[MBTI General] ISFP and Sensors Stereotypes! Here's the truth..

[Soph11287]

ISFP's are not superficial flakes, we are actually very spiritual and deep. Why do people mistake Sensors for being that way? Being in the moment is actually a very spiritual practice used in Buddhism, yoga and meditation. Eckhart Tolle wrote many books on the Power Of Now. Sensing people naturally have that ability to surrender to the moment and just Be where they are appreciating their surroundings and taking it in. Its a gift and people should recognize and appreciate that. I'm so glad to be a sensor, I wouldn't have it any other way. I have always felt very connected to my soul. You don't have to have a dominant N function to be spiritual, that is absolutely crazy and ridiculous.

 

[reckful]

ISFP's are not superficial flakes, we are actually very spiritual and deep. Why do people mistake Sensors for being that way? Being in the moment is actually a very spiritual practice used in Buddhism, yoga and meditation. Eckhart Tolle wrote many books on the Power Of Now. Sensing people naturally have that ability to surrender to the moment and just Be where they are appreciating their surroundings and taking it in. Its a gift and people should recognize and appreciate that. I'm so glad to be a sensor, I wouldn't have it any other way. I have always felt very connected to my soul. You don't have to have a dominant N function to be spiritual, that is absolutely crazy and ridiculous.

You posted a relatively long OP this morning, and have just deleted the majority of it. This post was written in response to your longer post, and I'm going to leave this one unchopped under the assumption that my responses to your longer version will at least be relevant to you.

First, I agree with you that "you don't have to have a dominant N function to be spiritual," and that it would be "absolutely crazy and ridiculous" for somebody to claim that. But you know what? I've never heard anybody claim that. Have you?

The MBTI is about tendencies and probabilities, so it's pretty much always inappropriate to say "this type always does that" or "this type never does that." As I understand it, there's now quite a bit of respectable data that shows that, on average, N's and F's are significantly more likely to have religion or some other kind of spirituality play a relatively major role in their lives than S's and T's, respectively — and that means that somebody can respectably assert that an N is more likely to be spiritual than an S, but not that "you have to be an N to be spiritual" (as you put it).

Second, just so you know, ISFP's only have "Ni" if you subscribe to the goofy Harold Grant function stack — a function stack that has no respectable validity, wasn't Jung's or Myers's function model, and has never been endorsed by the official MBTI folks — and if you're interested, you can read more about that in this post.

And third, I've been posting at MBTI forums for over six years now, and one of the more headshake-inducing but, unfortunately, not-that-uncommon experiences I've had in those years is encountering somebody who pretty consistently comes out N on the official MBTI and/or other dichotomy-based sources (because they are an N), but who has soaked up a bunch of internet-based donkey dookie and been (mis)led to believe that Jungian/MBTI type is basically all about the functions, and that the dichotomies mostly just deal with superficial stuff, and you should think of them primarily as "letter codes" that need to be decoded to lead you to the deeper stuff — and who has concluded that they're really an S based on misguided cognitive function analysis, and who has then proceeded to make one or more posts where they purport to, by God, bust a bunch of those silly MBTI stereotypes about S's (or SJs or whatever), because dang, people, I'm a [insert chosen S type] and I'm not like that at all!

Not saying that's you, necessarily, especially since you haven't made enough TC posts for me to have any strong leans on your type — buuut I thought I felt my own pattern-spotting Ni tingling mildly, so I couldn't resist throwing the possibility out there for your possible consideration. Your original post's descriptions of the multiple ways you think your "tertiary Ni" makes you, in effect, more of an intuitive (when it comes to that "Ni" stuff) than INFPs are pretty much just HaroldGrantian hoohah, and I thought quite a bit of the self-description in your original OP was really more consistent with an INFP (or INFJ) than an ISFP.

In case you have any interest in taking it, I'd be curious to see your scores on the official "Step I" MBTI. Hopefully needless to say, no self-report personality test is perfect, but the official MBTI is the only Jung/MBTI-related personality test with a respectable body of psychometric support behind it — and it's certainly a better source of type input than listening to someone who tells you ISFPs have "tertiary Ni."

I suspect you're either an INFJ or an INFP — and just in case you've been bamboozled into thinking that it wouldn't make sense for somebody to end up with those two possibilities as their finalists, because they're waaaaay different (onnaccounta totally different functions), I'd recommend that you take a look at this post.

Welcome to the forum, by the way, and rest assured that most of the INTJs here aren't quite as overbearing as I am.

 

[Soph11287]

ISFP's are not superficial flakes, we are actually very spiritual and deep. Why do people mistake Sensors for being that way? Being in the moment is actually a very spiritual practice used in Buddhism, yoga and meditation. Eckhart Tolle wrote many books on the Power Of Now. Sensing people naturally have that ability to surrender to the moment and just Be where they are appreciating their surroundings and taking it in. Its a gift and people should recognize and appreciate that. I'm so glad to be a sensor, I wouldn't have it any other way. I have always felt very connected to my soul. You don't have to have a dominant N function to be spiritual, that is absolutely crazy and ridiculous.

You posted a relatively long OP this morning, and have just deleted the majority of it. This post was written in response to your longer post, and I'm going to leave this one unchopped under the assumption that my responses to your longer version will at least be relevant to you.

First, I agree with you that "you don't have to have a dominant N function to be spiritual," and that it would be "absolutely crazy and ridiculous" for somebody to claim that. But you know what? I've never heard anybody claim that. Have you?

The MBTI is about tendencies and probabilities, so it's pretty much always inappropriate to say "this type always does that" or "this type never does that." As I understand it, there's now quite a bit of respectable data that shows that, on average, N's and F's are significantly more likely to have religion or some other kind of spirituality play a relatively major role in their lives than S's and T's, respectively — and that means that somebody can respectably assert that an N is more likely to be spiritual than an S, but not that "you have to be an N to be spiritual" (as you put it).

Second, just so you know, ISFP's only have "Ni" if you subscribe to the goofy Harold Grant function stack — a function stack that has no respectable validity, wasn't Jung's or Myers's function model, and has never been endorsed by the official MBTI folks — and if you're interested, you can read more about that in this post.

And third, I've been posting at MBTI forums for over six years now, and one of the more headshake-inducing but, unfortunately, not-that-uncommon experiences I've had in those years is encountering somebody who pretty consistently comes out N on the official MBTI and/or other dichotomy-based sources (because they are an N), but who has soaked up a bunch of internet-based donkey dookie and been (mis)led to believe that Jungian/MBTI type is basically all about the functions, and that the dichotomies mostly just deal with superficial stuff, and you should think of them primarily as "letter codes" that need to be decoded to lead you to the deeper stuff — and who has concluded that they're really an S based on misguided cognitive function analysis, and who has then proceeded to make one or more posts where they purport to, by God, bust a bunch of those silly MBTI stereotypes about S's (or SJs or whatever), because dang, people, I'm a [insert chosen S type] and I'm not like that at all!

Not saying that's you, necessarily, especially since you haven't made enough TC posts for me to have any strong leans on your type — buuut I thought I felt my own pattern-spotting Ni tingling mildly, so I couldn't resist throwing the possibility out there for your possible consideration. Your original post's descriptions of the multiple ways you think your "tertiary Ni" makes you, in effect, more of an intuitive (when it comes to that "Ni" stuff) than INFPs are pretty much just HaroldGrantian hoohah, and I thought quite a bit of the self-description in your original OP was really more consistent with an INFP (or INFJ) than an ISFP.

In case you have any interest in taking it, I'd be curious to see your scores on the official "Step I" MBTI. Hopefully needless to say, no self-report personality test is perfect, but the official MBTI is the only Jung/MBTI-related personality test with a respectable body of psychometric support behind it — and it's certainly a better source of type input than listening to someone who tells you ISFPs have "tertiary Ni."

I suspect you're either an INFJ or an INFP — and just in case you've been bamboozled into thinking that it wouldn't make sense for somebody to end up with those two possibilities as their finalists, because they're waaaaay different (onnaccounta totally different functions), I'd recommend that you take a look at this post.

Welcome to the forum, by the way, and rest assured that most of the INTJs here aren't quite as overbearing as I am.

This is what boggles my mind, how is it that I'm able to relate to both ISFP and INFP? I used to think I was INFP until I thought about it, read the functions and came to understand that I was definitely an ISFP.

