Integrating the Inferior

[Salomé]

I suppose using the word “forceful” implied to me something other than ‘legitimate choice’. The notion that withdrawing from relentless anti-dialogical interaction could be described as “forceful exercise of control” seems odd to me- like it implies (imo) the act of drawing boundaries for oneself should somehow require consent of the other person (that without that consent, it’s ‘force’). But then I find it puzzling that you’d find “Are you shitting me?” to be aggressive. It was intended more to express surprise. So .

It's interesting how words wear different colours for different people. It's a wonder we can communicate at all really...
For me, forceful implies "unequivocal" or "non-negotiable" - anything that isn't tentative.

Forceful: Adjective:
(esp. of a person or argument) Strong and assertive; vigorous and powerful: "she was a forceful personality".
Synonyms:
powerful - strong - vigorous - potent - mighty - forcible
It's an adjective that gets applied to me a good deal and I've never taken it to mean that I've been coercive...
Perhaps I've been shitting myself?

I have that reaction pretty much anytime someone insists they know what their own pitfalls are. I said it’s available to believe about ourselves to point out that it’s a bold claim and to point out that asserting it doesn’t make it true. I can’t help but suspect, if an INFJ were to say that INFJs have an “unparalled ability to cut through all the extraneous crap and get to the heart of a problem”….you’d have your own opinions about it. But I agree- whether or not it’s true shouldn’t matter to me, and whether or not I agree with it shouldn’t matter to you.

I guess it becomes important in this context because we are talking about theories of personality. We are talking about the way the inferior function manifests and whether there are common, recognisable patterns. I have not arrived at an understanding of my faults solely through introspection. Nor do I give undue weight to JCF theory. But when theory supports self-awareness and is reflected back to you from multiple sources, it gains a certain legitimacy and weight that your alternative speculations simply do not have.

It seems like claiming it was the equivalent of tunnel vision was a bad choice of expression, it’s more like having blinders on. And even that will probably be met with contention. This frustration I’m talking about- it’s like talking to a kite that thinks it’s still attached to the ground even though the string clearly broke.

That ‘string’ is what’s clear to introverted perceivers (even though it’s exactly what causes our tunnel vision- and fyi that tunnel vision doesn’t give the stability it appears to when it’s based on unconscious impulses, secure stability comes from the experience of actually being on the same page with other people). The problem with NTPs- and it isn’t only to me, there’s a distinct behavior I’ve seen and discussed with others enough to know it’s a thing, and it’s there as sure as there’s an issue which presents specific to NFJ and there’s an issue specific to NTJ- is there’s a shiftyness that flits from one convenient ‘truth’ to another to suit one’s immediate argument/needs/wants. They can be relentlessly pushy with it, picking and choosing details which support their view (and THAT’S what I’m referring to as the tunnel vision) and completely oblivious to how the string (which attaches it to shared reality) has clearly broken. It can be just as astounding to deal with and as anti-dialogical as when Js get dogmatic.

Again, you are telling me about your own frustrations (and the people who share them) rather than anything useful about my type. And you seem to be (wrongly) assuming that those frustrations have universal significance. They do not. Incompatibility is just that. It doesn't reflect inferiority on either side.
Besides which, what you are describing is nothing like tunnel vision (kind of the opposite) but this could just be about the subjective colour of words again...
You do not seem to understand the flexibility of the NTP mind, what you see as a flaw, we see as a strength. It really is that simple. Rest assured we know when we've broken strings (and we know when we're pulling them too ).

I will stay alert to this in the future though to try to better understand your perspective. (Perhaps you could PM me any exceptional examples?)

Another problem here is that I forget to do some version of what Kalach does when he ends his post with “/might not be true”. I’ve been arguing some theoretical formula of functions to speculate on some kind of ‘why’ which could very possibly be wrong. I take for granted that’s understood- I’m not in a lecture hall here coming from a place of assumed authority; I’m in a forum having a conversation with others on a level playing field. I don’t even know that my theory about NFJs or NTJs is ‘accurate’ either, as far as “it happens specifically because blah blah inferior blah Ti/Fi blah blah”- only that the behavior consistently presents amongst the types. It’s all just an exercise in defining some abstract concepts about *stuff* that happens in our heads. ‘Function theory’ give us terms to use to talk about abstract concepts but half the time I’m not even confident people in discussions here have similar understandings of what each function is. I take for granted that it also seems to others like the whole purpose of participating here is to bounce our understanding off others to better refine it. And as if it isn’t hard enough to define, ego attachments interfere left and right, so (to me) it should all be taken with a grain of salt. I forget to always explicitly add that disclaimer.

