[Jungian Cognitive Functions] The Dom-Tert Loop Theory Is False

[Mal12345]

I've spent the last few years, now and then, considering the problem of the dominant-tertiary "loop," looking for evidence to take from reality and build into a theory. But the evidence and the theory isn't forthcoming, so far. And then there is the egregious error found here:
Dominant-Tertiary Loops and Common Personality Disorders

I've posted my response to the OP on that thread, but I'll also post it here. Those who aren't familiar with simulatedworld's theory should first read the first post in the link posted above.

My response is as follows -

[quoting Simulatedworld on the Ti-Si loop]

Ti thinks, "I cannot find any logical explanation for social rituals" and Si reinforces this self-isolating, risk-averse behavior by constantly reminding the user: "Remember how badly this went last time you tried?"​

That statement doesn't prove in the slightest the OP's thesis that personality imbalances are "caused" by these so-called loops. It explicitly states that the Si-tertiary of the INTP (which is my type) reinforces the Fe-inferior's dislike of social rituals; it doesn't show that Si-tert is more highly "valued" than the Ne-auxiliary. I'm not saying that Si-tert doesn't play a role in an already-existing disorder, I'm only saying that it doesn't cause the disorder as the OP stated.

Could the existence of a dom-tert loop lead to mistyping? Perhaps, but I've only seen this wherever someone was trying to determine someone's type using dom-tert theory itself by first assuming that a loop exists.

I personally use a very eclectic method of determining someone's type.

As for the actual role that the tertiary takes, think of a function stacking as taking the path of least resistance. The tertiary is the function that "plays" better with the inferior and the dominant functions than do the other functions. For the INTP, Si-tert adds a curmudgeonly element to the personality that plays well with the Fe-inferior and by logical extension with the Ti-dominant.

While the INFP shares the Si-tert with the INTP, the effect on the overall personality is different because the inferior type differs. The Si-tert of the INFP type adds resistance to Te which is inferior, i.e., resistance to external authority, to being dominated, and a feeling of exemption from rules which the INFP considers to be authoritarian in nature. When the INFP puts his or her foot down in an effort to resist obedience to unwanted authority, that is a sign of Si-tertiary at work. Ne-aux will then view this authority in wider, conceptual terms, for example, "there's something wrong with a society which allows" such and such. And so the Ne-aux creates a bridge between a short term personal problem and an alleged wider social problem.

The ENFP and INFP types can seem to be similar on the outside. But the INFP feels an angry helplessness that arises from viewing these problems as large and overwhelming, as Ne-aux balloons all tiny manageable problems into major crises and world problems, while the ENFP mentally keeps them on a manageable level and sees social problems as having solutions to strive toward due to the influence of its Te-tertiary. The latter adds an inflated sense of "doing something" even if that "something" is just parading around with a political sign having to do with Si-inferior sentiments. A present-day example of this anti-symbolism would be taking down the confederate flag from public display, the flag being an Si-symbol of a long-dead past which is kept alive via the symbolic flag. Such an act has a major psychological influence on the Si-inferior; but to those of us who don't have it, the symbolism involved is a meaningless, objectively illogical gesture whose effect is psychologically distorted out of all proportion to the act itself.

(To be continued - maybe!)

 

[Mal12345]

Meanwhile, in related news:
41 People You Won't Believe Actually Exist

 

[Mal12345]

Re: http://www.typologycentral.com/foru...36-im-feeling-loopy-dom-tert-loops-types.html [MENTION=8936]highlander[/MENTION] asks us to describe what dom-tert loops are like.

I don't believe in looping functions. Rather, what I've gathered over the years is that the tertiary function adds a subtle nuance to the personality, and is not applied directly to life issues - nor does it cause personality disorders.

But as far as that goes, I can make a place for any of the unhealthy, undeveloped shadow functions. The Te shadow in the INTP is a source of control over personal emotions. The Se shadow in the INTP results from emotional repression. The Ni shadow is the result of general unhappiness caused by emotional repression. The Fi shadow adds an element of drama to angry intellectual expressions that take the place of healthy emotional expression.

In this, the Fe is not the shadow function (as is claimed by at least one typology author), but acts instead as the 'gateway' to the shadow functions. Problems with people (Fe-inferior) lead to the expression of the shadow functions which leads to more problems with people.

