The tertiary as a structuralizer and invective criticizer.

[Cherry Cola]

Alright, this all speculative TLDR MBTI Theory, if anyone CBA's I'm interested in critique so long as it isn't just general MBTI bashing. I've structured the post so that the ivory tower theory part comes first and descriptions of the observations it's based on comes second.

The tertiary function has interested me for a long time, through observation of friends and acquaintances I've tried to discern it's purpose. What I've arrived at is that tertiary is universally used to structure the percepts and intuits generated by the dominant and auxiliary functions. The tertiary is like a safety control, it does not produce anything of its own but it is capable of detecting errors in other products; while the dominant and auxiliary may work in harmoniously in tandem, by doing so, they risk tunnel-visioning in their closed of cognitive entourage.

Now, the tertiary, being in the third position, is but partly under conscious control. Consider the image below.

The white portion of the square represents the conscious parts of our cognitive processes, while the black represents the subconscious. It is my belief that the subconscious is a sort of universal mold for the human species, thus I do not view as particularly discrete in its relationship to the collective unconscious. However, if one views the 4 functions of any given individual as being parts of this collective unconscious unto which consciousness has been carved, then it follows that the portion which is left untouched and fully unconscious differs in accordance with type.

Along with this line of thought, I believe it fair to view the 4 functions as being the domains within which thoughts are allowed to form in their most unique, individual, and discrete forms. Which in effect basically is another way to say that they make up what we view as personality along with the unique - to each type - set of functions left in the collective unconscious.

The tertiary while under conscious control, is; nevertheless, in a twillight zone of sorts, being partially submerged in the subconscious domain. This makes it an efficient producer of impartial critique, in the subconscious it can tap into a universal standard; thereafter, applying it to the non standardized results of the dominant and auxiliary.

But, it also makes the tertiary for an easy function to fall back unto when one wishes to shoot down the thoughts of another; notwithstanding the fact that people of other types have other tertiaries and are not in need of the same structural algorithm as oneself; it is easy to project ones own flaws unto others.
Thus the expression "invective critique", healthy critique of others tends to draw upon the dominant and auxiliary function to a higher degree than the tertiary. However, tertiary-based critique - because it's anchored in the collective unconscious - tends to have a certain force and sense of universality to it, thus making it effective albeit more as a means of assault than discourse.

One could say that what I am trying to describe with invective critique is a process that goes something like this:

Dom+Aux<Tertiary -> You are wrong and stupid.

Whereas healthy critique tends to go something like this:

Tertiary<Dom+Aux -> You are wrong because of this.

So why do I think it works like this?

I've seen this shit repeat itself in almost all types.

INTJs go on their tertiary Fi rampages, shooting down the worth and moral character of whatever thing or person they happen to hate when they can't be bothered to put their Ni intuitions into verbal form. This is because their Ni and Te together do not naturally lend themselves to consider Fi concerns, the INTJ has to painstakingly apply these in order to bring any form of purpose into his or hers conclusion. A failure in the purpose of another, is thus seen as a great fault, deserving of mockery and anger.

Likewise with INFJs and Ti, we will shoot down any form of inherently flawed logic which we can spot, often being hasty in doing so. It is because we painstakingly do so towards ourselves, we already have the algorithm for it, and we already have the habit, all that's needed is a wee bit of projection.

I cba to write eloquent examples for all types. But I've seen my ENTP buddy attack social rulebreaking and non compliance in others, accusing them of ruining the mood, being antisocial in their behavior; I've seen ENFPs deliver biting sarcasm in the form of "Well just how the fuck did you think you were going to go about doing this? Everyone knows it doesn't work like that.. this is how things are done didn't you learn that in like first grade?".

The same goes for INTPs (No it's like this, I remember), and ISFPs (You are missing out on the big picture! The meaning of it all!).

One could say that because it taps into the subject unconcious the tertiary, almost by definition generates invective critique (both externally and internally) because it depersonalizes the product of the auxiliary and dominant.

I also think this ties together nicely with the tertiary's ability to act as an attractor when seen in the aux or dominant position of another.

Oh well that's it for now, any ops? :O

 

[TimeAsylums]

what the fuck, Cherry.

All I read was the picture (jk, I read the whole thing)

seems close enough. Not bad.

 

[Cherry Cola]

Forgot about ENFJ/ENTJ, seen those fuckers boss the fuck out of people with pure physical presence.

 

[Duxwing]

What about ESxJs?

-Duxwing

 

[Cherry Cola]

Oh yeah those are tricky fuckers, I suffer from a lack of external data on them since I tend to avoid them lol.

 

[Brontosaurie]

What about ESxJs?

-Duxwing

insisting on unlikely disasters as basis for exaggerated precautions, perhaps?

 

[Cherry Cola]

I would imagine that tertiary Ne used as an invective form of critique would manifest at least partially through an insistance that the other part has not considered this or that perspective, that they are going down a certain route unaware of the possible roadblocks ahead and unaware that there are plenty of other better paths which they could and should take... sort of.

Fuck tertiary Ne, really hard to find good info on it as well.

 

[Brontosaurie]

I would imagine that tertiary Ne used as an invective form of critique would manifest at least partially through an insistance that the other part has not considered this or that perspective, that they are going down a certain route unaware of the possible roadblocks ahead and unaware that there are plenty of other better paths which they could and should take... sort of.

Fuck tertiary Ne, really hard to find good info on it as well.

yes i think we mean the same thing.

 

[Architect]

Good work. Need to think on this, however.

One point is that Drenth considers the teriary as a largely unconscious process.

 

[Grayman]

The whole conscious and unconscious thing throws me off. Reason is the only conscious function IMO. The other functions interject the conscious mind as interrupts. They have a chance to interrupt the conscious mind to establish new data or thought into the reasoning function of your brain. The strength of each of your functions increases the chance that the new data will interrupt current line of thought.

Feelings, intuition, sensing are all processed unconsciously and the results are published to your consciousness.

Maybe I'm thinking too much like a programmer... but to me it is like a multithread application trying to publish information to the UI.

 

[Cherry Cola]

I don't see how reason (judging functions?) differs from perception in its level of consciousness. Both are apparitions of manual control, in truth neither is naught but an inevitable process with an unexplainable phenomenological component.

In short, I think the lack of free will nullifies your argument.

 

[Brontosaurie]

In short, I think the lack of free will nullifies your argument.

if so, it also nullifies the conscious/unconscious distinction itself.

 

[Cherry Cola]

Why would it? If so it nullifies everything :S

 

[TimeAsylums]

I don't see how reason (judging functions?) differs from perception in its level of consciousness. Both are apparitions of manual control, in truth neither is naught but an inevitable process with an unexplainable phenomenological component.

In short, I think the lack of free will nullifies your argument.

As much as I hate to agree with Grayman (jk), he isn't entirely wrong, I'm not going to read into his argument too much, but I will answer your response to him.

If you have read many of my posts to Architect, intuition is largely unconscious, as is Se, as is Si, aka the perceiving functions. It is somewhat obvious the Judging functions, that is, Te and Ti have to be conscious, when you use them you know, I would also say feeling is as well (which GM seems to disagree with), however, I'd say they are.

Perceiving is passive, if you will, unconscious. and judging is conscious.

if you need further explanation, I can elaborate, but this might suffice.

As much as I hate to agree with Grayman (jk), he isn't entirely wrong, I'm not going to read into his argument too much, but I will answer your response to him.

If you have read many of my posts to Architect, intuition is largely unconscious, as is Se, as is Si, aka the perceiving functions. It is somewhat obvious the Judging functions, that is, Te and Ti have to be conscious, when you use them you know, I would also say feeling is as well (which GM seems to disagree with), however, I'd say they are.

Perceiving is passive, if you will, unconscious. and judging is conscious.

if you need further explanation, I can elaborate, but this might suffice.

Sorry, I always end up thinking of more after I already hit post, and my editing rights are still absent.

But, you are not incorrect in identifying that the more dominant the functions the more conscious they are (aka the picture you posted), however, the perceiving functions are unconscious as well, even if dominant. Ne belies no conscious reasoning process, nor does Se. I'd imagine the extroverted functions are even less conscious than introverted functions seeing as they are fused with the outside world, not the inside.

your theory on a whole is still sound, it's just that there is much distinction that can be made in "unconscious" and "conscious" in-between E/I and P/J functions.

ok last one, just links:

(J vs P) [thinking and reasoning] [unconscious vs conscious]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_process_theory

http://www.intpforum.com/showthread.php?t=16441

http://intpforum.com/showthread.php?t=11495

 

[Cherry Cola]

Hmm, I think answering requires a greater understanding of the functions and their interactions than I currently have.

But, I really do not see the distinction you guys are making as obvious. Perceiving functions are irrational yes, but that does not mean they are unconscious, if I've seen a ball roll down the street in a particular pattern in my head and I understand that it signifies the decline of the USA without being aware of why that's still a conscious Ni intuition just as much as a calculation by means of Ti going "if A then B, if B then C; A thus C.". I think Jung's distinction of irrational versus rational makes more sense.

The fact that there is an obvious subconscious basis required for one to perceive the imagery of the formerly mentioned Ni intuition as meaningful does not mean that the intuition when it appears to an Ni user does so unconsciously.

