[Jungian Cognitive Functions] tandem functions Myth?

[dragon21]

Like judgement pairs, every extroverted perceiving function is paired with the opposite introverted kind. You cannot have one without the other. The preference for Ne-Si or Si-Ne is held by ENFP, ENTP, INFP, INTP, ESTJ, ESFJ, ISTJ, ISFJ. These people have a storage bank of details in their heads that are used by Ne in the outer world in order to see possibilities. Si-Ne users may cling to their Si, what they know, in fear of possibilities as Ne-Si may do the complete opposite and seek the new for novelty’s sake.
Se-Ni users or Ni-Se users are ESFP, ESTP, ISFP, ISTP, ENFJ, ENTJ, INFJ, INTJ. These people are very quick compared to the slower process of Ne/Si. Visibly, we see their actions manifest through Se, but their meaning (Ni) is more subconscious and may not be visible to onlookers. They are great at knowing in an instant what route to take. Se-Ni users may find themselves just going with the flow, though Ni-Se users may be more consciously trying to stick to the flow and their “ultimate life path.”
Do you agree?

 

[Seymour]

No... in pretty much every piece of empirical data, SJs and NPs (for example) are the least alike. As one might expect from a preferences perspective, SJs have more in common with SPs and NJs than they do with NPs.

Based on "tandems" and type dynamics, one might expect to have cases where SJs dominate in some area, followed by a smaller "echo" of NPs, and then followed by other types. One never sees this in the real world... which is yet another reason why tandems and type dynamics are bunk.

 

[dragon21]

I agree the facebook group Im apart of is touting tandem functions, but I haven't making a good argument against it

 

[Merced]

I'm confused, are you asking whether or not functions come in pairs like Si/Ne, Ni/Se, Ti/Fe, Fi/Te? If so, yes, that's a fundamental part of understanding functions. They are on axes.

 

[Norexan]

Actually no...


Let me tell you that the most risk takers are dom Ne users while least risk takers as we expect are dom Si so bye bye theory. It is all about balance.

 

[reckful]

I'm confused, are you asking whether or not functions come in pairs like Si/Ne, Ni/Se, Ti/Fe, Fi/Te? If so, yes, that's a fundamental part of understanding functions. They are on axes.

On the contrary...

The notion that if you're an "Fi type," you're also a "Te type" — and ditto for the Fe/Ti, Ni/Se and Ne/Si pairs (the so-called "function axes," or "tandems") — is a by-product of the Harold Grant function stack, which is the forum-famous model that says that INFPs are Fi-Ne-Si-Te, and INFJs are Ni-Fe-Ti-Se, and ZOMG, INFPs and INFJs have no functions in common!

And just so you know, that model is inconsistent with Jung, inconsistent with Myers, and has never been endorsed by the official MBTI folks. More importantly, and unlike the respectable districts of the MBTI, the Grant function stack has no substantial body of evidence behind it — and should probably be considered all but disproven at this point.

Here on Planet Reality, the fact is that the four dichotomies, not the functions, are the real, underlying (and substantially genetic) components of your MBTI type — and despite some Jungian lip service, Myers understood that, based on her years of data-gathering and psychometric analysis. And she also understood that dichotomy combinations were associated with many noteworthy aspects of personality, but that there was nothing particularly special about the combinations that are purportedly associated with the "cognitive functions." In fact, Myers thought of NF/NT/SF/ST as the most significant dichotomy combinations — and it's worth noting that that's a carve-up of the types where each group is a type foursome with (assuming you believe in the functions at all) four different dominant functions.

And you will search in vain for any passage in Myers where she says that, if you start with a type foursome that shares two preferences (e.g., the SJs), and you flip both preferences, you'll end up with a foursome (in this example, the NPs) that has more in common with the original group — when it comes to some or all of the stuff affected by those preferences — than if you'd only flipped one preference. And the reason you won't find any such passage is that Myers didn't subscribe to that notion at all. Myers understood that if there's an aspect of personality where the SJs are the types with the most of it, you should expect the NPs to be the types with the least of it — as Seymour has already noted.

And Myers was right. The HaroldGrantian double-flip — the goofball geometry underlying the so-called "function axes" — has no basis in reality, and that's why it's found no respectable validation in over 50 years of MBTI data pools, correlating the types with everything under the sun. The notion that an INFP has "tertiary Si," and will therefore tend (probabilistically speaking) to have "Si" aspects of personality in common with a typical ISTJ that ISTPs tend not to exhibit, is a typological assertion that — like all assertions that crosscut the dichotomies in that counterintuitive way — has no more validity than the notion that two people born at around the same time will tend to have aspects of personality in common because they're both Capricorns.

In case you're in the mood for a hefty helping of input on the relationship between the dichotomies and the functions, the place of the functions (or lack thereof) in the MBTI's history, and the tremendous gap between the dichotomies and the functions in terms of scientific respectability — not to mention the unbearable bogosity of the Grant function stack — you can find a lot of potentially eye-opening discussion in this post and the posts it links to.

The final link at the end of that linked post is no longer functional (since the owner has taken INTJforum private), but you can find a long replacement excerpt from the INTJforum post — describing the dichotomy-centric history of the MBTI — in the spoiler in this post.

 

[Turi]

My perception is that flawed arguments based on misunderstandings of introversion and extraversion are abundant within these discussions.

It is true, from a Jungian perspective that the Extraverted Intuitive type for instance does indeed possess an inferior introverted Sensation - however, what must be understood, is this does not make them similar to other types that also prefer Sensation in the introverted attitude.
In fact, it makes them polar opposites, if that Sensation in the introverted attitude is preferred - simply due to how the inferior functions manifests - and of course, this is due to the unconscious attitude.

The notion that an ENTP would share similarities with an ISFJ due to 'Si' is absurd - these arguments can and should be shot down on sight - it's not because they don't possess a Sensation that is predominantly oriented towards introversion - it's because in the ENTP is is their Achilles Heel, their demon, their least fav thing, their flaws - in the ISFJ it is the opposite, it's their saviour, their preferred function in their preferred attitude - the difference here is absolutely astounding and needs to be understood.

So despite both types possessing Sensation in the introverted attitude, the placement - even from a Jungian perspective - puts them at opposing ends of the same spectrum, it separates them, it does not in any way make them similar to each other - it has the exact opposite effect.

Now, reckful has brought up the tertiary function, 'Si' in an INFP - the exact same argument applies - the so-called 'tertiary' function is not a saving grace for many a INFP (outside those that follow a more true to Jung formula of IIEE, in which case they'd be more accurately typed as an ISFP anyway) instead, it is essentially the auxiliary function to the inferior function, it is shit, it is negative, it is in the opposing orientation to the dominant function *unlike the loop theory fanboiz would have you believe* and so, separates types that share 'Si' more than it connects them.

Take for instance an ISTJ and an INFP, same types reckful brought up - for one, Sensation in the introverted attitude is positive, introverted attitude preferred, Sensation preferred (arguably this is actually a Jungian ISTP but I'll pretend to play along) - with the INFP possessing this Sensation in (honestly, the extraverted attitude but let's play make-believe *again*) the introverted attitude - however, it's negative, dark, closer to the unconscious than the conscious, even if this Sensation *is* introverted - it separates the INFP from the ISTJ. It does not bring them together. They do not share similarities due to 'Si', the placement of 'Si' tears them apart from each other.

IMO, there is absolutely no way to reconcile function-axis typology with any positive similarities - from a Jungian perspective as well as an MBTI one - simply because the placement affects the general attitude of the consciousness too much. It simply doesn't work, no matter how you try to view it.

The idea that an INFP shares more in common with an ISTJ than say, an ISTP does with the ISTJ - that apparently shares no functions* in common, doesn't even work *even in accordance* with the Harold Grant IEIE/EIEI stacks:
Grants INFP/IEIE - Fi-Ne-Si-Te
Grants ISTJ/IEIE - Si-Te-Fi-Ne
Grants ISTP/IEIE - Ti-Se-Ni-Fe

It's obvious, right there - even in Grants stack, a general preference for both Sensation *and* Thinking is shared by both ISTJ and ISTPs - the INFP of course, preferring neither.
This means that regardless of orientation, from a Grantian perspective - the ISTJ and ISTP still share more in common, they're both Sensation types and both Thinking types - the INFP of course, being an Intuitive Feeling type.

I could come at this from a million different angles, and still never make it work.

*wait up kids - there's only four functions in Jungian typology - and so, the ISTJ and ISTP in sharing Sensation and Thinking, literally share the same irrational/perception function and the same rational/judging function, so this argument is prematurely terminated anyway.

For so many reasons, it doesn't work - and from a Jungian perspective, it shouldn't work.

 

[Eric B]

Are people (and "empirical research") looking for behavioral similarities, in any persons of opposite types? Dichotomies may be more evident in behavior (and hence why they work so well with temperament; i.e. both Keirsey and Interaction Styles). Functions are about how we divide reality, and while this does influence behavior, it is not always directly obvious.

For one thing the unpreferred functions become more conscious later in life, so no, an ESFJ and INTP child are not going to have any evident similarity. I clearly can see a difference in relating to an ESFJ like my wife, compared to an ESFP. Our types basically grow toward each other as the unpreferred functions develop, but I don't see this with SFP's at all; instead, they and NTJ's would grow together. So it's not a static "this type is always like that type" if there's something in common; it's about what they're growing toward.
According to this dichotomy only approach, the ESFP should have slightly more in common than an ESFJ, and ISFP should have even more in common, but it seems to be reverse, where those types and I "miss each other" (share no common interest in communication) with the ISFP the least similar of all. All the common P is saying is that either the S or N are oriented externally. This produces a slight commonality in behavior, of "openness" compared to a J type who orients them internally and thus needs "closure". But the way we process S, N, T and F are totally different.

 

[dragon21]

I see Fe as the antithesis of Ti so idea of Fe being well developed in the Ti dom psyche is hard for me, I think that Fe could gain tert status but and INTP could move toward ENTP but higher levels like secondary or dominant levels is hard, same with others

 

[Eric B]

It wouldn't be "well developed", or even "gain tert status" either; it would always be inferior, but later in life should become a bit more conscious.