 

[Duffy]

I've read on personalitycafe someone making a case, and highlighting the importance of the dominant and inferior function versus the middling functions. Basically, the dominant and inferior make more a distinct impression than anything in the middle, which can be murky (ex: people who are INFJ, but notice Te/Fe present).

Personally, this is why I'm not as interested in MBTI or function theory compared to enneagram. The way the function stacks work seems almost counter-intuitive. It's too sequential. You could probably argue against enneagram as well, but that system always struck me as being more alive and fluid. Everything in the enneagram has meaning, even the numerical combinations.

 

[Mal12345]

I've read on personalitycafe someone making a case, and highlighting the importance of the dominant and inferior function versus the middling functions. Basically, the dominant and inferior make more a distinct impression than anything in the middle, which can be murky (ex: people who are INFJ, but notice Te/Fe present).

Personally, this is why I'm not as interested in MBTI or function theory compared to enneagram. The way the function stacks work seems almost counter-intuitive. It's too sequential. You could probably argue against enneagram as well, but that system always struck me as being more alive and fluid. Everything in the enneagram has meaning, even the numerical combinations.

The enneagram is amazingly dynamic and full of esoteric meaning, but I'm studying cognitive functions at the moment. Maybe next week I'll return to the enneagram.

"Basically [someone argued], the dominant and inferior make more a distinct impression." What do you mean by the word "impression"? Do they make a distinct impression on others?

 

[highlander]

I've spent the last few years, now and then, considering the problem of the dominant-tertiary "loop," looking for evidence to take from reality and build into a theory. But the evidence and the theory isn't forthcoming, so far. And then there is the egregious error found here:
Dominant-Tertiary Loops and Common Personality Disorders

I've posted my response to the OP on that thread, but I'll also post it here. Those who aren't familiar with simulatedworld's theory should first read the first post in the link posted above.

My response is as follows -

[quoting Simulatedworld on the Ti-Si loop]

Ti thinks, "I cannot find any logical explanation for social rituals" and Si reinforces this self-isolating, risk-averse behavior by constantly reminding the user: "Remember how badly this went last time you tried?"​

That statement doesn't prove in the slightest the OP's thesis that personality imbalances are "caused" by these so-called loops. It explicitly states that the Si-tertiary of the INTP (which is my type) reinforces the Fe-inferior's dislike of social rituals; it doesn't show that Si-tert is more highly "valued" than the Ne-auxiliary. I'm not saying that Si-tert doesn't play a role in an already-existing disorder, I'm only saying that it doesn't cause the disorder as the OP stated.

Could the existence of a dom-tert loop lead to mistyping? Perhaps, but I've only seen this wherever someone was trying to determine someone's type using dom-tert theory itself by first assuming that a loop exists.

I personally use a very eclectic method of determining someone's type.

As for the actual role that the tertiary takes, think of a function stacking as taking the path of least resistance. The tertiary is the function that "plays" better with the inferior and the dominant functions than do the other functions. For the INTP, Si-tert adds a curmudgeonly element to the personality that plays well with the Fe-inferior and by logical extension with the Ti-dominant.

While the INFP shares the Si-tert with the INTP, the effect on the overall personality is different because the inferior type differs. The Si-tert of the INFP type adds resistance to Te which is inferior, i.e., resistance to external authority, to being dominated, and a feeling of exemption from rules which the INFP considers to be authoritarian in nature. When the INFP puts his or her foot down in an effort to resist obedience to unwanted authority, that is a sign of Si-tertiary at work. Ne-aux will then view this authority in wider, conceptual terms, for example, "there's something wrong with a society which allows" such and such. And so the Ne-aux creates a bridge between a short term personal problem and an alleged wider social problem.

The ENFP and INFP types can seem to be similar on the outside. But the INFP feels an angry helplessness that arises from viewing these problems as large and overwhelming, as Ne-aux balloons all tiny manageable problems into major crises and world problems, while the ENFP mentally keeps them on a manageable level and sees social problems as having solutions to strive toward due to the influence of its Te-tertiary. The latter adds an inflated sense of "doing something" even if that "something" is just parading around with a political sign having to do with Si-inferior sentiments. A present-day example of this anti-symbolism would be taking down the confederate flag from public display, the flag being an Si-symbol of a long-dead past which is kept alive via the symbolic flag. Such an act has a major psychological influence on the Si-inferior; but to those of us who don't have it, the symbolism involved is a meaningless, objectively illogical gesture whose effect is psychologically distorted out of all proportion to the act itself.