For one, sensors are known to take longer to finish tests in school. That is very true of me. I take my time with everything I do from getting out of the house to finishing a book, etc.. It drives people crazy how "slow" I am but it's just because i'm so aware on everything I'm doing. I can't focus on more than one thing at a time or I will get stressed out. I need to take things step by step, deal with one demand at a time before accomplishing a task.

I love to indulge in sensuous things. Food, hot baths, soft blankets and pillows. ISFP's usually have beautiful decorated homes because they value beauty. I always put makeup on before leaving the house unlike INFP's who aren't as concerned with outer appearance. INFP's can talk endlessly about one emotion they feel when ISFP's simply accept what they feel, embrace it, ISFP's know how to BE with a feeling without labeling it or trying to conceptualize what it means. When I am depressed I want to understand factually why that is. I read about scientific studies, genetics, things that can be proven as to why some people act, behave and think the way they do. While I do enjoy talking about theories, I don't do it all the time because I don't see the practical point of doing that. Does it help the situation? No. I'm more about immediate results. I want to do what's necessary to make a bad situation better. I get exhausted and bored when I am required to elaborate on what I feel for long periods of time. It is what it is, accept it, feel it, let it be.
I'm also more influenced by my surroundings than an INFP. I like to be surrounded by high quality things because as an ISFP I have refined taste. I could't live off grid for very long even though it's a wonderful idea because I love the pleasurable things society has to offer. Nicely made houses, beautiful luxurious beds, etc.. that stuff does't matter as much to INFP's.

I think INFP's are more "spiritual" in the way the are more inclined to prefer rituals and symbolism in their practice of worship. For me, I believe God is something that can only be felt and experienced in the presence of the moment. God is omnipresent, he is everywhere at once. He exists in all living things who seek love. All I'm saying is I have read that N is a "spiritual" function in quite a few places and I disagree. Spirituality is different for everyone. I know I'm not an INFJ because I'm not a judger. I'm disorganized, open minded, I appear loose and casual, I procrastinate until the last minute and I'm indecisive. Others (Definitely!!) do not see me as a planned and orderly person, lol.

I doubt I'm an INFP because I don't relate as easily to the Ne preference. I honestly don't know how it is that I can be an ISFP and have strong inclinations toward Ni. When I read the description for Ni, I familiarize with it very well. When I read about Judging it's foreign to me, when I read about ISFP I can easily relate. I am definitely an idea person but my ideas are all practical ways to achieve something. Maybe some people develop their tertiary function earlier than others, it's very possible. If I were an INFP I wouldn't be able to relate as easily to Ni but I do. I should clarify that I never get flashes of seeing he future or anything like that, lol. Usually I will receive spiritual truths or realizations about people, life or myself out of nowhere that are hard to put into words. I can sometimes tell whether something will be a disaster before it happens.

INFP's are much more sentimental. I'm not sentimental. They will keep an object from years ago just because of a special meaning they thought it had. I am not like that at all. I do little drawings everywhere to make things look nicer, such as stars or hearts in a book. I actually have a more subtle negative attitude toward the world compared to INFP's, lol.

Also when I show someone I love them, it's always done with little actions instead of words. Making their surroundings more comfortable, feeding them, giving them a blanket to lie down or a back rub. If I'm uncomfortable in any way I cannot stop myself from letting it bother me. If my jeans or bra are too tight, my shirt feels funny, my shoes are rough and hard, it irritates me more than it would an Intuitive type. I detest feeling physically uncomfortable, I truly genuinely hate that. I need softness and beauty around me at all times.

I'm seen as a free spirit, very individualistic. I'm definitely an ISFP, but how is it that I relate to Ni? I don't get it!

 

[cascadeco]

For one, sensors are known to take longer to finish tests in school. That is very true of me.

I don't know where you got this information, but I think this would fall under a stereotype just like the spirituality thing you're mentioning is a stereotype. I'm of course not saying it's not true for you; just that it's a terrible stereotype. Also, just generally, many of the things you mention about yourself, while I don't think they go against ISFP, don't have to define ISFP either -- so things true for yourself won't necessarily be true for other ISFP's; it's in the end supposed to be about cognition, not specifically about behaviors or specific likes or dislikes.

Re spirituality, yeah, I agree with you that it's a stereotype if it IS actually said sensors aren't as spiritual; though I haven't really heard that one either. Maybe some people confuse some of the descriptions of INF's being 'mystical' or preoccupied with things not of this world, as being spiritual, but I've never read sensors not being so. N's and S's can both be spiritual, or extremely unspiritual - that's a very individual thing.

 

[GreatBigCranberries]

I have read some ISFP descriptions that focus a bit too much on the sensing part of the ISFP personality to the exclusion of other equally or even more important aspects. An ISFP friend of mine says that she usually relates more to INFP descriptions, than ISFP, right up until the point where it talks about INFPs disappearing into their heads, or losing track of their surroundings, or having their heads in the clouds. She's pretty practical and would much rather do a thing than think about it. But she still loves discussing plenty of theoretical things (especially about art, literature, movies, etc).

I think INFPs generally have a greater inclination to express themselves in words, while ISFPs tend more towards expressing themselves in wordless forms (visual and musical arts for example), though neither is limited to those. This particular ISFP does not consider herself an artist (not visual, auditory, or literary), instead she expresses herself in other ways. In her clothes and jewellery. In the intense aesthetic perfection she has to achieve when wrapping presents. In her love of stationary. She knows what covers are the best looking, how exactly the paper should feel, what pen is both the most beautiful and writes with the most even and appropriate strokes. Stationary sounds boring, but she makes it an art form. I think that's an ISFP gift.

As for ISFPs not being considered spiritual, aren't ISFPs actually thought of as the quintessential artists? Isn't an artist often considered to be the most purely spiritual profession?

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

I have read some ISFP descriptions that focus a bit too much on the sensing part of the ISFP personality to the exclusion of other equally or even more important aspects. An ISFP friend of mine says that she usually relates more to INFP descriptions, than ISFP, right up until the point where it talks about INFPs disappearing into their heads, or losing track of their surroundings, or having their heads in the clouds. She's pretty practical and would much rather do a thing than think about it. But she still loves discussing plenty of theoretical things (especially about art, literature, movies, etc).

I think INFPs generally have a greater inclination to express themselves in words, while ISFPs tend more towards expressing themselves in wordless forms (visual and musical arts for example), though neither is limited to those. This particular ISFP does not consider herself an artist (not visual, auditory, or literary), instead she expresses herself in other ways. In her clothes and jewellery. In the intense aesthetic perfection she has to achieve when wrapping presents. In her love of stationary. She knows what covers are the best looking, how exactly the paper should feel, what pen is both the most beautiful and writes with the most even and appropriate strokes. Stationary sounds boring, but she makes it an art form. I think that's an ISFP gift.

As for ISFPs not being considered spiritual, aren't ISFPs actually thought of as the quintessential artists? Isn't an artist often considered to be the most purely spiritual profession?

for a second I thought you were describing my ISFP

 

[reckful]

As for ISFPs not being considered spiritual, aren't ISFPs actually thought of as the quintessential artists? Isn't an artist often considered to be the most purely spiritual profession?

As discussed at some length in this post, decades of statistics have established that INFP is a substantially more likely creative-artist type than ISFP, and that ISFP is not a particularly likely artist type. The "ISFP as artist" notion came from David Keirsey, and I think Keirsey had quite a few insightful things to say, but the ISFP=artist thing was probably his biggest mistake.

 

[GreatBigCranberries]

As discussed at some length in this post, decades of statistics have established that INFP is a substantially more likely creative-artist type than ISFP, and that ISFP is not a particularly likely artist type. The "ISFP as artist" notion came from David Keirsey, and I think Keirsey had quite a few insightful things to say, but the ISFP=artist thing was probably his biggest mistake.

That's really interesting. I definitely wasn't distinguishing art from craft, just lumped them together and then tried to figure out what the difference was. This does make things much clearer, though I guess it also means that I don't have any quick and simple way to prove that ISFPs are spiritual. Not that it really needed proving to begin with...

 

[ceecee]

I love to indulge in sensuous things. Food, hot baths, soft blankets and pillows. ISFP's usually have beautiful decorated homes because they value beauty. I always put makeup on before leaving the house unlike INFP's who aren't as concerned with outer appearance.

I get exhausted and bored when I am required to elaborate on what I feel for long periods of time.

I'm also more influenced by my surroundings than an INFP. I like to be surrounded by high quality things because as an ISFP I have refined taste. I could't live off grid for very long even though it's a wonderful idea because I love the pleasurable things society has to offer. Nicely made houses, beautiful luxurious beds, etc.. that stuff does't matter as much to INFP's.

