Interpret this Jung quote

[Mal12345]

"But in so far as we apply perception and judgment in equal measure, it may easily happen that a personality appears to us as both introverted and extraverted, so that we cannot at once decide to which attitude the superior function belongs. In such cases only a thorough analysis of the function qualities can help us to a sound opinion. During the analysis we must observe which function is placed under the control and motivation of consciousness, and which functions have an accidental and spontaneous character. The former is always more highly differentiated than the latter, which also possess many infantile and primitive qualities."

(Psychological Types, 427-8.)

 

[RaptorWizard]

That's a very complex way of saying: people show different sides of themselves.

 

[Azure Flame]

Basically he's saying, some people apply their perception function and judging function equally (such as myself). When typing someone and this is the case, its best to take notice of which unconscious functions activate involuntarily and spontaneously, and this will tell us the person's type.

For example, socionics describes how ESTp's have a spontaneous use of Ne in short bursts of time, so by observing this, you can see that the person is ESTP or ESFP. You then have to look for the primitive and sporadic all or nothing internal emotional state (Fi) of an ESTp. when deciding between LSI and SLE.

 

[Mal12345]

That's a very complex way of saying: people show different sides of themselves.

We already know that people have different aspects to their personalities.

 

[Mal12345]

Basically he's saying, some people apply their perception function and judging function equally (such as myself). When typing someone and this is the case, its best to take notice of which unconscious functions activate involuntarily and spontaneously, and this will tell us the person's type.

For example, socionics describes how ESTp's have a spontaneous use of Ne in short bursts of time, so by observing this, you can see that the person is ESTP or ESFP. You then have to look for the primitive and sporadic all or nothing internal emotional state (Fi) of an ESTp. when deciding between LSI and SLE.

What is a good real life example of an ESTp showing this all or nothing Fi?

 

[Azure Flame]

What is a good real life example of an ESTp showing this all or nothing Fi?

They usually exhibit drop dead boredom, or stark enthusiasm. It applies to ENTp's as well. People might often comment that the person has no morals, or his morals will seemingly come out of nowhere as a complete shock to most everyone around him. For example, when I get angry at a guy talking about how he wants to beat up strangers... you probably would never have guessed I actually cared about anything other than myself, but I'm suddenly cursing him out.

 

[Mal12345]

They usually exhibit drop dead boredom, or stark enthusiasm. It applies to ENTp's as well. People might often comment that the person has no morals, or his morals will seemingly come out of nowhere as a complete shock to most everyone around him. For example, when I get angry at a guy talking about how he wants to beat up strangers... you probably would never have guessed I actually cared about anything other than myself, but I'm suddenly cursing him out.

How is that action distinguished from auxiliary Fi?

 

[Azure Flame]

How is that action distinguished from auxiliary Fi?

Hmm... good question... haha. Socionics lists all the functions and their locations and times of use: here

 

[Ene]

Okay, let's see, Jung uses a lot of jargon here so I've got to break this thing down into pieces to see if I understand it and even then I may still not have a clue what I'm talking about, but I'll just talk anyway.

But in so far as we apply perception and judgment in equal measure, it may easily happen that a personality appears to us as both introverted and extraverted, so that we cannot at once decide to which attitude the superior function belongs.

Sometimes, you can't tell just by casual observation if a function is extroverted or introverted.

In such cases only a thorough analysis of the function qualities can help us to a sound opinion.

Have the person take a test that analyses functions so you can form an accurate opinion, because you can't always just look at somebody and assign a function predominance.

During the analysis we must observe which function is placed under the control and motivation of consciousness, and which functions have an accidental and spontaneous character.

During the break down [analysis, assessment] you have to pay attention to which function is being consciously accessed and engaged and which ones are sporadic.

The former is always more highly differentiated than the latter, which also possess many infantile and primitive qualities."

Self-explanatory to the degree that I have no idea what to say about it. haha.

 

[reckful]

Here's a fuller version of that quote:

Naturally it also depends very largely on the attitude of the observer whether he seizes hold of the conscious or the unconscious character of the personality. Generally speaking, a judging observer will tend to seize on the conscious character, while a perceptive observer will be more influenced by the unconscious character, since judgment is chiefly concerned with the conscious motivation of the psychic process, while perception registers the process itself. But in so far as we apply judgment and perception in equal measure, it may easily happen that a personality appears to us as both introverted and extraverted, so that we cannot decide at first to which attitude the superior function belongs. In such cases only a thorough analysis of the qualities of each function can help us to form a valid judgment. We must observe which function is completely under conscious control, and which functions have a haphazard and spontaneous character. The former is always more highly differentiated than the latter, which also possess infantile and primitive traits. Occasionally the superior function gives the impression of normality, while the others have something abnormal or pathological about them.

