Ego States: the Backbone of Type

[Eric B]

This picks up on what I had originally tacked onto the old Archetypes of the Functions thread, and seeing how significant this really is to type, it deserved to be its own topic.

Another way to understand complexes (which divide the ego and connect to the functions), are as "ego-states". The ego (our main sense of "I", and itself a “complex”) is divided into numerous “states” representing discrete (though not totally conscious as such) lesser senses of “I” (which are also complexes), partially dissociated from each other. ("Dissociation" is what becomes the familiar "multiple personality" disorders when it is too great, yet is quite normal in lesser degrees. This paper: "Ego Strengthening and Ego Surrender", Diane Zimberoff, M.A. and David Hartman, MSW explains this well).
One ego state can be anger at someone, and another can be happiness, or sadness, amorous, etc. These all are kinds of "ruling patterns" (archetypes) connected to the limbic system of emotions. Through them, we can have different expressions of "I" that feel different things.

Regarding type preferences, some of these ego states will determine how reality is divided by consciousness. These are what John Beebe has outlined as being associated with the eight functions for each type. Thus, they are what "use" [so to speak] various functions as well, and are what will set the order all eight have been placed in, based on the level of consciousness they [the complexes] represent. (This is still not necessarily a hard "order" of relative "strength", though).

The ego itself will determine the dominant function and attitude, through one state, which will be the main achiever, and will set apart in reality a predominant means of either taking in information (perception) or making decisions with it (judgment), and either an individual or environmental focus of that process.
Another ego state, will be about support (to the ego’s agenda, or to others), and this (for the sake of providing balance to the dominant standpoint) will generally see reality through an opposite mode of taking in or making decisions with the data, and the opposite individual or environmental orientation, from the dominant. (i.e. Supplying data for or “informing” one’s dominant judgment, or organizing one’s dominant perceptions with rational assessments, and keeping us in touch with both inner and outer realms).

So to use the archetype/complex names, the dominant function will be connected with a "Heroic" complex (consisting of ego states of "heroically" solving problems, and advancing our ego's agendas); and the strong "Good Parent" complex (ego states of being helpful to others) will associate with the auxiliary. The two resulting “function-attitudes” then define the “type”.

Outside of these ego states, the function-attitudes (i.e. judgment or perception functions and individual or environmental orientation combinations) remain either undifferentiated (just general processes everyone does, apart from any particular ego-state), or may become associated with certain other ego states which are basically reflections of the first two.
So in Beebe's theory, six other complexes will carry the remaining six function-attitudes, in an order mirroring and/or "shadowing" these first two.

Tertiary: a more childlike ego-state which reflecting the “supporting” state will tend to look up to others and find relief, using the function and orientation opposite the supporting one.
Next is an ego state conveying a sense of “inferiority”, which also realizes our place in the universe is very small (though ego usually fights this), and yet senses hypothetical “completeness” through it. This will see life through the function and orientation opposite the dominant.

The remaining ego states and associated functions parallel the first four. They are negative versions of them, and the functions are the same, but bearing the opposite orientation from the first four, which had been suppressed from consciousness in preferring the other orientations.

A sort of “negative hero” dealing with perceived obstruction
A negative “parent” dealing with negation of ego’s agenda
A negative “child” dealing with perceived double binds
A state dealing with ego’s fear of its own destruction

So we can think of lesser senses of "I" that constellate and tend to "use" these other functions, at certain times.
This, is what type is really all about, and how to know what is what when looking at function "usage".

So the question to ask is:
When doing a particular activity associated with a function, which ego state are you in?
If, when “seeing” something just for what it is, you're not in a particular state associated with ego development, then it doesn't “count” as a function “use”. Or, we could say it's a very “general” rather than “special” use.
If it's a state of heroically solving a problem or otherwise advancing a specific ego-agenda, then you could take that as an evidence of Se being dominant. So the same goes for the other seven archetypal positions.
(Now it becomes a matter of sorting out which ego state you're in)

So, to run through all the functions:

Receiving information through the senses (from the environment [e]), simply as a sentient being
versus
Paying special attention to details of the information received through the senses, because:
It's ego's favorite way to approach life (“heroic” state)
It's what ego uses in its state of supporting its preferred judgment
It's what the ego uses in its state of finding relief
It's what the ego feels a state of being particularly “inferior” in
Ego feels obstructed or needs to broaden its dominant standpoint
Ego feels negated (often from one-sidedness of the dominant standpoint)
Ego feels double bound (and needs to turn the tables on the offender)
Ego feels threatened with destruction (usually exaggerated)

[Now, it will get a bit repetitive, but this is to show, that for each of these functions, this is what we must ask]

Recalling a tangible fact from individual recollection (which all sentient beings are supplied with)
versus
Paying special attention to the details of learned/memorized fact because:

It's ego's favorite way to approach life (“heroic” state)
It's what ego uses in its state of supporting its preferred judgment
It's what the ego uses in its state of finding relief
It's what the ego feels a state of being particularly “inferior” in
Ego feels obstructed or needs to broaden its dominant standpoint
Ego feels negated (often from one-sidedness of the dominant standpoint)
Ego feels double bound (and needs to turn the tables on the offender)
Ego feels threatened with destruction (usually exaggerated)

[/FONT][/COLOR]
Comparing one pattern to another in the environment [e] to infer interconnections [N]
versus
Paying special attention to finding meanings through connections because:

It's ego's favorite way to approach life (“heroic” state)
It's what ego uses in its state of supporting its preferred judgment
It's what the ego uses in its state of finding relief
It's what the ego feels a state of being particularly “inferior” in
Ego feels obstructed or needs to broaden its dominant standpoint
Ego feels negated (often from one-sidedness of the dominant standpoint)
Ego feels double bound (and needs to turn the tables on the offender)
Ego feels threatened with destruction (usually exaggerated)


Inferring [N] from an individual impression of something (for example, "hunches")
versus
Paying special attention to hunches and other "just know"ings because:

It's ego's favorite way to approach life (“heroic” state)
It's what ego uses in its state of supporting its preferred judgment
It's what the ego uses in its state of finding relief
It's what the ego feels a state of being particularly “inferior” in
Ego feels obstructed or needs to broaden its dominant standpoint
Ego feels negated (often from one-sidedness of the dominant standpoint)
Ego feels double bound (and needs to turn the tables on the offender)
Ego feels threatened with destruction (usually exaggerated)


Judging true or false [T] by an environmental necessity or demand ([e]such as "efficiency", and ordering things accordingly)
versus
Paying special attention to the need to [impersonally] order efficiently because:

It's ego's favorite way to approach life (“heroic” state)
It's what ego uses in its state of supporting its preferred perception
It's what the ego uses in its state of finding relief
It's what the ego feels a state of being particularly “inferior” in
Ego feels obstructed or needs to broaden its dominant standpoint
Ego feels negated (often from one-sidedness of the dominant standpoint)
Ego feels double bound (and needs to turn the tables on the offender)
Ego feels threatened with destruction (usually exaggerated)


Judging true or false [T] by one's own individual experience ( including what's learned from nature)
versus
Paying special attention to universal impersonal principles because:

It's ego's favorite way to approach life (“heroic” state)
It's what ego uses in its state of supporting its preferred perception
It's what the ego uses in its state of finding relief
It's what the ego feels a state of being particularly “inferior” in
Ego feels obstructed or needs to broaden its dominant standpoint
Ego feels negated (often from one-sidedness of the dominant standpoint)
Ego feels double bound (and needs to turn the tables on the offender)
Ego feels threatened with destruction (usually exaggerated)


Judging good or bad [F] by an environmental necessity or demand ([e] like group harmony, introjecting someone's pain, etc)
versus
Paying special attention to interpersonal likes and needs because:

It's ego's favorite way to approach life (“heroic” state)
It's what ego uses in its state of supporting its preferred perception
It's what the ego uses in its state of finding relief
It's what the ego feels a state of being particularly “inferior” in
Ego feels obstructed or needs to broaden its dominant standpoint
Ego feels negated (often from one-sidedness of the dominant standpoint)
Ego feels double bound (and needs to turn the tables on the offender)
Ego feels threatened with destruction (usually exaggerated)


Judging good or bad [F] by one's own individual experience ( like putting ourselves in someone else's shoes)
versus
Paying special attention to universal personal likes and needs because:

It's ego's favorite way to approach life (“heroic” state)
It's what ego uses in its state of supporting its preferred perception
It's what the ego uses in its state of finding relief
It's what the ego feels a state of being particularly “inferior” in
Ego feels obstructed or needs to broaden its dominant standpoint
Ego feels negated (often from one-sidedness of the dominant standpoint)
Ego feels double bound (and needs to turn the tables on the offender)
Ego feels threatened with destruction (usually exaggerated)

 

[spirilis]

Having recently dived head-first into the study of archetype and Jungian concepts, I am delighted to finally have a mental foundation by which to understand what you wrote here. (That's a very, very recent development for me :-D)

Couple questions or clarifications coming to mind-

and are what will set the order all eight have been placed in, based on the level of consciousness they [the complexes] represent. (This is still not necessarily a hard "order" of relative "strength", though).

So you're pinning down a good way to differentiate "strength of functions" versus "function preferences" here, right? As in, I might use Fe a whole lot because *the external situation has emerged a necessary requirement that I do so*, but regardless as an INTP I will always relate to it from the archetype of "inferiority", and that complex will likewise, as one would expect with inferiority complexes, take its toll on my mental health in time.

Or to describe the last sentence a little differently - in the process of living through a situation (job/home situation/whatever) that requires me to associate with people from a standpoint of utmost tact and skillful relationship-oriented judgment, I will frequently find the archetype of inferiority constellated in a variety of manners including dreams and synchronistic events. Those might exact a toll on my well being as time goes on. But eventually I will develop that Fe function, i.e. will begin to learn its ropes more and more. It won't necessarily be a life-perspective-enhancing experience though, i.e. not the vehicle of my personal individuation or "hero" complex.

 

[INTP]

Having recently dived head-first into the study of archetype and Jungian concepts, I am delighted to finally have a mental foundation by which to understand what you wrote here.

If you think you understood op because of jungian concepts, you didnt understand the jungian concepts, because this is beebean stuff, not jungian. Sure Beebes theory is based on jungian ideas(he is one of the major figures in jungian circles nowadays after all), but has been modified and taken further so far that definitions have changed so drastically that its pretty much a whole new theory with whole new definitions for the words.

Ps. [MENTION=3521]Eric B[/MENTION] You misused the word introjection. Introjection means unconscious adaptation of someone elses behaviors, ideas or attitudes. It would be empathy that makes you feel someone elses pain.

 

[spirilis]

If you think you understood op because of jungian concepts, you didnt understand the jungian concepts, because this is beebean stuff, not jungian. Sure Beebes theory is based on jungian ideas(he is one of the major figures in jungian circles nowadays after all), but has been modified and taken further so far that definitions have changed so drastically that its pretty much a whole new theory with whole new definitions for the words.

I hear what you're saying, but if those "archetypes" are meant to be similar to mythological symbols, then I don't see where that applies here. But I don't know Beebe well at all so I'll heed your caveat.

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

In the OP, the lists at the bottom seemed to map to the eight Jungian functions, but they weren't labeled, so I wasn't certain if, for example, the last two were Fe and Fi, respectively? I think the first one is labeled Se. That clarification could be helpful.

 

[Eric B]

Having recently dived head-first into the study of archetype and Jungian concepts, I am delighted to finally have a mental foundation by which to understand what you wrote here. (That's a very, very recent development for me :-D)

Couple questions or clarifications coming to mind-

So you're pinning down a good way to differentiate "strength of functions" versus "function preferences" here, right? As in, I might use Fe a whole lot because *the external situation has emerged a necessary requirement that I do so*, but regardless as an INTP I will always relate to it from the archetype of "inferiority", and that complex will likewise, as one would expect with inferiority complexes, take its toll on my mental health in time.

Or to describe the last sentence a little differently - in the process of living through a situation (job/home situation/whatever) that requires me to associate with people from a standpoint of utmost tact and skillful relationship-oriented judgment, I will frequently find the archetype of inferiority constellated in a variety of manners including dreams and synchronistic events. Those might exact a toll on my well being as time goes on. But eventually I will develop that Fe function, i.e. will begin to learn its ropes more and more. It won't necessarily be a life-perspective-enhancing experience though, i.e. not the vehicle of my personal individuation or "hero" complex.

Actually, NO, you won't always relate to it from an archetype of inferiority (at least not necessarily). That's what I'm trying to separate here.
It's not the function that triggers the archetype, it's the state of the ego (which is the complex, or archetype "filled up with personal experience") that carries feelings of inferiority. And that makes sense; everyone has feelings of inferiority. It's a universal human experience. If it's constellated (apparently the more correct term for the "triggering" of archetypes), then you will likely feel the situation through Fe; i.e. make good/bad judgments (likely negative) of yourself or the situation, based on objective (environmental) standards.

Everyone has to face requirements from the environment. That's a universal human feature (unless one is a total hermit, or whatever). So everyone's response to this would default to what I'm calling a "general" "Fe". It is technically a judgment of good/bad (F) introjected from the environment (e). But it's really just automatic, from just being a human. As a function, it's in a state called "undifferentiated".
Like if you see an old lady fall down, you would (hopefully) go and help her. That's seeing a "bad" situation and making a conscious decision to "respond" to what you see has been "set" by the environment. (It may also simultaneously involve putting yourself in the person's place and responding to it from that angle, which would be general Fi. In the undifferentiated state, even the attitudes become less distinct. It's all "mixed together"). There is no need to surmise that you had to "use Fe" (like switching into a gear), and if it's your inferior, you went into inferior mode, or any of the other archetypes for the other types, or just not respond at all, if "Fe" is in their "shadow".

When we talk about type preference and even archetypes; we're talking about special use. Associated with an emotional state connected to the ego structure.
Now, it is possible for the situation that calls for an Fe judgment to bring up feelings of inferiority. Like it happens for me, at sad events, and I'm not feeling the emotions others are. But when I really look at it, the actual ego state of inferiority itself is really coming from somewhere else; preexisting issues that are only triggered by the current event. Like not fitting in with others, or being told I didn't care, when younger (which is something that will feel really bad with an Fe inferior!) So in the new situation, it's "uh, oh, I'm supposed to be feeling a certain way, and I must look bad, and it's going to prove others' [e] criticisms of me as 'bad'[F]". Otherwise, like especially when younger and it was even less developed, being unconscious, I might not have even thought much about it. It was only when something else triggered an ego state of inferiority, that this would be "stirred up" by a situation calling for an Fe response, for the ego state already was already "on alert" in situations through Fe.

