What about the four last functions?

[Tamske]

I've searched the 'net and this forum... but I found only information about the four first functions.
I know everybody uses all eight functions. What is the order of the last four when given a type?

I'd like to have an example. I'm going to take my favourite type again:
ESTJ: Te, Si, Ne, Fi, ?, ?, ?, ?
Please, can someone fill in these question marks?

 

[wildcat]

I've searched the 'net and this forum... but I found only information about the four first functions.
I know everybody uses all eight functions. What is the order of the last four when given a type?

I'd like to have an example. I'm going to take my favourite type again:
ESTJ: Te, Si, Ne, Fi, ?, ?, ?, ?
Please, can someone fill in these question marks?

I have filled them to the best of my ability.

wildcat's profile >
show all statistics (below the avatar) >
Find all threads started by wildcat > page 2
> ESTJ

There is no outside party in a closed system.
It follows the edge is in the middle.

 

[Gerbah]

I've searched the 'net and this forum... but I found only information about the four first functions.
I know everybody uses all eight functions. What is the order of the last four when given a type?

I'd like to have an example. I'm going to take my favourite type again:
ESTJ: Te, Si, Ne, Fi, ?, ?, ?, ?
Please, can someone fill in these question marks?

I have a book called “Functions of Type”. It's basically a sort of workbook for people who want to consciously develop their functions and it has exercises and experiments you can try out in real life situations to train yourself. It says that a Jungian analyst called John Beebe proposed that the last 4 functions will develop as the individual's situation calls for them, so I guess that means you can't predict the order of a person's last 4 functions very precisely. He did make a table though of how he saw the typical order of all 8 functions for each type.

The order for your favourite is Te Si Ne Fi Ti Se Ni Fe.

 

[Eric B]

Did you ever see the "Archetypes of the Functions" thread?
On this post, I try to explain all the possible shadow functions:
http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/844121-post68.html

 

[Xander]

Errm... last time I looked there was only four functions T, F, N and S. Everything else relates to those.

Small clarification, the last four parings are irrelevant.

You prefer Ti, you don't prefer Te can be just written as Ti being as it's the order of preference.
Note that Ti and Te are both T, the preference notes where you prefer to apply it, hence there's only four functions but eight possible preferences.

 

[Eric B]

True, basically, and that's what my descriptions are based on, now.
Still, since the application of the functions in the different orientations (I.e. accepted in one, and rejected into the unconscious in the other) does yield notable differences,
including in the archetypal complexes, that is why they deserved to be treated as eight separate processes.

 

[Seymour]

I MUCH prefer Lenore Thomson's function orderings. I mean, are you going to claim that Ne and Fi are 3rd and 4th for an ESTJ? I mean... really?!?

Her ordering for an ESTJ is Te Si Fe Ni Se Ti Ne Fi

This makes far more sense to me. I think an ESTJ is much more likely to be in tune with expected social rituals, holidays, etc (Fe stuff), but look upon doing things "because they are right for you" (Fi reasoning) with grave suspicion.

 

[redacted]

If you think of it as there only being four functions (thinking, feeling, sensing, and intuition), this problem gets resolved. Each function has a preferred direction (introverted or extroverted).

This way, an INTP (for example) would have the order: Thinking, Intuition, Sensing, Feeling, with preferred directions for each. So the last four are really just parts of the first four.

Check out the function calculator I have in my signature -- it allows for all function orders and calculates type from there. There is no rule that any type has to use all of their functions in a certain order. But some orders are more likely than others.

 

[Seymour]

If you think of it as there only being four functions (thinking, feeling, sensing, and intuition), this problem gets resolved. Each function has a preferred direction (introverted or extroverted).

This way, an INTP (for example) would have the order: Thinking, Intuition, Sensing, Feeling, with preferred directions for each. So the last four are really just parts of the first four.

Check out the function calculator I have in my signature -- it allows for all function orders and calculates type from there. There is no rule that any type has to use all of their functions in a certain order. But some orders are more likely than others.

So in your system would an ESTJ be likely to have Te Si Fe Ni or would it be more likely Te Si Ne Fi?

