So Much for Lenore Thomson's *ahem* "Tertiaries"

[Mal12345]

"A man whose whole attitude is orientated by the principle of sensation belongs to the sensation type.

"Normal sensations are proportionate, i.e. their value approximately corresponds with the intensity of the physical stimulus. Pathological sensations are disproportionate, i.e. either abnormally weak or abnormally strong: in the former case they are inhibited, in the latter exaggerated. The inhibition is the result of the predominance of another function; the exaggeration proceeds from an abnormal amalgamation with another function, e.g. a blending with a still undifferentiated feeling or thinking function. In such a case, the exaggeration of sensation ceases as soon as the function with which sensation is fused is differentiated in its own right." (Psychological Types, 587-8.)

So functions can be blended. Where do Lenore Thomson's tertiaries fit in this theory? Nowhere, because they are not needed.

 

[Eric B]

To Jung, properly speaking, the only fully "differentiated" function is the dominant. (He had only eight types, remember). Then, there's the debate as to whether the next two functions are aux. or tert. or two auxiliaries.
Really, the one called the tertiary is but a sort of "reflection" of the auxiliary (just like the inferior is a reflection of the dominant). And Lenore would say that the undifferentiated functions come into conscious when linked with the ego structure set up by the dominant, through the complexes. (In the case of the tertiary, the Puer, which is also what sets its attitude as the same as the dominant).
That really clarifies the role the function plays in the ego, but I don't otherwise see why you're tagging specifically her with the "tertiary". That concept comes from Myers, as Jung's theory wasn't apparently developed or refined that far (hence, the "two auxiliaries"), and is used by nearly everyone else in MBTI theory.

 

[Mal12345]

To Jung, properly speaking, the only fully "differentiated" function is the dominant. (He had only eight types, remember). Then, there's the debate as to whether the next two functions are aux. or tert. or two auxiliaries.
Really, the one called the tertiary is but a sort of "reflection" of the auxiliary (just like the inferior is a reflection of the dominant). And Lenore would say that the undifferentiated functions come into conscious when linked with the ego structure set up by the dominant, through the complexes. (In the case of the tertiary, the Puer, which is also what sets its attitude as the same as the dominant).
That really clarifies the role the function plays in the ego, but I don't otherwise see why you're tagging specifically her with the "tertiary". That concept comes from Myers, as Jung's theory wasn't apparently developed or refined that far (hence, the "two auxiliaries"), and is used by nearly everyone else in MBTI theory.

Because of this post by "Marmotini":

08-10-2011, 11:37 PM
Well they're called dom-tert loops. It's not like mal invented this, this is fucking Lenore Thomson, repackaged.

 

[Totenkindly]

Because of this post by "Marmotini":

08-10-2011, 11:37 PM
Well they're called dom-tert loops. It's not like mal invented this, this is fucking Lenore Thomson, repackaged.

Yay! Marmotini has been accredited the status of MBTI guru! Two years ago! How did we miss it?

there's the debate as to whether the next two functions are aux. or tert. or two auxiliaries. Really, the one called the tertiary is but a sort of "reflection" of the auxiliary (just like the inferior is a reflection of the dominant).

That part was interesting, thanks. With the tert being a reflection, it's a valid point to consider it two aux's in a sense... Is it just the extremity between dom and inf the reason we don't consider those two to be equitable? I assume so.

 

[Eric B]

The "loops" concept is not from Lenore, though she does have what's called "the Tertiary Temptation" or "Tertiary Defense". But that's not really a "loop" a person gets stuck in. It's just saying that we might turn to the tertiary because it maintains the ego's dominant attitude (and either the dominant can't solve a problem, or we don't want to be pulled into the opposite direction by the auxiliary sometimes).
I don't even think people originally got it from her; it seems to have come from people trying to explain others' type, and it seemed to possibly explain functions that didn't fit together. Like the ongoing discussion on Jung himself. He seems like he "uses" both Ti and Ni, so he can be an ISTP in a TiNi "loop"; yet he seems so "N", so some have even suggested INFJ in an NiTi "loop". Then, Lenore's teaching on the tertiary seemed to go along with that, so some may attribute it to her. But it's really an exaggeration of her and others' teaching.

 

[011235813]

The "loops" concept is not from Lenore, though she does have what's called "the Tertiary Temptation" or "Tertiary Defense". But that's not really a "loop" a person gets stuck in. It's just saying that we might turn to the tertiary because it maintains the ego's dominant attitude (and either the dominant can't solve a problem, or we don't want to be pulled into the opposite direction by the auxiliary sometimes).
I don't even think people originally got it from her; it seems to have come from people trying to explain others' type, and it seemed to possibly explain functions that didn't fit together. Like the ongoing discussion on Jung himself. He seems like he "uses" both Ti and Ni, so he can be an ISTP in a TiNi "loop"; yet he seems so "N", so some have even suggested INFJ in an NiTi "loop". Then, Lenore's teaching on the tertiary seemed to go along with that, so some may attribute it to her. But it's really an exaggeration of her and others' teaching.

So what's your understanding of the tertiary/second auxiliary's role?

 

[Eric B]

I go by, as I said, the complexes, which define the roles. As the auxiliary becomes like a "caretaker" (toward others) and associated with a Good Parent complex, it will be mirrored by a "Child" complex (Puer/Puella) that likes to "play" or find "relief".

So the easiest way to tell which is which is not by so-called "strength" or amount of "use", but that the true aux. as a type-defining preferred function, will have more of a confidence, while the tertiary will be more vulnerable (even though the complex might try to act like it's not, which is "inflation").
An example might be you finding relief through Ni, but if someone bombards you with too much of it, you may feel overwhelmed.

 

[Totenkindly]

So the easiest way to tell which is which is not by so-called "strength" or amount of "use", but that the true aux. as a type-defining preferred function, will have more of a confidence, while the tertiary will be more vulnerable (even though the complex might try to act like it's not, which is "inflation").
An example might be you finding relief through Ni, but if someone bombards you with too much of it, you may feel overwhelmed.

Or kind of like Si, where I find some stability in it and anchoring myself to the past, but can easily feel caged and enmeshed if someone relies on it too much to the exclusion of Ti and Ne?

 

[Eric B]

Yes, (Especially being with Ms Guardian Si "parent" here).

 

[Mal12345]

Yay! Marmotini has been accredited the status of MBTI guru! Two years ago! How did we miss it?



That part was interesting, thanks. With the tert being a reflection, it's a valid point to consider it two aux's in a sense... Is it just the extremity between dom and inf the reason we don't consider those two to be equitable? I assume so.

This was new to you?
And...
I don't know who started the tertiary loop theory nonsense then.

 

[Totenkindly]

This was new to you?

yes, because compared to you I'm a raging moron?

And...
I don't know who started the tertiary loop theory nonsense then.

Those kinds of type theories are not derived from data, they are derived from inconsistencies that people then try to explain in theory. So someone conjectured how current type theory could explain the inconsistency, rather than focus on the system perhaps being flawed.

 

[Mal12345]

yes, because compared to you I'm a raging moron?

And this is news to you?

Those kinds of type theories are not derived from data, they are derived from inconsistencies that people then try to explain in theory. So someone conjectured how current type theory could explain the inconsistency, rather than focus on the system perhaps being flawed.

Yes, like explaining away retrograde motion of the planets with more and more epicycles.

 

[Totenkindly]

And this is news to you?

Okay, I'll grant you points on RHF (Recursive Humor Factor) on that one.



(sorry, that's the only points smiley we had!)

 

[OrangeAppled]

The "loops" concept is not from Lenore, though she does have what's called "the Tertiary Temptation" or "Tertiary Defense". But that's not really a "loop" a person gets stuck in. It's just saying that we might turn to the tertiary because it maintains the ego's dominant attitude (and either the dominant can't solve a problem, or we don't want to be pulled into the opposite direction by the auxiliary sometimes).
I don't even think people originally got it from her; it seems to have come from people trying to explain others' type, and it seemed to possibly explain functions that didn't fit together. Like the ongoing discussion on Jung himself. He seems like he "uses" both Ti and Ni, so he can be an ISTP in a TiNi "loop"; yet he seems so "N", so some have even suggested INFJ in an NiTi "loop". Then, Lenore's teaching on the tertiary seemed to go along with that, so some may attribute it to her. But it's really an exaggeration of her and others' teaching.

Lenore kind of implies that people can get "stuck" in the tertiary defense in her examples, for the reason you mention (avoiding an extroverted attitude for introverts & vice versa for extroverts), but then she offers the aux as the "solution". The tertiary defense/temptation comes from avoiding/dealing with the unpleasantness of the inferior. It's sort of sticking your head in the sand when it goes beyond relief though (perhaps because it is "childlike" and it's avoiding an issue in the other attitude, so to spea). The aux, then, become some kind of workaround solution. It's like, "oh hey, I can extrovert (or introvert) and not threaten my ego." Something like that.

So the loop thing is just the idea that this relief can become extended to a point where the tertiary's "childlike" manner makes someone very unbalanced or unhealthy.

I DO think it's terrible to type people that way. It gets overused & seems like a way to avoid admitting someone is likely another type.

 

[INTP]

It's just saying that we might turn to the tertiary because it maintains the ego's dominant attitude

she said this? i came to the same conclusion after hearing about this dom/tert loop

 

[Eric B]

Lenore kind of implies that people can get "stuck" in the tertiary defense in her examples, for the reason you mention (avoiding an extroverted attitude for introverts & vice versa for extroverts), but then she offers the aux as the "solution". The tertiary defense/temptation comes from avoiding/dealing with the unpleasantness of the inferior. It's sort of sticking your head in the sand when it goes beyond relief though (perhaps because it is "childlike" and it's avoiding an issue in the other attitude, so to spea). The aux, then, become some kind of workaround solution. It's like, "oh hey, I can extrovert (or introvert) and not threaten my ego." Something like that.

So the loop thing is just the idea that this relief can become extended to a point where the tertiary's "childlike" manner makes someone very unbalanced or unhealthy.

I DO think it's terrible to type people that way. It gets overused & seems like a way to avoid admitting someone is likely another type.

she said this? i came to the same conclusion after hearing about this dom/tert loop

Still, I never got the impression from her, that this becomes some sort of semi-permanent thing, as people have made it out to be. We say "well, if the person is unhealthy they might be 'stuck' in this 'loop' most of the time", but it sounds to me like a bit of an exaggeration. I think it would be a more situation-by-situation thing. I certainly get heavy into the tertiary defense, especially in a stage I'm going through now (and I've had people think I was an ISJ from this; on the other hand, those who insisted I was Ne dom. implied it as some sort of anima thing), but the Ne is still clearly there and recognizable. I wouldn't say "I'm in a TiSi loop, and it makes me wonder if I'm really an ISTx" or something like that.
Perhaps I could be wrong when it comes to others, but the point here was, the "loop" concept is not really Lenore's direct teaching, even though it may have been a large part of what people drew on for that.