Well then I must be an ISFP.

 

[Soph11287]

Well then I must be an ISFP.

those are some things which helped me differentiate my type. Because isfp and infp are so similar you have to look at the subtle differences between the two to decide what you are. For instance, infp's are better at verbally expressing themselves than an isfp's. INFP's and ISFP's look practically identical, the only difference between us is an S and an N. So I have to ask myself, am I a more sensing person or intuiting person? Thats not always an easy thing to answer.

 

[Soph11287]

You posted a relatively long OP this morning, and have just deleted the majority of it. This post was written in response to your longer post, and I'm going to leave this one unchopped under the assumption that my responses to your longer version will at least be relevant to you.

First, I agree with you that "you don't have to have a dominant N function to be spiritual," and that it would be "absolutely crazy and ridiculous" for somebody to claim that. But you know what? I've never heard anybody claim that. Have you?

The MBTI is about tendencies and probabilities, so it's pretty much always inappropriate to say "this type always does that" or "this type never does that." As I understand it, there's now quite a bit of respectable data that shows that, on average, N's and F's are significantly more likely to have religion or some other kind of spirituality play a relatively major role in their lives than S's and T's, respectively — and that means that somebody can respectably assert that an N is more likely to be spiritual than an S, but not that "you have to be an N to be spiritual" (as you put it).

Second, just so you know, ISFP's only have "Ni" if you subscribe to the goofy Harold Grant function stack — a function stack that has no respectable validity, wasn't Jung's or Myers's function model, and has never been endorsed by the official MBTI folks — and if you're interested, you can read more about that in this post.

And third, I've been posting at MBTI forums for over six years now, and one of the more headshake-inducing but, unfortunately, not-that-uncommon experiences I've had in those years is encountering somebody who pretty consistently comes out N on the official MBTI and/or other dichotomy-based sources (because they are an N), but who has soaked up a bunch of internet-based donkey dookie and been (mis)led to believe that Jungian/MBTI type is basically all about the functions, and that the dichotomies mostly just deal with superficial stuff, and you should think of them primarily as "letter codes" that need to be decoded to lead you to the deeper stuff — and who has concluded that they're really an S based on misguided cognitive function analysis, and who has then proceeded to make one or more posts where they purport to, by God, bust a bunch of those silly MBTI stereotypes about S's (or SJs or whatever), because dang, people, I'm a [insert chosen S type] and I'm not like that at all!

Not saying that's you, necessarily, especially since you haven't made enough TC posts for me to have any strong leans on your type — buuut I thought I felt my own pattern-spotting Ni tingling mildly, so I couldn't resist throwing the possibility out there for your possible consideration. Your original post's descriptions of the multiple ways you think your "tertiary Ni" makes you, in effect, more of an intuitive (when it comes to that "Ni" stuff) than INFPs are pretty much just HaroldGrantian hoohah, and I thought quite a bit of the self-description in your original OP was really more consistent with an INFP (or INFJ) than an ISFP.

In case you have any interest in taking it, I'd be curious to see your scores on the official "Step I" MBTI. Hopefully needless to say, no self-report personality test is perfect, but the official MBTI is the only Jung/MBTI-related personality test with a respectable body of psychometric support behind it — and it's certainly a better source of type input than listening to someone who tells you ISFPs have "tertiary Ni."

I suspect you're either an INFJ or an INFP — and just in case you've been bamboozled into thinking that it wouldn't make sense for somebody to end up with those two possibilities as their finalists, because they're waaaaay different (onnaccounta totally different functions), I'd recommend that you take a look at this post.

Welcome to the forum, by the way, and rest assured that most of the INTJs here aren't quite as overbearing as I am.

This is interesting but I think you might be undermining the significance that Jung actually put into the third tertiary function which he coined as "the transcendent function" Basically what Jung believed was that our dominant function and our auxiliary function created together a third living entity which acted as a mediator between our conscious and unconscious self. This is what MBTI now labels as the Tertiary function. Jung thought of it in terms of "the soul" of an individual.