And do you think the distinction between Fi and Fe and Ti and Te are artificial? Or merely directional? Because I really suck at Te, but I work as a programmer and clearly some kind of thinking is developed. Having those distinctions between Ti and Te, for example, was very helpful to me. It doesn't feel to me like Ti is just Thinking turned inward... it feels like a separate process.

 

[Moiety]

^Yeah, and what to say about seeing myself in Ti descriptions and testing as having high Ti (not just function tests but a lot of ENTP test results) and having relatively poor Te? Same with Fi vs Fe.

 

[INTJMom]

I've searched the 'net and this forum... but I found only information about the four first functions.
I know everybody uses all eight functions. What is the order of the last four when given a type?

I'd like to have an example. I'm going to take my favourite type again:
ESTJ: Te, Si, Ne, Fi, ?, ?, ?, ?
Please, can someone fill in these question marks?

You can find them here at the bottom of this page...
The 16 Type Patterns

 

[Xander]

True, basically, and that's what my descriptions are based on, now.
Still, since the application of the functions in the different orientations (I.e. accepted in one, and rejected into the unconscious in the other) does yield notable differences,
including in the archetypal complexes, that is why they deserved to be treated as eight separate processes.

True they do deserve their own subsections but it's false theory to produce eight separate sections. Ti and Te are both T after all, distinct subsections maybe but subsections none the less.

 

[Seymour]

You can find them here at the bottom of this page...
The 16 Type Patterns

What do you think of the list there vs. Thomson for INTJ:
Cog.Proc: Ni Te Fi Se Ne Ti Fe Si
Thomson: Ni Te Si Fe Ti Ne Fi Se

Seems to me that the INTJs I know are pretty fact and detail friendly (Si), and that part isn't their deepest darkest shadow function. How about the relative positions of Fi vs Fe on those two lists? Do you relate more to one of those functions than the other?

 

[Totenkindly]

Seems to me that the INTJs I know are pretty fact and detail friendly (Si),

I'm not sure why people continue to think that memorizing hard facts and details and accumulating life knowledge is the equivalent of Si.

Si is the composite of a worldview based on those details that is stored in the psyche ... it's a frame of reference and way of viewing the world.

It's the role it plays in the person's behavior and psyche that expresses the Si preference.

 

[Seymour]

I'm not sure why people continue to think that memorizing hard facts and details and accumulating life knowledge is the equivalent of Si.

Si is the composite of a worldview based on those details that is stored in the psyche ... it's a frame of reference and way of viewing the world.

It's the role it plays in the person's behavior and psyche that expresses the Si preference.

Thomson on the intro to Introverted Sensing section: "When we use introverted Sensation, we don't adjust to our surface perceptions. We package them and take them with us -- in the form of facts, numbers, signs and memories."

So it's about taking in information based on correspondences with the facts we already know. She goes on to say that "Introverted Sensation gives us the will to accumulate information [...] related to the things that matter to us."

I'm not a big Si user, myself, but that sounds pretty... well... facty and detaily to me.

 

[Eric B]

What do you think of the list there vs. Thomson for INTJ:
[Beebe]: Ni Te Fi Se Ne Ti Fe Si
Thomson: Ni Te Si Fe Ti Ne Fi Se

Seems to me that the INTJs I know are pretty fact and detail friendly (Si), and that part isn't their deepest darkest shadow function. How about the relative positions of Fi vs Fe on those two lists? Do you relate more to one of those functions than the other?

The thing about Lenore Thomson's model, is that it does not seem to be intended to really be a strict, hard "order" of functions; strength or otherwise. I did use to think that, when I made the illustration which I was discussing here awhile ago: http://www.erictb.info/beebethomson.gif. (And likewise, Beebe's order is not one of strengths). But then, when I conversed with her myself, she clarified it, and the results can be seen here: John Beebe Archetypes | Lenore Thomson Bentz

It seems people's main sources for her teaching are:

The Lenore Thomson Exegesis Wiki
What's New In Type and Temperament
Jungian cognitive functions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The latter two are what give this "order". But I'm not sure if that actually came from her book, or it's just people's interpretation of her. At our last NYC Meetup, someone had the book, and I had a chance to glance at it, but never got around to finding it either online, or at the library (It had been lost from two of them!)

In the personalitypage article, she points out that she does acknowledge Beebe's order, but cautions it should be understood as complexes. We think of the archetypes as the processes, but they are really ego complexes that employ the functions, and outside of those complexes, the functions are likely "undifferentiated", and hence, any person can engage in any behavior associated with any function.
She even uses Beebe's terms "trickster" and "demon", which would correspond to her "Crow's Nests" or right or left brain alternatives. She also points out that their manifestation is not ordinary, but occurs when there is danger of ego-disintegration or the ego is ready to grow or individuate (some of this was edited out of the article). This would differ from Beebe.

So having Fe and Ni as what appears to be tertiary and inferior positions for an ESTJ is not really saying what one may think it is. She still holds Ne and Fi as tertiary and inferior, though on those lists, they are on the bottom. It's just that Fe and Ni will come up as the left brain alternatives to Te and Si, however, it will still usually be in negative situations of stress associated with Beebe's trickster and demon archetypes, or 7th/8th place functions. You can even see Ni discussed for the ESTJ here: John Beebe

Again, Beebe's order is not about strength. So the tertiary and inferior may actually be the weakest. For one thing, they will be the less developed of the conscious functions. The shadows (other four) may appear to be stronger in comparison, if they come up a lot, and they will be very noticeable, as they are "not ourselves", as it has been put.

Again, as I have been saying recently; the way the shadows work is that there are four functions. The ego chooses them in a particular order, and uses each in one orientation or the other. The rejected orientation will remain in the unconscious. The ego has four complexes for each of the four functions, and the rejected function orientations will end up being employed by the rejected aspects of those complexes.

So our ego's dominant function and orientation is used by a complex described as "heroic". The rejected orientation will be used by a rejected aspect of the hero, called an "opposing personality".
The auxiliary is used by a parent complex. what's rejected from that will be held by a "critical paren"t, or "witch/senex" complex.
The tertiary is held by a child or puer complex (which orients it in the dominant attitude, as Lenore points out). The opposite orientation rejected by that will form a bad child complex, called a "trickster".
And the anima/animus is like the deep soul or something, and what's rejected from that will form a "demonic" personality complex.

That's what Beebe's order is about; not strengths.
You can see where I build up the model from scratch, here:
Temperament Part 2: The MBTI's 16 types and Cognitive Functions

 

[Seymour]

The thing about Lenore Thomson's model, is that it does not seem to be intended to really be a strict, hard "order" of functions; strength or otherwise.

[...]

In Personality Type she makes it pretty clear that each type has a "type lasagna" (mmm... lasagna!), with (her terms here) the dominant and secondary being the primary two functions, at the top of the lasagna. At the bottom of the lasagna are the tertiary and inferior functions (p 78). The tertiary and inferior functions are our "least conscious" functions. In fact, Thomson argues that we shouldn't try to actively develop the tertiary and inferior too much (p. 80).

So, in her chart (p.91 & 92) for INFP, dominant and secondary are Fi and Ne (that part I think we all agree on). But Si and Te are tertiary and inferior. So what about the middle four functions?

(BTW, I least self identify with Te and Si)

The next top two of the middle four are "crow's nest functions [...] when we run into problems our dominant skills can't handle, they're the first functions we turn to for solutions." (p. 89) They are generally under good conscious control for a healthy adult.

The next two down (the bottom pair of the middle four) are "Double agents [...] serving largely as a maintenance crew on our typological ship, they tend to mutiny when they get the chance." (p. 93) They "don't come easily, but [give] needed balance when things [are] going smoothly." They become double agents when our more conscious functions are stuck, and can force us to move forward even when we are consciously resisting. (Oddly enough, Thomson claims are tertiary function tends to unhealthily back our conscious aims in denial of reality in such scenarios. Like all the "facts" an upset INFP will spew when really upset at a loved one.)

So, in her model we have have conscious control of our top two functions, and over time (while in a healthy state) we gain more conscious control down the stack. However, the "turncoats" will always be a little tricksy, and the bottom pair will remain largely unconscious.

So, all that was a very long-winded way to say... yes, I think Thomson is clearly implying an ordering from conscious to unconscious, from most self-identified to least, from most efficient to least efficient, at least at the time her book was written. I'm still absorbing all of her model about type function dynamics over the lifespan, so I can't really make intelligent comment on that part.