Contrary to Myers (who acknowledged that the majority of Jung scholars disagreed with her), Jung would not have expected the second function — to the extent that it was differentiated, brought into consciousness and put to use as the auxiliary — to have the opposite attitude to the dominant function. To Jung, introversion was the conscious attitude of introverts, while their unconscious functions — to the extent that they remained unconscious — would all have the opposite attitude (i.e., be extraverted).

In the passage you're asking about, Jung starts out making the point (further discussed here) that J-doms tend to type people in terms of their conscious sides, while P-doms tend to type people in terms of their unconscious sides. But, Jung continues, "in so far as we apply judgment and perception in equal measure, it may easily happen that a personality appears to us as both introverted and extraverted" — because we're focusing on both the subject's conscious and unconscious sides — with the result that "we cannot decide at first" which function is the dominant one. And Jung goes on to explain that a good way to figure out which of the functions is dominant is to take note of which function seems to be "completely under conscious control" and "more highly differentiated" (that would be the dom) and which functions display "infantile and primitive traits" (those would be the other three, because they're more unconscious).

 

[sleuthiness]

That's a very complex way of saying:

ie "verbose".

"ponderous"

 

[wolfy]

"But in so far as we apply perception and judgment in equal measure, it may easily happen that a personality appears to us as both introverted and extraverted, so that we cannot at once decide to which attitude the superior function belongs. In such cases only a thorough analysis of the function qualities can help us to a sound opinion. During the analysis we must observe which function is placed under the control and motivation of consciousness, and which functions have an accidental and spontaneous character. The former is always more highly differentiated than the latter, which also possess many infantile and primitive qualities."

(Psychological Types, 427-8.)

If someone appears ambiverted we need to focus on differentiating most and best used functions.

 

[INTP]

When someone uses dom and aux to nearly same extend, he might seem like an ambivert and it will be hard to determine whether the person is I or E type(whether his dominant function is extraverted or introverted). But looking at which function is most guided by intention and consciousness, you can spot the dom, since aux is less guided by consciousness.

 

[Mal12345]

When someone uses dom and aux to nearly same extend, he might seem like an ambivert and it will be hard to determine whether the person is I or E type(whether his dominant function is extraverted or introverted). But looking at which function is most guided by intention and consciousness, you can spot the dom, since aux is less guided by consciousness.

Exactly. But according to Jung, this is easier for Rational types.

 

[Eric B]

Here's a fuller version of that quote:



Contrary to Myers (who acknowledged that the majority of Jung scholars disagreed with her), Jung would not have expected the second function — to the extent that it was differentiated, brought into consciousness and put to use as the auxiliary — to have the opposite attitude to the dominant function. To Jung, introversion was the conscious attitude of introverts, while their unconscious functions — to the extent that they remained unconscious — would all have the opposite attitude (i.e., be extraverted).

In the passage you're asking about, Jung starts out making the point (further discussed here) that J-doms tend to type people in terms of their conscious sides, while P-doms tend to type people in terms of their unconscious sides. But, Jung continues, "in so far as we apply judgment and perception in equal measure, it may easily happen that a personality appears to us as both introverted and extraverted" — because we're focusing on both the subject's conscious and unconscious sides — with the result that "we cannot decide at first" which function is the dominant one. And Jung goes on to explain that a good way to figure out which of the functions is dominant is to take note of which function seems to be "completely under conscious control" and "more highly differentiated" (that would be the dom) and which functions display "infantile and primitive traits" (those would be the other three, because they're more unconscious).

But it seems that in Jung's view (as can be seen here), only the dominant is completely "differentiated". The aux. was never as "type"-defining as MBTI made it out to be. (Hence, he only had eight types).
So then, that would be the basis of having the aux. remain in the opposite attitude.
The tertiary remained uncertain and ambiguous in official MBTI usage, and this can be explained by it defaulting to the opposite attitude like the others, yet a complex that associates with it tending to orient it toward the dominant attitude. And basically (as was once explained to me; I hope this full theory is published some day), it's really the complexes (which are apart of the ego-structure) that bring the undifferentiated functions into consciousness, where they then assign the attitudes (both the primary four, plus the opposite ones we often call the "shadows" in the eight process theories).

I would agree with the notion that someone with a strong auxiliary (which would likely be from a strong "parental" complex) might then seem to be an ambivert. I also believe that while introversion/extraversion is either/or; forom a classic temperament (affective) position, the preference can vary from slight, to "compulsive". The ego will still place the dominant function in either the internal or external realm, but his speed of approach to the preferred world (or how under- or overstimulatable to the outer world he actually is) can still be more moderate.

