# Thread: Inversing the teritary function.

1. ## Inversing the teritary function.

Why are the functions the way they are? There doesn't seem to be any real reason for the way they're set up.

I propose replacing the tertiary function, which is currently an inverse and axis switch of the auxillary, to just an inverse, which means if the auxillary is Te, the tertiary would be Ti instead of Fi.

From my experiences, INTJs use Ti, INTPs use Ni, INFJs use Fi, ENTJs use Ne, ESFPs use Fe, ESTJs use Se, ISFJs use Fi, etc, far more than they use Fi, Si, Ti, Se, and so on, respectively.

2. I think you meant to say auxilary function, which is the second function. Tertiary is the third function.

The auxilary function has the opposite orientation of the dominant. We would be pretty unbalanced psychologically if they were both extraverted or introverted. The auxiliary function provides balance to the dominant function.

3. stupid idea imo. learn how the system works, about function roles and how Ni + Te might look like Ti when its actually just the introverted nature of Ni understanding the big picture of Te data etc.

btw, my Ni sucks and my Si is pretty good.

4. Did you read what I wrote? The tertiary function is an inverse (Xi to Xe or vice versa) and an axis switch (F to T, N to S, etc) or the auxillary. For an INTP, for instance, their functions are Ti, Ne, Si, Fe. I propose replacing this with Ti, Ne, Ni, Fe, since, again, from personal experience, people use that function more than the one currently used as the tertiary.

5. Originally Posted by INTP
stupid idea imo. learn how the system works, about function roles and how Ni + Te might look like Ti when its actually just the introverted nature of Ni understanding the big picture of Te data etc.

btw, my Ni sucks and my Si is pretty good.
Why is the current system valid? It's arbitrary and unscientific. Why does Si follow Fe in ISFJs? It's like religion, isn't it, then? It is because that's the way it is? What kind of logic is that? Come to think of it, why are functions even taken seriously? I can make up something that uses fucking something called Dynamic and Static Vibe, which is something I totally made up, and have a system that's logically consistent because of the Foyer effect. The only real MBTI is the original 4 letters. Everything else is psuedoscience.

6. Originally Posted by Perch420
Why is the current system valid? It's arbitrary and unscientific.
it can be considered valid because it works on most people.

it may be constructed without scientific basis, but it seems that you can get some scientific validation for the system anyways.
http://aptinternational.org/assets/j..._1105_apti.pdf

why do you think that its arbitrary?

Originally Posted by Perch420
Why does Si follow Fe in ISFJs?
because if ISFJ would be Fe Ti the theory would be less valid

Originally Posted by Perch420
It's like religion, isn't it, then? It is because that's the way it is? What kind of logic is that?
no its not like a religion. i dont understand why you think it as religion.

Originally Posted by Perch420
Come to think of it, why are functions even taken seriously? I can make up something that uses fucking something called Dynamic and Static Vibe, which is something I totally made up, and have a system that's logically consistent because of the Foyer effect.
they are taken seriously because people who know about human psychology generally agree that these functions do work as a good basis for a personality theory. naturally some people disagree, but some people always disagree about something, usually they are those people who dont have a good understanding of the system and therefore think that it doesent make sense.

Originally Posted by Perch420
The only real MBTI is the original 4 letters. Everything else is psuedoscience.
care to explain?

7. I agree that it at times can be hard to fit someone into the pre set function order, but changing the pre set function order to another one is, in my opinion, not the answer. I think the functions are what makes MBTI work and be interesting, and that using only "the original 4 letters" doesn't convey nearly enough information and turns types into stereotypes.

As an INTP I can also tell you that Ni actually is the function I understand and identify with the least. I'm not saying this will be the case for all INTPs, but it is for me and if it were to be tertiary I'd have to change my type.

8. In Psychological types Jung actually states that the ENTP would be:

Ne - Ti - Fi - Si.

For some reason people assert that he is wrong and then say 'Socionics is wrong because Fi = Fe and Fe = Fi'.

No comment otherwise.

9. Originally Posted by InvisibleJim
In Psychological types Jung actually states that the ENTP would be:
Ne - Ti - Fi - Si.
What would Jung know about his own theory?

Originally Posted by Perch420
Why is the current system valid? It's arbitrary and unscientific. Why does Si follow Fe in ISFJs? It's like religion, isn't it, then? It is because that's the way it is? What kind of logic is that? Come to think of it, why are functions even taken seriously? I can make up something that uses fucking something called Dynamic and Static Vibe, which is something I totally made up, and have a system that's logically consistent because of the Foyer effect. The only real MBTI is the original 4 letters. Everything else is psuedoscience.
Only everything else?

MBTI has never been scientifically validated as a system in itself, even if it seems to have some practical use depending on the person. Big Five has far more tested correlation.

10. Originally Posted by InvisibleJim
In Psychological types Jung actually states that the ENTP would be:

Ne - Ti - Fi - Si.

For some reason people assert that he is wrong and then say 'Socionics is wrong because Fi = Fe and Fe = Fi'.

No comment otherwise.
It was assumed that whatever was rejected by the ego for it's dominant perspective would "collect" in an opposite space. So iNtuition is chosen for the dominant external orientation, and then everything else would be pushed off into the suppressed internal space.

Yet, now when we add the archetype complexes to the mix, we can see why the Tertiary would end up reversed to the dominant orientation. It is the "child" (Puer) complex that tries to maintain the dominant attitude, and this reorients the tertiary function. (Because the auxiliary is taken by the support or "parent" complex).
This maintains balance (unless the person falls into the tertiary temptation too much and totally neglects the auxilary).

This is why I have seen that it helps to go back to the original four functions, separate from the orientation (which is how Jung originally conceived of it), and not get too hooked up in the eight function-attitudes. The eight have be be understood in light of the standalone four, in the two orientations.

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO