INTPs With More Fi than Fe

[Eric B]

v v v

Of course, the order is not about relative strength. It does stand for something; namely the ego structure.

Also, the notion of "using" functions can cloud the issue. They are not tools, skills sets or gears that you switch between. They are perspectives, and each is implicit in any given situation or set of data.

Everything has a tangible or "concrete" aspect, as well as a conceptual ot "abstract" one. It also involves both technical (or "impersonal") details (deciphered through "logic") as well as at least potentially, a humane (or "personal") element (that may involve "ethics", "emotional" affects, or things such as "importance" or "values").
This data can also draw from an internally stored source, or from externals.
Thus, the eight perspectives officially known as "function-attitudes" ("functions" are really just the four: S, N, T, F by themselves).

So the order of the eight perspectives is about the ego, or our sense of "I" and the collective images or roles this can take the form of. These are the "archetypes", which when personalized, then become "complexes".

What we call "type" is formed from only TWO of the four general functions: one perceiving, and one judging, plus a dominant orientation (i or e). One function is made dominant (in which it becomes the ego's main perspective,or "operating charter" as I have seen it called), and the other is auxiliary, and placed in the opposite orientation. This for the purpose of balance.

The other two functions or six function-attitudes are all basically reflections of these first two. Again, each situation can be divided between two perceptive and judgment aspects. They're all there; but our egos tend to focus on one and not pay as much attention to the other.
The ones suppressed are still implicit, and form a "shadow" in our psyches. This has two levels: the two unpreferred functions, in the basic orientations we place them in, and beneath that, there's all four functions in the orientation opposite of what our egos normally place them in.

v v v

Since the first four are the most conscious, then they generally should both develop in that order, as well as the strength fall in that order. Other factors can appear to change this, especially the "inflation" of the tertiary. People are also said to have weak auxiliaries, though that is probably not really normal. That would be out of balance.

However, this does not tell us where the other four fit in regards to strength, and basically, what we are using to define "strength" to begin with. (below)

Again, these are all reflections. Dominant thinking is reflected by inferior Feeling. Dominant intoversion is reflected by suppressed extraversion. Auxiliary iNtuition is reflected by tertiary Sensing. While the auxiliary falls into the opposite orientation, the complex associated with the tertiary usually places it in the dominant orientation, thus maintaining the mirror dynamic.

Since the orientation is really distinct from the function; we can look at the same mirroring dynamic within one orientation or the other. So then, demonic Fi is a reflection of dominant ("heroic") Ti. Trickster Se is a reflection of supportive Ne. Hence, these are the right brain alternatives of the preferred functions. (left brain for J's). Also nicknamed the "Crow's Nests"). I now call these "grand reflections". (Where the reflections within the first four are less wide).

This also illustrates that Myers had the right idea in creating J/P as standalone dichotomy. Those grand reflection functions, which bear the same J/P attitude, are a lot like each other in certain ways, and thus might be turned to before even the tertiary and inferior. A large number of those K2C results actually come out close to Lenore's order.

What I've been thinking to really pinpoint, is in which way or in which circumstances the tertiary and inferior might be turned to first, and in which way or circumstance the Crow's Nests might be turned to first. Then, we also have the "Double Agents", which are the preferred functions in the opposite orientation. These back up the primary preferences (and thus, you sometimes get people with results like TiNeTeNi).

Questions this raises:
are are the Crows Nests the same thing as the Trickster and Demon (since they use the same functions)? Lenore herself has moved more towards Beebe's model (though with some qualification), and away from her old model. So they don't seem to be the same things. Especially when you look at what the archetypes represent. The Trickster is about feeling bound, and the Demon is about feeling your ego is in danger of disintegration. The Crow's Nests were not about that stuff, or at least she did not associate them as such in the book.

Of course, Beebe never actually said that those functions are ONLY associated with those archetypes in the ego. He has said that the functions are free to step away from their archetypal carriers, or be scooped out by the ego to use as needed.
So I think the Crow's Nests might simply be some of these "other uses" of those functions; like additional sort of archetypes that associate with those functions. (Like even in Beebe's model, you have the "positive" side of the archetypes--Comedic, Angelic/Transformative, which are really separate, archetypes from the negative ones).

It might perhaps be what some here have been describing as being "combinations" of functions. Since there are really only four functions, and the orientation is separate, than you can look at the supposed "Ti+Fe" as a form of Ti. It's an unusual attitude assignment, that uses the inferior function (just F, not Fe, initially), but in the dominant orientation i, and maintaining the preferred P attitude. This is probably what the "Crows Nests" (brain lateral alternatives) were.
This would be different from the more dire situations when the same combination is forced from the unconscious in a rash fashion, when you really feel threatened. (Beebe's concepts, modified from Donald Kalsched).

Then, as others have mentioned, what is K2C really measuring anyway? Strength of what? Skills sets? "tools"? "processes"? Something "used"? Conscious perspectives? Unconscious things?
Some of it seems to be overgeneralized. Especially Fi and Ni.

Since it is based on questions we consciously answer, and those functions are supposed to be unconscious, maybe it reflects an oversensitivity to these greatly suppressed functions (As someone in there appeared to touch upon. I suspect this is the case for Fi with me, and why I was at one point swayed into thinking I might be an FP. I knew the typical descriptions of the function were present, though I consciously disowned them, which was the real clue certain "experts" using these models seemed to ignore).

The questions are based on behavior. Behaving a certain way is therefore a sign of "using" a particular function. However, functions are not behavior; that is actually influenced by temperament theory, as someone suggested to me. Still, behaviors might be evidences of function-"use".
The key is sorting out whether it is, or it s a generalization (like Fi="knowing what you want for yourself"), or perhaps an unconscious function, that you disown completely from your awareness, but does surface in some of the behaviors, which you are conscious of, and thus can be picked up by the test.

So they can enter consciousness, even enough to come out "strong" on the test, and even make us uncertain whether it might be the preferred function or not. But ultimately, the order is about where it actually falls in the ego structure, and embracing vs disowning is the more likely determinant.

So again, the difference between "strong" Crow's Nests, unconscious "shadows" and stronger or weaker tertiary/inferior, and thus the different "orders" are probably drawn along these lines. Behaviors, "used" processes, unconscious perspectives erupting into consciousness, conscious perspectives we are hypersensitive to, things we disown, yet are still there, etc.

Our experience also shapes these things. Like being in situations where the lower archetypes were constellated a lot. Perhaps being in midlife, and individuating, where the Self begins imposing the ignored perspectives on the ego more.

Basically, all you need is one function-attitude, and another function, of the opposite rationality (j or p) and the opposite attitude, and if you can verify that these are what you prefer, then you have your type. It doesn't matter how "strong" the others come out. Unless one is running neck and neck with one of those first two, and then, go back to step 1, verify which of the conflicting functions is really preferred.

See also:
http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=48931&p=1605320#post1605320