 

[reckful]

But it seems that in Jung's view (as can be seen here), only the dominant is completely "differentiated". The aux. was never as "type"-defining as MBTI made it out to be. (Hence, he only had eight types).
So then, that would be the basis of having the aux. remain in the opposite attitude.
The tertiary remained uncertain and ambiguous in official MBTI usage, and this can be explained by it defaulting to the opposite attitude like the others, yet a complex that associates with it tending to orient it toward the dominant attitude. And basically (as was once explained to me; I hope this full theory is published some day), it's really the complexes (which are apart of the ego-structure) that bring the undifferentiated functions into consciousness, where they then assign the attitudes (both the primary four, plus the opposite ones we often call the "shadows" in the eight process theories).

I would agree with the notion that someone with a strong auxiliary (which would likely be from a strong "parental" complex) might then seem to be an ambivert. I also believe that while introversion/extraversion is either/or; forom a classic temperament (affective) position, the preference can vary from slight, to "compulsive". The ego will still place the dominant function in either the internal or external realm, but his speed of approach to the preferred world (or how under- or overstimulatable to the outer world he actually is) can still be more moderate.

I definitely agree that Jung expected the dominant function to be significantly more differentiated than the auxiliary but it's also clear that, to the extent that the second function played the auxiliary role that he described, that second function played it by virtue of also being differentiated — i.e., brought up into consciousness (albeit to a lesser degree than the dominant).

And Jung viewed an introvert's "conscious attitude" as introverted. When Jung wrote about how an introvert's introversion gets balanced (or "compensated," as he more often put it) by extraversion (and vice versa) — and he actually devoted a great deal of Psychological Types to that issue — he consistently envisioned the I/E balance happening by way of the unconscious, and never by way of a differentiated conscious function oriented in the opposite direction.

I agree that the second function would have the opposite attitude to the dominant to the extent that it remained undifferentiated — and accordingly "fused together" (as Jung put it) with the other unconscious functions. But, to the extent that a person had a reasonably well-developed auxiliary, I think envisioning the auxiliary function as having the opposite attitude to the dominant (which Myers acknowledged was contrary to the view of most Jung scholars) is inconsistent with way too much of the rest of Psychological Types.

 

[Eric B]

So, I meant to ask, he believed that everyone was TiNi, FiNi, FeNe, NeTe, etc? Or at least everyone who is mature? I know there was the debate (here and especially on PerC) that he himself "used" both Ti and Ni (hence his type so uncertain, with INTJ, ISTP, INFJ and INTP tossed around), and that seemed to be evidence for this. (It would also go along with what some claim regarding MBTI vs Socionics, where what we call Ne is really Ni, etc).
How would this notion explain all the people whose types seem to fit a dominant with an opposite attitude auxiliary? If it's about maturity, wouldn't the theorists, who are mostly up in age, then testify to switching the attitude of the auxiliary?
I would say maturity would lead us to pay more attention to the opposite attitudes (in addition to the unpreferred functions; all of this being erroneously termed "developing all the functions", or even "integrating the shadows"), but still not to the extent that the opposite attitude of the auxiliary would now appear to be the true preference after all.

(I still maintain that it's the complexes within the ego that orient the functions. So the function does remain undifferentiated in regard to the ego directly, as only the dominant is properly differentiated within the main complex called the ego).

 

[reckful]

So, I meant to ask, he believed that everyone was TiNi, FiNi, FeNe, NeTe, etc? Or at least everyone who is mature? I know there was the debate (here and especially on PerC) that he himself "used" both Ti and Ni (hence his type so uncertain, with INTJ, ISTP, INFJ and INTP tossed around), and that seemed to be evidence for this. (It would also go along with what some claim regarding MBTI vs Socionics, where what we call Ne is really Ni, etc).
How would this notion explain all the people whose types seem to fit a dominant with an opposite attitude auxiliary? If it's about maturity, wouldn't the theorists, who are mostly up in age, then testify to switching the attitude of the auxiliary?
I would say maturity would lead us to pay more attention to the opposite attitudes (in addition to the unpreferred functions; all of this being erroneously termed "developing all the functions", or even "integrating the shadows"), but still not to the extent that the opposite attitude of the auxiliary would now appear to be the true preference after all.

(I still maintain that it's the complexes within the ego that orient the functions. So the function does remain undifferentiated in regard to the ego directly, as only the dominant is properly differentiated within the main complex called the ego).

I'd say Jung's model for a Ti-dom with an N aux is best viewed as either Ti-Ni-Se-Fe or Ti-N-Se-Fe. And the best argument for leaving out the attitude for the auxiliary is that Jung thought the auxiliary, because it "served" the dominant function, wasn't "autonomous" or "true to its own principle" to the same extent as when it was the dominant function.

The only two things I want to add at this point are:

1. To maybe clarify, when I talk about what I think Jung's view of the functions was, I'm not saying that's my view. I don't really view MBTI type from a functions perspective at all.

