem. It streamlines everything, which is always sexy. And in some ways I feel there is truth to what you've written here. For me, Fi confers a certain rightness to the vision of Ni. But I feel that to stop at such a superficial understanding of the inferior isn't particularly satisfactory because it lacks a certain dynamic tension, and is likely to just cause personal stagnation as a result. Growth requires recognition of an imbalance.

I love me some streamlining. And I love me some certainty, too. And I love useful, simple concepts (but, of course, I don't mind delving into the details to the extent that they're relevant, useful, or valid).

What I wrote can be considered one 'model' of stress/emotion. It's very simple, of course. I can see where it could stand to have some more fidelity thrown in. .. just not.. you know, at the level of "My inferior Te causes me to organize my closets once in a while."

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

This may not be entirely in MBTI terms, but I find a deep sense of happiness and balance when I sit alone in nature and experience every one of my senses, but integrate it into a deeper meaning. I notice the connectedness between everything I experience and feel a deep connection to nature. I think this is Se being integrated into my Ni.

There is an aspect of the arts which integrates everything as well, in which the senses express deeper meaning.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

To integrate the inferior is to come to terms with the tertiary? Which you do by communing more with the auxiliary? The inferior comes along for the ride whenever you're, um, auxiliarating, so....

Ha. Auxiliarate.


1. (verb) to use one’s auxiliary function. “I am totally auxiliarating right now.”
2. (noun) a classification of one’s awareness of one’s subjective cognitive processes. “I give Kalach an auxiliarating of 8.5 (out of 10).”

No. I'm not "shitting you". I don't really understand the aggression, tbh.
Withdrawing unilaterally from a conversation is an exercise of control, whether you like it or not. I didn't say it wasn't a legitimate option.

How can you know what the motivation is? How can you know that you're not just shutting down and refusing to see something from another perspective? Isn't that a more forceful exercise of control?

I suppose using the word “forceful” implied to me something other than ‘legitimate choice’. The notion that withdrawing from relentless anti-dialogical interaction could be described as “forceful exercise of control” seems odd to me- like it implies (imo) the act of drawing boundaries for oneself should somehow require consent of the other person (that without that consent, it’s ‘force’). But then I find it puzzling that you’d find “Are you shitting me?” to be aggressive. It was intended more to express surprise. So .

I take it you disagree. It doesn't really matter - you don't know me.

I have that reaction pretty much anytime someone insists they know what their own pitfalls are. I said it’s available to believe about ourselves to point out that it’s a bold claim and to point out that asserting it doesn’t make it true. I can’t help but suspect, if an INFJ were to say that INFJs have an “unparalled ability to cut through all the extraneous crap and get to the heart of a problem”….you’d have your own opinions about it. But I agree- whether or not it’s true shouldn’t matter to me, and whether or not I agree with it shouldn’t matter to you.

It's just that you're wrong if you think it has anything to do with inferior function expression (the subject of this thread.) I know this because I know exactly what it's like to have a confrontation with my inferior, and I've also read other INTPs expressing similar experiences. There are common themes. And "tunnel vision" is not amongst them. If anything, we lose our usual clarity of thought, precision, and capacity for intense focus. It feels a bit like your brain has been scrambled. It becomes impossible to concentrate. You are incapable of making a rational decision. It's frightening, horrifying, even. Tunnel vision would be a God-send compared to iFe.

