# Thread: Trying to zero in on my type, after looking into functions more. Help please.

1. Originally Posted by Eric B
You answer most of those questions through Enneagram rather than functions, and when I look at them in terms of functions, most of them seem to pertain more to judging functions anyway, so of course, the few functions you mention would be the Fi/Te "rational spine" and not the NeSi "irrational arm".
Yes, and that supports my point especially considering that by my age my auxiliary should be well-developed and thus also, according to your logic then, clearly discernable if not more than my preferred dominant function.

OP #5 you asked basically an "extraverted" question; i.e. focused on the outside world. So of course he turned to his preferred extraverted perspective. (hence, "possibilities" of what others would think). On your answer, you again used instinctual variants only, but even still, you do reference possibilities (how people "can" see you, how you "can" come off, how you think you don't come off, with even an admission of uncertainty)
Yes, but then why didn't I do that, if we are the same, functionally i.e. Ji - Ne - Si - Je?

#6 I see Ti. What you seem to be doing is interpreting all his Ti as Enneagram 5, and it may match somehow, but you seem to be using one system to sidestep elements of the other, to place him in a type of that other. That doesn't make sense
It's not side-stepping. It's realizing the flaws of the system.

#11, don't forget that Fe is inferior, so a young INTP will likely complain just as much, if not more, about social values. This is when Lenore's theory of the "right brain alternative" (Fi "Crow's Nest") would come in as well.
I disagree because...

(It should also be noted that the ages of development of aux. and afterward will vary. My tertiary Si developed young; beginning around 12, while the tert. is often said to develop in the 20's. So it doesn't matter which of you is older (by just 7 years, yet).
I don't buy this. I don't think cognitive function development occurs this linearly among people. In fact, I think it's highly unlikely that people are going to differentiate their auxiliary fully even at old age. This is why Jung is more concerned about the dominant than the auxiliary or tertiary. I can attest that my auxiliary is not fully differentiated. I have a preference towards extraverting it, but in a general sense I can consciously direct it as being either Ne or Ni. I notice this very clearly when I was studying anthropology because when I'm performing symbol analysis there is a change in my perception. I'm suddenly looking at a different kind of data.

Feeling being undifferentiated right there should be the defining identifier of it as inferior. The aux. should be developed by his age. It's possible for it to not be, but I think that is probably rare.
That's also why you have Lenore's theory, which says that the Fi might even show up before Fe. Many people's K2C results even match this.
I think this is mostly because a) people don't score honestly or exaggerate or b) Nardi's questions are poorly phrased or c) people are uinque and aside having a dominant preference everything else below that is simply a mess.

Yes, I believe they parallel, and I believe the Enneagram seems to match this parallel, but again, the way you're doing it, you have one system tacked on as an appendage, that you use as a contrary explanation of something that can be described by the functions. So the OP, instead of simply being an INTP becomes an "ENFP5", because everything he does that looks like "Ti", is really this fifth variable, the Enneagram type. This to me seems to be making it more confusing.
I don't think it's a making it confusing. I think it's making it correct. You're simplifying, not seeing the depth. You look at the surface level but instead of penetrating further you stop. Ultimately, what type would you give me according to the questionnaire? And yes, I focused on enneagram because it was the most discernable but also because it's important to realize that a need for authenticity as in my case has to do with enneagram, not Fi. There are plenty of Fi types who are not 4-fixed or 4 core. I just happened to be one. I also wanted to show the difference to the OP between a 4 and a 6 wing. Anyway, the point wasn't about my personal self-analysis (that was for the OP anyway, not you), but about the content of the answers I provided.

Also, another point I want to raise is that if you claim the inferior is not fully differentiated, then the dominant cannot be since the inferior will always be of the opposite function and attitude to that of the dominant. And that simply doesn't make a lot of sense at all.

2. Originally Posted by louiesgonnadie
Hmm. I forgot to mention that when you said you combined all of the information that you've read and formed a judgement based off of it, that's what I'm trying to do. The problem is it can be REALLY confusing since this is all one big theory that can be misinterpreted by many people (ESPECIALLY the work of Jung). That's why I appear so....indecisive, and speculative, on MBTI.