(To be continued - maybe!)

I feel pretty comfortable that the theory is accurate. I have been in this place - Ni-Fi.

I think it lasted for a year at least and coming out of it changed my life

 

[Coriolis]

I feel pretty comfortable that the theory is accurate. I have been in this place - Ni-Fi.

I think it lasted for a year at least and coming out of it changed my life

Would you be willing to say more about this? Especially what was it like, how did you recognize the problem, and how did you move on from it?

 

[Eric B]

The problem with "loop" theory, and out trying to handle or explain it, is making functions the cause of things to begin with. The function order is set by ego states: http://www.typologycentral.com/foru...nitive-functions/77084-ego-backbone-type.html The dominant is the ego's main world-view (and Sim emphasized the "world-view" concept; they're not entities that "do" things). The other ego-states are what we would know as Beebe's archetypes.

So if a person is in a so-called "loop" with the tertiary, what it means is that the tertiary ego-state or archtypal complex, the "Puer" or child, is taking executive control, or at least vying with the ego's "Heroic" state, and surpassing the Parent or "supporting" state, which will associate with the auxiliary function. It does thiis to maintain the ego's dominant orientation when the dominant function is not solving the problem, since the Puer bears the same attitude. This is not a healthy (properly balanced) arrangement, and hence getting called "stuck in a loop".

 

[Mal12345]

I feel pretty comfortable that the theory is accurate. I have been in this place - Ni-Fi.

I think it lasted for a year at least and coming out of it changed my life

I never said you can't be in that place. I specifically stated, against SW's theory, that this so-called loop hasn't been proven to be the cause of personality disorders. I did so primarily because SW never proved his theory. But it's also the case that I've never seen it at work. So lacking empirical evidence of a causal relationship between a dom-tert loop and personality disorders, I have to reject it.

That's not to say that the tertiary function doesn't play into personality disorders, I'm only saying that there is no proof that the dom-tert "loop" causes personality disorders, as was SW's primary claim.

 

[Opal]

The problem with "loop" theory, and out trying to handle or explain it, is making functions the cause of things to begin with. The function order is set by ego states: http://www.typologycentral.com/foru...nitive-functions/77084-ego-backbone-type.html The dominant is the ego's main world-view (and Sim emphasized the "world-view" concept; they're not entities that "do" things). The other ego-states are what we would know as Beebe's archetypes.

So if a person is in a so-called "loop" with the tertiary, what it means is that the tertiary ego-state or archtypal complex, the "Puer" or child, is taking executive control, or at least vying with the ego's "Heroic" state, and surpassing the Parent or "supporting" state, which will associate with the auxiliary function. It does thiis to maintain the ego's dominant orientation when the dominant function is not solving the problem, since the Puer bears the same attitude. This is not a healthy (properly balanced) arrangement, and hence getting called "stuck in a loop".

I wonder how common these ego state contortions are. Could other functions attempt to fill different roles for a more complex personality? If the child archetype vies for cognitive control, why wouldn't, say, the inferior vie for a supporting role? How tangled could we feasibly be?

 

[Mal12345]

The problem with "loop" theory, and out trying to handle or explain it, is making functions the cause of things to begin with. The function order is set by ego states: http://www.typologycentral.com/foru...nitive-functions/77084-ego-backbone-type.html The dominant is the ego's main world-view (and Sim emphasized the "world-view" concept; they're not entities that "do" things). The other ego-states are what we would know as Beebe's archetypes.

So if a person is in a so-called "loop" with the tertiary, what it means is that the tertiary ego-state or archtypal complex, the "Puer" or child, is taking executive control, or at least vying with the ego's "Heroic" state, and surpassing the Parent or "supporting" state, which will associate with the auxiliary function. It does thiis to maintain the ego's dominant orientation when the dominant function is not solving the problem, since the Puer bears the same attitude. This is not a healthy (properly balanced) arrangement, and hence getting called "stuck in a loop".