Ps. [MENTION=3521]Eric B[/MENTION] You misused the word introjection. Introjection means unconscious adaptation of someone elses behaviors, ideas or attitudes. It would be empathy that makes you feel someone elses pain.

I'm aware of that, but in that sense, the terms are almost synonymous. I'm using it for all the extraverted functions, not just Feeling (though that was the only one I used it with in this instance), so for the other three, "feeling someone else's pain" wouldn't even be relevant. I believe you were one of the people who used to point out that according to Jung, the extravert "merges" with the object", then makes its perception or judgment his own. I use "introjection" because it's a better opposite to "projection", and makes more sense than saying that you "empathize" with the object regarding a Thinking judgment, or sensing or intuitive perception.

In the OP, the lists at the bottom seemed to map to the eight Jungian functions, but they weren't labeled, so I wasn't certain if, for example, the last two were Fe and Fi, respectively? I think the first one is labeled Se. That clarification could be helpful.

OK, sorry. I thought of doing that, briefly, but figured everyone would know, especially with the "environmental/individual" keys. (Now looking at the first one, I see I put the and [e] codes next to the corresponding terms, and I probably meant to do that to the rest). It's the basic eight function order of Se, Si, Ne, Ni, Te, Ti, Fe, Fi. [Fixed]

 

[Eric B]

Here's an example of what I'm saying:

Here are some real world examples.

An Example of Using the Function-Attitudes

Here is an example of how you might use all of the mental functions in their attitudes at the grocery store for a dinner party you are planning :

As you drive to the store, you have formed an internal image of how the party will look (Introverted iNtuition).
You get to the store and you see that the tomatoes do not look ripe (Extraverted Sensing).
You determine you will forgo the tomato salad since you want your friends to feel good (Extraverted Feeling).
You immediately start to brainstorm other options as you move through the produce isle (Extraverted iNtuition) while examining the other vegetables (Extraverted Sensing).
You pass the blueberries and recall the documentary you just saw on child labor in blueberry fields (Introverted Sensing).
That treatment of children is inexcusable, so you decide not to purchase the blueberries to make the blueberry tart you had thought about (Introverted Feeling).
You pass the bakery and see a carrot cake (Extraverted Sensing) that takes you back to the birthday dinner your mom made for you last year (Introverted Sensing).
You look at your watch and determine that you had better move a bit faster as you have only a couple of hours left to prepare (Extraverted Thinking).
You turn your attention to your thoughts to internally structure the rest of your day (Introverted Thinking).

- See more at: Carl Jung & Psychological Types | MBTI® Type Today

Seems like everyone uses a little bit of everything. What do you seem to use most of the time? That will determine your two functions, and you need to know if you are using the 2nd function in the correct way to balance your dominant function, the other two are going to be your shadow.

Those are basically descriptions of "general" functions. What everyone will do, no matter what ego state, just in the course of living day to day, as the example shows.
To find the type-defining "special" ones, the question is not [again, necessarily] "what do you use most of the time?", but rather what (if any) ego state do you find yourself in when using them, or better yet, what is being used in a given ego state. The preferred ones will be connected with the states of seeing the world through your main "world view", and supporting/balancing this through the opposite rationality of function in the opposite attitude. These will naturally tend to be "used more", but that's not really what you're looking for. It can be misleading. The most "conscious" functions can ironically become "unconscious" in a way, as they become "second nature", so you may not even be aware you're "using" it (and this is especially true for introverted functions). It may be easier to recognize emotional states, however. That's how I solidified Ti, for me!

 

[spirilis]

Actually, NO, you won't always relate to it from an archetype of inferiority (at least not necessarily). That's what I'm trying to separate here.
It's not the function that triggers the archetype, it's the state of the ego (which is the complex, or archetype "filled up with personal experience") that carries feelings of inferiority. And that makes sense; everyone has feelings of inferiority. It's a universal human experience. If it's constellated (apparently the more correct term for the "triggering" of archetypes), then you will likely feel the situation through Fe; i.e. make good/bad judgments (likely negative) of yourself or the situation, based on objective (environmental) standards.