If you extrovert this principle still further - into the domain of hippy-trippy random Ne, you might be able to acknowledge how inevitable the "shape-shifting" is for us. You do all your sorting and sifting internally. We don't - we do it out there. With Ne-doms obviously the dialogue is far more out there than for introverted NTPs, who like to maintain some kind of consistency that satisfies Ti.

And because it’s so impulsive (which shows externally in how immediate and irrational it is), I do think it pertains to this thread in that it seems largely ruled by unconscious impulses.

You are conflating "inferior" with "irrational". All perception is irrational, not all perception is inferior.

*cough*

I forget that Js don't always appreciate my tongue-in-cheekiness. Even when accompanied by a winky guy.

 

[garbage]

I don't see why we can't attack it from a number of angles... I personally find behaviours with unconscious motivations infinitely more fascinating the the parts of the psyche that are more accessible to consciousness. But that's because I love a good mystery.

I'm all for attacking a problem from several angles at once. Get one person drilling from China, another from Antarctica, another from Brazil, and so on, and you'll eventually reach the core of the earth. In the process, every angle will have something to teach us; we'll discover some to be fruitless--but "negative results" have quite a bit to teach us, too.

It's great that we have folks attacking this problem from the "inside-out" (roughly, theoretical) and the "outside-in" (roughly, empirical). Ideally, someday, the two ends will meet and we'll have ourselves a grand ol' unified theory that accurately explains the whole shebang--it'll all connect gloriously.

This forum is centered around that "inside-out" approach--which is fine. But since that approach is so widespread, it's going to be misapplied by those who don't understand its current scope--namely, that we'll think that we know more about people than we actually do. Ps can't keep calendars! Ts don't have emotions! SFs prefer ketchup over mustard! :ack:

That's most of the reason why the "outside-in" tends to be my preferred angle of attack and why I feel so strongly about restoring the balance, so to speak, between the two approaches.

Of course, there are many who realize that we're talking mostly about theoretical constructs when we talk of types in a theoretical sense. Thank goodness. It's also worth recognizing that the "outside-in" approach has its severe misapplications, too--remember that Big Data thread?

I think the most important thing to take away (which most people here gloss over or fail to acknowledge) is that the inferior version of a function will not look like the superior version. They are not remotely equivalent.

This I wholeheartedly agree with.

Not exactly... I'm suggesting that a rational function becomes irrational when it acts unconsciously.

This, I'm not so sure about, but I'm willing to entertain the notion, muse about it, think about it, etc. Perhaps it depends on one's definition of "rational," but that's where it delves far too much into the details for me.

Now that one doesn't work as well for me...

Neat--in a way. I think it's support for the notion that it's difficult for us to hang our hats firmly on the current theory.

I agree that sometimes these theories are superficial and unsatisfying in their generalisability. The problem is that we don't have a satisfactory framework to hang them upon. Jung was fond of mysticism and notoriously imprecise, and his followers haven't really done much to elucidate his model. It remains far too intangible / unfalsifiable and open to (widely varying) interpretation.

God, this. I feel as though they're building upon a shaky foundation, and that we as model-builders ought to "check ourselves before we wreck ourselves." How do we do this? By approaching the problem from a bunch of different angles--from several type/psychological theories, from the outside-in, and so on--perhaps we'll get that framework.

So it's fun to play around with, but it's not something to base your self-development on.

It's difficult to use the framework itself, as a whole and as it currently stands, for self-development.

I think that there are neat little general takeaways from it that can be used for self-development--perhaps as a reminder that people actually do have different preferences; a reminder that, to strike a balance, we'd do well to develop something akin to our "opposite preferences;" that the cognitive functions as they're laid out are a relatively comprehensive way of mapping our cognitive "space" in a rudimentary way (whether or not the theory ties them together well or not); and so on.

Being the "outside-in" kinda guy that I am, I tend to look at how we can use bits and pieces of what we know--without misapplying them and while keeping them in their proper scope. For example, one of my mentors and I have actually used DISC in personal development seminars in a very, very shallow sense.

Which might, perhaps, lead us back to discussion of "integrating the inferior"?

I forget that Js don't always appreciate my tongue-in-cheekiness. Even when accompanied by a winky guy.

I can only speak for myself here.. I certainly recognize the tongue-in-cheekiness of comments like yours, and I don't read them at face value when they're obviously jokes--but the extent to which some people are actually serious about those sentiments is absolutely alarming.