Oh, and not to sound like an ass (I REALLY don't intend to) but I think you kind of misinterpreted and overemphasized my statement of freaking out over chicken pox, or a rash or whatever. I meant if it was chicken pox, I'd probably freak out at first, but it would settle in. If it was just random red spots...it wouldn't really make much of a difference, just some minor uneasiness towards it. If it was somewhere where I couldn't see it, I probably wouldn't care.
Yeah, but why would you care at all?

3. Originally Posted by LeaT
Yes, and that supports my point especially considering that by my age my auxiliary should be well-developed and thus also, according to your logic then, clearly discernable if not more than my preferred dominant function.
But if a lot of the questions are addressing judging, then an auxiliary perceiving function won't come up no matter how developed it is. And on those first few I listed, I did detect Ne and Si.
Yes, but then why didn't I do that, if we are the same, functionally i.e. Ji - Ne - Si - Je?
Again, because you chose to focus on Enneagram only, but I did detect Ne there too.
It's not side-stepping. It's realizing the flaws of the system.
I don't think it's a making it confusing. I think it's making it correct. You're simplifying, not seeing the depth. You look at the surface level but instead of penetrating further you stop. Ultimately, what type would you give me according to the questionnaire? And yes, I focused on enneagram because it was the most discernable but also because it's important to realize that a need for authenticity as in my case has to do with enneagram, not Fi. There are plenty of Fi types who are not 4-fixed or 4 core. I just happened to be one. I also wanted to show the difference to the OP between a 4 and a 6 wing. Anyway, the point wasn't about my personal self-analysis (that was for the OP anyway, not you), but about the content of the answers I provided.
What flaw, in this case? One system describes Ti. Another has a whole type that resembles Ti to some extent, (or again, N and T in general). You switched back and forth between the two. How is that "correct", and how does it prove one is flawed or not "in depth"?
I disagree because...

I don't buy this. I don't think cognitive function development occurs this linearly among people. In fact, I think it's highly unlikely that people are going to differentiate their auxiliary fully even at old age. This is why Jung is more concerned about the dominant than the auxiliary or tertiary. I can attest that my auxiliary is not fully differentiated. I have a preference towards extraverting it, but in a general sense I can consciously direct it as being either Ne or Ni. I notice this very clearly when I was studying anthropology because when I'm performing symbol analysis there is a change in my perception. I'm suddenly looking at a different kind of data.
Yes, according to Jung, the dominant is the only one truly "differentiated". So then, what I was describing was a sort of partial "differentiation" that is commonly called "developing". So the auxiliary is most likely to be ahead of the tertiary in development, which will in turn most likely be ahead of the inferior. All this means is that they are coming into consciousness more.
Also, another point I want to raise is that if you claim the inferior is not fully differentiated, then the dominant cannot be since the inferior will always be of the opposite function and attitude to that of the dominant. And that simply doesn't make a lot of sense at all.
Are you saying the inferior has to of the same level of differentiation as the dominant? The dominant is differentiated, everything else is initially suppressed into the unconscious, and thus undifferentiated (which I've had described to me as "linked to the emotions at the limbic level of emotionally freighted images"). The dominant is the most integrated into the ego, so the inferior will be the most suppressed. The aux. is not as differentiated as the dom., so the tertiary is not as suppressed as the inferior. That's how the stacking order id formed.

4. Originally Posted by Eric B
But if a lot of the questions are addressing judging, then an auxiliary perceiving function won't come up no matter how developed it is. And on those first few I listed, I did detect Ne and Si.
He took the same questionnaire. Yet he clearly approached it in an Ne preference.
What flaw, in this case? One system describes Ti. Another has a whole type that resembles Ti to some extent, (or again, N and T in general). You switched back and forth between the two. How is that "correct", and how does it prove one is flawed or not "in depth"?
Except the MBTI doesn't describe Ti. That's the problem.
Yes, according to Jung, the dominant is the only one truly "differentiated". So then, what I was describing was a sort of partial "differentiation" that is commonly called "developing". So the auxiliary is most likely to be ahead of the tertiary in development, which will in turn most likely be ahead of the inferior. All this means is that they are coming into consciousness more.
Yes, but differentiation occurs with regards to the inferior as well as in, it must take the opposite function and attitude as the dominant. So if the inferior is undifferentiated, then so it the dominant. And I don't think differentiation has much to do with function development. Good use of a function =/= whether it's accepted by the ego.