Everyone has to face requirements from the environment. That's a universal human feature (unless one is a total hermit, or whatever). So everyone's response to this would default to what I'm calling a "general" "Fe". It is technically a judgment of good/bad (F) introjected from the environment (e). But it's really just automatic, from just being a human. As a function, it's in a state called "undifferentiated".
Like if you see an old lady fall down, you would (hopefully) go and help her. That's seeing a "bad" situation and making a conscious decision to "respond" to what you see has been "set" by the environment. (It may also simultaneously involve putting yourself in the person's place and responding to it from that angle, which would be general Fi. In the undifferentiated state, even the attitudes become less distinct. It's all "mixed together"). There is no need to surmise that you had to "use Fe" (like switching into a gear), and if it's your inferior, you went into inferior mode, or any of the other archetypes for the other types, or just not respond at all, if "Fe" is in their "shadow".

When we talk about type preference and even archetypes; we're talking about special use. Associated with an emotional state connected to the ego structure.
Now, it is possible for the situation that calls for an Fe judgment to bring up feelings of inferiority. Like it happens for me, at sad events, and I'm not feeling the emotions others are. But when I really look at it, the actual ego state of inferiority itself is really coming from somewhere else; preexisting issues that are only triggered by the current event. Like not fitting in with others, or being told I didn't care, when younger (which is something that will feel really bad with an Fe inferior!) So in the new situation, it's "uh, oh, I'm supposed to be feeling a certain way, and I must look bad, and it's going to prove others' [e] criticisms of me as 'bad'[F]". Otherwise, like especially when younger and it was even less developed, being unconscious, I might not have even thought much about it. It was only when something else triggered an ego state of inferiority, that this would be "stirred up" by a situation calling for an Fe response, for the ego state already was already "on alert" in situations through Fe.

Thanks for that clarification - this makes a WHOLE lot more sense now. And almost painfully true...

Then reading your 2nd post (chubber example), I definitely see what you're saying here and it clarifies something important to me - notably the question of "Where do the 'other 4' functions go?", far from being just "unconscious" or "not used" they just take up their role as the filter and instrument we use to approach anti-worldview archetypal complexes. (Keyword there "complexes", not just ordinary use but ego states with numinous charge and special relevance to us)
(Would that be analogous to the "typological flavor" of our alter-ego or "Mr. Hyde" personality?)

 

[Opal]

I like the separation of functions into "ego states," kind of soft personalities.

Receiving information through the senses (from the environment [e]), simply as a sentient being
versus
Paying special attention to details of the information received through the senses, because:

Was this (x vs. y) meant to distinguish the ego state/function use from a conscious consideration of related elements?

Also, with this model, it seems more reasonable than ever that the 16 types' relative function strengths will, more often than not, be inaccurate. Why order functions Ax-By-Cx-Dy? Scrapping the 16 types and allowing for custom permutations would be a lot more interesting and telling of one's functional approach, disposition, and capability.

 

[Eric B]

Yes, it's general vs special uses of the functions.

As for the ordering, in Hass & Hunziker's Building Blocks of Personality: "Beebe cautions us not to assume too much on the basis of his numbering, which in many ways is simply for convenience in identifying the various positions. He simply puts it forth as a tool that he has found useful and informative and which at least for the first four functions seems to reflect the order of conscious cultivation of the functions that he has observed. The numbers for the shadow functions are identified merely to mirror the ordering of the first four."

 

[Opal]

As for the ordering, in Hass & Hunziker's Building Blocks of Personality: "Beebe cautions us not to assume too much on the basis of his numbering, which in many ways is simply for convenience in identifying the various positions. He simply puts it forth as a tool that he has found useful and informative and which at least for the first four functions seems to reflect the order of conscious cultivation of the functions that he has observed. The numbers for the shadow functions are identified merely to mirror the ordering of the first four."

Oh! Thank you, I would have wondered indefinitely...

I wonder how one could denote custom orders of strength.

 

[Eric B]

Could have added, type is really the first two only; one being the ego's main world view, and the other, representing the other kind of process, since we need to both take in information and make decisions.

Also, should have added before, "To find the type-defining "special" ones, the question is not [again, necessarily] 'what do you use most of the time?'...[that] can be misleading...";
that since we really do all of them all the time, the whole idea of "used more/most" actually loses all meaning! Hence, why it's often hard to determine which is really "used more", and people still end up going through several different types this way, having to try to remember every instance of using them, like "I think I use this one more; no, I see I really use this one more; no, I just realized it was this one...", etc.
Again, the key is to try to sort them out by ego state, and I'm even wondering, when people do correctly find their type, by which ones are "used more"; whether they are subconsciously recognizing the heroic and supporting ego states, which then "register" as "used more" from being the "special" uses.

 

[spirilis]

Could have added, type is really the first two only; one being the ego's main world view, and the other, representing the other kind of process, since we need to both take in information and make decisions.

Also, should have added before, "To find the type-defining "special" ones, the question is not [again, necessarily] 'what do you use most of the time?'...[that] can be misleading...";
that since we really do all of them all the time, the whole idea of "used more/most" actually loses all meaning! Hence, why it's often hard to determine which is really "used more", and people still end up going through several different types this way, having to try to remember every instance of using them, like "I think I use this one more; no, I see I really use this one more; no, I just realized it was this one...", etc.
Again, the key is to try to sort them out by ego state, and I'm even wondering, when people do correctly find their type, by which ones are "used more"; whether they are subconsciously recognizing the heroic and supporting ego states, which then "register" as "used more" from being the "special" uses.