Here is a link to where I got the following information:
http://www.sunypress.edu/pdf/60876.pdf

"The concept of the purposive unconscious operating through the transcendent function became the hub of Jung’s psychology and represented an irreparable break from Freud. Jung eventually came to believe that one cannot individuate, that is, cannot be- come the person he or she is truly meant to be, without conversing with and coming to terms with the unconscious. The transcendent function is the primary means through which that reconciliation is accomplished.”

"In the essay bearing its name written in 1916 but not published until 1957, the transcendent function is described by Jung as arising “from the union of conscious and unconscious contents” (1957/1960, p. 69). The paper describes a “synthetic” or “constructive” method (p. 73) through which unconscious components can be united with conscious perceptions to produce a wholly new perspective. Indeed, the word transcendent was used by Jung to signify the transition from one attitude to another."

" At the heart of the transcendent function is transformation, a shift in consciousness. “Expressing itself by way of the symbol, [the transcendent function] facilitates a transition from one psychological attitude or condition to another” (Samuels, Shorter, and Plaut, 1986, p. 150). Indeed, “Jung considered the transcendent function to be the most significant factor in psycho- logical process”

https://muse.jhu.edu/books/9780791485620
"The transcendent function is the core of Carl Jung’s theory of psychological growth and the heart of what he called individuation, the process by which one is guided in a teleological way toward the person one is meant to be."

“The self is who we truly are, but the persona or mask (the word comes from the Latin for an actor’s mask) is the face we turn to the world in order to deal with it. A persona is absolutely necessary, but the problem is that we often become identified with it, to the detriment of our self, a dilemma that the existential philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre recognized in his notion of mauvaise foi, or “bad faith,” when one becomes associated exclusively with one’s social role.”
― Gary Lachman, Jung the Mystic: The Esoteric Dimensions of Carl Jung's Life & Teachings

“the outcome, if successful, in both alchemy and individuation is a union of opposites—the coniunctionis or transcendent function—leading to alchemical gold, the philosopher’s stone, the elixir of life, or, in Jungian terms, the Self.”
― Gary Lachman, Jung the Mystic: The Esoteric Dimensions of Carl Jung's Life & Teachings

“Jung came to understand that in this regard, we are all fragmented, and that the work of individuation is to fuse our disparate parts into a new, more competent whole; as he remarked years later “so-called normal people are very fragmentary . . . they are not complete egos.”
― Gary Lachman, Jung the Mystic: The Esoteric Dimensions of Carl Jung's Life & Teachings

this I find fascinating..

“The Transcendent Function,” was written in 1916, while Jung was in the middle of his “deep reaching interior metamorphosis. Yet it wasn’t published until 1957, and only then when Jung was asked to contribute to a student publication, not something many of his readers would see. For forty years it remained in Jung’s files, off-limits to the general public. Jung discussed the ideas in seminars and lectures, but usually only with his closest students, rather like an initiate sharing the most profound mysteries with only his most devoted pupils. Although subsequent Jungian analysts have recognized their importance, neither idea plays a prominent role in any of Jung’s major works. For example, in Mysterium Coniunctionis , Jung’s alchemical magnum opus, active imagination warrants only a brief mention, again not by name, and the transcendent function is mentioned only twice. As is often the case with Jung’s ideas, we need to go to his followers for anything like a clear definition. Some suggest Jung kept quiet about active imagination because he considered it possibly dangerous. In a note, he cautioned that through it “subliminal contents . . . may overpower the conscious mind and take possession of the personality.” Yet there may have been other reasons. Weak egos might fragment practicing active imagination, but what would his peers think of a psychologist who talked to people in his head? As with his public and private opinions about spirits and the occult, Jung seems to have kept quiet about things that could threaten his persona as a scientist.”

“What, then, is active imagination? In practice it’s exactly what Jung did in his visions and conversations with inner figures such as Philemon, Ka, and Salome mentioned above: entering a fantasy and talking with one’s “self”—at least a part of oneself “normally” left unconscious—asking questions and receiving knowledge that one—“you”—did not know. In many ways, it’s something we engage in often already, but in a shallow, fleeting way, when we “ask ourselves” what we think or will do about a situation. More abstractly, it’s a method of consciously entering into a dialogue with the unconscious, which triggers the transcendent function, a vital shift in consciousness, brought about through the union of the conscious and unconscious minds. Unexpected insights and self-renewal are some of the results of the transcendent function. It achieves what I call that elusive “Goldilocks” condition, the “just right” of having the conscious and unconscious minds work together, rather than being at odds. In the process it produces a third state more vivid and “real” than either; in it we recognize what consciousness should be like and see our “normal” state as at best a muddling through. We’ve already seen how the transcendent function helped Jung when faced with the dilemma of having to choose between science and the humanities. In the simplest sense, the transcendent function is our built-in means of growth, psychological and spiritual—it’s “transcendent” only in the sense that it “transcends” the frequent deadlock between the conscious and unconscious minds—and is a development of what Jung earlier recognized as the “prospective tendencies in man.”
― Gary Lachman, Jung the Mystic: The Esoteric Dimensions of Carl Jung's Life & Teachings

All I'm saying is that I believe the MBTI does not portray the true significance of the "tertiary function". According to Jung it was one of the most valuable assets required to knowing who we truly are as individuals. The third function is the part of us that naturally arises through the transcendence of our ego, upon which it reveals a deeper, truer part of who we are. Through the tension created from the friction between our dominant and 1st auxiliary function an awareness arises from within ourselves that illuminates who we are to a higher level.

Jung actually referred to the third function as "the primary self". People study MBTI, Myers Briggs/ astrology because they want to know who they are. The transcendent function (tertiary or second auxiliary) is an essential aspect of the Self. Apparently toward the end of Jung's life he referred to the union of the conscious and unconscious as the Self. I believe the third function should be viewed as the center of gravity within a person. It's the unifier between all aspects that make you who you are.

By viewing ourselves only through the lens of our "dominant and second auxiliary function" we don't see the totality of ourselves. Personally I see the tertiary function as like the observer of the individual. It acts as the watcher of the self, that part of us that is awareness. If the dominant function is the father and the auxiliary function is the mother, the tertiary function is the created child of the two. Some of the attributes of the tertiary function come from the dominant "parent" and some come from the auxiliary "parent". It's the sum of who you are. I've felt and experienced the influence that my Ni playing out in my life. It acts like a manipulator of our energy, as if controlling "behind the scenes" until we become conscious of it. The Tertiary function is the reason why we are able to become conscious of all our inferior functions during individuation. All information travels from the unconscious to the Tertiary and from there it is distributed into our conscious mind. Without the tertiary function there would not exist the unity which makes ourselves a living possibility.

The goal of existence of all personalities is spirit. Spirit is the fundamental reality of the personality.We are meant to become conscious of all hidden aspects of ourselves over the course of time, that's evolution. Personality is still a big mystery to me. What I can't figure out is if our dominant and auxiliary functions symbolize our ego identity or our true self? I want to know the aspect of personality in me which will survive death- the "real" me. I don't believe that ego is something that is re-personalized into the next life. I'm not really interested in knowing my ego, though it's helpful in many ways.

“Jung told his students that in grasping the meaning of the union of conscious and unconscious, “we become aware of the ancestral lives that have gone into the making of our own lives,” and that through this comes a “feeling of immortality.” Individuation, in fact, leads to a “sense of the continuation of one’s life through the ages” and gives “a feeling of eternity on this earth,”37 a mystic insight Jung reserved for the initiated.”
― Gary Lachman, Jung the Mystic: The Esoteric Dimensions of Carl Jung's Life & Teachings

 

[reckful]

This is interesting but I think you might be undermining the significance that Jung actually put into the third tertiary function which he coined as "the transcendent function"...

I barely skimmed your post. Jung's "transcendant function" was not the tertiary function. It was a process whereby someone's conscious and unconscious sides temporarily "transcended" their ordinary opposition and became united in a symbol that would originate in someone's unconscious.

You're confused.

 

[Soph11287]

I barely skimmed your post. Jung's "transcendant function" was not the tertiary function. It was a process whereby someone's conscious and unconscious sides temporarily "transcended" their ordinary opposition and became united in a symbol that would originate in someone's unconscious.

You're confused.

Actually the Tertiary function is also known as PUER/ PUELLA "the eternal child". Eternal child is term used by psychologists but Jung referred to it as the transcendent function. They are the same thing.

 

[reckful]

Actually the Tertiary function is also known as PUER/ PUELLA "the eternal child". Eternal child is term used by psychologists but Jung referred to it as the transcendent function. They are the same thing.

Although there are aspects of Jung's writings about which reasonable readers can disagree, this is not one of them. Jung's "transcendent function" and Jung's "tertiary function" are two very different things.

Here's Chapter 11 of Psychological Types, which is the Definitions chapter, with the defined terms in alphabetical order. If you scroll down to the Symbol definition, you'll find a long discussion by Jung of the transcendent function.

 

[Soph11287]

Although there are aspects of Jung's writings about which reasonable readers can disagree, this is not one of them. Jung's "transcendent function" and Jung's "tertiary function" are two very different things.

Here's Chapter 11 of Psychological Types, which is the Definitions chapter, with the defined terms in alphabetical order. If you scroll down to the Symbol definition, you'll find a long discussion by Jung of the transcendent function.

That doesn't give any useful information on the transcendent function, it says (refer to symbol). Also it offers no explanation for what the Tertiary function is.

 

[reckful]

That doesn't give any useful information on the transcendent function, it says (refer to symbol). Also it offers no explanation for what the Tertiary function is.

It says "v. Symbol," because that was Jung's way of indicating that he'd put the main discussion of the transcendent function in his Symbol definition — which is why I told you (in my last post) to read the Symbol definition.

 

[Soph11287]

Silvano Ariete was the first to name the intersection between the primary and secondary intersection “the tertiary”. The psychoanalyst Nathan Schwartz-Salant describes the phenomenon of the tertiary process as follows. “The space is a transitional area between the space-time world and the collective unconscious. This area has a fundamentally different quality from the space-time world.” The tertiary function is like the lost awareness between time and space, the union of spirit and matter, the moving out in all directions from the center. The tertiary activates the ‘subtle body’ experience within an individual as a kind of energy field that extends from our physical being. The tertiary is the inner core of the self.

 

[reckful]

Silvano Ariete was the first to name the intersection between the primary and secondary intersection “the tertiary”. The psychoanalyst Nathan Schwartz-Salant describes the phenomenon of the tertiary process as follows. “The space is a transitional area between the space-time world and the collective unconscious. This area has a fundamentally different quality from the space-time world.” The tertiary function is like the lost awareness between time and space, the union of spirit and matter, the moving out in all directions from the center. The tertiary activates the ‘subtle body’ experience within an individual as a kind of energy field that extends from our physical being. The tertiary is the inner core of the self.

The word "tertiary" has been used by many different people to mean many different things. If you're talking about the "tertiary" function in Jungian typology, that is decidedly not the same thing as Jung's "transcendent function."

And again, this is not a matter on which reasonable readers can disagree. Read Jung's own descriptions of the transcendent function — starting with the one in that Symbol definition I've already pointed you to. That's a very different thing from the third (out of four) function that Jung said typically acted as an "auxiliary" to the inferior, just as the second function acted as an auxiliary to the dominant.

 

[Soph11287]

The word "tertiary" has been used by many different people to mean many different things. If you're talking about the "tertiary" function in Jungian typology, that is decidedly not the same thing as Jung's "transcendent function."

And again, this is not a matter on which reasonable readers can disagree. Read Jung's own descriptions of the transcendent function — starting with the one in that Symbol definition I've already pointed you to. That's a very different thing from the third (out of four) function that Jung said typically acted as an "auxiliary" to the inferior, just as the second function acted as an auxiliary to the dominant.

Well if the tertiary is "apparently not" the transcendental, then what is the transcendental function and where can I find it/ activate it?

 

[reckful]

Well if the tertiary is "apparently not" the transcendental, then what is the transcendental function and where can I find it/ activate it?

To activate your transcendent function, take three deep breaths, and then use the thumb and index finger of your right hand to gently massage the skin between the bases of the second and third toes of your left foot.

Again, you should start by reading Jung's Symbol definition — and in particular, the last seven paragraphs (starting with "The symbol is always a creation...").

Jung's "transcendent function," unlike the four functions in the Jungian stack, is not a function that gets used on an ordinary basis. It's a separate process that only happens from time to time, triggered by a damming up of libido that results from too much one-sidedness on a person's conscious side, and it involves a temporary uniting of the opposites (e.g., E/I, S/N, T/F) that are in play most of the time. But it's only temporary, because as Jung explained, "after a while the opposites recover their strength," hand in hand with the person's "will" — which Jung said is essentially "suspended" during the transcendent-function episode.