 

[Kalach]

The problem with NTPs- and it isn’t only to me, there’s a distinct behavior I’ve seen and discussed with others enough to know it’s a thing, and it’s there as sure as there’s an issue which presents specific to NFJ and there’s an issue specific to NTJ- is there’s a shiftyness that flits from one convenient ‘truth’ to another to suit one’s immediate argument/needs/wants. They can be relentlessly pushy with it, picking and choosing details which support their view (and THAT’S what I’m referring to as the tunnel vision) and completely oblivious to how the string (which attaches it to shared reality) has clearly broken. It can be just as astounding to deal with and as anti-dialogical as when Js get dogmatic.

Are you perhaps referring to that jolly Ne-type habit of refusal to countenance vision? They insist on minimizing the number of available subjective concepts and discussion stalls. Or, more exactly, discussion moves more profitably for them into their realm of--shall I say expertise or preference?

A TYPE DIVIDED SHALL NEVER BE UNITED!


Meanwhile, I wonder aloud and in general, isn't inferior integration at least somewhat related to awareness of superior limitation? How would one even know the inferior existed without first knowing the superior includes aspects of fail?

 

[garbage]

Meanwhile, I wonder aloud and in general, isn't inferior integration at least somewhat related to awareness of superior limitation? How would one even know the inferior existed without first knowing the superior includes aspects of fail?

I've wondered the same thing.

The path seems to be this--

• We initially try use what we're good at to navigate the world and to solve the problems that we come across. This works well enough for most problems--or at least those problems that we choose to face.
• When that fails on some strange new problem, we push harder and harder with those same tactics. We stress ourselves the hell out and eventually realize that our 'ego'/'superior'/'strengths' aren't all they're cracked up to be.
• So, we finally give in and seek out other approaches. We find them in, say, our 'inferior'/'shadow', etc.
• Those approaches then become a natural part of our cognitive toolset and of our being; hence, integrating the inferior.

 

[Evo]

No. You do. You have them all mixed up (not integrated) and you'll have to read more to get them straightened out. (Start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jungian_cognitive_functions) Or you can just believe whatever - it's not exactly a science.

Ha ha. Ok, so maybe I didn't explain what I meant very well.

So Lenore is at the core of my beliefs about typology. I call the order that we use our functions in our day to day life the "firing order" she calls it lasagna. So the particular "firing order" that Lenore states for example of an INTP is:

Ti - Dom function
Ne - Aux

When your dom function is not solving a problem good enough(or stressful situation) then we revert to our right brain alternatives

Fi
Se

then left brain alternatives

Ni
Te

THEN we finally get to your tert. and inferior.

Si
Fi

But at the same time I'm labeling the role that each of these functions play in our lives...so my belief is primarily what Lenore says. But I take the other model from www.cognitiveprocesses.com and use the labels(roles) they have for the functions...In this case Ti = Leading, Ne = Supporting, Fi = Devilish, Se= Deceiving, Ni = Critical, Te = Opposing, Si = Relief, Fe = Aspirational.

The order is starting to mean less and less to me because every circumstance is different. External forces may provoke different functions at different times. So the way I find consistency is that each function plays a particular role when external forces call upon it. This differs from person to person. So your opposing role is Te, but mine is Ti lol. That will always be that way. But for an INFJ the opposing role will be Ne, and that will always be that way. So no matter if that's the second, third, forth, fifth, sixth, seventh, or eighth function in order, we revert to whatever function we need to, consciously or unconsciously, and for each particular person, these functions play different roles. And for each individual person these functions always play the same role.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

Again, you are telling me about your own frustrations (and the people who share them) rather than anything useful about my type. And you seem to be (wrongly) assuming that those frustrations have universal significance. They do not. Incompatibility is just that. It doesn't reflect inferiority on either side.
Besides which, what you are describing is nothing like tunnel vision (kind of the opposite) but this could just be about the subjective colour of words again...
You do not seem to understand the flexibility of the NTP mind, what you see as a flaw, we see as a strength. It really is that simple. Rest assured we know when we've broken strings (and we know when we're pulling them too ).

I will stay alert to this in the future though to try to better understand your perspective. (Perhaps you could PM me any exceptional examples?)

There are lots of ways to interpret “universal significance”. I guess I’d consider it as “universally significant” as the NFJ tendency to project a little too much (unawares) or the NTJ tendency to mistake some strong irrational core feelings as ‘objective truth’ (unawares). This isn’t about saying one tendency is inferior to another, it’s about trying to establish what it looks like- what commonalities may exist for those within a type who are at the sway of unconscious impulses- but it’s not universal in the sense that everyone within that type does it.