Nevertheless, I can see the problem, perceiving functions draw upon the subconscious in a different way than do judging ones. However, I find it hard to account for it all in the post without creating a maze of subconscious and conscious distinctions. Thus, since the post is concerned with the tertiary function as such and I kinda stretched it on that alone I didn't want to bring in too many factors.

 

[TimeAsylums]

The fact that there is an obvious subconscious basis required for one to perceive the imagery of the formerly mentioned Ni intuition as meaningful does not mean that the intuition when it appears to an Ni user does so unconsciously.

Per the part of your quote I omitted, didn't say because it was irrational (Jungian usage, not pop/modern Psych obv). Tbh, for this, it is best to use introspection, seeing as you are Ni, you should readily be able to realize whether it is fully conscious or unconscious. Do be aware that Ni gives the user even a deeper understanding into the unconscious than Ne or anything else does. So it may be even different, but try to differentiate it. And take into the account I said on the E/I difference. I know for a fact(lol) that Ne/Se is. But i'm not exactly a dom/aux Ni/Si user, so feel free to go at it.

Generally, you can recognize if unconscious because the whole thing just comes to you at once (which is extremely common to INxJs per PJ profile), and you just get it. conscious, if you think of Ti how hard your thoughts are and you can trace everything.

 

[r4ch3l]

insisting on unlikely disasters as basis for exaggerated precautions, perhaps?

Yeah. Abusing logic to rationalize feelings and try and control everyone/everything. [ISFJ mom/or is that just moms-in-general/I feel like all moms turn into ISFJs when they freak out about their kids.]

 

[Cherry Cola]

In the case of the thread I mean that the tertiary specifically is more often than other functions used to directly attack other people by means of critique (as a cause of projection and habitual usage of ones own tertiary to deliver self critique)

 

[TimeAsylums]

In the case of the thread I mean that the tertiary specifically is more often than other functions used to directly attack other people by means of critique (as a cause of projection and habitual usage of ones own tertiary to deliver self critique)

Although I can see much of this in the inferior too, I agree with the tert doing this too.

 

[Grayman]

I'm trying to fit my head around this but I cannot find this true introspectively. How would my tert Si relate to this?

 

[Words]

I'm pretty sure cognitive functions operate not unconsciously nor consciously but subconsciously or basically somewhere around the line between conscious and unconscious. But then, first of all, what are conscious, subconscious and unconscious? There seems to be a lot of definitions floating around.

I think these three are all just levels of consciousness like in a spectrum. The total absence of consciousnss is the state of unconscious. I mean that makes conventional sense. The subconscious falls in the grey area and the conscious state is also a sort of higher gray area that depends on the person's level of focus. The more focused someone is on an object, the more conscious that person is. My justification for cognitive functions falling under the subconscious is simple. It's not on the unconscious because I can actually but faintly "sense" it working. That is, I am conscious of my cognitive functioning. Kind of like knowing you have a default apparatus for "thinking" or cognition and even tinkering with the apparatus. It's not unconscious because it's not so automatic that you can't be aware of it and consciously adjust it. But it's not on the conscious level because its not "you."

 

[Grayman]

Sorry, I was thinking of the subconscious when I typed unconcious. Unconscious is not what I meant.

If you're referring to the OP, I am sure it is much of the same thing.

 

[nightstreaking]

This could be relevant: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/content.php/185-MBTI-Tertiary-Temptation.

 

[Grayman]

This could be relevant: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/content.php/185-MBTI-Tertiary-Temptation.

Seems to make sense.

 

[Brontosaurie]

there is no subconscious. that's just freudian superstition. there are but conscious and unconscious brain processes. usually, novel problem solving is the task of the conscious mind and so i think grayman is basically right in his initial assertion that thinking is the sole conscious function, because feeling is a set of generalized responses assembled through evolution while sensing is recall or perception of things independent of us, and intuition is a solution or analogy delivered from the unconscious mind to the conscious process at hand. clearly, thinking is the only jungian function whose inner workings, mechanisms and decisions - rather than just the final result - are available to our subjective experience.

MBTI in its current state suffers from a consciousness bias which isn't viable in modern psychology. a persons strengths cannot be gauged in terms of how conscious they are. if anything, the opposite should hold true.

however, all of this falls under "general MBTI bashing" i'm afraid.

 

[doncarlzone]

there is no subconscious. that's just freudian superstition. there are but conscious and unconscious brain processes.