I can see something like that happening in relatively rare circumstances, only not with the tertiary but with the shadow functions because those are the least developed, "puer" or immature functions. These functions are not dormant and so they need to be taken into consideration. The tertiary, as I have determined, is limited to personality nuances and is not the cause of personality disorders.

For some examples: the ENFP (Te-tertiary) is controlling after a fashion, but is not a controlling personality per se. The ISFP (Ni tertiary) has an odd nuance to the personality which comes out in a "hippie-like" fashion. The ISTP's Ni-tertiary adds a hipster-like character to the personality. The INTP's Si-tertiary comes out as a curmudgeonly personality trait. The INFP's Si-tertiary adds a hard-headed attitude of righteousness to the personality.

I'm also arguing that the role SW gives to the tertiary function should properly be given to the inferior as it interacts with the shadow functions.

 

[Jet Stream]

Anyone know what a Ti Ni loop is like? I'm not the most stable brick on the wall and have been curious about looking into this loop business.

 

[Mal12345]

Anyone know what a Ti Ni loop is like? I'm not the most stable brick on the wall and have been curious about looking into this loop business.

You will give the impression of being intellectual and more-or-less odd, like Einstein.

 

[VagrantFarce]

Anyone know what a Ti Ni loop is like? I'm not the most stable brick on the wall and have been curious about looking into this loop business.

 

[Eric B]

I can see something like that happening in relatively rare circumstances, only not with the tertiary but with the shadow functions because those are the least developed, "puer" or immature functions. These functions are not dormant and so they need to be taken into consideration. The tertiary, as I have determined, is limited to personality nuances and is not the cause of personality disorders.

For some examples: the ENFP (Te-tertiary) is controlling after a fashion, but is not a controlling personality per se. The ISFP (Ni tertiary) has an odd nuance to the personality which comes out in a "hippie-like" fashion. The ISTP's Ni-tertiary adds a hipster-like character to the personality. The INTP's Si-tertiary comes out as a curmudgeonly personality trait. The INFP's Si-tertiary adds a hard-headed attitude of righteousness to the personality.

I'm also arguing that the role SW gives to the tertiary function should properly be given to the inferior as it interacts with the shadow functions.

The "Puer" is a particular complex, that associates wtith the tertiary; not an "immature" function.
For me, tertiary Si usually comes out as a childlike nostalgia, but in its negative form, will come out as a brooding rumination and rehasing of past negative occurrences. That's probably what you described. ("curmudgeonly").

The roles of the tertiary and inferior will be similar. They are both connected with less mature complexes that we "desire", yet are "weak" (to borrow Socionics terms). The tertiary is often said to "inflate" (try to act stronger than it actually is) and then "deflate" (drop to an opposite defeatist position), but when the inferior ("aspirational") develops more, then it will be like that as well, for it's pretty much where the tertiary (child) was in the earlier stage of development.

The rest is also pretty much answered below:

I wonder how common these ego state contortions are. Could other functions attempt to fill different roles for a more complex personality? If the child archetype vies for cognitive control, why wouldn't, say, the inferior vie for a supporting role? How tangled could we feasibly be?

I don't think they [at least necessarily] work like that in relation to each other (that the Child becomes dominant, and the inferior becomes "secondary"). According to the paper I link to in the linked thread, each of these ego states takes "executive control". That's why it's called an "ego-state":

p.4
"The ego is the seat of the conscious personality, of subjective identity, the sense of 'I'. It is partial, impermanent and changeable, but believes itself to be whole, permanent and absolute. The ego is the conscious part of the total personality, the Self. The Self is the central archetype of wholeness, the unifying center of the total psyche, and includes both conscious and unconscious elements. The conceptualization of 'the ego' is far more complex than that of a
unified collection of perceptions, cognitions and affects, but rather as organized clusters or patterns of these called ego states (Federn, 1952).

p16
Most people do not understand that we are a loose confederation of fragments of identity rather than a single permanent and unchangeable ‘I’.
Every thought, every mood, every desire and sensation, says ‘I’. There are hundreds and thousands of small ‘I’s, usually unknown to each other, and
often incompatible. Each moment that we think of saying ‘I’, the identity of that ‘I’ is different. We become lost into that identity when it dominates
our thoughts, then into the next when it takes over. Just now it was a thought, now it is a desire, now a sensation, now another thought, and so
on, endlessly (Ouspensky, 1949, p. 59; Ram Dass, 1980, p. 138). Anyone who has meditated knows how resurgent the chattering mind can be"

