Jung Functions that shouldn't go together

[INTP]

We all are:
If Si is the 1st function, Ne is the 8th function.
Se and Ni take on the inverse position: tables turn.
Se assumes the 4th position, Ni the 5th.

 

[Seymour]

I think wildcat was describing the Lenore Thomson "Lasagna" function ordering.

 

[INTP]

I think wildcat was describing the Lenore Thomson "Lasagna" function ordering.

well it doesent go like that either.. and that lenores left/right/front/back brain function thing is bull shit. those areas really working on brain functions similar to jungian functions arent anywhere near that lenore says they are

 

[Seymour]

well it doesent go like that either.. and that lenores left/right/front/back brain function thing is bull shit. those areas really working on brain functions similar to jungian functions arent anywhere near that lenore says they are

First of all, there's no empirical evidence for type dynamics at all currently (at least until Mark Majors backs his claims)... so it's all theory. Still, it's not impossible that the function opposite the dominate function is the least conscious or the most opposed to conscious aims (at least early in life). It's also unclear where the four other functions fall as far as level of conscious access and their conscious roles, if any.

Nardi claims to have found some early evidence (if not in a statistically relevant way) that different types tend to use certain areas of the brain more heavily. I think he gave an updated presentation this weekend based on some additional data (although it's not yet available externally).

I entirely agree, though, that Niednagel's brain scan claims are highly suspect... and those are the one's Thomson used as the basis for her left/right brain functional assignments. So I roll my eyes at that part myself. If there are type to brain areas correlations, I doubt they are as simple as "left brain"/"right brain."

Still, jumping on someone because they aren't describing your favorite model seems a little extreme, especially when there are multiple competing models out there (including the MBTI one, which isn't the one most people favor here).

 

[INTP]

Still, jumping on someone because they aren't describing your favorite model seems a little extreme, especially when there are multiple competing models out there (including the MBTI one, which isn't the one most people favor here).

double

 

[Seymour]

double

According to the MBTI manual, the tertiary has the opposite orientation of the dominate. So an INTP would be Ti Ne Se Fe. Most people here ascribe to the tertiary having same orientation for the tertiary, yielding Ti Ne Si Fe for an INTP.

Or were you WTF-ing something else?

 

[INTP]

According to the MBTI manual, the tertiary has the opposite orientation of the dominate. So an INTP would be Ti Ne Se Fe. Most people here ascribe to the tertiary having same orientation for the tertiary, yielding Ti Ne Si Fe for an INTP.

Or were you WTF-ing something else?

intps hate stating the obvious

 

[Eric B]

I think wildcat was describing the Lenore Thomson "Lasagna" function ordering.

That's not her order. If Si is dominant, Se would be 6th, not 4th, and Ni would be 3rd. The attitude order is always ieieieie. Comparing to Beebe's order, it's 12876534. Shadow 4 reversed and placed in between 1/2 and 3/4. Then there's Socionics, which is similar in 7 and 8 coming after 1 and 2, but the others are rearranged.
I don't know what that order he was using came from. Maybe Lenore, but he just got the middle four mixed up.

 

[Seymour]

That's not her order. If Si is dominant, Se would be 6th, not 4th, and Ni would be 3rd. The attitude order is always ieieieie. Comparing to Beebe's order, it's 12876534. Shadow 4 reversed and placed in between 1/2 and 3/4. Then there's Socionics, which is similar in 7 and 8 coming after 1 and 2, but the others are rearranged.
I don't know what that order he was using came from. Maybe Lenore, but he just got the middle four mixed up.

Well, I don't know another ordering that assigns one and eight to dominant and inferior, respectively. I find Beebe to be evocative while not being particularly convincing or subjectively true... but that's another discussion.

 

[OrangeAppled]

According to the MBTI manual, the tertiary has the opposite orientation of the dominate. So an INTP would be Ti Ne Se Fe. Most people here ascribe to the tertiary having same orientation for the tertiary, yielding Ti Ne Si Fe for an INTP.

Or were you WTF-ing something else?

Interesting...I thought MBTI used the model with the tertiary oriented the same as the dominant (ie. for an INTP - TiNeSiFe, the common view around here).
So in the MBTI model, the difference between, say, an INTP & ISTP is simply a matter of preferring Ne over Se, which might be quite slight in some people.

 

[wildcat]

Oh, now I get it.

 

[wildcat]

intps hate stating the obvious

Hitler spoke for Germany.
Suslov spoke for the Soviet Union.
The Pope speaks for the Catholics.
INTPc speaks for the INTPs.

Ideology is what should be.
The obvious is what is.

 

[Eric B]

Interesting...I thought MBTI used the model with the tertiary oriented the same as the dominant (ie. for an INTP - TiNeSiFe, the common view around here).
So in the MBTI model, the difference between, say, an INTP & ISTP is simply a matter of preferring Ne over Se, which might be quite slight in some people.

MBTI model is TiNeSiFe, though Myers/Quenk, etc. acknowledged the question of the tertiary orientation.
It was Jung who orignally said the tertiary was the opposite orientation. Because the way he set the theory up, the ego chooses its dominant function and orientation (attitude), and everything else (undifferentiated) was lumped together in the unconscious.

 

[Seymour]

MBTI model is TiNeSiFe, though Myers/Quenk, etc. acknowledged the question of the tertiary orientation.
It was Jung who orignally said the tertiary was the opposite orientation. Because the way he set the theory up, the ego chooses its dominant function and orientation (attitude), and everything else (undifferentiated) was lumped together in the unconscious.