"If someone talks of subconsciousness, I cannot tell whether he means the term topographically – to indicate something lying in the mind beneath consciousness – or qualitatively – to indicate another consciousness, a subterranean one, as it were. He is probably not clear about any of it. The only trustworthy antithesis is between conscious and unconscious." - Freud

But I think it's the same concept Cherry writes about anyway.

 

[Brontosaurie]

"If someone talks of subconsciousness, I cannot tell whether he means the term topographically – to indicate something lying in the mind beneath consciousness – or qualitatively – to indicate another consciousness, a subterranean one, as it were. He is probably not clear about any of it. The only trustworthy antithesis is between conscious and unconscious." - Freud

But I think it's the same concept Cherry writes about anyway.

interesting. i suppose i can only agree with freud although he complicates something that is really only a matter of parsimony (isn't "subterranean" a topographical, spatial term? he imagines an ambiguity where it suffices to point out a superfluous assumption...)

"freudian superstition" remains accurate - in the sense that the word is mostly used in a freudian context, to denote the psychoanalytic dynamic. i'm clearly in *defensive stance* now. might as well reap some self awareness points from it.

 

[Words]

there is no subconscious. that's just freudian superstition. there are but conscious and unconscious brain processes.

I think Freud's equivalent of the "subconscious", which is Pierre Janet's term, is basically the "unconscious." His critic is that the "subconscious" is ill-constructed and imaginary. A mental process is either conscious or unconscious or happening in the background. I think that's too black and white. What is my state of mind when I'm daydreaming as cars pass by? In relation to my daydream, we can say I am very conscious. But in relation to the cars, I can only be partially conscious. I'm not familiar with theories on structures of consciousness, but i see no other way to describe cognitive functions than subconscious or semi-conscious. Cognitive functions do not merely occur in the background at least. Or maybe I just see it that way because I make these brain processes the center of my own consciousness.

usually, novel problem solving is the task of the conscious mind and so i think grayman is basically right in his initial assertion that thinking is the sole conscious function, because feeling is a set of generalized responses assembled through evolution while sensing is recall or perception of things independent of us, and intuition is a solution or analogy delivered from the unconscious mind to the conscious process at hand. clearly, thinking is the only jungian function whose inner workings, mechanisms and decisions - rather than just the final result - are available to our subjective experience.

I don't really see the difference. In the same way that you consciously construct logical decisions, you can consciously experience yourself accessing a memory or consciously focusing on a sensation. Same with intuition and feeling. "Thinking", as it is commonly understood, actually involves the entire set of processes. When you're trying to figure out a solution, you don't just consider the logical weighs of things, you have to contemplate on the values of things. The logical consideration of things cannot be done without the value consideration of things. The mere attention given to certain objects is an indication of a value-attitude towards those objects. There is also sensory contemplation in the form of memory recall and intuitive contemplation perhaps in the form of daydream. They don't necessarily operate in the background.

I think a crucial component in all of this is focus or attention.

 

[Cherry Cola]

Hmm i think its pretty specific mbti bashing bronto, with general I meant something more like "mbti is speculative bogus nothing is for sure its all vague" which while perhaps true doesn't lead anywhere. What youre talking about is relevant for my OP as well, I did state in it that the subconcious and unconcious were not in a discrete relationship within the thesis, to a large degree for reasons which you mentioned. I didn't dwelve deeper into the issue because I wanted to keep it concise.

Clockjail: Yes the inferior can be similar, but as it is even weaker than the tertiary it cannot be used to compensate for the top 2 functions like the tertiary, it is less something which you painstakingly but effectively use to achieve a balance than it is a weakness which needs to be indirectly integrated to stop it from taking over. I do not see people projecting their inferiors unto others in the same way as they do their tertiary because they can't. The inferior is a lot uglier when it takes over and if it's used it will not be a matter of nasty critique but of something uglier and more out of control.

 

[Brontosaurie]

words: yes it makes sense that conscious/unconscious shouldn't be a binary distinction. i share your experience with degrees of consciousness.

about the rest: all functions are consciously accessed, that much is true. and maybe it's more correct to describe conscious problem solving as simply accessing all of the functions, including a set of logical operations which corresponds to the thinking function, rather than comprising thinking and accessing the others. did i interpret you right? if so then all the functions are equally unconscious. how would we go about differentiating them with respect to degree of consciousness? does it even make sense to use consciousness as criterion for (or consequence of) preference or proficiency? more questions seem to arise, in a cascade :P interesting subject, if cherry tolerates further derail.

 

[Architect]

In addition to the theorizing it's useful to consider how these psychic forces play out IRL.

What I notice is that I do have an element in my mind that has the following characteristics ...