The bolded comment makes me wonder if we’re talking about the same thing- because ‘unconscious’ impulses necessarily means the person is not aware of the blindspot. So back to the analogy, let’s say that a person needs to be aware of the string AND the kite to ‘share reality’ effectively with others without any distortions: I’m basically positing that in NJs the appearance of it (when it seems like the person is in the grip of some unconscious force) is like the ‘string’ has become so important it’s all they can see and they seem to believe it is ‘shared reality’ all on its own (though it’s clear to everyone else it’s no longer attached to the kite/shared reality, it appears irrational); and that the NP alternative is that the kite *appears* to be ‘shared reality’ on its own to the person (with the same caveat that others can see how the manner in which hairs are being split has taken a turn away from ‘universal truth’ and appears irrational). It’s not that I don’t understand or appreciate the flexibility of the NTP mind- that’s kinda like saying anyone who agrees about what the ‘unconscious’ NJ traps are necessarily also sees NJ steadfastness as a flaw and doesn’t understand the strengths. I’m just saying it can get to the point of being ruled by unconscious impulses just like steadfastness in NJs, at which point the ‘strength’ becomes a weakness. [Surely you’re not suggesting that NTPs are less affected overall by ‘unconscious’ impulses than Js are?]

Also I can’t figure out if you think I’m trying to say there’s something worse about NTPs than NJs (which I’m definitely not) or if you just disagree about what the NTP version looks like from the outside.

While some exceptional examples from this forum come to mind, I’m too lazy to go actually looking for them- but I’ll try to keep in mind to PM one next time one surfaces.

If you extrovert this principle still further - into the domain of hippy-trippy random Ne, you might be able to acknowledge how inevitable the "shape-shifting" is for us. You do all your sorting and sifting internally. We don't - we do it out there. With Ne-doms obviously the dialogue is far more out there than for introverted NTPs, who like to maintain some kind of consistency that satisfies Ti.

This is a good point. I think it's like I put somewhat finished product 'out there'- or at least, it's like a 'this is the conclusion I've arrived at thus far' product- to bounce off others. And I take in the 'thus far' product of others to sort/sift through, to compare and somehow see if I can marry it to what’s already existing in my internal landscape- the process of which raises questions about what aspects I should reject from the incoming, what I should reject about my pre-existing internal landscape because the incoming makes more sense, just generally examining all the possible syntheses and choosing the best/most reasonable to once again submit for an other’s feedback and the whole process starts over again. Maybe because it’s so difficult (for me) to imagine not having at least a little bit of that synthesis happen immediately- it makes consistency necessary to give anything much credit, on a deeply instinctive level I can’t help but reject that which isn’t consistently true. <- I suspect introverted judgment is very much like that too, requiring a sort of consistency which is comparable yet distinctly different. Somehow.

Having an extraverted counterpart propose some pov in which none of that inner work has been done (because they do it externally) can be…..stunning. But the extent to which a person attempts to plow forward with this pov- vs. being willing to try to understand opposing points of view- is really kind of a measure of how much of a strength their [flexibility or steadfastness] is, I think. (?) Anyway, Pe types can be just as antidialogical (not more, not less) without realizing it is the whole point I’ve been trying to make.

Are you perhaps referring to that jolly Ne-type habit of refusal to countenance vision? They insist on minimizing the number of available subjective concepts and discussion stalls. Or, more exactly, discussion moves more profitably for them into their realm of--shall I say expertise or preference?

A TYPE DIVIDED SHALL NEVER BE UNITED!

Yes, this sounds about right.

Meanwhile, I wonder aloud and in general, isn't inferior integration at least somewhat related to awareness of superior limitation? How would one even know the inferior existed without first knowing the superior includes aspects of fail?

I wonder, to what extent does the inferior necessarily already define a superior’s limitations? e.g. Is it fair to say that the ‘limitations of introverted intuition’ is the very definition of extraverted sensing? It seems to me this would be missing the gluent of judgment, which makes me wonder if it’s possible to speculate on ‘superior limitation’ without also taking into account the auxiliary. When stated as: ‘limitations of Ni/Fe’ is the very definition of ‘Se/Ti’, it seems feasible to me.

 

[Kalach]

I wonder, to what extent does the inferior necessarily already define a superior’s limitations? e.g. Is it fair to say that the ‘limitations of introverted intuition’ is the very definition of extraverted sensing? It seems to me this would be missing the gluent of judgment, which makes me wonder if it’s possible to speculate on ‘superior limitation’ without also taking into account the auxiliary. When stated as: ‘limitations of Ni/Fe’ is the very definition of ‘Se/Ti’, it seems feasible to me.