Aye, had some similar thoughts yesterday. Ascertaining true type is then a whole lot more complicated... and the issue of alignment with the non-dom/aux functions complicates things even further...

That said, I know from interactions with other people that I assume personal advancement in the realm of Ti (it's always obvious when someone else is basing their judgments on something other than Ti, because I notice my own thought process substantially diverges from theirs and I've been "accused" or "corrected" in this before by others operating without-Ti), and Ne most certainly is the language by which I support that, which is to say that I tend to find a lot of personal development entrusted in either others' theories which I find believable or my own theories which emerge from daydreams and thoughts. It's not that sensory stuff isn't important, it's just that I don't find any of it "carrying me forward" to newfound purpose or skillfulness in the way that I get from processing and integrating intuitive-based theory from a logical standpoint.

 

[Eric B]

As an example of how all this works, the "Ego Surrender" paper linked in the OP, in the section on Ego States (p.17ff), discusses how a child develops, and thenlearns to build categories, such as dogs and cats, and then put together more complex categories such as "animals". This is basically introverted Thinking; determining impersonal truth [T] (categories things fall into, as often described by type theorists, which takes no consideration of how anyone feels about them) that is learned individually , (though it can also come from being taught by someone in the environment [e]). Then, even more specific categories are created, such as "good doggies" and "bad doggies". Now we have good/bad judgment in the mix. This is Feeling (a more "personal" assessment), which is also being learned individually , though in this case, can also be referencing environmental [e] considerations, such as the dogs disturbing the peace. Since it is still "categories", which are essentially "impersonal" or "technical", then it is still simultaneously Thinking!
(From there, many other categories are created, and organized by selected similar behaviors and experiences with a defining common element into the groupings called "ego states", such as “mad at mommy” or “eager to please” given as examples).

So we see several different (and even "opposing") functions being "used", but they are all really "mixed together", and tied in with sensations, including emotional response (which jung referred to as "concretistic"). No "dominant" preference has even developed yet! When it does, it will be pulled outof this mix and set apart ("abstracted") by the ego, which will assign special value (also carrying emotional weight and energy) to it.
This is why it is not totally accurate, and difficult to sort type by looking for function "use" by itself. They're all "in there", mixed together, and it is the ego and its various states that sets them apart.

For a couple of examples; if a person is struggling between T and F, and wonder if gender could be a factor (where male seems to lean toward T, and female seems F), then consider whether your attention to either true/false or good/bad in judgments is coming from the ego's natural "heroic" or "supporting" sense of "I", or from a state associated with adhering to gender roles (and this will figure especially for mothers and fathers). The same dynamic will work for other situations, such as Autism spectrum disorders and S/N. On one hand, the condition is characterized by behaviors such as "taking language too literally", which may sound like S, but then, they often have sensory problems, like their fine motor skills, which leads them to do poorly with physical activities. This often helps push them more to the N side, as that's what they end up having the most success with, and thus, the two main ego states adopting more (despie missing some general intuitive products like certain inferences).

 

[Eric B]

Should have included these quotes from the "Ego Surrender" paper, since they really establish what this concept is about:

p.4
"The ego is the seat of the conscious personality, of subjective identity, the sense of 'I'. It is partial, impermanent and changeable, but believes itself to be whole, permanent and absolute. The ego is the conscious part of the total personality, the Self. The Self is the central archetype of wholeness, the unifying center of the total psyche, and includes both conscious and unconscious elements. The conceptualization of 'the ego' is far more complex than that of a unified collection of perceptions, cognitions and affects, but rather as organized clusters or patterns of these called ego states (Federn, 1952).

p16
Most people do not understand that we are a loose confederation of fragments of identity rather than a single permanent and unchangeable ‘I’.
Every thought, every mood, every desire and sensation, says ‘I’. There are hundreds and thousands of small ‘I’s, usually unknown to each other, and often incompatible. Each moment that we think of saying ‘I’, the identity of that ‘I’ is different. We become lost into that identity when it dominates our thoughts, then into the next when it takes over. Just now it was a thought, now it is a desire, now a sensation, now another thought, and so on, endlessly (Ouspensky, 1949, p. 59; Ram Dass, 1980, p. 138). Anyone who has meditated knows how resurgent the chattering mind can be"

All of this explains things a lot of people have questions about, such as the so-called "tertiary loop" dynamic. The tertiary function is associated with the "Child" or "Puer" complex, which is an ego-state consisting of a lot of emotions of childlike enthusiasm.
Since it says "every thought", and different thoughts come and go constantly, then there's no "stacking order" at any given time (e.g. "if the tertiary becomes #1, then what is #2", etc). The common stacking order we use ("1-8") is basically where the complex fits in the ego structure. The dominant or "Hero" represents the ego's main achieving state. The "Parent" is what "fills in" with the perspective of the opposite rationality of function (judgment or perception) from the dominant, in the opposite attitude. The other six are all reflections and/or shadows of these two. The lower you go, the further from the main ego you're getting, so the complexes may seem to constellate "less", and the associated functions "weaker" or "used less", but they can still come up and take over at any time, under the right circumstances, and some may come up more for others, depending on their overall life circumstances.