• I spontaneously (unconsciously) muse over the past, making sure I don't repeat mistakes and continue successful behaviors
• I have a relatively sunny persona, but internally I have a melancholic streak which likes to come out with late Romantic composers like Chopin and Rachmaninov
• I'm unconsciously highly aware of my internal bodily state. I don't overeat, am a health nut and work hard to maintain internal wellbeing
• I automatically store information as it passes me by, and am easily able to retrieve it later (though now that's getting tougher as my brain fills up)

I identify these characteristics with Si. They're all so automatic I'd almost call them unconscious. I don't think to store information or listen to Chopin, but have impulses that naturally occur. I'm not sure they act much different from my supposedly conscious functions like Ti. I also don't generally "think" to think, I just do it nearly all the time. Or speculate - Ne - another conscious function.

But there is a qualitative difference, I'm more aware of what I'd identify as Ti & Ne. I'm well aware when I sit back and muse on the future. Am I more aware of that process then when I recall past information or listen to my internals? Probably ...

I need to think about unconscious and conscious, but I'm struggling a bit to really understand the difference.

 

[Cherry Cola]

I'm with you, perhaps the issue arises because of a supposition that functions can be used discretely stemming from their descriptions which attribute specific behavior and thinking to specific functions. Reminds me of your discussion with John Mann. Must ponder this more.

I deliberately abstained from distinguishing between I/E and P/J tertiaries in general terms though. I did so for two reasons, one was that the post was supposed to focus on the tertiary as such, had I added yet another section of theoretical rambling - which would likely have had to be quite long - it might have made the post a bit too long and unfocused. But the main reason is that I would've had trouble doing so as I don't think I posess the understanding required to do it in satisfactory way, thus I chose to limit the scope of the thesis rather than overextend it.

The tertiary is an interesting thing though, being "in between" as it is, both a weakness and a necessary component which needs to be used actively :O

 

[Grayman]

MBTI in its current state suffers from a consciousness bias which isn't viable in modern psychology. a persons strengths cannot be gauged in terms of how conscious they are. if anything, the opposite should hold true.

however, all of this falls under "general MBTI bashing" i'm afraid.

I've have a deeper theory on this but I don't want to steal Cherry's thunder.

 

[Cherry Cola]

don't hold back man!

 

[Grayman]

words: yes it makes sense that conscious/unconscious shouldn't be a binary distinction. i share your experience with degrees of consciousness.

about the rest: all functions are consciously accessed, that much is true. and maybe it's more correct to describe conscious problem solving as simply accessing all of the functions, including a set of logical operations which corresponds to the thinking function, rather than comprising thinking and accessing the others. did i interpret you right? if so then all the functions are equally unconscious. how would we go about differentiating them with respect to degree of consciousness? does it even make sense to use consciousness as criterion for (or consequence of) preference or proficiency? more questions seem to arise, in a cascade :P interesting subject, if cherry tolerates further derail.

I do believe it is binary. The only thing that changes, IMO, is the ability of other functions to provide results and interrupt the conscious mind with the data. Or the ability of the conscious mind to forcably obtain the result of that work.

 

[Grayman]

don't hold back man!

I would be better off stating it as being off topic. I will bring it forth after I have better defined it, and in a different thread.

 

[Cherry Cola]

ah okay, I do think that my initial reply to your critique was based on a misunderstanding on my part, but I am having trouble wrapping my head around the issue.

 

[Grayman]

ah okay, I do think that my initial reply to your critique was based on a misunderstanding on my part, but I am having trouble wrapping my head around the issue.

It is generally accepted in MBTI that feeling and thinking are conscious functions while the other perceiving functions are to occur in the subconscious. Although the process occurs in the subconscious, the results are reviewed consciously. Your chart places the entirety of the functions partially in both the subconscious and the conscious mind. I find this to be contradictory to general MBTI theory.
It would make more sense to me to change the subconscious and conscious to a general strength indicator instead of conscious level indicator, until it is better defined where the strength comes from.

In arguement of the source of the strength, I would reason that the functions differentiate in there development and as a result do not provide the same levels of results to the consciousness. You are likely witnessing this introspectivly and view this as meaning the functions themselves are existing more or less in the conscious mind when in actuality it is only the output of the functions that exist more or less in the conscious mind.

Regardless of all this, the main principle of what you are trying to achieve is accurate, so I would not get to caught up in all this unless you are just interested.

 

[Words]

words: yes it makes sense that conscious/unconscious shouldn't be a binary distinction. i share your experience with degrees of consciousness.

That is, if level of attention is in any way related to consciousness and the theoretical level of consciousness. Right now, you are not only conscious of these words, but you are also focusing on these words and the meaning of these words. How about the sensation of air as you breathe it in? How about the touch of your clothing on your skin? Your memories of the context of the situation? The drives of your existence? Some would refer to these as the periphery of consciousness, but clearly one's mental state towards these objects in the periphery differs from the traditional sense of consciousness. This is where cognitive functions, I think, lie for the most part. Jung, in psych types, says it is directly in the conscious mind. I'm not familiar with MBTI theory. I don't know why many here believe it lies in the unconscious mind.

all functions are consciously accessed, that much if so then all the functions are equally unconscious. how would we go about differentiating them with respect to degree of consciousness? does it even make sense to use consciousness as criterion for (or consequence of) preference or proficiency? more questions seem to arise, in a cascade :P interesting subject, if cherry tolerates further derail.

Preference is not related to consciousness. Consciousness is morelike "the existence of A, the existence of B", preference is "A or B." But it is likely for one who prefers B instead of A to associate B with consciousness because B is often the center of one's attention, whereas A is associated with "being in the background" because of lack of attention which in turn is due to dispreference.

In my own experience, "thinking" in the Jungian sense, is in no more conscious than other functions.

 

[Words]

The OP's theory makes sense. I wonder how it relates to "looping."(Ti-Si etc.)

 

[Grayman]

That is, if level of attention is in any way related to consciousness and the theoretical level of consciousness.

I suppose. I would argue that the consciousness is not reduced, but that the object that requires attention is dominating the consciousness in a way that there is little time for anything else. Day dreaming might seem like slipping into unconsciousness but the judging functions still only result in the consciousness. The attention to perception is simply introverted into ones own world. This is how I even define an introverted function and were the function retrieves its data. Si vs Se. Internal vs External

 

[Cherry Cola]

The whole conscious and unconscious thing throws me off. Reason is the only conscious function IMO. The other functions interject the conscious mind as interrupts. They have a chance to interrupt the conscious mind to establish new data or thought into the reasoning function of your brain. The strength of each of your functions increases the chance that the new data will interrupt current line of thought.

Feelings, intuition, sensing are all processed unconsciously and the results are published to your consciousness.

Maybe I'm thinking too much like a programmer... but to me it is like a multithread application trying to publish information to the UI.

Okay lol I finally understood the ones following it. Suffice to say my picture is a heuristic illustration. Whereas perceiving functions could be said to operate outside consciousness they still operate within it by proxy because whenever a judging function (logic) does anything it does so with data provided with perception. You can have "if A then B", you can't "if then".

I also disagree with your post on phenomenological grounds but that's a bit of another matter.

 

[EvilBlitz]

Going back to Ne tertiary Cherry Cola, I believe it is the source of ESTJ and ESFJ stubbornness. I find those two personality types more than any others, you can present the facts and no matter what they will just not believe you.
It could even be the fucking 2nd law of thermodynamics and they will just not believe you.
When done well they normally will dismiss you with a laugh or cheeky humour too.

 

[scorpiomover]

Alright, this all speculative TLDR MBTI Theory, if anyone CBA's I'm interested in critique so long as it isn't just general MBTI bashing. I've structured the post so that the ivory tower theory part comes first and descriptions of the observations it's based on comes second.

I hope you don't mind, that I'll critique your theory. It sounds plausible enough. I think it's got a reasonable amount of validity.

I'd just like to analyse some of the details to flesh out the theory more fully, so that it makes even better sense than you've already provided, and makes better sense of the evidence that you've provided.

The tertiary function has interested me for a long time, through observation of friends and acquaintances I've tried to discern it's purpose. What I've arrived at is that tertiary is universally used to structure the percepts and intuits generated by the dominant and auxiliary functions. The tertiary is like a safety control, it does not produce anything of its own but it is capable of detecting errors in other products; while the dominant and auxiliary may work in harmoniously in tandem, by doing so, they risk tunnel-visioning in their closed of cognitive entourage.

Now, the tertiary, being in the third position, is but partly under conscious control. Consider the image below.

Spoiler

The white portion of the square represents the conscious parts of our cognitive processes, while the black represents the subconscious. It is my belief that the subconscious is a sort of universal mold for the human species, thus I do not view as particularly discrete in its relationship to the collective unconscious. However, if one views the 4 functions of any given individual as being parts of this collective unconscious unto which consciousness has been carved, then it follows that the portion which is left untouched and fully unconscious differs in accordance with type.

Along with this line of thought, I believe it fair to view the 4 functions as being the domains within which thoughts are allowed to form in their most unique, individual, and discrete forms. Which in effect basically is another way to say that they make up what we view as personality along with the unique - to each type - set of functions left in the collective unconscious.

The tertiary while under conscious control, is; nevertheless, in a twillight zone of sorts, being partially submerged in the subconscious domain. This makes it an efficient producer of impartial critique, in the subconscious it can tap into a universal standard; thereafter, applying it to the non standardized results of the dominant and auxiliary.

From what I've read of Jung, the dominant is the main conscious function. The auxiliary serves as the main helper function of the dominant.

The inferior function is the main function used by the subconscious to balance out the excesses of the dominant. In this way, it maintains homeostasis of the individual self's life and goals, and helps to maintain homeostasis within one's environment.

In this way, it can be said that the subconscious is a "universal mold" for all humans, in that it acts automatically for the same general purposes in all humans.

However, as each person's dominant differs from subject to subject, so too the complementary balancing force's efforts must also depend on what the subject consciously chooses, and so has a strongly subjective behaviour in practice.

The tertiary occupies a similar situation as the auxiliary, i.e. it acts as the main helper function to the subconscious inferior's efforts to complement and balance out the conscious actions and inactions caused by the dominant.

Brain scans have shown that the subconscious operates at between 100-30,000 times the speed of the conscious. Thus, the subconscious processes far too much data, and at far too fast a speed, for our conscious to directly perceive and manipulate in a concrete and easy way. However, the tertiary, being only a helper function to the subconscious, is used far less, and thus there is far less data to perceive or access. So it is possible to somewhat perceive and access the tertiary. It is thus also possible to even perceive and access the subconscious via the tertiary channel.

As the tertiary allows one to indirectly figure out what the subconscious is doing, it is the primary channel for detecting when our subconscious is going wonky. In addition, as the tertiary is the main channel for perceiving the subconscious inferior, and the subconscious inferior itself works to balance out the excesses of the dominant, it is also a good indicator for what would be required by the subconscious inferior to balance out any excesses in the conscious dominant. In those ways, it can act as a great store of information which can indicate bias and weakness in thinking, and so serves as an excellent source of critique.

The auxiliary can also serve in such ways, as it serves a similar role for the conscious. However, the auxiliary serves as a helper function to the conscious dominant. So quite often, the source of such a critique is able to be manipulated to dismiss the validity of any such critique. The tertiary, being mainly under the control of the subconscious, cannot be manipulated that easily, leaving the subject in a position where his views can be critiqued easily but where he finds it very hard to mainpulate the tertiary to dismiss and reject such critiques in order to evade facing up to the person's problems.

But, it also makes the tertiary for an easy function to fall back unto when one wishes to shoot down the thoughts of another; notwithstanding the fact that people of other types have other tertiaries and are not in need of the same structural algorithm as oneself; it is easy to project ones own flaws unto others.

When one feels so threatened, confused, or lost, that the conscious dominant and auxiliary seem unable to solve an urgent problem, then the subconscious inferior is forced to take over to handle the matter, in order to maintain internal homeostatis with oneself, and homeostasis with the external environment. Usually, the subject behaves as if he is consciously completely unaware of what the subconscious is up to. In this state, the subconscious sometimes needs the person to say or do something that is under control of the voluntary muscles, which are controlled by the conscious. Then the subconscious needs to pass ideas and notions to the conscious, in such a way that the conscious believes that the subject is choosing to act in that way, when really, the conscious is being manipulated by the subconscious to save the conscious from poor decision-making. The subconscious cannot pass the data directly to the conscious, because the data stream is too fast and too much for the conscious to handle. So it passes little ideas to the conscious, that allows it to "tweak" what the conscious dominant and auxiliary are already doing, in line with what the subconscious is aiming to achieve on behalf of the conscious self.

Thus, when one's ideas are shown to be heavily flawed, and those ideas have so become to integral to the way that one lives one's life, that to drop those ideas would require a massive overhaul of one's total understanding of everything, that becomes a threat to the very structure and core of the entire conscious self. If overwhelmed in this way, the conscious now has nothing to rely on, and is at a point where it has to re-analyse ever one of its experiences from scratch. All decisions are now based on a conscious self that is now highly questionable, and so all confidence in any decisions starts to break down, leading to a nervous breakdown. If this occurs, the subject may be out of action for years while it re-analyses everything. In order to prevent such a massive shutdown for such an incredibly long time, the subconscious must dismiss those criticisms. So the subconscious inferior develops an argument to dismiss the criticisms, but has to pass it via the tertiary. So the argument often seems rather primitive, because it has to convert the inferior into a different function to be understood.

One might think of the subconscious as a person trying to communicate with someone else on the other side of a wall. The subconscious has square pegs to pass. But the wall of the tertiary has round holes. So it has to try to shove the square pegs through round holes, in order to get the message to the conscious.

As a result, the argument is not really even as strong as one that might be given by another person with the same dominant function as the subject's tertiary. So it doesn't look strong at all. It is thus easy to penetrate, and to perceive that it is an attempt to deflect valid criticism of the subject's own flaws.

Thus the expression "invective critique", healthy critique of others tends to draw upon the dominant and auxiliary function to a higher degree than the tertiary. However, tertiary-based critique - because it's anchored in the collective unconscious - tends to have a certain force and sense of universality to it, thus making it effective albeit more as a means of assault than discourse.

One could say that what I am trying to describe with invective critique is a process that goes something like this:

Dom+Aux<Tertiary -> You are wrong and stupid.

Yes, mainly because the tertiary is there as a support to the subconscious and the subconscious processes far too much data for the conscious to understand. The tertiary is really saying "You are wrong (because of the arguments of the inferior)."

"You are stupid, (because it is necessary for the subconscious to protect the conscious because of reasons held in the subconscious)".

The dom and aux are unable to handle the massive data-load of the arguments and reasoning of the subconscious. So that stuff simply rushes past without ever being processed, leaving only the basic conclusions that the conscious self can process.

Whereas healthy critique tends to go something like this:

Tertiary<Dom+Aux -> You are wrong because of this.

Here, the dom and aux are doing the analysis, and so the reasoning is at a speed that our conscious brains can handle. The tertiary may be involved, but only to inform the dom and aux of what things to consider in their analysis of the situation. So the tertiary is controlled here and not allowed to overwhelm the conscious self with too much data.

So why do I think it works like this?

I've seen this shit repeat itself in almost all types.

INTJs go on their tertiary Fi rampages, shooting down the worth and moral character of whatever thing or person they happen to hate when they can't be bothered to put their Ni intuitions into verbal form. This is because their Ni and Te together do not naturally lend themselves to consider Fi concerns, the INTJ has to painstakingly apply these in order to bring any form of purpose into his or hers conclusion. A failure in the purpose of another, is thus seen as a great fault, deserving of mockery and anger.

True, but there is more to it. Usually, INTJs don't care if someone disagrees with them on an idea they have. They simply note who said what, and file it for later analysis with which to improve themselves and their ideas.

However, if their idea is core to their life's work, or is core to achieving a particular hidden goal that they need very much, and so far, all other better solutions have failed dismally, then their inferior Se tries to fight off attacks on their core psyche, usually by coming up with observationally obvious points with which to attack and dismiss via challenges to their Fi integrity.

Likewise with INFJs and Ti, we will shoot down any form of inherently flawed logic which we can spot, often being hasty in doing so. It is because we painstakingly do so towards ourselves, we already have the algorithm for it, and we already have the habit, all that's needed is a wee bit of projection.

Seen it many times. However, usually a similar process happens here as with INTJs, that is, that their inferior Se tries to fight off attacks on their core psyche, usually by coming up with observationally obvious points with which to attack and dismiss via challenges to their Ti logical consistency.

I cba to write eloquent examples for all types. But I've seen my ENTP buddy attack social rulebreaking and non compliance in others, accusing them of ruining the mood, being antisocial in their behavior;

Their inferior Si is defending their Ne core ideas, via defence of social rules and customs to dismiss the attacks on their Ne ideas, by relying on tertiary Fe to defend their inferior Si.

I've seen ENFPs deliver biting sarcasm in the form of "Well just how the fuck did you think you were going to go about doing this? Everyone knows it doesn't work like that.. this is how things are done didn't you learn that in like first grade?".

Tertiary Te practicality defending inferior Si traditions in order to protect themselves from attacks on their Ne ideas.

The same goes for INTPs (No it's like this, I remember),

Tertiary Si memory defending inferior Fe harmony to protect against attacks on their Ti reasoning.

and ISFPs (You are missing out on the big picture! The meaning of it all!).

Tertiary Ni big picture being used to protect inferior Te practicality, to protect dominant Fi values.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

There were some related ideas in Socionics, if you've never looked into that, I think it's evidence that there's some truth to the matter.


The tertiary, being in the same E-I dimension as the dominant function, provides an adjacent alternative perspective to the primary function's lifestyle/cognition/behavior. But naturally it's easier to criticize flaws in others than in ourselves, not that we don't notice our own.

I think you got some of them right. For the ones that haven't been talked about:

Ne tertiary would be about staying on top of things and anticipating the unexpected, taking advantage. Ni tertiary deals in punctuality and expedience, I could also see 'having faith'. Te tertiary would be competency among peers. I'm not sure about Si tertiary, I'm split between 'being in good condition' and 'diligence', or maybe it's about keeping to what's recognizable/familiar.