It seems like claiming it was the equivalent of tunnel vision was a bad choice of expression, it’s more like having blinders on. And even that will probably be met with contention. This frustration I’m talking about- it’s like talking to a kite that thinks it’s still attached to the ground even though the string clearly broke. That ‘string’ is what’s clear to introverted perceivers (even though it’s exactly what causes our tunnel vision- and fyi that tunnel vision doesn’t give the stability it appears to when it’s based on unconscious impulses, secure stability comes from the experience of actually being on the same page with other people). The problem with NTPs- and it isn’t only to me, there’s a distinct behavior I’ve seen and discussed with others enough to know it’s a thing, and it’s there as sure as there’s an issue which presents specific to NFJ and there’s an issue specific to NTJ- is there’s a shiftyness that flits from one convenient ‘truth’ to another to suit one’s immediate argument/needs/wants. They can be relentlessly pushy with it, picking and choosing details which support their view (and THAT’S what I’m referring to as the tunnel vision) and completely oblivious to how the string (which attaches it to shared reality) has clearly broken. It can be just as astounding to deal with and as anti-dialogical as when Js get dogmatic.

I’m not trying to invalidate your experience by simply insisting this tendency exists. I’ve already stated it’s more the exception than the rule. Most INTPs I’ve dealt with- if they do it at all, they do it on a miniscule level and it doesn’t significantly impair communication…..it looks more like a temporary hiccup most of the time (and that’s exactly how I’d describe the NFJ thing in me, merely something I trip over sometimes). But I’ve heard enough venting from people to know it’s there and it’s not just me.

You cannot know what it feels like from the inside. No matter how good you think your empathic skills are, you're kidding yourself. All you can be sure of is what it looks like to you. Anything else is sheer hubris. Why I keep coming back to this being some kind of projection, is because whenever people express a dogmatic opinion about your internal state that bears no relation to reality whatsoever, it usually is projection. Projection is, after all, the way we understand anything at all about what it is like to be human. The only way we can.

This is a good point and I often arrive at this possibility myself, though I do try to make sure I’ve exhausted ways in which what’s being said ‘bears no relation to reality whatsoever’. Sometimes it simply ‘bears no relation’ to my ego; it’s easy and common to mistake “bears no relation to what I want reality to be” for “bears no relation to reality”.

Another problem here is that I forget to do some version of what Kalach does when he ends his post with “/might not be true”. I’ve been arguing some theoretical formula of functions to speculate on some kind of ‘why’ which could very possibly be wrong. I take for granted that’s understood- I’m not in a lecture hall here coming from a place of assumed authority; I’m in a forum having a conversation with others on a level playing field. I don’t even know that my theory about NFJs or NTJs is ‘accurate’ either, as far as “it happens specifically because blah blah inferior blah Ti/Fi blah blah”- only that the behavior consistently presents amongst the types. It’s all just an exercise in defining some abstract concepts about *stuff* that happens in our heads. ‘Function theory’ give us terms to use to talk about abstract concepts but half the time I’m not even confident people in discussions here have similar understandings of what each function is. I take for granted that it also seems to others like the whole purpose of participating here is to bounce our understanding off others to better refine it. And as if it isn’t hard enough to define, ego attachments interfere left and right, so (to me) it should all be taken with a grain of salt. I forget to always explicitly add that disclaimer.

The underlying behavior is what I was trying to describe though. I absolutely can’t claim to know with certainty ‘why’ it happens and no one can claim to know what someone else’s experience is as well as their own…..but I can claim the behavior pattern happens because I’ve been around it. And because it’s so impulsive (which shows externally in how immediate and irrational it is), I do think it pertains to this thread in that it seems largely ruled by unconscious impulses.

Which is why my reply to you was not that we don't do many of the things that piss you off, just that the fact they piss you off, in itself, is nothing to condemn them for, nor a reason to judge them "inferior"...

While I have mentioned several times now that what I’m talking about doesn’t apply to every single NTP, that it’s more the exception than the rule, made clear that it isn’t any more annoying than what NFJs do or what NTJs do and haven’t really said much about it outside this thread- and I’ve explained that it isn’t just me- I agree it’s kinda annoying when someone consistently demonstrates a derogatory attitude towards another type, systematically judging that type as inferior in some way…

Those of us humble enough to accept that not everyone sees the world the way we do, do not pretend to understand what's going on inside the hearts and minds of total strangers. Then there are the INFJs...

