If this is clarified elsewhere on the site, apologies. My question is whether the CT model and levels of development follows the idea of the functional stack, where there's a hierarchy of functions that decrease in strength and sophistication even when fully conscious? i.e. the dominant, auxiliary, tertiary and inferior? To borrow the car metaphor from Personality Hacker, the dominant/lead being your driver, the auxiliary being the passenger supporting the driver, the tertiary being a conscious part of you but developed to around the sophistication of a 10-year-old in the backseat and the inferior similarly being present but developed to the sophistication of a 3-year-old in the backseat?
For example, if I was Fi-Ne-Si-Te IIII development, I might value my conscious Te and obviously have experiences using it to a degree, but it would be fairly rudimentary and unsophisticated compared to a Te-lead?
If so, I'm also wondering how this affects how people resonate with the Cognitive Function descriptions on the site, or how it affects their personal experience with that function? Are the descriptions written ideally from the perspective of someone with that function as their lead?
What inspired me to ask was reading the thread asking people about their experience with Ni, and the replies are coming from people who do have Ni in their stack, but aren't Ni-leads (not picking on that thread in particular. The same argument applies to any thread asking for experiences with a function that isn't the lead). My question is, if it's true that the functions are weaker and less sophisticated the lower they are in the stack, even when fully conscious in development level, aren't experiences going to grossly diverge anyway? And the Ni-description on the site isn't going to be reflective of your experience when compared to an Ni-lead? I'm reading the thread curious to learn more about what Ni actually is as described from a first person perspective (as someone who thought their Ne was Ni), but I'm wondering how representative the shared experiences are when it's not the lead function?
Great questions, thank you for asking them!
This is an issue we have been trying to iron out recently, and one dear to my heart.
For now, have a look at some of Auburn's preliminary thoughts on the matter here:
Second what Faeruss said. @faeruss I might have some more insight into this, which I can try to tie into the OP's question.
Yes, hierarchy appears to exist --which was not easy to verify and still needs a proper proof-of-concept, but I think the definitive vultology threads works as one such proof of concept, when they're read as a whole. Yet it's not a sliding scale of power. The comparison to age (i.e. the tertiary being a 10 year old, and the polar being a 3 year old) is not accurate, as it's not a matter of "potency" but of "form".
To give an example, we have the FiNe Seelie Female "Tibees":
FiNe channeling their Te
Notice the juxtaposition of a seelie Fi fairy reading, in an almost asmr sprite-like voice, mathematics by candlelight! This shows that even a seelie FiNe can take a fancy for their Te. You can check other videos in her channel for a more complete view of her character, as I think she's a physics major.
Tibees is all about physics, mathematics and science, which are part of the Te definition in terms of topics of interest. She's a major delta nerd and is very immersed in her Te, but because her Te is polar it manifests as:
So what happens is, all her Te focus is cerebral and attuned to information alignment (Ji) under a coherent structure. It is not more immature than Ne or Si, it simply manifests as polar Te within a primary Ji. So the function's energetics (Je/Pi/Pe/Ji) and nature of the primary function alter "how" the function is expressed in its form.
To use myself as an example to contrast against Tibees, with the CT project I'm essentially doing insane levels of people-reading (Fe), which for an Fe-lead is done to provide better navigation of social dynamics in real-time. For me, my people-reading (Pe) is polar, and subservient to my Ji's desire for axiomatic structuring. Thus I develop an axiomatic structure or systemic castle (Ji) for the comportment of human beings (Fe) at the collective level. Heh! I still would probably suck at social dynamics in a party or something.
So Fe comes in 4 forms:
1st - Primary Fe (guiding the hierarchy)
2nd - Auxiliary Fe (biotic causality tracking, subservient to Pi's panoramic worldview construction)
3rd - Tertiary Fe (biotic causality tracking, subservient to Pe's exploration and creative expression)
4th - Polar Fe (biotic causality tracking, subservient to Ji's axiomatic castle construction)
We haven't written profiles for these yet and are really lacking them, but if we'd go about writing them it would be from this framing I think, rather than as having progressively less age/maturity/power.
@Auburn I like where this is going, great stuff. That is a good take on functions as manifested across different types. We still have the trickier question of how different functions manifest within the same type. So yes Fe and Ti are both subservient to Si' map construction, in the SiFe say, but how so? Otherwise we do have hierarchy, but simply a Dom vs Non-Dom hierarchy. There must be different ways in which the servants serve their lord, if you will.
Right. Let me see if I can map out what I know so far..?
From what I can tell, function position progression (1/2/3/4) is directly proportional to the energetic toll required to call upon it for its complete energetic "talents" (i.e. this list).
So, polar Fe requires the most energy to utilize in actionable Je pragmatism/orderliness/oration/etc. Tertiary Fe requires less energy than polar Fe to call upon for the purposes of Je pragmatism/orderliness/oration/etc. And even if Fe is conscious in, lets say... an SiFe (ll--) and in a TiNe (l--l) ..the conscious use of Fe would still be less of a toll for the SiFe than the TiNe.
Energetics vs General Function Qualities
But it seems there is a "general" quadra access to the functions. So all Fe users have access to Fe's spectrum-of-topics (per se) which they may fancy quite a lot, but will use creatively in accordance to their lead function's interests. So this is where we see the TiNe use Fe as a window into building a Ti castle about human behavior. It's Ti using Fe's topics-of-interest for the purpose of Ji. So this is the second component, mentioned in my previous post. And there's a third component at play:
The role of Fe in the Ti-lead is as an antagonist, or an alter-ego. It has the most enantiodromia. This is what makes the polar function simultaneously the most difficult to access energetically, yet the most libidinally charged (for better or worse) of the three lower functions. If the auxiliary is the sidekick, then the polar is the arch nemesis. The tertiary is the sidekick of your arch nemesis. I think this aspect plays into the mythology material, but I don't entirely know how in all cases.
And actually "arch nemesis" is not entirely right, since it is still you. The TiNe is an inverted FeSi, and vice versa. So it's more like our other half.
I'm trying to figure this our too, so I'm just putting my thoughts out here.. What do you guys think?
In summary, basically the components of hierarchy that I see are three things:
As an example..
Energetic toll as a Je function: Being the polar function, its use as a Je process is the most energetically taxing. And even when conscious, it is still more taxing than a comparatively conscious dom/aux/tert function.
General use as part of Alpha: When Fe is used, it is used as a biotic causality tracker, subservient to Ti's axiomatic structuring of information.
Mythic Relationship to Lead: As the filp side of Ti's "J" axis, it also has more enantiadromia than any other function, and thus can play a more critical role in life-narrative, as a kind of alter-ego.
Oh my! @auburn, this is great! I sensed something similar when I tried to describe the different pairings using Te as an example: Fi-Te, Pi-Te, and Pe-Te, though I'd argue it comes in more forms than the four. I wonder if what you write here about Fe suits just as well for Te?
So Fe comes in 4 forms:
1st – Primary Fe (guiding the hierarchy)
2nd – Auxiliary Fe (biotic causality tracking, subservient to Pi’s panoramic worldview construction)
3rd – Tertiary Fe (biotic causality tracking, subservient to Pe’s exploration and creative expression)
4th – Polar Fe (biotic causality tracking, subservient to Ji’s axiomatic castle construction)
You know I've been struggling forever to understand my bizarre relationship with my Te. It somehow matches a bit what you describe of Tibees (primarily confined to conceptual matters, not real-time Je action/organizing), but in your hierarchy, it'd be tertiary for me, not polar. I wonder how you might describe that? Very interesting subject! Amazing the things the devlt levels phase of CT has made visible, no?
The role of Fe in the Ti-lead is as an antagonist, or an alter-ego. It has the most enantiodromia. This is what makes the polar function simultaneously the most difficult to access energetically, yet the most libidinally charged (for better or worse) of the three lower functions. If the auxiliary is the sidekick, then the polar is the arch nemesis. The tertiary is the sidekick of your arch nemesis. I think this aspect plays into the mythology material, but I don’t entirely know how in all cases.
This is what confuses me, though, Aub. Te is my great nemesis! Its leads and systems and methods, in so many ways. Maybe development can cause this kind of dynamic to alter? So NeFi II-- can sort of adopt an FiNe mythological pattern?
That's interesting Fae. Perhaps I'm wrong about the narrative/role aspect.
Or maybe it's more related to whether a function has crossed the boundary of consciousness. I no longer feel Fe is my arch nemesis, for example, but I feel a phobia against the essence of Si. So maybe the narrative relationship is tied to where we are on our journey? And maybe both lower functions are mythic adversaries until they're integrated?
The role of Fe in the Ti-lead is as an antagonist, or an alter-ego. It has the most enantiadromia. This is what makes the polar function simultaneously the most difficult to access energetically, yet the most libidinally charged (for better or worse) of the three lower functions. If the auxiliary is the sidekick, then the polar is the arch nemesis. The tertiary is the sidekick of your arch nemesis. I think this aspect plays into the mythology material, but I don’t entirely know how, yet. Not it all cases.
This is exactly how I see the relationship between my Se and Ni. Ni is an antagonist to Se. Every time I try to grasp Ni, it turns into something either horrible or dangerous or both. I have to make an effort not so much to use Ni but to trust it as a useful tool and not perceive it to be an enemy. To be completely honest, despite the heavy attempts to rationalize this whole process and to treat Ni just like a function that is helpful in certain situations, I still feel it presents a threat. The only issue is I feel after you "touch" a certain function, it becomes harder to go back to the previous state. So, you have to keep going in the same direction until that function stops feeling dangerous.
But then the question is - if we feel the last function is dangerous, isn't it dangerous indeed? Not only for the lead function that loses ground but generally for the whole psyche? And I am asking because usually fears have a certain evolutionary utility. If the last function has this energetic toll, maybe this is what we are somehow trying to avoid? I really don't know but every Ti lead who developed Fe seems to benefit from it a lot.
Can this be different with Pe leads developing Pi?
And yes, I also see Fi as Se's sidekick and Te as Ni's sidekick. I saw it in a collage I made, in which the main theme was a fight between Se and Ni but Te and Fi also appeared, which I never planned. Te was summoned right above Ni and was clearly supporting her side and Fi was hiding behind Se and doing nothing. :)) Also there was a clear winner of that fight and it was Ni. She had very good control over the field of battle.
I will not post the collage here though because Ni's image is a bit disturbing. But I wanted to mention that I saw exactly what you described above !
Regarding what @faex said - I am also PeFi II-- and Te is not my nemesis, so for me the pattern is the one in which the last function is the antagonist. Are there any possible reasons why some people see the third function as their antagonist and others the last ?
Oh, I will propose an explanation but it's personal - for me Te is masculine. Ni is feminine. So, I can't really identify with Te. I see it more as a tool I use (and could use more efficiently if I developed it). Not very interesting from a mythological perspective either. But Ni is a woman, a dangerous, dark, possibly evil woman that I could come to identify with. Also Ni is a perceiving function, so me looking through her eyes would make me see the world differently. But the world I see now IS the real world (for me). So, any other perception can't be truly trusted. With articulating...I don't sense this type of danger. I would just use conscious Te to defend Fi's agenda better. I don't see any reasons to fear it. It's not my dark side, it's like my fingernails...it doesn't even seem to have a soul and something without a soul can't be "evil". But this is highly subjective.
Bera developing her Ni...
Holy cmolly, that second gif with black eyes spooked the crap outta me!
Interesting, @Bera! Maybe earlier traumatic experiences involving one energy might alter the 'standard' myth. I have ADHD, I'm Etype 9 core and have a deep complex around competence/incompetence stemming from countless negative/shaming encounters in my childhood and through teen years (much worse in teen years though bad overall). It could be yours is the natural pattern whereas mine has altered my relationship with Te in particular. Maybe without those experiences, I'd have a very different relationship/dynamic with it.
Re developing Pi; I realized in our latest discussions, esp your discussion with Scientiam that my inner wizard 'higher self' thing I described in April may actually have been Si. So my relationship with Si is kinda like 'gateway to the unconscious' kinda thing; literally the dreamer (Pe) and his consultant wizard/Gandalf (Pi). My Si is kinda like my road to mystical experience.
I'm ordering owl figurines to place all around my living space; looking at them gives me such tranquility. Reading later what they represent as totems/spirit-guides I saw essentially an attitude that matches that of my 'inner wizard' or compassionate 'witness' ala some Buddhist ideas. Silent and observant, kinda passive like Pi, but deeply, deeply wise. Also, kinda dark/mysterious without being evil. I can't access it at will, which makes me think I'm trying to develop Si kinda the same way I developed Fi in my twenties: through spiritual practices that either call on or use them. I think due to my weird relationship with Te, my psyche has decided to use Si to deal with my life problems instead of Te.
I've also spontaneously felt inspired to start my own personal spiritual rituals, I think much of it was unconsciously planted by Arwen and Shelley in that talk we had about their practices. I could call mine Fi-Si though I'm not doing them deliberately to match those. I just think my Edin-Min myth is coming alive with more of the Min playing a role. I wake up and feel grateful for the moon, the stars, the sun, the mountains and trees etc. So I do these weird little rituals of thanksgiving to God. I'm thinking of going out in nature every morning to do it, then followed by others throughout the day focussed on kindness, compassion, and healing. They are incredibly sweet and comforting and I've found mysekf altering my living space to allow for that, just spontaneously. Its getting cozier and prettier, lol!
The comparison to age (i.e. the tertiary being a 10 year old, and the polar being a 3 year old) is not accurate, as it’s not a matter of “potency” but of “form”.
Thanks, so the functional stack is more of a funnel/hierarchy where the non-lead functions (especially the tertiary and polar), even if conscious, are not immature but instead are expressed, coloured, or even constrained by the agenda of the lead.
function position progression (1/2/3/4) is directly proportional to the energetic toll required to call upon it for its complete energetic “talents”
I have an alternate hypothesis. Instead of energetic toll matching 1, 2, 3, 4, the energetic toll is 1, 3, 2, 4. Why? I think the energy required to switch attention from I vs E involves greater exertion and effort than the energy required to switch attention from P vs J. Where it takes less energy to use functions that match external focus (Pe + Je), or internal focus (Pi + Ji) than it is to learn to divide attention across both the internal and external.
Looking at the energetic abilities and talents in the file you provided, this might fit. It makes sense that it takes less energy for a Pe lead who is used to operating externally in real-time, is fast and reactive, spontaneous, free-flowing etc to move to Je and maintain external action, get things done, be externally articulate and so on, rather than access Ji and slow down, nurture their inner world and be withdrawn. And conversely it takes less energy for a Ji lead who is used to operating internally in a slow meticulous introspective space to move to Pi and maintain internal ease, moderate pace, and contemplative panoramic views rather than being in the present, and accessing Pe which calls for fast paced spontaneity in reaction to the external object.
I also wonder if this plays out in the data looking at the prevalence of development orders, where there's almost as many I-I- types appearing are there are II-- types. Where although it makes sense for the auxiliary to unconsciously co-develop by necessity as the balance point for the lead (to complete the relevant missing I/E, P/J pairing since ), the auxiliary doesn't necessarily need to be the next in line for conscious development if it's easier energetically to develop E then E or I then I, "jumping the stack" so to speak.
And if there's no difference between the number of II-- and I-I-, there might still be within group differences when looking at E-leads versus I-leads. Where I-leads are overrepresented in developing in the II-- order, and E-leads overrepresented in developing in the I-I- order. Why? Because I think society favours and rewards externally focused functions. The Pi/Ji leads might feel enormous external pressure to develop an extraverted function and follow the II-- progression. The Pe/Je leads don't feel the same pressure to develop an introverted function, and instead might follow the I-I- progression, staying with E+E. This might vary by individual and their life experience of course, but I wonder about the more global pattern that might emerge.
I'm also trying to hypothesis why I--I might develop instead of II-- or I-I-. I've vague ideas I'm trying to work through linked to Naomi Quenk's work. Do you think the polar/inferior activates when the lead function is stressed, over-taxed, fatigued, burned-out etc? Might I--I arise in individuals that lean very heavily on their lead and need to regularly access the unconscious opposite for respite? Where eventually the polar becomes conscious before the auxiliary or tertiary? I'm thinking personally being an Fi-lead but unseelie. If I'm understanding correctly, being Fi-lead comes at a high energetic cost being regularly emotionally assaulted and overwhelmed at the body level. If Fi "burned me out" for want of a better phrase, I might achieve respite by taking haven in the opposite function, Te, and eventually I develop I--I in order (except I'm II-- anyway). I wonder if those who developed I--I report more frequent experiences of chronic stress or pain linked to their lead than the other development types?
I have an alternate hypothesis. Instead of energetic toll matching 1, 2, 3, 4, the energetic toll is 1, 3, 2, 4. Why? I think the energy required to switch attention from I vs E involves greater exertion and effort than the energy required to switch attention from P vs J. Where it takes less energy to use functions that match external focus (Pe + Je), or internal focus (Pi + Ji) than it is to learn to divide attention across both the internal and external.
@ladynerdsky - That's an interesting hypothesis. Hey you could be right, it's hard to say which is "easier" partially because the function becomes easier to access once it's developed. So it's hard to measure objectively. Hmm, I don't know what the ll-- vs l-l- ratio really is atm, but with 13 of 16 types updated to dev levels, this could be calculated.
But I also don't think "ease" is the only factor involved, for reasons like the environmental pressures that you mentioned. If we see more E type developments, it could be a cultural thing. Still, this is a fair point and one worth looking into more.
My current thought is that the reviser (Ji+Pe) vs conductor (Je+Pi) pairing is a stronger bond than the Ji/Pi and Je/Pe one, all things being equal. There is a delicious partnership between Ji & Pe that doesn't exist between Ji & Pi. And the Je+Pi functions also have a shared agenda, where I think their E-I yin-yang works in a favorable way.
It seems to me that a double I/E function pairing isn't necessarily the most seamless or complementary because collaboration happens better if all psychic priorities are addressed in some fashion. Je+Pe and Ji+Pi seem more unstable to me and I think this is why the MBTIers call it "looping." I think the psyche would be more prone to require an E function's help next, if it's starting at I, and vice versa? Maybe our l-l- members can offer their thoughts?
That said, I dislike topics that boil down to a matter of opinion, so I'll keep an eye out on what the data tells us with time.
I’m also trying to hypothesis why I–I might develop instead of II– or I-I-. I’ve vague ideas I’m trying to work through linked to Naomi Quenk’s work. Do you think the polar/inferior activates when the lead function is stressed, over-taxed, fatigued, burned-out etc?
I actually haven't even begun to properly explore "why" people develop certain functions in the order that they do. That would make a good topic discussion (i.e. "Why did you develop [ x ] function?") I would imagine environment plays a key role, yes, but perhaps also personal drive?
My current hypothesis is that we develop functions because we have a dire need to adapt to challenging inner/outer environments. The overwhelming representation of l--- developments in most types suggests that it's way easier to stay at l--- if one can afford it. The sheer stress involved in confronting a new function also supports this idea. It comes with a bit of a heroic/mythical journey sometimes too --depending on how the process is represented in the person's mind.
If I’m understanding correctly, being Fi-lead comes at a high energetic cost being regularly emotionally assaulted and overwhelmed at the body level. If Fi “burned me out” for want of a better phrase, I might achieve respite by taking haven in the opposite function, Te, and eventually I develop I–I in order (except I’m II– anyway). I wonder if those who developed I–I report more frequent experiences of chronic stress or pain linked to their lead than the other development types?
Yes, being Fi-lead is rough and so far that seems to be supported by personal testimonies. I can only imagine what it's like. I asked our member @kesogagoshidze once what it's like for her to have conscious Fi, and she replied quite succinctly: pain. That really stuck in my mind.
For the Fi-lead, who comes into this world with a permeable skin, I can imagine Te coming to the rescue. But I see this as tied more to the matter of Fi in particular, rather than to the l--l development level.
@Auburn why are you doing this to me?? :)))
If I develop my Ni, I will start moving the threads and the threads reach everywhere, the web covers the whole world !! And then I'll send my packs of direwolfspiders to every one of you and they will eat your cables and leave you guys without internet connection ! And howl at the full moon while jumping up and down on their 8 furry legs. No that's wrong, that's my Pe speaking, they will howl at the moon while doing cobra movements because now they got improved and are direwolfspidercobras !
Maybe earlier traumatic experiences involving one energy might alter the ‘standard’ myth. I have ADHD, I’m Etype 9 core and have a deep complex around competence/incompetence stemming from countless negative/shaming encounters in my childhood and through teen years (much worse in teen years though bad overall). It could be yours is the natural pattern whereas mine has altered my relationship with Te in particular.
This makes so much sense ! Also maybe we tend to have these negative experiences with the lower functions because we don't use them as successfully as the first two. And then when someone says something hurtful about us, it is usually connected to the lower functions !
Like I remember my parents were always very disappointed by my lack of organization and ability to do house chores at an acceptable level. Also luckily I usually managed to obtain good grades, so I don't have a very big competency issue steming from arguments about school but I always, always thought I am not smart enough and that people are fooled by my ambition and insight. This makes me have a bit of an impostor syndrome in certain situations.
But my Te can do some things. My strategic thinking is good. I am bad at articulating but well above average in finding solutions to different problems. So, there is some ambivalence around my Te too. Like when you love your car but it doesn't do exactly what you want it to do and then you get frustrated and start kicking and cursing. :)) But it doesn't look like a dark evil car, just like a not perfectly functional one. And when it does its functional part, what it does is completely unconscious and I don't feel I really used logical thinking to arrive at the solution. This is why I thought I am an Ne user - it looks like I jump from one thought to the conclusion without seeing the steps I made to get there. But I think I don't see them because my Te is unconscious and at the same time Ni somehow gets involved and gives this whole process a supernatural aura. :)) And I can't really see through the darkness and the mystical...shining. :))
I’m ordering owl figurines to place all around my living space; looking at them gives me such tranquility. Reading later what they represent as totems/spirit-guides I saw essentially an attitude that matches that of my ‘inner wizard’ or compassionate ‘witness’ ala some Buddhist ideas. Silent and observant, kinda passive like Pi, but deeply, deeply wise. Also, kinda dark/mysterious without being evil. I can’t access it at will, which makes me think I’m trying to develop Si kinda the same way I developed Fi in my twenties: through spiritual practices that either call on or use them. I think due to my weird relationship with Te, my psyche has decided to use Si to deal with my life problems instead of Te.
This is so cute !!! I love owls too !
I also perceive my Ni as wise and passive but here is the issue - it looks like one who knows, like a shaman/seer and like a counselor. But there is something seductive - actually even erotic - about it. And dangerous. As if - I know this is absurd since it's just one of my functions - but as if Ni would lure me in her little crib in order to teach me something but with the hidden intention to catch me and devour me ! She says "come here ! I will give you wisdom." But I sense something wicked behind it. How can you have perfect wisdom and not be in the slightest manipulative? Why would you want to share wisdom with a pleasure seeking (:p) kid playing a flute if you don't actually want to eat him alive?! This is the dark part that freaks me out about Ni. She is the old lady in the woods but my Se is just a kid on the "trail of treats" - a path where I can find sweets hanging on trees... and if I arrive to her gingerbread house, my question is...why is a gingerbread house here?? What is the purpose of so many treats?? Maybe I project on Ni the "greed" of Se. The attunement to the senses of Se. The opportunism of Se. The Se trickster archetype...over a Senex archetype. And I see an old lady who is very wise and very dangerous. :)))
But @auburn - you also said :
but I feel a phobia against the essence of Si
How does this manifest?
And when it does its functional part, what it does is completely unconscious and I don’t feel I really used logical thinking to arrive at the solution. This is why I thought I am an Ne user – it looks like I jump from one thought to the conclusion without seeing the steps I made to get there. But I think I don’t see them because my Te is unconscious and at the same time Ni somehow gets involved and gives this whole process a supernatural aura. :)) And I can’t really see through the darkness and the mystical…shining. :))
Oh my word, @Bera, this is Te FLOW!!!! You're the second person in two weeks who's mentioned it to me! I perceived mine last year as I was in the early stages of writing and all this unconscious productivity was pouring out of me like a spring. I even thought I'd finally started sorting my Te issues and developed Te. I read the NeFi III- profile in our development thread and it really looked like who I was fast becoming. I described it at that time this way,
I located my Articulator! I heard it clearly in my head. I dream of it (an experienced male scholar), but it's actually pretty 'seeable' in waking life too! When its "on" there's a flow experience in articulation. Coherent thought/speech/writing that bypasses the regular conscious middle-man. In this case, the middle-man just watches/listens and writes. Kinda like its being dictated to. There's no sense that "I" am doing the thinking/only receiving it complete, from an inner source.
To which Alerith replied,
It's fascinating that you feel like you're kind of a vessel for the articulation that's flowing through you. Do you think this is perhaps because your Te is subconscious, and so not associated with your conscious ego?
And I explained,
Yeah, it's DEFINITELY not conscious. It's "not me", it's a clear voice in my head, rapidly streaming very well thought-out speech. I'm not sure what gets it to come "on", though. Sometimes things just align and it does.
And I meant both! Pi too (but I'll describe it in the Pi subforum when I have a chance). Je is two modes in me (that I can now 'see'):
1) That articulator, he (for some reason it is a he, not a she, lol, maybe because this is the form it takes in my dreams) is very direct, no-nonsense, coherent. When he comes on he is the best! Makes my writing so much better! I feel very different when he's talking. I am deeply calm and in a 'listening mode except I'm listening to someone inside not outside. Like I said, it's kinda like dictation.
2) At some point in my creative process it turns into some kind of building project, the sense of producing something, something that's my own, my own work, and it fills me with the greatest sense of joy. Utterly delicious.
-I think it's Je because there's that world-shaping element in it, except it's within a creative process. I guess it serves Ne + Fi interests in that mode and that's why it's so utterly intoxicating in the ecstasy it produces in me. It's completing something. Or perhaps the creative process engages all my four EQs and that's what sends me to the clouds lol, their combined effort or cooperation? Idk. Either way, I imagine it's doing something in me that a drug might do for someone: definitely a 'high' going on here.
-I say so because when I attempt to do straight up dry Te tasks, rather than wait for it to wake up and come on in and join the Ji/Pe process on it's own, it actually saps my psychic energy. I literally feel dry, in a physical sense. The same spot that feels intoxicated with joy^ feels extremely dry and parched and everything is super difficult. Even reading a simple non-complex paragraph, when done in that straight linear, goal-directed Je manner can be very very difficult and sterile.
Does this resonate with your unconscious Te productivity, Bera? Funnily, it might not be about lack of development but just a flow experience of Te, because the other person who mentioned it to me is Te developed (Candydrinker).
It may just be how Te functions at a high level, even if such levels are accessed only in limited instances by some Te users. It actually makes sense when you think about Te-lead master articulators like Ben Shapiro! That's what I thought when I located it last year: When you see them in action, it looks like there's literally no "time" for conscious delineation of concepts. It's like there's no gap between judgment and its articulation; as if coherency simply flows! Same thing can be imagined btw judgment and action. Organization simply flows. But this would be a peak Te experience, not an everyday one, IMO. Prolly one easily accessed by those with most direct access to it and most experience with it (a life-time's worth!) in comparison to other types of users. And there are prolly equivalents for Fe and even the other 6 CFs.
@auburn, @bera, I also thought in addition to the trauma thing, another factor might be ego. We haven't factored it in so much because of difficulty typing it. But I've thought about my issues some more and how they manifest and I think they manifest as a battle between Fi and Te agendas precisely because my ego may, after all, be in Fi, and not Te or Ne or Si. Ego is who we believe we are, and if my deep self-concept is tied to Fi values and methods, it makes sense my Te would automatically become my antagonist, especially given the trauma.
On the other hand, it may have been that deep traumas around Je/Te are what necessitated a turn to both the spiritual and the development of Fi in my late teens-to-early-twenties as a counterbalancing psychic strategy. Maybe I then crystallized my antagonism to Te in a bid to develop self-worth in a Ji seelie sense, as a protection against my internalized harsh Te steamroller/authority figure/voice.
I say so because these issues in me tend to be counter to my overall agenda. It may be the unseelie shadow to my seelie, but I see it more as dark/imbalanced Te, because unseelie Ji would still retain Ji delicacy and be sullen etc. It wouldn't suddenly become a steamroller before going back to usual Pe/Ji-ness. Yet that's what mine does in short bursts that directly contradict my more 'normal' outlook.
So it looks like a Te antagonist/saboteur to my conscious Fi ego investments. These investments for me have to do with my personal one-on-one, heart-to-heart relationships; and these Te episodes are the very thing that come to demolish them. My Fi does all this work of creating building bonds by creating safety via acceptance and compassion, then the Te steamroller comes in and destroys all that work in one afternoon.
It's kinda like two parents in competition: An Fi compassionate mother and a harsh Te father, and they fight in me for whose strategies prevail in managing my relationship with another soul. I suppose my internalized harsh Te father/steamroller behaves this way because I have refused (or struggled) to accept that he's part of me too. I've given him no room, kingdom, or role, so he bulldozes his way into Fi territory where I'm funnelling all this energy, like a jealous, neglected child himself.
Lastly, @bera (lol, so sorry 4 multiple tags but you said too many interesting things, so this is ur fault! 🙂 )
I love your description of Ni as the Hansel and Gretel Story. I think it is fitting since I really suspect that, like me, your Ni as your fourth might be the gateway to your own unconscious, which dark, mysterious, and scary as the unconscious is supposed to be. That's how I'm making sense of the evolution of my symbols for my shadow, from Wild bull, to scary snake, to nocturnal woodland creatures (and a wood under a full moon, which can also be seen as a creature of the night (moon)). I think this attitude is natural when we get close to the unconscious and for some strange reason, you and I seem to be doing it at around the same time, ha ha! Must be that mysterious Dischord synchrony energy at work
I may be off topic here, but what do y'all think about the energetic toll it takes to integrate an allocentric (Ne/Si) framework with an egocentric one (Fi/Te)? This has always been a great source of psychic tension for me. There's a demand for perfection on every level and at every angle, an impossibility. There's the obvious flexibility v. rigidity for P's integrating J, but there's the attached/unattached dichotomy present in NF psyches.
@bera, the Fi in my dreams is always doing nothing too!
@auburn, thanks for your reply, it casts a light over many a shadow. That being said, it's hard to see how to use that model to distinguish the auxiliary from the tertiary. Let's take an example. SeFi has Fi and Te as auxiliary and tertiary, which according to your model we know they are subservient to Se's agenda. Further, we have the idea that Fi and Te have a slightly different energetic toll, which fair enough, but what about looking at SeFi l-l- vs SeFi ll--, for example? You might say that Fi has a supportive narrative role whereas Te has a more adversarial role, which as far as it goes is ok, but then we see people who seem to have more of an adversarial role with their auxiliary and team up with their tertiary.
I propose to fix this by saying we have hierarchy all the way down, a lordship of lords. What do I mean? Se is lord over all in the SeFi. What distinguishes Fi and Te is that while they are both subservient to the same lord, Te is also subservient to Fi. Likewise, Ni in the SeFi, even if fully conscious, would serve the agendas of the other functions, while perhaps less so than if it were not fully conscious.
Huh? @auburn, why did you split that away? I was contributing to these function stack myth ideas. :S Confuzzled.
Essentially suggesting, per Beebe's model:
Oh, whoops! I never know when exactly to split these threads, but I felt Beebe was a good (and big enough) topic to deserve its own thread. I hope it's okay?
We can keep this topic specifically for defining the energetic arrangement of the function stack (i.e. debating 1>2>3>4 or 1>3>2>4 etc), and we can keep the Beebe thread focused on how these positions may match onto mythical narrative roles. This way the Beebe's discussion is free to roam about.
Ah, ok, then. Np.
I think 1>2>3>4 is good for me for hierachy. There's a reason we think NeFi I-I- are NeFis and not NeTes. We might not yet be able to say exactly how the undeveloped Fi colours the personality but we know it does.
@faerie - I'm sorry I didn't answer earlier but I was away for some days.
You said :
I also thought in addition to the trauma thing, another factor might be ego. We haven’t factored it in so much because of difficulty typing it. But I’ve thought about my issues some more and how they manifest and I think they manifest as a battle between Fi and Te agendas precisely because my ego may, after all, be in Fi, and not Te or Ne or Si. Ego is who we believe we are, and if my deep self-concept is tied to Fi values and methods, it makes sense my Te would automatically become my antagonist, especially given the trauma.
I also see Fi and Te as opposed, but although I have Fi ego, I am afraid of my Ni, not of my Te. Every time I tried to confront my Ni, I felt like it was an evil side of me that was trying to kill me. I am slowly untangling this though. 🙂
My Te looks rather potentially dangerous to others...not to myself. I would love to become tougher and to have a steamroller available when things get rough. But I have to say this is my conscious perception of Te...I have no idea what would actually happen if I tried to develop it - who knows what demons I might find. 🙂
It also does look a bit masculine and dad like. But I think it is indeed the necessary balancing force to our Fi.
I love your description of Ni as the Hansel and Gretel Story. I think it is fitting since I really suspect that, like me, your Ni as your fourth might be the gateway to your own unconscious, which dark, mysterious, and scary as the unconscious is supposed to be. That’s how I’m making sense of the evolution of my symbols for my shadow, from Wild bull, to scary snake, to nocturnal woodland creatures (and a wood under a full moon, which can also be seen as a creature of the night (moon)). I think this attitude is natural when we get close to the unconscious and for some strange reason, you and I seem to be doing it at around the same time, ha ha! Must be that mysterious Dischord synchrony energy at work
Yes, my Ni looks exactly like the gateway to my unconscious ! I don't even know if it was a good idea to approach it. :))
About synchronicity - indeed, it's really strange. I would have never even imagined someone else could be going through something that similar to my problem ! It's quite lucky we talked and found out about it. It helps to know you are not alone in a situation like this.
By the way, it seems like when an undeveloped function starts to create chaos and distress, focusing on the opposite function can restore the natural state of being. For example in my case traveling and seeing many beautiful places really calmed down my dark inner imagery and sense of doom. But I'm not sure simply going in the opposite direction is the right thing to do, since we probably should not reject any part of ourselves. So, the solution could be to alternate between them - to explore the uncharted territory for a bit and then to go back to the surface...then back down again...etc. It's just an idea and it occurred to me maybe I should share it.
(this is not necessarily representative of the true demographic distribution within regular people, but perhaps somewhat representative of the distribution of developments among celebrities-- which may be skewed from the average in certain ways yet unknown)
if l-l- was more common overall across the types, we might expect to see more equal representation in the introverted types. instead we see that most are double-extroverts, which makes sense when we consider that double-extroverts would thrive more in public settings such as in celebrity positions and careers. so it may be that double extroverted l-l- types are positively selected for, skewing the demographic of the samples in that direction.
^ Here is a plot of the distribution of development levels so far.
(gosh, data plots make me squirm with joy.. is that weird?)
The Google Doc above is easier to read than my copy/paste below.
@auburn So glad you pulled this data. It makes sense that when including public figures there's lots of double E development.
I've pulled data from the new database, but only including information from volunteers. There were 70 on the database at the time, which greatly reduces sample size unfortunately. But the trend for levels of development goes against my initial hypotheses in the original thread. I'll copy and paste my stats here (nothing tested formally for significance, however).
(And in case it needs formally stating for everyone, I'm just a Ji-lead Delta science nerd who gets over-excited by ideas and data. I'm not trying to step on toes, or be arrogant or controlling or antagonise or whatever other negative interpretation of my intentions might come out of this that I can't currently imagine.)
These are general data trends pulled from volunteer data only. Public figures, celebrities etc are deliberately not included to make these numbers more representative of the average random person.
Volunteers are self-selected participants already interested in Cognitive Functions (and possibly Psychology, self-help, and self-development etc). So this group is not necessarily representative of the general population either. We are a function of whoever gravitated towards this system in the first place.
Once we start breaking down group differences the sample sizes become far too small to be making definitive statements, so none of my observations below are definitive statements of truth. Just vague trends so far.
I’ve broken things down by percentages to look for trends, patterns, and group differences, but again, none of these figures have been tested for statistical significance.
I’ve put my own musings in italics, to see if these trends stick around once there’s a much larger sample size, and for potential general discussion points.
Volunteers on Database (6th August 2019): N = 70
Males: N = 32, Females: N = 38
Pe leads: 31 (Ne = 18; Se = 13) 44.3%
Pi leads: 13 (Ni = 9; Si = 4) 18.6%
Je leads: 4 (Te = 2; Fe = 2) 5.7%
Ji leads: 22 (Ti = 12; Fi = 10) 31.4%
Roughly equal number of men and women on the database. Pe-leads are the most common (Ne slightly more common than Se), followed by Ji-leads (Ti, Fi roughly equal). This is NOT going to translate to prevalence rates in the general population, but is more representative of the types of people who gravitate towards CT in the first place.
“Light” Seelie/Adaptive, N = 38, 54.3% (Males N = 18; Females N = 20)
“Dark” Unseelie/Directive, N = 32, 45.7% (Males N = 14; Females N = 18)
Roughly equal numbers of “light” and “dark” heart orientations, with no real difference between men and women.
Within-group differences: Dark orientation (N=32)
Pe-lead = 14 (Ne-lead = 8; Se-lead = 6, women = 6) 43.8%
Pi-lead = 10 (Ni-lead = 9; Si-lead = 1, women = 5) 31.3%
Je-lead = 2 (Te lead = 2; Fe-lead = 0, women = 2) 6.2%
Ji-lead = 6 (Ti-lead = 3; Fi-lead = 3, women = 5) 18.8%
Pe-leads are 44% of the database, and equally represented in heartitude (43.8% “dark”)
Pi-leads are just 18.6% of the database, but are 31.2% “dark” heartitude (overrepresented), with Ni-lead especially overrepresented (twice as many Ni-leads than Si-leads in the database, but Ni is still 9x more likely to be “dark” than Si)
Je-leads are 5.7% of the database, and roughly equally represented in heartitude (6.2% “dark”), with more Te than Fe being “dark”, (but !! very low sample size)
Ji-leads are 31.4% of the database, but underrepresented in heartitude orientation (only 18.8% “dark”) with neither Ti nor Fi more likely to be “dark”, although Ji-lead women seem more likely to be “dark” than Ji-men.
With more data, will Je-leads always be likely to be “dark” in heartitude. Why?
What makes Pi-leads more likely to have a dark orientation? And Ni especially? (OR, are the Pi leads finding CT in the first place more likely to be “dark” anyway).
What makes Ji-leads less likely to be “dark”? Why are Ji-women more likely to be Unseelie/Directive than men?
Flat Affect, N = 10 (14.3%) Females = 2; Males = 8
Sample size far too small for trends, but the lead-function split is (Ne = 3; Ni = 2; Te = 2; Fe = 1; Si = 2)
Men seem more likely to have flat affect than women.
The only two Te-leads in the whole database are both Flat Affect, and “dark” heartitude.
One Fe-lead out of the two in the whole database is also Flat Affect, and “dark” heartitude.
Generally Je-leads are overrepresented as having Flat Affect given their very low numbers overall.
No Ji-leads have flat affect so far, which is interesting given just how common they are overall.
Having flat affect does not predict heartitude, with 4 of 10 classified as Seelie/Adaptive.
Is there any reason that Je-leads are more likely to have life-circumstances that create Flat Affect?
Is there any reason that Ji-leads seem impervious to Flat Affect so far? E.g. Is there an extra emotional resilience, just for example, or are Ji-leads slipping through the vultological cracks?
How is someone simultaneously seelie/adaptive but with Flat Affect?
PART TWO: DEVELOPMENT LEVELS
E-leads (N=35, 50% of the database, with 88% of E-leads being Pe)
I-leads (N=35, 50% of the database, with 62% of I-leads being Ji)
Overall development levels:
I--- N= 27(38.6%)
II-- N= 16 (22.9%)
III- N= 9 (12.9%)
IIII N= 1 (1.4%)
I-I- N= 6 (8.6%)
I--I N= 4 (5.7%)
II-I N= 5 (7.1%)
I-II N= 2 (2.9%)
Most people have their lead-function conscious only, followed by lead and auxiliary being conscious.
NB. Sample sizes are far too small for the other development levels, but I looked at basic trends within these groups anyway.
Development I--- (N=27 total)
E-leads N = 15 (55.6% of development I---)
I-leads N= 12 (44% of development I---)
Roughly equal number of E and I leads in Development I-
Slightly more E-leads found in development I--- (55.6%) than present overall in the database (50%)
Slightly less I-leads found in development I--- (44%) than present overall in the database (50%).
But this might not be statistically significant.
Although 58.1% of Pe-leads in the whole database are Ne-lead, Ne-leads are overrepresented in I--- development, making-up 73% of the extraverted development I--- level. More Se-leads seem to have moved beyond this level.
Numbers are too low to compare Je (Te vs Fe), but it’s worth noting that none are in Dev I---
Heartitude: 15 of 27 have “Dark” orientation (55%, roughly in line with overall database)
Gender: 14 of 27 are women (roughly equal)
Flat Affect: 1 of 27 has Flat Affect (3.7%, underrepresented given overall prevalence rate of 14.3%).
Are introverts more likely to develop beyond I--- than extroverts?
Are Se-leads more likely to develop beyond stage I--- compared to Ne-leads?
Are those with Flat Affect more likely to be found in the less common development levels?
Development II- (E+I, or I+E, N= 16 total)
E-lead, N= 5 (31.3% of development II--)
I-lead, N= 11 (68.8% of development II--), All 11 were Ji-lead.
Introvert leads are overrepresented in development II-- (68.8% I vs 31.3% E) given that there’s an equal number of extrovert and introvert leads in the database overall.
Introverts seem more likely to develop a conscious E-function than extroverts are to develop a conscious I-function.
Ji-leads are overrepresented in development II-- given their overall prevalence in the database (31.4%), compared to Pi-leads (18.6%).
Not enough Je-leads in the database overall to comment on Pe vs Je, but worth noting that none are in Dev II-- either.
Most II-- development are Seelie/Adaptive
Heartitude: 3 of 16 have “Dark” orientation (18.8%, underrepresented given overall prevalence rate)
Gender: 11 of 16 are women (slightly overrepresented)
Flat Affect: 2 of 16 have Flat Affect (12.5%, roughly in-line with overall prevalence rate).
Why are introvert-leads more likely to develop a conscious extraverted function compared to extrovert-leads?
Why are Ji-leads (who are mostly Seelie/Adaptive in II--) more likely to develop a second conscious function that’s extroverted and auxiliary than Pi-leads (who develop double-introvert or develop the polarity, more on that below)
Development I-I- (E+E, or I+I, N=6 total)**
** Sample size far too small. Interesting that there’s an equal number of double introvert and double extravert development. But they’re vastly outnumbered by II-development.
All three double-introverts are Pi-leads. FWIW the other three double-extraverts are Se-lead, Te-lead and Ne-lead.
Heartitude: 4 of 6 have “Dark” orientation (66% of I-I-, overrepresented given overall prevalence rate of 14.3%)
Gender: 2 of 6 are women
Flat Affect: 2 of 6 have Flat Affect (33% of I-I-, overrepresented given overall prevalence rate of 14.3%, one E-lead, one I-lead).
Why are individuals with Flat Affect more likely to have I-I- development above I--- or II--?
Is there something about a “dark” orientation that pushes I-I- development above II-- (given that most II-- dev above are Seelie/Adaptive?)
Development III- (EIE, or IEI, N=9 total)**
** Sample size is small. Seems that most with III- development are extrovert-leads (either Se or Ne equally), with Seelie/Adaptive double-extrovert (5 of 7) more likely than double introvert.
Both of the IEI developments are Pi-leads (Ni), and both are unseelie, one with Flat Affect.
Not enough Je-leads in the database overall to comment on Pe vs Je, but worth noting that none are in Dev III-- either.
Heartitude: 4 of 9 have “Dark” orientation (in-line with overall prevalence rate)
Gender: 5 of 9 are women (roughly equal)
Flat Affect: 1 of 9 (11% of Dev III-, present in the Pi-lead)
Again, the unseelie Pi-leads (with and without Flat Affect) are overrepresented in having double-introvert functions (like the I-I- individuals above). Why?
Development I--I (Polarised I+E, or E+I, N=4 total)**
E-lead, N= 3 (Se, Fe, Te)
I-lead, N=1 (Si)
** Small sample size. The Je-leads finally make an appearance, with 2 of the 4 Je-leads in the database having I--I development. No Ji-leads appear.
Heartitude: split 50/50
Gender: Split 50/50
Flat Affect: 2 of 4 (50% of I--I, highly overrepresented given 14.3% general prevalence in the overall database. One Si-lead, one Te-lead)
Development II-I (I+E+E, E+I+I, N= 5 total)**
E-lead, N= 0
I-lead, N= 5
** Small sample size. So far, no extrovert leads have developed double-introvert functions.
4 of 5 introverts who developed double extroverted functions are Ji+Pe, with all 4 being Ti-lead, 4 being “dark” heartitude and 3 of the 4 being Ne-aux. The remaining introvert is Si-Te.
Heartitude: 4 of 5 have “dark” orientation (overrepresented)
Gender: 4 of 5 are women (small sample, but trending towards overrepresented).
Flat Affect: 0 of 5.
The other development levels consist of 1 or 2 people.
There are only two I-II development individuals, and both males have “dark” orientation with Flat Affect (SiTe, FeSi). One IIII development, SeFi, seelie male.