Hierarchy (Primary/Auxiliary/Tertiary/Polar)

Home Forums Model 1 Discussions Hierarchy (Primary/Auxiliary/Tertiary/Polar)

Viewing 14 posts - 1 through 14 (of 14 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #8431
    Auburn
    Keymaster
    • Type: TiNe
    • Development: l--l
    • Attitude: Adaptive

    A more dedicated article eventually needs to be written about this, but for now I hope to brainstorm in this thread with you guys as how to best word it.

    The Dilemma

    So firstly, CT has the difficult task of proving all its fundamentals in a physical/vultological form. It does not have the luxury of relying on metabolic math (a la Socionics) alone for its theoretical structure. In other words, "elegance" is not enough to justify a theoretical concept or to give them inclusion into the system.
    This has been one of the factors involved in the ongoing investigation of hierarchy. It is not a "given" that the format of Xi-Xe-Xi-Xe is to be accepted, just as no function's description is a given, but is to be continually described by its effects. Also, Jung's original conceptualization more closely resembles Xi-Xi-Xe-Xe. And Most recently it seems systems like Objective Personality System (OBS) are experimenting with both Xi-Xe-Xi-Xe and Xi-Xi-Xe-Xe being coexisting realities.
    Officially, the language chosen in the CT book for type hierarchies was very specific, stating for example:

    The FeNi type emerges when the Fe-Ti oscillation is primary and lead by Fe, while supported by the Ni-Se perception oscillation.

    Notice the lack of mention regarding the auxiliary/tertiary function's orientation. This omission was intentional, as it was not entirely relevant to the type but also not known. The FeNi, in this example, is named Alever whether the hierarchy is Fe(Ni/Se)Ti or Fe(Se/Ni)Ti.
    However, I think we may be in a position finally to solidify a stance on the topic. And it seems hierarchy is not fluid, and one is not born as either TiNe or TiSi, ..but instead one is always born as TiNe and development factors into the rest. I don't think "TiSi" is a type that one is born with.
    So part of the confusion we saw was due to the phenomenon of development levels, which had not been mapped and which contributed to anomalies. So we would see example of NeFi with conscious Te, appearing to be NeTe/FiSi (and so forth).
    But after having done most of the development levels, there are three factors that continually stand out:

    • 1. Conductor & Reviser Signals are real, consistent and present even in unusual hierarchies (l-l-, l-ll).
    • 2. The psychological role of the Auxiliary remains the same, whether the function is conscious or not.
    • 3. There is a notable energetic difference and toll that is visible, despite a lower function being conscious, which confirms to us that it is indeed "lower."

    I will be going into these points one at a time down below.
     

    #8432
    Auburn
    Keymaster
    • Type: TiNe
    • Development: l--l
    • Attitude: Adaptive

    beginning with number two...

    #2

    To give you a few examples of the psychological angle, we see that all l--- developments still exhibit the psychological qualities of the auxiliary. A TiNe l--- is still tinted by Ne, even when the function is not conscious. There is still curiosity, exploration, experimentation, open-endedess.. provided by Pe as an auxiliary.
    Likewise, TeSi l--- types like Ted Cruz display a "mapping" of reality, of facts and variables, in such a way as to be actionable towards Te. This unconscious-yet-auxiliary Si is still present psychologically and is tethered to Je.
    And to given an extreme case of modulation, we see FeNi l-ll Jordan Peterson who has his lower two functions conscious yet Ni unconscious. And yet his Ni still plays the expected role that it should as an auxiliary and conductor pair to Fe. It constructs a wide panoramic sight, but does so for the actionable purpose of the Conductor agenda. In contrast, the Pi of a reviser type (like myself TiNe ll-l) is there to help store my Pe explorations into a synthesized comprehension of life (Pi) but not for any pragmatic aim.
    We see this also with our members Hrafn and Meta (l-ll) who have an easy time going into Je, despite it not being conscious. Meta has described his Te as something he 'can do' with little problem, even if its not his favorite thing. So it is easier for an SiTe l--- to "reach for" Te, than it is for an FiNe to "reach for" Te. And this would not be true if hierarchy wasn't real.