^ *cough*

 

[Glycerine]

I am pretty sure my inferior is Ti. My weak point has always been real-time argument because I unconsciously perceive it as conflict and freeze (I am assuming that in what I perceive as "high pressure" situations, my Fe wins out big time) However, when I am alone, the inferior Ti has helped me out when I needed to figure something out or truly cared about something. Saying that, I have noticed that I have a tendency to overcompensate with it and when it gets to the extreme, it tends to be all or nothing. Hours of alone time helped develop my introverted functions and being stuck in a Ni+Ti rut on and off for many years probably added to that.

 

[Salomé]

actually isabel myers briggs and katharine myers both thought that jung was saying that tert is in opposite attitude to dom, so what MBTI actually says that INTPs tert is Se, not Si. this is pretty common misconception about MBTI.

Interesting. Did not know that. So there is barely any support for tertiary Si then. I guess this just makes the looney insistence on arbitrary function order around here even more looney...

also lenores model doesent say that INTP has Fi tert, she says that dom is Ti, aux Ne, tert Si and inferior Fe and refers to Fi and Se as right-brain alternatives(crows nest functions) and Ni and Te as left-brain alternatives(double agents).

She places Fi third in the function hierarchy. You can be pedantic about the label "tertiary" but the net effect is what matters. The upshot is that she believes (and I agree, and so did you at one point, it seems) that Fi >>>> Fe for INTPs.. (And Se >>> Si).

The rest is just your own rambling about the nature of tertiary development. You don't have anything to back this up beyond your subjective assessment of your own development so I don't find it remotely persuasive. Perhaps you can talk about how developing Si+Fe explicitly looks different from developing Fi (in your experience or in general)?

 

[Salomé]

I just believe that the order goes a certain way - I mix this theory with the "roles" or of the functions with the "lasagna". And you don't that's all. I now see why we don't always agree. I don't have my models mixed up. I like BOTH models...

No. You do. You have them all mixed up (not integrated) and you'll have to read more to get them straightened out. (Start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jungian_cognitive_functions) Or you can just believe whatever - it's not exactly a science.

 

[Salomé]

The minutia--the parts that make me want to stab myself in the throat--come in our typical approach to studying this stuff. I believe that we put the cart before the horse when we try to ascribe little behavioral details to, say, the inferior function. We have a hard enough time truly understanding the parts of cognition that are most manifest; I think that we ought to refine and further validate our models of those first, because that will give us promise for modeling the rest of our psyche satisfactorily.

I don't see why we can't attack it from a number of angles... I personally find behaviours with unconscious motivations infinitely more fascinating the the parts of the psyche that are more accessible to consciousness. But that's because I love a good mystery.
I think the most important thing to take away (which most people here gloss over or fail to acknowledge) is that the inferior version of a function will not look like the superior version. They are not remotely equivalent.

So it's a simple name clash, two different uses of the word "rational." Got it. That solves the problem quite nicely.

Not exactly... I'm suggesting that a rational function becomes irrational when it acts unconsciously.

So Fe can be both rational (in its dominant form) and irrational (in an inferior form).

I've personally looked at the descriptions for manifestations of inferior Ti, Se, and Si (those that would theoretically most apply to me) from "Was It Really Me?" and from a few websites. They seem to be very lazily built upon what such-and-such a type would theoretically look like under stress, and I can't force any of those three to resonate with me at all.

But I actually found this thing to be a decent resource. It's nice and simple, and it forms explanations 'from the real world inward' instead of 'from the theory outward'--which I personally find to be refreshing.

Now that one doesn't work as well for me...
I agree that sometimes these theories are superficial and unsatisfying in their generalisability. The problem is that we don't have a satisfactory framework to hang them upon. Jung was fond of mysticism and notoriously imprecise, and his followers haven't really done much to elucidate his model. It remains far too intangible / unfalsifiable and open to (widely varying) interpretation.

So it's fun to play around with, but it's not something to base your self-development on.