So again, if the Child is in control, then it's what's taking the center stage, and if the inferior (Anima/Animus complex) is in control, then that is. There likely is no "secondary", since this comes and goes continuously. Since it says "every thought", and different thoughts come and go constantly, then there's no "stacking order" at any given time. The common stacking order we use ("1-8") is basically where the complex fits in the ego structure. The dominant or "Hero" represents the ego's main achieving state. The "Parent" is what "fills in" with the perspective of the opposite rationality of function (judgment or perception) from the dominant, in the opposite attitude. The other six are all reflections and/or shadows of these two. The lower you go, the further from the main ego you're getting, so the complexes may seem to constellate "less", and the associated functions "weaker" or "used less", but they can still come up and take over at any time, under the right circumstances, and some may come up more for others, depending on their overall life circumstances.

 

[Duffy]

"Basically [someone argued], the dominant and inferior make more a distinct impression." What do you mean by the word "impression"? Do they make a distinct impression on others?

I don't think I worded it the way it was intended to mean. Here is the discussion. Liquidlight's post, in particular.

 

[Mal12345]

The "Puer" is a particular complex, that associates wtith the tertiary; not an "immature" function.
For me, tertiary Si usually comes out as a childlike nostalgia, but in its negative form, will come out as a brooding rumination and rehasing of past negative occurrences. That's probably what you described. ("curmudgeonly").

The roles of the tertiary and inferior will be similar. They are both connected with less mature complexes that we "desire", yet are "weak" (to borrow Socionics terms). The tertiary is often said to "inflate" (try to act stronger than it actually is) and then "deflate" (drop to an opposite defeatist position), but when the inferior ("aspirational") develops more, then it will be like that as well, for it's pretty much where the tertiary (child) was in the earlier stage of development.

I know the "puer" is not a function, that's why I put the term in scare quotes. I just used the term "puer" to point to the undevelopedness of the inferior and shadow functions. For example, my Te is a controlling function, it judges and controls my emotional states, often blocking them from conscious view before I am even aware of them. A more mature attitude toward emotions does not block them but accepts them.

 

[Mal12345]

I don't think I worded it the way it was intended to mean. Here is the discussion. Liquidlight's post, in particular.

The OP is completely wrong.

"Studying personality theory I've come to the conclusion the dominant and inferior functions are the only ones that truly help a person understand themselves and reach for a broader understanding of others personalities." If he wants to understand functions then maybe he should start by observing people and not by studying someone's theory of functions.

"The auxiliary and tertiary functions just cause people to act in a certain way to prove they're a certain type." Once again, someone is claiming that functions cause people to act such and such a way. As for people using the middle functions to prove they're a certain type, that claim is unfounded and rather bizarre.

"For example... INFJ'S and INTJ's will act so different on the internet but in real life, they are so similar..." No, actually they are not similar in real life. And I'm beginning to conclude that this Anubis person doesn't have a real life to judge such things by.

"...[ENTP's and ENFP's] Fi/Ti sneaks in there, but since it's so unconscious and won't really aid the person in their understanding." My experience (and he obviously lacks experience) is that the more you get to know someone in the context of functions then the more you will stop filtering out the existence of other functions. It's like learning a foreign language but not being able to differentiate various accents. Anubis lacks the ability to differentiate these other functions, so he concludes that they aren't important.

"The dominant and inferior functions are the only functions that permanently exist in our conscious personality." Anubis has nowhere proven this statement.

 

[Mal12345]

Liquidlight said, "Jung never says the two middle functions will be differentiated into attitudes in this way." That's true. However, it doesn't mean they can't be differentiated in this way. Jung didn't confirm or deny it either way.

 

[Mal12345]

Is this part of a Fi-Si loop?

"I'm done talking. Talking has got me nowhere. Reason has got me nowhere. Making the best music and poetry and art on the planet against these cave dwellers has got me nowhere. I'm ready to take up my sword. Fact is I started shit with an assole with a big truck and a big flag today, and it ain't gonna end until one of us is dead. The last thing that motherfucker is going to hear before I slit him ear to ear is that his soul is going to leave his body out of his asshole and won't be more than a fart in the cold void of hell."