Are you saying the inferior has to of the same level of differentiation as the dominant? The dominant is differentiated, everything else is initially suppressed into the unconscious, and thus undifferentiated (which I've had described to me as "linked to the emotions at the limbic level of emotionally freighted images"). The dominant is the most integrated into the ego, so the inferior will be the most suppressed. The aux. is not as differentiated as the dom., so the tertiary is not as suppressed as the inferior. That's how the stacking order id formed.
No, what I am saying is that you cannot say that the inferior cannot express any kind of preference which is what you were implying by claiming lack of differentiation since the inferior will by itself always have a clear preference based on the dominant.

When I am talking about functions not being differentiated here I am clearly referring to the Jungian sense of lacking a clear attitude which happens since it is repressed into the unconsciousness. And this is true for everything else but the dominant-inferior relationship.

5. Originally Posted by LeaT
He took the same questionnaire. Yet he clearly approached it in an Ne preference.
And so did you, on some of them.
Except the MBTI doesn't describe Ti. That's the problem.
No, the actual test doesn't, but the type theory built around it does. It's implied, by describing a Thinking preference and a Perceiving preference. Yet you substitute something from a totally different theory; E5, whenever evidence of Ti is present.
Yes, but differentiation occurs with regards to the inferior as well as in, it must take the opposite function and attitude as the dominant. So if the inferior is undifferentiated, then so it the dominant. And I don't think differentiation has much to do with function development. Good use of a function =/= whether it's accepted by the ego.

No, what I am saying is that you cannot say that the inferior cannot express any kind of preference which is what you were implying by claiming lack of differentiation since the inferior will by itself always have a clear preference based on the dominant.

When I am talking about functions not being differentiated here I am clearly referring to the Jungian sense of lacking a clear attitude which happens since it is repressed into the unconsciousness. And this is true for everything else but the dominant-inferior relationship.
I've never heard of those definitions. "Development" is a simplification of Jung's term "differentiation", not some separate kind of process it doesn't have much to do with. "good use", is also really a misnomer. Even though we all use the term "use" at times, it's not really accurate, because it makes the functions sound like gears or skills.

The way it was broken down to me, Jung starts with four functions, S, N, T and F, and a dominant ego orientation; i or e. The dominant function will differentiate, and be placed in the dominant orientation. Everything else will be repressed into the unconscious, undifferentiated, and represented by the opposite orientation. Different complexes will arise, bringing the other functions into consciousness, and assigning their orientation. Like the Puer complex will orient the tertiary to the dominant. The Trickster will be a more negative version of that that keeps it in the opposite orientation. And so on.

6. Originally Posted by Eric B
And so did you, on some of them.
I wouldn't just say "some" for him. Which is the difference I was trying to point out.

No, the actual test doesn't, but the type theory built around it does. It's implied, by describing a Thinking preference and a Perceiving preference. Yet you substitute something from a totally different theory; E5, whenever evidence of Ti is present.
I think the actual theory does it as poorly to be honest. If what you say is true, then why peg the OP as an INTP? What actual evidence can you provide that would suggest judging dominant with Ti preference?

I've never heard of those definitions. "Development" is a simplification of Jung's term "differentiation", not some separate kind of process it doesn't have much to do with. "good use", is also really a misnomer. Even though we all use the term "use" at times, it's not really accurate, because it makes the functions sound like gears or skills.
Check Nardi?

The way it was broken down to me, Jung starts with four functions, S, N, T and F, and a dominant ego orientation; i or e. The dominant function will differentiate, and be placed in the dominant orientation. Everything else will be repressed into the unconscious, undifferentiated, and represented by the opposite orientation. Different complexes will arise, bringing the other functions into consciousness, and assigning their orientation. Like the Puer complex will orient the tertiary to the dominant. The Trickster will be a more negative version of that that keeps it in the opposite orientation. And so on.
Yes, but I said with regards to the feeling function that it seemed to be undifferentiated because it has no clear preferred attitude, and this is to be expected from an auxiliary function. Then you claim this is evidence for it being inferior which makes no sense because the inferior should have a clear preference if the dominant function is Ti, so in this case it should clearly point towards Fe, not Fi.