    So what does this mean?

    It means the roles of primary, auxiliary, tertiary and polar exist independent of levels of consciousness. Which is how the system is already set up now:

    But to give an example of this:
    TeNi

    • Primary Je: Plays the role of pragmatic, object-oriented thinking. Abiotic causality tracking.
    • Auxiliary Pi: Plays the role of providing a map for that primary Je to put into actionable use.
    • Tertiary Pe: Provides some relief from conductor agendas, in the form of jovial experimentation but always with the implicit purpose of 'making something out of it'. Even if it's fun, it's often "purposeful" fun. They take their fun seriously.
    • Polar Ji: Provides a biotic view to the actionable Je agent. So that this object-oriented causality tracking can be attuned to organic sensibilities.

    Contrast this against:
    FiSe

    • Primary Ji: Plays the role of idealist, for-its-own-sake desire for purity and honest self-representation/manifestation.
    • Auxiliary Pe: Plays the role of experimenter alongside Ji, to help in the fashioning of that idealism or individualism.
    • Tertiary Pi: Provides holistic and synthetic convergence of information patterns, for the purpose of refining one's truth axioms.
    • Polar Je: Provides some pragmatic force to aide in the manifestation of the core Ji ideal.

    We see here how the positions that the functions have in a hierarchy changes their psychological roles. The role of Pi in a conductor is always somewhat actionable, because of its collaboration with Je. The role of Pi in a reviser is to give a wider and more expansive view of the world, but as part of the exploratory process. The two are different. And the same goes for the other 3 energetic functions.

    "But I can't have auxiliary Se, I'm all about that Ni"

    Now I think this framing solves problems like the above statement. If Se is understood first and foremost as "Pe" (as CT prioritizes Pe/Pi/Je/Pi and then subdivides into functions later), then the presence of Pe as an auxiliary is more important, metabolically speaking, than whether or not all of the function's traits have come into full light (i.e. fully conscious).
    So an FiSe l-l- doesn't actually skip over Se in favor of Ni. In other words they're not FiNi/SeTe, they're FiSe l-l-. As a reviser type, the FiSe l-l- will still be open-ended, curious, exploratory, having generative abilities (aux Pe) ...even if they lack 'engagement with the tactile' due to a non-conscious Se. And their Ni will be thematic, panoramic and symbolically voluminous/comprehensive. However, Ni will not be constructed in such a way as to aide a purposeful application or conductor forwardness.

    Earlier Ideas

    In the old site, the type FiSe-Ni was also nicknamed "FiNi" in the 64 subtypes system and it was unclear if FiNi was a standalone type or not. This confusion has been essentially removed with the update to development levels. The 64 subtypes system was an awkward and unsustainable intermediate phase of CT, as it grouped development levels 1-4 with ego fixations.. and didn't acknowledge 3-4 function consciousness.
    The development levels are now formatted in a way that implicitly integrates the Xi-Xe-Xi-Xe hierarchy, which is what makes codes like "ll--" and "l--l" meaningful to read. Still, much more needs to be explored as to what "primary", "auxiliary", "tertiary", and "polar" mean for each of the energetic quadrants. "Polar Ni" is not the same as "Auxiliary Ni", and so forth. And I hope we can explore what these differences are on this forum~

    #8441
    Auburn
    Keymaster
    • Type: TiNe
    • Development: l--l
    • Attitude: Adaptive