2. As for "the people whose types seem to fit a dominant with an opposite attitude auxiliary," I'd say it's important to keep in mind that the cognitive functions descriptions you find in modern theorists like Thomson, Berens and Nardi are different — sometimes in substantial respects — from Jung's descriptions, and in most cases the revised versions of the functions are substantially jerry-rigged to match the MBTI types to which (under Myers' model) they purportedly correspond. If what you're talking about is Jung's function descriptions, they very often don't fit. For example, Jung's Fe description emphasizes that Fe tends to adopt the community values of the person's time and place, and it's emphatically non-Jungian to expect that to apply to any introvert — including an I_FJ who purportedly has Fe as their auxiliary function — since Jung said it was characteristic of all the extraverted types to adopt majority values and characteristic of all introverted types to tend to shun majority values. As Jung explained (describing extraverts and introverts generally):

[W]e shall come upon individuals who in all their judgments, perceptions, feelings, affects, and actions feel external factors to be the predominant motivating force, or who at least give weight to them no matter whether causal or final motives are in question. I will give some examples of what I mean. St. Augustine: "I would not believe the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not compel it." ... One man finds a piece of modern music beautiful because everybody else pretends it is beautiful. Another marries in order to please his parents but very much against his own interests. ... There are not a few who in everything they do or don't do have but one motive in mind: what will others think of them? "One need not be ashamed of a thing if nobody knows about it."

[The previous examples] point to a psychological peculiarity that can be sharply distinguished from another attitude which, by contrast, is motivated chiefly by internal or subjective factors. A person of this type might say: "I know I could give my father the greatest pleasure if I did so and so, but I don't happen to think that way." ... There are some who feel happy only when they are quite sure nobody knows about it, and to them a thing is disagreeable just because it is pleasing to everyone else. They seek the good where no one would think of finding it. ... Such a person would have replied to St. Augustine: "I would believe the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not compel it." Always he has to prove that everything he does rests on his own decisions and convictions, and never because he is influenced by anyone, or desires to please or conciliate some person or opinion.​

 

[Mal12345]

I definitely agree that Jung expected the dominant function to be significantly more differentiated than the auxiliary but it's also clear that, to the extent that the second function played the auxiliary role that he described, that second function played it by virtue of also being differentiated — i.e., brought up into consciousness (albeit to a lesser degree than the dominant).

And Jung viewed an introvert's "conscious attitude" as introverted. When Jung wrote about how an introvert's introversion gets balanced (or "compensated," as he more often put it) by extraversion (and vice versa) — and he actually devoted a great deal of Psychological Types to that issue — he consistently envisioned the I/E balance happening by way of the unconscious, and never by way of a differentiated conscious function oriented in the opposite direction.

I agree that the second function would have the opposite attitude to the dominant to the extent that it remained undifferentiated — and accordingly "fused together" (as Jung put it) with the other unconscious functions. But, to the extent that a person had a reasonably well-developed auxiliary, I think envisioning the auxiliary function as having the opposite attitude to the dominant (which Myers acknowledged was contrary to the view of most Jung scholars) is inconsistent with way too much of the rest of Psychological Types.

One correction: Jung stated that an unconscious function is fused together in its parts, while also merged with the other unconscious functions.

Also, Jung states that the auxiliary function is complementary to the dominant function. In Psychological Types this always indicates an opposite attitude.

The soul is in a complementary relationship with the "outer character."
Introverted thinking has a complementary relationship to extraverted thinking.
"The attitude of the unconscious as an effective complement to the conscious extraverted attitude has a definitely introverting character."
(422.)

 

[reckful]

One correction: Jung stated that an unconscious function is fused together in its parts, while also merged with the other unconscious functions.

Also, Jung states that the auxiliary function is complementary to the dominant function. In Psychological Types this always indicates an opposite attitude.

The soul is in a complementary relationship with the "outer character."
Introverted thinking has a complementary relationship to extraverted thinking.
"The attitude of the unconscious as an effective complement to the conscious extraverted attitude has a definitely introverting character."
(422.)

I don't understand your first point but, in his Differentiation definition, Jung says: "So long as a function is still so fused with one or more other functions—thinking with feeling, feeling with sensation, etc.—that it is unable to operate on its own, it is in an archaic (q.v.) condition, i.e., not differentiated." So I don't think my reference to "fused" unconscious functions was in need of a "correction."

Jung says the auxiliary needs to be complementary to the dominant as far as judging/perceiving goes. He doesn't address the extraverted/introverted issue.

Where does Jung say that Ti has a "complementary relationship" to Te? Marie Louise von Franz (one of his pupils) certainly didn't understand that to be his view. As she explained:

"Jung has said that the hardest thing to understand is not your opposite type — if you have introverted feeling it is very difficult to understand an extraverted thinking type — but the same functional type with the other attitude! It would be most difficult for an introverted feeling type to understand an extraverted feeling type. There one feels that one does not know how the wheels go round in that person's head."​