# Thread: Why Typing Should be through the Tertiary-Opposite (The Point of Least Resistance)

1. ## Why Typing Should be through the Tertiary-Opposite (The Point of Least Resistance)

I'm always amused by type tests; because it isn't immediately obvious which archetypes embody any individual. However, what I've always noted is the absence of the tert-opposite from people of their type.

Therefore as a guide we should be looking for the lack of these while typing others and ourselves.

For example, as an INTJ, note my lack of Fe... my view of it goes from disdain at the least favourable to simply ignored at best.

2. Interesting idea.

How does it measure up to opposites of other type functions?

(For example, does Fe-absence dominate over Ne, Ti, and Si absence in the INTJ? If not, how should we know which one is the teritary-opposite?)

3. you know its kinda hard to test a tert function from a person who havent developed it at all yet. when you ask something, its never 100% sure from what function the answer is coming. also its impossible to say from what position the function that answers is, but its usually one of the strongest functions, because strongest functions are the ones that are most likely used.

i dont think its a good idea to try to find lack of function usage when typing people irl, because some functions are pretty much impossible to notice. so if you look at lack of functions, there will be lack of function perceived that is actually being used. now ofc this can be used as a pointer towards a type, but there are many more efficient/reliable ways to type people irl. like think I-E, N-S, T-F, J-P and if you see like clear E and T, but not sure about S-N and J-P, then you start to look at what functions are used, for me its easier to figure out the orientation of functions, so i would be looking at J-P, by looking at Te-Ti, at this point its also good to look if there is signs of Fe, Fe would suggest towards ETP. lack of Fe shouldnt be thought as ETJ tho, because some ETP people just wont show or havent developed their Fe. and once the J-P is decided, lets say it was J, so the person is most likely an ETJ, now its easy to look at P function, because you are more certain it is I, so you just have Si-Ni to decide. but its important to be able to go back on your deductions, because if you cant match Si or Ni, it might be that the Te is coming from tert or auc function, and that would fuck up the whole type, or it might even start to look more like Se+Ti...

4. Originally Posted by Jennifer
Interesting idea.

How does it measure up to opposites of other type functions?

(For example, does Fe-absence dominate over Ne, Ti, and Si absence in the INTJ? If not, how should we know which one is the teritary-opposite?)
Well, what I have noted is that individuals can understand/relate to the other functions; but they cannot relate to or at best choose to ignore their PoLR. It's a trickier business when their tert-opposite is not a J type function.

5. Originally Posted by InvisibleJim
I'm always amused by type tests; because it isn't immediately obvious which archetypes embody any individual. However, what I've always noted is the absence of the tert-opposite from people of their type.

Therefore as a guide we should be looking for the lack of these while typing others and ourselves.

For example, as an INTJ, note my lack of Fe... my view of it goes from disdain at the least favourable to simply ignored at best.
You can find some of what you're talking about on the FD33.

13. Although I don't like it, I must admit that I can sometimes get
(A) moody and sentimental (t)
(B) stubborn and trite (f)
(C) too detailed and pedantic (n)
(D) superstitious and somewhat flakey (s)

6. With myself, I think I brush off Si sorts of concerns as irrelevant/a waste of time much moreso than I slough off Te. I don't think I've ever been bothered by Te in others, actually. I find it quite acceptable/nice/understandable. On the other hand, I find Te-related things rather tiresome when *I'm* having to deal with them, and *I'm* having to go there. I consider it a chore as it's typically not on my radar or something I would normally have any need/desire to concern myself with.

I can agree with the concept of functions not in ones' dom-aux-tert-inf lineup being ones that are not valued a whole lot, and their absence can be quite telling in terms of being able to type someone. But which of the four lesser used ones (or actively rejected ones), I would think would be pretty individual and could vary within a type.

7. Originally Posted by InvisibleJim
I'm always amused by type tests; because it isn't immediately obvious which archetypes embody any individual. However, what I've always noted is the absence of the tert-opposite from people of their type.

Therefore as a guide we should be looking for the lack of these while typing others and ourselves.

For example, as an INTJ, note my lack of Fe... my view of it goes from disdain at the least favourable to simply ignored at best.
Socionics theory seems to emphasize this and I think they are on to something. I'm an INTP in MBTI and an INTj in socionics. With both systems, the top two functions are Ti Ne.

My tertiary-opposite is Se and I know that is my weakest function. Weaker than Fe (my inferior function according to MBTI) even. Actually I think my Fe is reasonably good for an INTP even though function tests seem to suggest otherwise.

8. PoLR is an interesting idea that should be brought up more in MBTI, although I myself am confused on whether I am more Ti PoLR or Se PoLR. They both somewhat fit me. In Socionics terms, where it's brought up more, I self-type as EII-Ne, but some who are more familiar with it thought I should consider IEE. If I'm really Ne leading, then it'd be remarkable how much I've reneged on that role for a great deal of my life (perhaps that's because I actually am Se polr).

I've self-typed as MBTI ISFP before, but it's more like a preference for Si (in the Jungian sense).

9. Originally Posted by INTP
you know its kinda hard to test a tert function from a person who havent developed it at all yet.
Interesting point in my case (and perhaps yours), where Si tends to requires some sense of familiarity. I know it's developed, more or less, but put me somewhere new, where I'm expected to rely more on Se, where I don't have a good impression about something, and it's like reinventing the wheel a bit. Tertiary seems undeveloped in that case.

One minor case in point was a couple of days ago when I went to a clinic. It was newly built, kind of state of the art, with a lot of unfamiliar procedures and computer systems on how they directed people around the complex. It was kind of a double hit on both S and T. I wasn't sure how to get around or how any of it had worked (it turned out to be fairly simple in the end though). I even had a problem with simple things, like knowing where I had to stand in line in places. And after I had seen one doctor, she was kind of in a hurry after the appointment and redirected me to another area downstairs to the lab and pharmacy, and I was clueless there too. It gets frustrating. I always hide this kind of stuff, but I feel like a fool inside. I was with an ST who knows this about me, and he could deduce how everything worked quickly, and helped me out. The thing is, if I go back a second time, I'd probably be fine. Same goes with other environments.. Give me time and I'll start being smooth about it, or even creative. But I think it's because of weak Se and Ti. I'm either oblivious of things until after the fact or not improvisational in the same ways. They have a certain willfulness or a better gauge on things sensory wise.

I don't think just showing the example above is that dramatic of a difference, but it can all add up very differently, over a lifetime.

10. This is a very good idea. My tertiary opposite is Se, and I AM SO BAD AT USING IT.

#### 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