    To give a practical example of how this might be useful in our investigation of types...
    Lets say someone wants to know if they're an Ni lead type, because they have lots of Ni. Well, we can run this by our understanding of: primary Ni, auxiliary Ni, tertiary Ni and polar Ni.
    For primary Ni, it's not just the interest in the Ni topics (thematic convergence/the-esoteric/etc) -- as all four versions of Ni have this -- but primary Ni would have the added qualities of conductor forwardness, pragmatic tracking in collaboration with auxiliary Je. It would have senex energy, a resistant and antagonistic relationship to change/Pe, and so forth.
    For polar Ni, it would have the same interest in Ni topics, but it would exist in service to a Pe-lead agenda with generative abilities, experimentation and open-endedness. It would be the Pi "storehouse" of Pe's gathering. Rather than them being a senex, they would be a puer with a fancy for the magical. A Pe painter or artist with undertones that draw from the arcane Ni material.
    (etc)
    In this sense, the "volume" of Ni present is not the determining factor of hierarchy, but in how Ni is used in relation to the other functions. @faeruss - Let me know your ideas on this. And anyone else too, what do you guys think of this interpretation?
    I'll have GIFs later to demonstrate why I think this is accurate from a vutlological perspective ...but I wanted to start with the psychology first. Thanks!
    p.s. Also @animal - your relationship to your Ni-lead dad may be informative here, as to the difference in hierarchy positions for functions. If you wanted to share your thoughts?

    #8448
    Tea
    Participant
    • Type: NeFi
    • Development: l--l
    • Attitude: Seelie

    I couldn't sleep last night, and I was up with these very questions, which is unusual for me lately. Previously I wanted to know how to model it, but I haven't been sure of what the reality actually looks like. Keeping my eyes peeled now. I was actually gonna draw a few things to run by you guys, but it'll have to wait until later in the week. Or next weekend. I really want to run it by everyone and see if it gels with their experience.
    This is really helpful, thank you.
     

    #8457
    Elisa Day
    Participant
    • Type: TiSe
    • Development: ll--
    • Attitude: Adaptive

    How would you define conscious/unconscious the way you are using it in this system, @auburn? Is there a link to the definitions I can have?
    thanks!

    #8458
    Auburn
    Keymaster
    • Type: TiNe
    • Development: l--l
    • Attitude: Adaptive

    Sure. I think one of the most updated versions is here:

    8 Development Levels


    Specifically under "Criteria of Consciousness"
    Although the language may need minor adjustments given the clarifications in this topic. The previous idea was that conscious functions could rival the primary and even have their own autonomy (i.e. to act from their own impulse, and not subordinate to the lead function). In general I think this is headed in the right direction, but "autonomy" may be going too far or at least it has to be better understood and contextualized.
    For example, an FiSe l-l- would not have "Ni rivaling the dominant position" because their Ni would not behave as an Ni-lead's Ni. Again this is because an Ni-lead is always a conductor type, so the kind of autonomy an FiSe's conscious Ni would have is not the same as the kind of autonomy that an NiFe's lead function naturally has.
    The FiSe with conscious Ni would still be existent within a Ji-lead hierarchy, and that would influence expression, so their Ni wouldn't behave like the Ni of the NiFe.
    We know this from seeing (for example) NeFi l-l- types and how their conscious Te gives them a lot of Je agency and capacity to dabble in technology & science experiments, but we don't see their Te taking the more authoritatively minded position that a Je-lead would. It's still within the umbrella of a Pe-lead. I think clarifying these limits may be very instrumental.

    #8461
    EpicEntity
    Participant
    • Type: SeTi
    • Development: l--l
    • Attitude: Directive

    Ooh boy, if my acquaintance is an NiFe-Se like I think he is then this might have that correlations. Boy do I piss him off at times. He will have zero tolerance whenever I:

    • say something slightly woo-woo... (except enneagram for some reason)
    • make a joke with undertones
    • fuck up trying improvise my wording
    • choose vulnerable humiliation over tactful articulation

    My SeTi-Se acquaintance will have patience for pretty much all the above except anything woo-wooish
    We all get along pretty well when it comes to shooting the shit. However, when comes to goals and pursuits they agree with each other on material gains over meaning and truth. Not surprisingly they disagree me for taking the side of vice versa.
     

