# Thread: 10+ years Jungian functions researcher, will try to go for advanced level discussions

1. Originally Posted by Researcher
In Jung's model the 3 opposite i/e functions minus the shadow/polar-opposite are next to any chosen function.
Example about a "pure type" of Te (Jung didn't do the 16 types, he did 8 pure types):
Fi is the polar opposite (the opposite, the suppressed, the inferior, of Te), so that leaves only Si+Ni+Ti as the introverted functions next to it (auxiliary).
Bascially, you can analyze within the mechanics of Jung's model (by reading chapter 10 of Psychological types over and over and over again) that Si+Ni+Ti are closer to Te than the other functions.
Thus, a pure type of exactly Te, will have Si+Ni+Ti in equal bits around it as "counter balancing functions". Thus you could say a function ordering of Te - Si/Ni/Ti, as this type is closest to Te and then closest to Si/Ni/Ti of which it is in the middle location(Te) of these 3 points (Si/Ni/Ti).
They are actually not counter balancing as in "healthy" but as in "this is the way the model is by definition", in Jung's model the even mix of Si+Ni+Ti is equal to pure Te. He called those 3, the auxiliary functions, they are around any main function by definition.

So in Jung's original function ordering it is always function 2+3+4 which are the opposite i/e-attitude of the first function.

A bit here (doesn't say much), the link goes to the section "Orientation_of_the_tertiary":
Myers-Briggs Type Indicator - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have to understand that Jung had no idea that MBTI will be created later on, that they would stack 2 pure types together like they do in MBTI, call them function1 and 2 and then create some weird function ordering in which 3 and 4 are the total opposite.

The model I use myself is the first 2 functions only. I would rather also see the typology world stop using the MBTI 4 letter code, such as INFP. and just call it FiNe. This would stop the J/P confusion. As INFP=FiNe= judgement first (thus not a perceiver although its INFP with a P).

So I use the 2-function (FiNe/NeTi/.....) model personally. Which is just the combination of the pure Jungian types, of which it is closer to the first than the second (but could also be exactly in the middle of those 2, which I would write as a FiNe/NeFi-type).
You introduced yourself to the forum on Saturday by referring to yourself as "a 10+ years Jungian functions & psyche researcher," and yesterday you said that "MBTI/JCF" has "been my job and my life for 10 years."

But the substance of your posts — including this latest one, in spades — make it clear you haven't even read Psychological Types with any care, and very much misunderstand Jung's function model for a typical person.

And educating you is not my job, but you could start with this two-part post.

Jung's model didn't involve three auxiliary functions, as your post says. Are you kidding me? Jung believed that, in the typical case, the dominant function would have one substantially "differentiated" auxiliary function, with the same attitude (the "conscious attitude") as the dominant function. He said that the auxiliary function was "invariably present in consciousness and exerts a co-determining influence." And he said that, for one of his types, in the typical case, a mirror-image pair of functions would be found in the unconscious — the inferior function (e.g., Te for an Fi-dom) and a tertiary function that had the same attitude as the inferior function and served, in effect, as the inferior function's "auxiliary."

And what do you mean by a "pure type"? Jung noted that his Chapter X portraits were artificially "pure" in terms of leaving out the characteristics that would distinguish, e.g., an Fi-dom with an N-aux from an Fi-dom with an S-aux. But he said that the characteristics that he included in his portraits were the "common and therefore typical features" of his types. And you can read more about that in this post.

In any case, if you're basically using a two-function model — "The model I use myself is the first 2 functions only" — that ignores the impact of the (mostly unconscious) tertiary and inferior functions, and where the attitude of the auxiliary is opposite to the attitude of the dominant, you're a long, long way from Jung.

And there's nothing wrong with being a long way from Jung. But there's something wrong with holding up a very non-Jungian model and claiming it's Jungian.

Originally Posted by Legion
Are you able to quote where he says this?
See this two-part post (also linked above).

2. Originally Posted by reckful
I think the characteristics that the MBTI J/P dimension taps into line up considerably better with Jung's descriptions of J-doms ("rational types") and P-doms ("irrational types") than with Jung's extraverted J-doms and introverted P-doms (on the one hand) and Jung's extraverted P-doms and introverted J-doms (on the other).
I dont understand your sentence, or what the goal is of that sentence? (It's quite long also.)

