[MENTION=20531]yeghor[/MENTION] This:
Possibly you have become more conscious of them.
Often people will not be conscious of how their inferior functions manifest.
(Think INTJ who thinks he's being completely rational but is actually spewing Fi.)
(Or an INTP who is completely unaware of how much of an ESFJ he is acting like.)
In fact, while you might be conscious of some ways in which your inferiors manifest...
...you might still be unconscious of other ways in which your inferiors manifest.
Or perhaps you are not conscious of when they are manifesting in certain ways.
And, hell, the same could even be said of your dominant and auxiliary.
And to add to it..
The whole idea of being conscious or unconscious about a thing is whether or not that thing has been differentiated from other stuff that goes on in your unconscious mind.
Unconscious mind is a realm in which things are easily associated with other stuff and the whole system(human brains) works by this thing what jung called libido(which is pretty much the same as the idea of action potential in modern neuroscience). The unconscious mind can be separated into two system that are linked together. Jung called these systems 'personal unconscious' and 'collective unconscious'. Collective unconscious is basically what you have coded in your genes, some jungians extend the idea of collective unconscious to even body(like growing 5 fingers in each hand instead of 9 in one hand and 2 in other hand), others just limit it to psychology and archetypes which are the psychic manifestations of different structures of collective unconscious. The way in which personal unconscious is linked to collective unconscious is that the structures of personal unconscious(these are what jung called complexes) are built over the structures of collective unconscious(there is an archetype behind every complex, but one complex might be connected to many archetypal themes, there are many complexes built over single archetype and one complex might make new associations between other complexes with different archetypal base).
The idea of complex is quite important in all of it and the way that a complex is defined, is quite different that the problems that complexes can potentially create to a person(which is the side of complexes more known to general public). Complex is defined as "clusters of feeling toned association around a common theme". This "feeling toned" doesent mean that it has something to do with F function judgments(which are judgments of worth), but is more about "gut feeling" type of stuff and emotional associations to the complex. Not all complexes are harmful and we need complexes in order to function. One example of a complex would be money. Money to you has all sorts of unconscious associations around it and without them you wouldnt be able to understand money. For example to you(and t most people) money is not equal to paper, or metal, neither is it only a way to get stuff for an exchange, you associate stuff like getting your first work and first salary and your daddy not buying something to you, but you had to work for it some way or another, except sometimes it was given to you for the goodness of your father, you also heard that he had to use money to get that new bike for you, all these stuff is associated to money, not everything all the time at the same time. This cluster of associations is the complex of money, but what does the money complex stand upon? Well we have these instinctual urges that are coded in our genes like the need for seeking pleasure etc.
Now when it comes to libido, in order for something to be conscious, there must be suitable networks of associations or/and strong enough stream of libido to get to consciousness and through ego blocks. The thing with complexes is that they block the energy flow of libido, kinda like guides it towards the unconscious and if there are lots of complexes over something, its hard for us to process it rationally(i.e. consciously) as the emotions and gut feelings created by complexes take the lead. Archetypes closely associated to complexes make this effect of acting through the unconscious even stronger and hence the activation of an archetypes has so strong effect in us.
Now when it comes to functions and archetypes, many jungians(for example marie von franz who was most likely the closest associate of jung in analytical psychology circles) has argued that archetypes manifest through the inferior function the most. It makes perfect sense(inferior being the most unconscious functions and thus being most tied to complexes and archetypes and having more associations to that direction instead of being connected to ego, or more precisely to its cognitive side) and i can see it working in people. Now the important thing to understand is that a function is not some one thing, functions are ways of perceiving and processing information and someone might had been differentiated thinking in some task, but not on something else.
When it comes to extraversion and introversion of a function there is one important thing to understand. Functions are T S F and N and those functions gets objective and subjective influences all the time. Whether one is an Ti or Te user is about whether the persons thinking function is more influenced by the objective standards(like sense perceptions and professionals in their field etc) or the subjective standards(reasoning, memories, archetypal themes etc). We all are influenced by both, but we learn to trust more on one of the sources and thus habitually rely on that source. This is what introversion and extraversion of a type is. So an ENTJ and INTP are both T N S F types, but an ENTJ trusts more on the objective standards when it comes to thinking and an INTP trusts more on the subjective standards when it comes to thinking. This doesent mean that an ENTJ couldnt sometimes to use more of the subjective realm, but their thinking is geared towards processing using the very different standards of the external world than the standards of internal world. If they do rely on the subjective, they are more comfortable doing it by using intuition and have trained that side in them if they arent really immature or young. Like me here a Ti dom am referring a lot to professionals of the field of analytical psychology, this must scream Te to you, right? But its not, even tho the outcome of putting trust to a professional is the same that an Te user would more naturally do. This is because this issue at hand is such that it would be stupid in my opinion to put trust in someone whos ideas are both against what more credible professionals say about it and against what i have experienced in myself and others.