That's a good idea. Judgment, it seems to me, and I may be making this up, operates in a context of perception. Judgment is always judgment about something, and that something exists in terms of how it is perceived. I tend to think too there are two modes for judgment: one creative and the other conventionally judgmental. The first has judgment operating in terms of perception of the same orientation--this is where judgment structures are created. The second sees judgment being a conventional judge over perceived events and items in the opposite orientation.

In those terms though, then, maybe, somehow, "limitation" starts being the wrong word. "Partiality" seems better. As soon as you work out your judgments and perception are not impartial, booyah, you discover in the real light of objectivity you're throwing a shadow.

Which is a long way of coming around to: what if "Se/Ji" isn't the limitation of "Ni/Je", but the response to that limitation. Or perhaps we could call it the solace. Or the shadow of.


If we take the unconscious, as we should, to include the undifferentiated, then essentially it's everything that ever went in your head. And all of that stuff will have few if any function qualities--certainly next to no conscious functional qualities--because there hasn't been any active move to differentiate the aspects yet (and may never be). Interestingly, we might well be able to say that the conscious aspects of a person's cognition will bear the imprint of that undifferentiated mass. Whatever conscious cognition has been able to achieve was wrought with exactly the same basic mass, so the absence of those parts of the mass that remain undifferentiated ought to be apparent. The undifferentiated will at least be apparent in terms of whatever cognition has made of its own failure to differentiate that stuff.

I don't mean to suggest that people are conscious of their own unconscious. But conscious cognitive activity must at some level include measures for dealing with its own partiality. The undifferentiated isn't just awaiting processing, it is rejected. Signs of that rejection must exist in the structure of conscious cognition. And one may one day become aware of that rejection.


/derp

 

[Z Buck McFate]

Judgment, it seems to me, and I may be making this up, operates in a context of perception. Judgment is always judgment about something, and that something exists in terms of how it is perceived. I tend to think too there are two modes for judgment: one creative and the other conventionally judgmental. The first has judgment operating in terms of perception of the same orientation--this is where judgment structures are created. The second sees judgment being a conventional judge over perceived events and items in the opposite orientation.

In those terms though, then, maybe, somehow, "limitation" starts being the wrong word. "Partiality" seems better. As soon as you work out your judgments and perception are not impartial, booyah, you discover in the real light of objectivity you're throwing a shadow.

Which is a long way of coming around to: what if "Se/Ji" isn't the limitation of "Ni/Je", but the response to that limitation. Or perhaps we could call it the solace. Or the shadow of.

If we take the unconscious, as we should, to include the undifferentiated, then essentially it's everything that ever went in your head. And all of that stuff will have few if any function qualities--certainly next to no conscious functional qualities--because there hasn't been any active move to differentiate the aspects yet (and may never be). Interestingly, we might well be able to say that the conscious aspects of a person's cognition will bear the imprint of that undifferentiated mass. Whatever conscious cognition has been able to achieve was wrought with exactly the same basic mass, so the absence of those parts of the mass that remain undifferentiated ought to be apparent. The undifferentiated will at least be apparent in terms of whatever cognition has made of its own failure to differentiate that stuff.

I don't mean to suggest that people are conscious of their own unconscious. But conscious cognitive activity must at some level include measures for dealing with its own partiality. The undifferentiated isn't just awaiting processing, it is rejected. Signs of that rejection must exist in the structure of conscious cognition. And one may one day become aware of that rejection.


/derp

[By ‘orientation’, I’m assuming you mean E/I.] That’s an interesting thought: one mode of judgment generates and the other…..categorizes and labels? (And then the former may adjust the categories and labels, but the latter is what enforces those new categories and labels, and so on?)

I agree that “limitation” sounds wrong, in that it infers no choice. But then I feel compelled to add that it’s an organic partiality- a preference that ultimately still allows choice, but one which is not a choice to have in the first place. @ second bolded area: I think it is rejected as being part of the subject [and/or being part of the subject’s cognitive process]? It remains in the subject’s cognitive purview- and so if it isn’t processed by conscious means, it will necessarily get processed by unconscious means instead (which is to suggest that stuff actually does get differentiated, only it happens behind the veil of the subject’s unconscious/ or maybe ‘in the shadow’.....and that is how "conscious aspects of a person's cognition will bear the imprint "). And if processed by unconscious means, the subject will not recognize that processing as being one’s own?