Not sure if you know about that J/P switch in MBTI flips around if E/I flips around?
judgement function as first function = Jung's rational = J-dom = ExxJ & IxxP
perception function as first function = Jung's irrational = P-dom = ExxP & IxxJ

3. Originally Posted by Researcher
I dont understand your sentence, or what the goal is of that sentence? (It's quite long also.)

Not sure if you know about that J/P switch in MBTI flips around if E/I flips around?
judgement function as first function = Jung's rational = J-dom = ExxJ & IxxP
perception function as first function = Jung's irrational = P-dom = ExxP & IxxJ
Jung's descriptions of J-doms (the "rational" types) correspond to the personality characteristics that get both extraverts and introverts typed J on the MBTI, and Jung's descriptions of P-doms (the "irrational" types) correspond to the personality characteristics that get both extraverts and introverts typed P on the MBTI. Myers's claim that EJs and IPs were J-doms and EPs and IJs were P-doms went hand-in-hand with her flip of the attitude of the auxiliary. And, as discussed in my previous posts (and linked posts), that was a non-Jungian flip.

4. Originally Posted by reckful
Jung's model didn't involve three auxiliary functions, as your post says. Are you kidding me? Jung believed that, in the typical case, the dominant function would have one substantially "differentiated" auxiliary function, with the same attitude (the "conscious attitude") as the dominant function. He said that the auxiliary function was "invariably present in consciousness and exerts a co-determining influence."
I knew this would cause conflict, that's why added the wikipedia quote.

So now you might still want to wrestle about the word "auxiliary", but it can be used in both cases, yours&mine, and means the same. Let me explain:
When I say 3x aux it means the possibility of 3 aux-es (3 possibilities) at that pure function/type position, when you say 1x aux, you simply mean that you chose 1 actual out of those 3 possiblities.

The pure type would have 3 auxilliaries in equal amount, the counter balancing functions. This would actually mean it has no second function, as all 3 aux are equal.
But almost nobody is pure, as in exactly at that location, just like when you spread many people over the globe, not many will be exactly at the north pole.
So most would be not exactly at the Te location either.
So lets say we take a Te that has an Ni aux, then it simply means this person is towards the Ni aux out of the 3 possible auxiliaries Ni+Si+Ti. So on the map: if you are at Te and you have 3 possible aux-paths/choices to walk, the location is on the path towards the Ni location, and further from the Si&Ti locations.

Originally Posted by reckful
And he said that, for one of his types, in the typical case, a mirror-image pair of functions would be found in the unconscious — the inferior function (e.g., Te for an Fi-dom) and a tertiary function that had the same attitude as the inferior function and served, in effect, as the inferior function's "auxiliary."
Yes that is all true, I agree. But what has that to do with the aux? inferior=shadow=polar opposite=mirror-image. this is not the aux.

You said "tertiary function (one of the 3 possible aux-es) has the same i/e attitude as that inferior", but this is exactly what i said. (So what is your point by saying i'm wrong and then repeating what I say?)

aux just means: a slight adjustment from the pure function/type. there is 3 possible adjustments / 3 possible paths to other pure function/types. But we choose just 1 aux out of 3 and say that's your type.

"If we think of the psychological function [sic] as arranged in a circle, then the most differentiated function is usually the carrier of the ego and, equally regularly, has an auxiliary function attached to it. The "inferior" function, on the other hand, is unconscious and for that reason is projected into a non-ego. It too has an auxiliary function. "

the inferior+aux is just the mirror-image of the primary+aux.

5. Originally Posted by Researcher
The pure type would have 3 auxilliaries in equal amount, the counter balancing functions. This would actually mean it has no second function, as all 3 aux are equal.
But almost nobody is pure, as in exactly at that location, just like when you spread many people over the globe, not many will be exactly at the north pole.
So most would be not exactly at the Te location either.
So lets say we take a Te that has an Ni aux, then it simply means this person is towards the Ni aux out of the 3 possible auxiliaries Ni+Si+Ti. So on the map: if you are at Te and you have 3 possible aux-paths/choices to walk, the location is on the path towards the Ni location, and further from the Si&Ti locations.
Where does Jung ever mention even the possibility of three functions serving as equal "auxiliaries" to the dominant function?

And how do you square that idea with the fact that Jung said that, if your dominant function was a judging function, the other judging function couldn't serve as an auxiliary, and if your dominant function was a perceiving function, the other perceiving function couldn't serve as an auxiliary?