 

[Jaguar]

So we see several different (and even "opposing") functions being "used", but they are all really "mixed together", and tied in with sensations, including emotional response (which jung referred to as "concretistic"). No "dominant" preference has even developed yet! When it does, it will be pulled outof this mix and set apart ("abstracted") by the ego, which will assign special value (also carrying emotional weight and energy) to it.
This is why it is not totally accurate, and difficult to sort type by looking for function "use" by itself. They're all "in there", mixed together, and it is the ego and its various states that sets them apart.

Which is why it's ludicrous to type people from their posts which are basically temporary states that can last a minute, a day, a month, a year, etc. One doesn't know for certain what state the person is in or why they're posting what they're posting. I frequently use a symphony orchestra to describe the function-attitudes: the instruments are all playing simultaneously with the volume rising and falling from consciousness. There is no way to discern what is and what is not conscious to the person from "hearing" their posts, but a few choice people delude themselves believing they can.

If the person is an orchestra, ask yourself how you know if what you're "hearing" is their conscious or unconscious playing of the violin. People want so desperately to believe they know the answer to that question. I believe it was Marie-Louise von Franz who wrote how difficult it is to discern between the dominant and inferior functions. That's right, difficult. Theoretically, it may be weak in consciousness but not weak in strength. That means a person can be consciously playing a violin, but the people around them can hear a french horn playing so loudly it drowns out the violin and they have to put their hands over their ears. But the person playing the violin is completely unaware of how loudly that french horn is playing. Now, what does that mean? Well, for starters, quite a few people would probably type the person a "french horn dominant" rather than a "violin dominant" believing that whatever is playing loudest wins. That could of course be a huge mistake.

 

[Eric B]

True (great analogy), and typing others like that is a best a guess.
When I first approached type theory and was learning the dichotomies and functions, I didn't even know whether I was T vs F, because I'm aware of the "sensitivity" inside, and most descriptions made T's (especially NT's or Ti) so unemotional. (And then you had an "expert" who played upon this, and even had me seriousy considering F at one point, until I learned that way of using the theory was bunk).
But this was what was inside. That didn't tell you which ego state this was associated with (and thus, its context within the ego), or how I was actually making decisions (assessments) in "preferred" states, which is what T/F is really about.
The "Feeling" seemed so prominent precisely because it was very negative and disruptive; something I wish wasn't there, but "came up"and screwed up things, so it "stuck out" like a sore thumb. But when I'm in a more "heroic" state; it's clearly Thinking (impersonal assessments), and individually (rather than environmentally) driven. However, the dominant can actually become "unconscious" itself in a way (especially if it's introverted), because it becomes so "second nature" and thus falss from awareness, like how you might notice a particular instrument less, because you've heard it for a long time, and now begin noticing other things.

So it can be hard enough for us to sort all this out in ourselve, so of course, for others, they can never completely know for sure, and it's a best, guesswork.
A clue might be looking at what state they seem to be in (where they are enthusiastic in a "heroic" sense, or feeling "uptight", like in a sense of "inferiority". But even then, this can be misread by you or even feigned by the person.

 

[INTP]

Which is why it's ludicrous to type people from their posts which are basically temporary states that can last a minute, a day, a month, a year, etc. One doesn't know for certain what state the person is in or why they're posting what they're posting. I frequently use a symphony orchestra to describe the function-attitudes: the instruments are all playing simultaneously with the volume rising and falling from consciousness. There is no way to discern what is and what is not conscious to the person from "hearing" their posts, but a few choice people delude themselves believing they can.

If the person is an orchestra, ask yourself how you know if what you're "hearing" is their conscious or unconscious playing of the violin. People want so desperately to believe they know the answer to that question. I believe it was Marie-Louise von Franz who wrote how difficult it is to discern between the dominant and inferior functions. That's right, difficult. Theoretically, it may be weak in consciousness but not weak in strength. That means a person can be consciously playing a violin, but the people around them can hear a french horn playing so loudly it drowns out the violin and they have to put their hands over their ears. But the person playing the violin is completely unaware of of how loudly that french horn is playing. Now, what does that mean? Well, for starters, quite a few people would probably type the person a "french horn dominant" rather than a "violin dominant" believing that whatever is playing loudest wins. That could of course be a huge mistake.

Yes sometimes its hard to say if its dom or inferior that comes up in a person frequently. Thats because they both work pretty much automatically, but there is a key difference. Inferior is an instrument that plays autonomously and thus plays automatically, dom on the other hand is automatic, not because its autonomous, but because you play it so well that you dont even need to think about it much anymore, but you still direct it for the most part. Ofc there is also other things, like the sounds form the inferior being largely effected by other sounds in the unconscious etc. Not to mention that inferior trying to make its voice heard in a person who havent really developed it much yet so much that it makes as big of sounds as dom does, its pretty abnormal state and the person has some issues to resolve and need to make the inferior conscious or it will eat you.
The trick in typing is to look not for the signs of a function, but for reasons for the use of the function, attitudes etc. I mean if you have a setting where you have a math calculation and ask for someone to analyze it, ofc you can expect T from anyone, but if you need a function usage that clearly is not fitting in the situation(is forced there because its the only one that the person can really use), then you can be quite sure of type, of part of the type code. Its small stuff like this that you learn to see when learning to type people, and when you have small indicators like that for example, you can make a proper guess about the type, but assuming that you have correctly typed anyone in a small amount of time is usually foolish.

 

[INTP]

Should have included these quotes from the "Ego Surrender" paper, since they really establish what this concept is about:

p.4
"The ego is the seat of the conscious personality, of subjective identity, the sense of 'I'. It is partial, impermanent and changeable, but believes itself to be whole, permanent and absolute. The ego is the conscious part of the total personality, the Self. The Self is the central archetype of wholeness, the unifying center of the total psyche, and includes both conscious and unconscious elements. The conceptualization of 'the ego' is far more complex than that of a unified collection of perceptions, cognitions and affects, but rather as organized clusters or patterns of these called ego states (Federn, 1952).

p16
Most people do not understand that we are a loose confederation of fragments of identity rather than a single permanent and unchangeable ‘I’.
Every thought, every mood, every desire and sensation, says ‘I’. There are hundreds and thousands of small ‘I’s, usually unknown to each other, and often incompatible. Each moment that we think of saying ‘I’, the identity of that ‘I’ is different. We become lost into that identity when it dominates our thoughts, then into the next when it takes over. Just now it was a thought, now it is a desire, now a sensation, now another thought, and so on, endlessly (Ouspensky, 1949, p. 59; Ram Dass, 1980, p. 138). Anyone who has meditated knows how resurgent the chattering mind can be"

All of this explains things a lot of people have questions about, such as the so-called "tertiary loop" dynamic. The tertiary function is associated with the "Child" or "Puer" complex, which is an ego-state consisting of a lot of emotions of childlike enthusiasm.
Since it says "every thought", and different thoughts come and go constantly, then there's no "stacking order" at any given time (e.g. "if the tertiary becomes #1, then what is #2", etc). The common stacking order we use ("1-8") is basically where the complex fits in the ego structure. The dominant or "Hero" represents the ego's main achieving state. The "Parent" is what "fills in" with the perspective of the opposite rationality of function (judgment or perception) from the dominant, in the opposite attitude. The other six are all reflections and/or shadows of these two. The lower you go, the further from the main ego you're getting, so the complexes may seem to constellate "less", and the associated functions "weaker" or "used less", but they can still come up and take over at any time, under the right circumstances, and some may come up more for others, depending on their overall life circumstances.

Thats a really nice definition of ego, add the 5 functions of the ego that Jung listed and it pretty much nails the whole thing. And i agree to that other paragraph you quoted too, this is basically the same thing when you lose some part of your brains, you simply wont understand that you have lost it, and wont even believe it no matter how obvious its to everyone that you cant speak anymore or something even that drastic.

I dont see how they explain tert loops or anything else you talked about tho..

 

[Eric B]

The trick in typing is to look not for the signs of a function, but for reasons for the use of the function, attitudes etc. I mean if you have a setting where you have a math calculation and ask for someone to analyze it, ofc you can expect T from anyone, but if you need a function usage that clearly is not fitting in the situation(is forced there because its the only one that the person can really use), then you can be quite sure of type, of part of the type code. Its small stuff like this that you learn to see when learning to type people, and when you have small indicators like that for example, you can make a proper guess about the type, but assuming that you have correctly typed anyone in a small amount of time is usually foolish.

Yes, reasons for using the function, and then, still, the ego-state involved (like if the situation has triggered the inferior grip, then the Thinker might still interject Feeling that's not fitting).

I dont see how they explain tert loops or anything else you talked about tho..

The so-called "loop" is formed when the "childlike" ego state (the "Puer") comes up a lot, and basically sidesteps the auxiliary, maintaining the dominant attitude through the tertiary function. This is obviously not a very healthy state, and hence, people began calling it being "stuck" in a "loop" (and of curse focusing on the functions themselves, and not thinking in terms of complexes or ego states).