MBTI Manual, Third Edition, Page 30, says it is disputed, but that the rest of the manual follows the 1985 edition's convention, placing it in the opposite orientation of the dominate. I could believe it's in transition, though. For example, in March Quenk carefully skirted the issue in passing: "[...] an ENFP (dominant extraverted Intuition, auxiliary introverted Feeling, tertiary Thinking, inferior introverted Sensing) [....]"

 

[Eric B]

Yeah, that's what they do most of the time (Quenk's books too). Just leave the attitude off of the tertiary.
Still, it seems in practice, MBTI theorists all accept the dominant attitude.

 

[Seymour]

Yeah, that's what they do most of the time (Quenk's books too). Just leave the attitude off of the tertiary.
Still, it seems in practice, MBTI theorists all accept the dominant attitude.

I can buy that. Does seem in transition... in the 1985 manual was matches the dominate, in 1999 was matches the dominate with saying it was disputed... I reckon in the next version will be opposite of the dominate. Still, clearly there must be some diehards on the traditional side, or they would have updated the manual in 1999.

It's somewhat heartening to see that observation is leading to an adjustment of theory even when it conflicts Jung.

 

[Alternatum]

That's not her order. If Si is dominant, Se would be 6th, not 4th, and Ni would be 3rd. The attitude order is always ieieieie. Comparing to Beebe's order, it's 12876534. Shadow 4 reversed and placed in between 1/2 and 3/4. Then there's Socionics, which is similar in 7 and 8 coming after 1 and 2, but the others are rearranged.
I don't know what that order he was using came from. Maybe Lenore, but he just got the middle four mixed up.

It's interesting that in Lenore's model the tertiary function might be placed 2nd from last but this does not necessarily mean 2nd from last in preference - it might be behind only the dominant in preference. But I think it's fair to say that in Lenore's model Ne replaces Ni as 'the demon' for Si-doms, but only if Ne is invoked through under-using the auxillary function (i.e. Te or Fe).

I prefer the flexibility of Lenore's model but think there was inconsistency in her book in terms of how the inferior function manifests. For example, in Ni-doms, inferior Se is said to cause impulsivity and attention-seeking. In Fi-doms, inferior Te is said to cause them to feel 'hemmed-in' by barriers and regulations. I don't see what that has to do with using/mis-using Te, as opposed to merely being aware of/overwhelmed by it's manifestations.

 

[OrangeAppled]

It's interesting that in Lenore's model the tertiary function might be placed 2nd from last but this does not necessarily mean 2nd from last in preference - it might be behind only the dominant in preference. But I think it's fair to say that in Lenore's model Ne replaces Ni as 'the demon' for Si-doms, but only if Ne is invoked through under-using the auxillary function (i.e. Te or Fe).

I prefer the flexibility of Lenore's model but think there was inconsistency in her book in terms of how the inferior function manifests. For example, in Ni-doms, inferior Se is said to cause impulsivity and attention-seeking. In Fi-doms, inferior Te is said to cause them to feel 'hemmed-in' by barriers and regulations. I don't see what that has to do with using/mis-using Te, as opposed to merely being aware of/overwhelmed by it's manifestations.

I prefer the flexibility of her model also, but also the fact that it is non-linear & not so...er, "static" maybe. I think hers is truly be less about function order than role or dynamic of functions. It's not a preference in terms of ranking order, but of how a function manifests in a personality, so that the dom & aux form the personality, and the tertiary & inferior play a more pivotal role, even if consciously preferred less than the middle "lasagna" layers. The layering idea seems a metaphor that reflects reality better to me; things aren't so clearly defined, not so neatly dichotomous.

What you mention about Fi illustrates this for me....Te plays a more influential role than Ti in the thinking of the Fi-dom by being something like a antagonist or catalyst for the aux function (which truly balances the dom function). I don't really prefer it in the sense that I don't really use it a lot, and it doesn't define me the way Ne + Fi does. I wouldn't say I prefer it to Ti, just that its effects on my thinking are more significant, and more evident to me, so that I am conscious of it as an oppositional force. Ti seems absorbed in a sense by Fi-Ne, which is why the idea of it being some "inner layer" makes sense. The top & the bottom of things are less obscured & are more defining, whereas the middle is a component that gets mixed in with others.

 

[INTP]

those function definitions that allow the 8 function model arent jungian functions, they are some beebean/lenorean/whateverian functions. for example this 8th "demonic" function in beebes model is dom and inferior interacting in jungs terms, clash of the opposites, dialogue between the conscious and unconscious(this doesent happen after inferior(from shadow, shadow also has different meaning in jungs terms that beebean) has been assimilated to consciousness(ego)).

 

[Alternatum]

those function definitions that allow the 8 function model arent jungian functions, they are some beebean/lenorean/whateverian functions. for example this 8th "demonic" function in beebes model is dom and inferior interacting in jungs terms, clash of the opposites, dialogue between the conscious and unconscious(this doesent happen after inferior(from shadow, shadow also has different meaning in jungs terms that beebean) has been assimilated to consciousness(ego)).

So are you saying if for example an Si-dom assimilates their inferior function (Ni or Ne though?) to their consciousness/ego then it will not necessarily be 'negative'?