6. Originally Posted by reckful
And educating you is not my job, but you could start with this two-part post.

Nice sentence for psycho analysis here.

7. I have come to the conclusion with a Jungian analyst who has been analyzing for 30+ years that the personality is like a flower rather than a binary circuit board and typology can only serve in a very general sense and even Jung himself conceded that a fourfold model would probably still apply to a very small minority of people which happened to be his patients, and that the time, place, history, culture, and biology would all be relevant in this....but of course, typology is so fun that cookie cutter wars is kind of a neat excuse to take a break from studying or working.

What do you think about that?

8. Originally Posted by reckful
Where does Jung ever mention even the possibility of three functions serving as equal "auxiliaries" to the dominant function?

And how do you square that idea with the fact that Jung said that, if your dominant function was a judging function, the other judging function couldn't serve as an auxiliary, and if your dominant function was a perceiving function, the other perceiving function couldn't serve as an auxiliary?
Jung did not say they are possibilities, that was just me, as I thought it was a good way to explain it to you. Unfortunately that failed. Next try:

Obviously the entire spectrum of personality is the entire possibility, but we are trying to have a GPS-like coordinate system in this spectrum of possibility. So Jung defined 8 functions, which are uniformly spread over the spectrum of all possibilities.
Jung basically said that "the inferior/opposite is as far away from the primary as you can get", so this one is obviously not a slight adjustment of (e.g. "close to") the primary. Since going from primary to inferior/opposite is the biggest adjustment you can make. Jung was pretty clear on that, as opposites was his thing. On this you have to agree.
Now lets move on to the rest:
So if you remove primary and inferior/opposite from the 8 functions, 6 functions are left. 3 of these will be extraverted, the other 3 introverted.

For example: primary=Te -> opposite/inferior=Fi -> left-over = Si+Ni+Ti & Ne+Fe+Se

So we can conclude that from the primary you can slightly adjust towards the 6 left-over functions. Or maximally adjust all the way to the opposite/inferior.
By adjusting-to or going-to I just mean being somewhere in the middle of them. In the middle of primary and aux. (and where you are not in the exact middle, but a little closer to primary than aux, thats why its called primary).
Primary and aux functions are just GPS-locations in the spectrum of personality.
All 7 remaining function markers are of course possibilities to go to , from the primary. But which are the closest to the primary? That is the most interesting part!

I said : there is 3 closest to the primary, these are the 3 out of the 6 with an opposite i/e-attitude. (as the other 3 would be closer to the inferior according to the same definition). And this is not my definition, but Jung's. The reference-proof is in the wikipedia link/quote I posted above.

You could still go to the other 3 with the same e/i-attitude, its is possible, but the adjustment is bigger. So big, that it doesn't make sense to keep the primary. since another function will be in the middle, becoming the new primary.

For example, if you say something unconventional (e.g. non-MBTI) like Ti-Ni type >> it simply means this type is between Ti and Ni.
Now lets analyze Ti and Ni with this 3 opposite e/i-attitude aux-es:
Close around Ti are : Ne+Te+Se (e.g. not Fe)
Close around Ni are: Ne+Te+Fe (e.g. not Se)
Please note that the above 2 (Ti & Ni) have Ne+Te in common.
Thus, you can conclude: to get from Ti to Ni, you have to pass through either Ne or Te.
1) There is a path from Ti to: Ne or Te....
2) And there is a path fro Ni to: Ne or Te...
So the Ti-Ni type's middle is either passing through Ne or passing through Te.

Like almost nobody lives exactly on the north pole and most are somewhere else, so it is in this case: Most of the "Ti-Ni" are either closer to Ne or to Te. So you would have to include Ne or Te in the function stack in between Ti-Ni (where the dash is).

But if you insert it in the middle, you will have the fact that Ti and Ni don't follow each other up in the ordering.

All that together comes down to: the most logical way of notation, which is one primary followed by an aux of opposite i/e-attitude.

The only weird thing about this, is the one thing you didn't notice yet with all your remarks. And that is, that this model I am describing allows:
FiFe/FeFi, TiTe/TeTi, NiNe/NeNi, SiSe/SeSi as first 2 functions.
This is unmapped territory in MBTI. It fascinates me why MBTI has removed those types from the map. I know they sound weird, but that doesn't mean they are impossible. If they would be impossible, why? If you know the answer, or clues, please tell me.