I do find her ordering compelling, though, and it subjectively matches up with my internal experience pretty closely. What do you think?

BTW, I least identify with Te and Si, and they are what I consider to be "least myself." That shouldn't be the case according to Beebe, so I'm wondering if I like Thomson better because I'm just odd for an INFP, or if Thomson is more true to life.

 

[INTJMom]

What do you think of the list there vs. Thomson for INTJ:
Cog.Proc: Ni Te Fi Se Ne Ti Fe Si
Thomson: Ni Te Si Fe Ti Ne Fi Se

Seems to me that the INTJs I know are pretty fact and detail friendly (Si), and that part isn't their deepest darkest shadow function. How about the relative positions of Fi vs Fe on those two lists? Do you relate more to one of those functions than the other?

I never use Thompson.

 

[Tamske]

Thanks a lot!

 

[Eric B]

In Personality Type she makes it pretty clear that each type has a "type lasagna" (mmm... lasagna!), with (her terms here) the dominant and secondary being the primary two functions, at the top of the lasagna. At the bottom of the lasagna are the tertiary and inferior functions (p 78). The tertiary and inferior functions are our "least conscious" functions. In fact, Thomson argues that we shouldn't try to actively develop the tertiary and inferior too much (p. 80).

So, in her chart (p.91 & 92) for INFP, dominant and secondary are Fi and Ne (that part I think we all agree on). But Si and Te are tertiary and inferior. So what about the middle four functions?

(BTW, I least self identify with Te and Si)

The next top two of the middle four are "crow's nest functions [...] when we run into problems our dominant skills can't handle, they're the first functions we turn to for solutions." (p. 89) They are generally under good conscious control for a healthy adult.

The next two down (the bottom pair of the middle four) are "Double agents [...] serving largely as a maintenance crew on our typological ship, they tend to mutiny when they get the chance." (p. 93) They "don't come easily, but [give] needed balance when things [are] going smoothly." They become double agents when our more conscious functions are stuck, and can force us to move forward even when we are consciously resisting. (Oddly enough, Thomson claims are tertiary function tends to unhealthily back our conscious aims in denial of reality in such scenarios. Like all the "facts" an upset INFP will spew when really upset at a loved one.)

So, in her model we have have conscious control of our top two functions, and over time (while in a healthy state) we gain more conscious control down the stack. However, the "turncoats" will always be a little tricksy, and the bottom pair will remain largely unconscious.

So, all that was a very long-winded way to say... yes, I think Thomson is clearly implying an ordering from conscious to unconscious, from most self-identified to least, from most efficient to least efficient, at least at the time her book was written. I'm still absorbing all of her model about type function dynamics over the lifespan, so I can't really make intelligent comment on that part.

I do find her ordering compelling, though, and it subjectively matches up with my internal experience pretty closely. What do you think?

BTW, I least identify with Te and Si, and they are what I consider to be "least myself." That shouldn't be the case according to Beebe, so I'm wondering if I like Thomson better because I'm just odd for an INFP, or if Thomson is more true to life.

OK, so I guess the book does teach that as a specific order. I had heard the term "lasagna model", -
I think from one of the links I gave, but again, was not sure whether or not that was their interpretation of her.
Speaking to her directly months ago, I did get the sense that she may have moved away from some of what she taught in the book. When I mentioned getting the book, she was like "oh, yeah, if you really want it you can get it cheap on amazon" or something like that.
She seems to focus more on Beebe's model, but qualifying again, that the archetypes are complexes.

So again, her order may be closer to actual strength for many, but then Beebe's order is not about strength, so it's really not either/or. They're really different ways of looking at the same thing. They're basically harmonized by this illustration:

If you look at them as pairs of functions, clockwise is the shadow/primary model, and counterclockwise is the lasagna model.

I myself do not fit into either, if going by strengths. My Si did develop when Beebe said it should, and Fi is more like what the lasagna model suggests. Fe is more in the middle, like Beebe's model, and Te would match both. Se and Ni are on the bottom, which don't fit either. So I don't look at either model as ultimately dealing in strength, as most people will not come out that way.