7. Originally Posted by LeaT
I wouldn't just say "some" for him. Which is the difference I was trying to point out.
I wasn't tallying who had more. You both seem like INP's.
I think the actual theory does it as poorly to be honest. If what you say is true, then why peg the OP as an INTP? What actual evidence can you provide that would suggest judging dominant with Ti preference?
Well, I identified with his preferences, and I can't know his for sure, but to me it was a good guess he probably fits the type. Again, since it's an internal process, we might not "see" him "judging dominant" as you called it.
Check Nardi?
I know he (along with Berens) often characterize the functions as "skills" that are "developed" into good "use". I've always disagreed with them on that point, and that is what I'd say is a pitfall of the K2C.
Yes, but I said with regards to the feeling function that it seemed to be undifferentiated because it has no clear preferred attitude, and this is to be expected from an auxiliary function. Then you claim this is evidence for it being inferior which makes no sense because the inferior should have a clear preference if the dominant function is Ti, so in this case it should clearly point towards Fe, not Fi.
The auxiliary has a clear orientation (opposite). The inferior defaults to the opposite, but because it is completely undifferentiated, then its other attitude is not really differentiated either.

8. Originally Posted by LeaT
Yeah, but why would you care at all?
Well, in terms of chicken pox, maybe I'd be a little shocked, and feel uneasy knowing that everyone will see me like that, dreading the attention. That's it, really.

Anyway....I did post another questionnaire, somewhere on page 5, if you wanted to have a look at it...but I doubt it since I skimmed through it, and it looks like more Ne (lots of shape shifting). Plus it seems like you're sick of analyzing me, so meh. Thanks for your in depth analysis, opened me up to the possibility of having an extroverted dominant function (Hmm....tertiary Te peeking through here?)
@Eric B I read your post about "developing" stages in terms of the functions in heirarchical order - it instantly reminded me of something I read on a forum a month ago. I can't explain it very well but here is the link, scroll down and look at some posts, then really look at this one post by user Adymus: http://www.intpforum.com/showthread.php?t=6582&page=2
It approaches what you were talking about and puts it into interesting perspective. It's based on learning environments and how they affect the aux, basically - but it's interesting.

Anyway, Eric - are you still going with INTP, or something else - and why? Just wondering.

9. Originally Posted by Eric B
I wasn't tallying who had more. You both seem like INP's.
But shouldn't I logically show greater signs of Ne and Si than the OP considering my age?

Well, I identified with his preferences, and I can't know his for sure, but to me it was a good guess he probably fits the type. Again, since it's an internal process, we might not "see" him "judging dominant" as you called it.
I kind of feel like you're making up vague excuses to not look into things further here. That you identify with his processes could equally be you projecting. We don't know this but we do know that it happens often with say, those who are enneatype 9 which your thinking does strongly suggest at. The problem with the enneatype 9 is that they easily over-identify with anything other than themselves because they rather be something else than themselves. Not because I am saying you are a 9, but I am saying that you identifying with the OP doesn't necessarily say much since you've yet to prove with concrete evidence how the OP cognitively fits the INxP type more than ENxP. It's one thing that I type as INxP because I'm making fun out of the systems but I think it's strange if the OP is Ji dominant, that neither preference is expressed towards Ti or Fi which it should. You noted this yourself with my questionnaire and what matters is the dominant, not auxiliary. Auxiliary plays a very little role in Jungian psychology.

I know he (along with Berens) often characterize the functions as "skills" that are "developed" into good "use". I've always disagreed with them on that point, and that is what I'd say is a pitfall of the K2C.
But you suggested this yourself in the other thread where you mention that a function appearing in the unconscious is more "immature" thus also suggesting that a function can equally be "mature". Differentiation in fact means development of a function because you tap into its actual potential.
The auxiliary has a clear orientation (opposite). The inferior defaults to the opposite, but because it is completely undifferentiated, then its other attitude is not really differentiated either.
You contradicted yourself. On the one hand you say it defaults to the opposite, but then you say the attitude is not differentiated. Can only be either one.

10. Originally Posted by louiesgonnadie
Well, in terms of chicken pox, maybe I'd be a little shocked, and feel uneasy knowing that everyone will see me like that, dreading the attention. That's it, really.
I meant the spots. But since you elaborated beyond that it again just suggested Ne at work again. I didn't bother doing the other one because it would pretty much result with the same thing. I have issues dealing with your Ne, is all. I didn't want to come off harsh before but... I just started to get really annoyed and impatient due to your lack of cognitive focus. It's really frustrating and you would definitely not be this scatter-minded if you were a Ji dominant type.

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•