9. Originally Posted by Researcher
I am looking under the hood, you are looking at answers in literal things, unfortunately this doesn't match well. But I am going to try to clear the air....

Jung did not say they are possibilities, that was just me, as I thought it was a good way to explain it to you. Unfortunately that failed.
Jung just basically said that "the inferior/opposite is as far away from the primary as you can get", so this one is obviously not a slight adjustment of (e.g. "close to") the primary. Since going from primary to inferior/opposite is the biggest adjustment you can make. Jung was pretty clear on that, as opposites was his thing. On this you have to agree.
Now lets move on to the rest:
So if you remove primary and inferior/opposite from the 8 functions, 6 functions are left. 3 of these will be extraverted, the other 3 introverted.
So we can conclude that from the primary you can slightly adjust towards the 6 left-over functions. Or maximally adjust all the way tot he opposite/inferior.
By adjusting-to or going-to I just mean being somewhere in the middle of them. In the middle of primary and aux. Where primary and aux functions are just GPS-locations in the spectrum of personality.
All 7 remaining function markers are of course possibilities to go to , from the primary. But which are the closest to the primary? That is the most interesting part!

I said : there is 3 closest to the primary, these are the 3 out of the 6 with an opposite i/e-attitude. (as the other 3 would be closer to the inferior according to the same definition). And this is not my definition, but Jung's. The reference-proof is in the wikipedia link I posted.

You could still go to the other 3 with the same e/i-attitude, its is possible, but the adjustment is bigger. So big, that it doesn't make sense to keep the primary. since another function will be in the middle, becoming the new primary.
You're not looking under the hood; you've left the Jungmobile behind.

Jung's model was basically a four-function model (for any particular individual), not an eight-function model. That's the way he characterized the typical case in Psychological Types, and thirty years later, in Individual Dream Symbolism in Relation to Alchemy, his model hadn't changed. As he explained:

Originally Posted by Jung
If we think of the psychological function [sic] as arranged in a circle, then the most differentiated function is usually the carrier of the ego and, equally regularly, has an auxiliary function attached to it. The "inferior" function, on the other hand, is unconscious and for that reason is projected into a non-ego. It too has an auxiliary function. ...

In the psychology of the functions there are two conscious and therefore masculine functions, the differentiated function and its auxiliary, which are represented in dreams by, say, father and son, whereas the unconscious functions appear as mother and daughter. Since the conflict between the two auxiliary functions is not nearly as great as that between the differentiated and the inferior function, it is possible for the third function — that is, the unconscious auxiliary one — to be raised to consciousness and thus made masculine. It will, however, bring with it traces of its contamination with the inferior function, thus acting as a kind of link with the darkness of the unconscious.

10. Originally Posted by reckful
You're not looking under the hood; you've left the Jungmobile behind.

Jung's model was basically a four-function model (for any particular individual), not an eight-function model. That's the way he characterized the typical case in Psychological Types, and thirty years later, in Individual Dream Symbolism in Relation to Alchemy, his model hadn't changed. As he explained:
You are right that Jung's definition of function is that it has 2 attitudes (e/i). True indeed, that he didn't define 8 functions, but he defined 4 functions x 2 attitudes = 8 pure types.
True, that its only modern after-thought where we call Jung's 8 pure types, 8 "Jungian cognitive functions", even though Jung never called them that.
But he did describe these 8 pure types (which we nowadays call 8 functions) one by one in chapter 10 of psychological types obviously. So even if he had 4 functions, he did define the "8 functions" even if he didnt call them functions but "pure types".

So I present now this disclaimer: "In all my previous posts, replace the word function by "pure type" or alternatively by "function-attitude-combo". Now please read again.

But nice find here actually. I almost forgot how used I am to the consensus of "8 Jungian functions", while Jung indeed made just 4 functions. But how then can I call Fe on this forum according to you? (Since I am not allowed to call it a function according to you.) If I say pure type instead, or "function-attitude-combo", won't that just make things even harder for most on this forum? How do you suggest I call Fe?
(P.S. Aren't you just making things more complicated? What is the goal here? Trying to test me? You are not really on subject about the aux anymore, which was your main concern at first. Please do find flaws, but lets stay on subject?)

P.S. you were a bit fast, I edited my previous post, improved it a bit for clarity.

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO