Tertiary Temptation - your experience?

[redacted]

I think there is a point in having not more than one basic approach to life (Dominant function, that is), instead of some compromise between two or more. The Ti and Ni approach (for example) collide with each other and doesn't approve of the other.

It makes sense that one would be dominant, but the fact that they contradict each other is a good thing. For an ISTP, Ni will take Ti out of one narrow path of analysis, opening the ISTP to new ideas. For an INFJ, Ti will knock down Ni ideas that don't make sense. The functions have to keep each other in check because alone they're all pretty much useless.

Any good idea is going to be N (new idea to contemplate) analyzed by T (using deductive logic to see if it makes sense). S needs to ground N ideas in concrete terms, F needs to okay an idea to motivate T to analyze it.

 

[sleepless]

Well, it's just my personal experience that Ti interferes far too much with Ni, to a point where it becomes slightly destructive. The thing is, I feel like I don't have to worry about my Ti, I overuse it anyway, and it will knock down ideas that don't make sense, or at least try to. Sometimes it tries hard at it, but doesn't succeed. Ti: "This doesn't make any sense." Ni: "Well, obviously it's still my perception. What am I going to do about that?" Our third function is actually often our second most used function, as it lets us keep our dominant I/E, and especially so we're having problems with our Auxiliary, as for me. Still, I can see the need to "check" your Dominant, but I say the fourth function should do that, as being the opposite of your Dom.

 

[redacted]

Every function should check every other one, honestly.

I think the reason we're disagreeing at all is that we understand the functions differently. I've done a ton of work over the last few months trying to figure out a computer science-ey model of how these functions would interact (I'm pretty obsessed with programming). Plus, I talked to BW on AIM for hours and hours (and nocapszy too) until my model made complete sense to me and included every single possible cognitive behavior. (Behavior is a key word, not motivation.)

On top of that, I'm probably much more T than you are and much less F. Even within type, there is room for variation.

 

[Jack Flak]

On top of that, I'm probably much more T than you are and much less F. Even within type, there is room for variation.

My position is that you can't escape your type per se, but your strengths and weaknesses compared to another of the same type can be like night and day. Of course, you and I don't seem to agree on much related to personality study, so don't "take my word for it."

 

[booyalab]

My position is that you can't escape your type per se,

Well not INTPs anyway. We can only seem to escape it per Ne.

 

[redacted]

I never take anyone's word for it.

We do agree on this, though. (You pretty much said exactly what I said, lol.)

(And we agreed on my ADD thread)

 

[mlittrell]

I posted a couple of posts back and would like to change what I said a little, and back up what dissonance said about how every function should check every other one. The first two functions seem to be the most natural to use. In an emotionally unhealthy person, there seems to be a split between the first and the second function. For example, In an unhealthy INFJ, they are having trouble using Ni and Fe together to make decisions. In a healthy INFJ, they can use both Ni and Fe together to make decisions because their tertiary, Ti, is serving as a "translator" if you will, between the first two functions. Se, their shadow function, may do the same thing as Ti but in an unconscious sort of way.

In short, the first two functions are two wise men speaking different languages. The tertiary is a translator between the first two functions, and the shadow determines how good of a translator the tertiary is.

That's the way I think of it.

 

[Jack Flak]

(You pretty much said exactly what I said, lol.)

I attempted, and possibly failed, to differentiate.

It seemed as if you were saying people "lean" toward T if they are F, whereas I consider them never to lean away from what they are, just having addditional skills.

 

[redacted]

What do you mean by "what they are" though? People lean all over the place. Lots of Fs lean away from T, I'd say healthy Fs lean towards. Just like healthy Ts lean toward F, healthy Ns lean towards S, etc.

In IJs and EPs, T and F doesn't really mean as much anyway. Both T and F are somewhat in the grips of the dominant. They should hopefully both be consciously referenced as much as possible.

I'm probably still not understanding you. What's the difference between leaning towards T and developing T?

 

[Jack Flak]

What do you mean by "what they are" though? People lean all over the place. Lots of Fs lean away from T, I'd say healthy Fs lean towards. Just like healthy Ts lean toward F, healthy Ns lean towards S, etc.

In IJs and EPs, T and F doesn't really mean as much anyway. Both T and F are somewhat in the grips of the dominant. They should hopefully both be consciously referenced as much as possible.

I'm probably still not understanding you. What's the difference between leaning towards T and developing T?

Fundamentally, it comes down to the preference. An intellectual genius could be INFP. He'd still prefer feeling.

We see things very differently. I don't follow the "developing functions" argument, even. I base type on categorizations to sixteen types, and other categories not verbalized. People always seem to act according to type, though they are individuals. INFPs always act like INFPs, in as much as the type itself means. That's all I'm really concerned with in type study. I don't care what someone's supposed tertiary function is, by any means. I predict behavior and choose action based on type.

 

[redacted]

Ah, the behaviorist approach. Totally valid.

The only problem with your approach in my opinion is that you shove people into boxes. Yes, everyone says this. But the thing with functions is that you can explain differences within one type by different functional weights.

And plus, I've definitely come across people that don't at all fit the prototype for their type. I'd like to think of myself as an example, but there's no reason you should believe me.

I'm just curious, what would you type me as if I didn't have my type listed? Or would you hold off because there isn't enough information? Do I look like a "normal" INFJ?

 

[Jack Flak]

I thought I'd pegged you as INFJ when you didn't have your type listed, but I could be completely mis-remembering it (Depends if you had your type listed about a week ago). I do think you're INFJ.

 

[redacted]

Heh, well maybe I'm deluding myself into thinking I'm really that much of an individual, then

I do tend to be much more consciously aware of true/false stuff than good/bad stuff, and I pretty much never debate ethics, except to point out inconsistencies in people's views. I would say this is due to a strengthened tertiary Ti and an underdeveloped Fe.

I love Ts (especially NTPs) for this reason; they never (rarely, I should say) get offended by my views

Anyway, just so I'm contributing something here: have you ever come across people that you couldn't type? Or at least people that seem not to fit a type in terms of behavior? I run across people like this every once in a while, and it takes a lot of guess/checking to reduce their behaviors down to something that makes sense in the MBTI system.

 

[Jack Flak]

Heh, well maybe I'm deluding myself into thinking I'm really that much of an individual, then

You're misinterpreting me as someone who decides type based on such simple factors. What makes an INFJ is the ethereal impenetrability.

Anyway, just so I'm contributing something here: have you ever come across people that you couldn't type? Or at least people that seem not to fit a type in terms of behavior? I run across people like this every once in a while, and it takes a lot of guess/checking to reduce their behaviors down to something that makes sense in the MBTI system.

Yeah, of course. Some people are mentally "different," and even if you could type them it wouldn't do you good.

I can sometimes type people with a glance, and sometimes it takes weeks of close contact.

 

[redacted]

I think we just have different terms we're using; it seems we agree on most of this stuff.

 

[Nocapszy]

lol

tertiary...

lol function order.

Hey dudes, why does anyone believe in function order?

This is a serious question.
What has everyone so convinced that the order is Ne Ti Fe Si?
Why does anyone think that?

 

[redacted]

^I've been arguing along these lines for so long and no one takes me seriously. They're all so attached to the exact system.

I guess I'm somewhat guilty myself.

 

[Jack Flak]

lol

tertiary...

lol function order.

Hey dudes, why does anyone believe in function order?

This is a serious question.
What has everyone so convinced that the order is Ne Ti Fe Si?
Why does anyone think that?

Because it's easy (though it leads to delusion), and because the kit & kaboodle are based on Jung & Myers' non-collaborative mess of a system.

 

[Nocapszy]

Id prefer if someone who didn't agree with me responded...
I ask again -- why do you chumps think there's fixed predictable position for the non-dominant following functions?

 

[mlittrell]

The orientation of functions make all the difference. If orientation didn't matter, I might be very much like an ISTJ. An ISTJ has the same functions but opposite orientation. It works like I said a few posts ago. The first two functions are your most used, they are like two scholars speaking different languages, but both very wise. The tertiary serves as a translator between the two, and the shadow determines how well the tertiary can do so. Dissonance mentioned before:

I do tend to be much more consciously aware of true/false stuff than good/bad stuff, and I pretty much never debate ethics, except to point out inconsistencies in people's views. I would say this is due to a strengthened tertiary Ti and an underdeveloped Fe.

It's not that your Ti is developed or that your Fe is underdeveloped, it's the fact that your Ti is developed enough for your Fe and Ni to work efficiently together. Orientation makes a huge difference in functions. You develop your functions in order from the dominant all the way down to the shadow. What ideas did you have about function orientation? I may be horribly off for all I know.