    #8482
    Faeruss
    Participant
    • Type: FeNi
    • Development: llll
    • Attitude: Directive

    @Auburn
    Yes, a lot of this make sense, though some of the details and subtleties need to be ironed out, as well as dispelling some confusions/confounding variables.
    I would say that for me, Ni is felt as working for Ti and vice-versa, but the idea of Ni working in sync with an actionable agenda is rather foreign to me, almost smacking of "impurity". Ni is fundamentally linked to a truth-seeking and coalescing of information into grander schemas and maps of ever-expanding complexity. I attributed a lot of this to having been a doubly-introverted personality for most of my life, so long that the hierarchy "jumped over" Pe or Je, whichever was the case.
     

    Again this is because an Ni-lead is always a conductor type, so the kind of autonomy an FiSe’s conscious Ni would have is not the same as the kind of autonomy that an NiFe’s lead function naturally has.

    I might quibble with this, as following your idea, an NiFe's Ni wouldn't also have pure autonomy, in the sense that it would be irrevocably tied to conductor aims. In the end, a function is a tool, and the idea of hierarchy would tell us how that tool is used and what bias it has. I don't see how the usage of Ni in a Ji-lead hierarchy is more impure, necessarily, especially if the function is conscious - yes it has a role in the hierarchy of the psyche, but so does it in an Ni-lead.
    Just to clarify, you say that an Ni-lead will carry a senex energy, and we should be careful to distinguish that it would be a pure senex energy, as someone with Pi conscious would also have senex energy, as we have come to see, but they wouldn't be a pure senex, as this energy would be additive to their dominant function's energy.
    Also, on the topic of conductor vs revisor, I think we need to refine some definitions and conceptions around this. I know I have conductor energy, so I might not be a good example, also being disagreeable and directive, but sometimes I get the feeling that conductor energy is confused with directiveness/pushiness/forwardness/disagreeableness, qualities that revisers can certainly have. Sometimes revisers sound overly soft/non-imposing/unassuming, which are qualities I wouldn't put in the reviser box. It should be more about how they relate to information and its judgment, and I think there are plenty of conductors who are pushovers and unassertive.
     

    #8485
    Auburn
    Keymaster
    • Type: TiNe
    • Development: l--l
    • Attitude: Adaptive

    Yea, I would step away from the word "purity" here, as I think it's not appropriate and there's a subtle value judgment there which I don't think needs to be there.
    I would say the absolute complete story of Ni-ness, or the "pure" Ni... is that which exists collectively in all hierarchies and in all Ni users. But such a thing does not exist in any human.
    A function will always exist in relationship to other functions. No function exists in isolation. So indeed, even an Ni-lead's Ni might be said to not be the whole narrative of Ni. I don't think we can "know" what a function is by itself, any more than we can know what emotions are like outside of the body. We only ever see Ni in a given context.
    As you said it's a tool; one that is wielded 8 different ways across 2 different quadras.

    #8492
    Hrafn
    Participant
    • Type: SiTe
    • Development: l-ll
    • Attitude: Seelie

    This all makes sense to me--I'd been wondering about this topic for a while, so I'm thankful for this article.
    I should qualify this, though:

    We see this also with our members Hrafn and Meta (l-ll) who have an easy time going into Je, despite it not being conscious.

    Yes-no...it's really sort of nuanced. I have an easy time with some Fe-ish things, like being able to speak with conviction, being naturally agreeable & authentic and being able to put people at ease. Yet on the other side of the coin, I can be quite wooden/awkward in some social situations, can lose track of social dynamics, and have sometimes been prone to doing things like getting excited and speaking too loudly. I won't get sucked into the rabbit-hole of trying to evaluate where I stand vis a vis every single Fe trait...but my point is that my relationship with the function is a mixed bag.
    At the very least, though, I can't say that Ne or Ti are necessarily any easier to use just because they are conscious. In order for my Ne to really let loose, for example, I generally have to feel comfortable in a given social situation. Otherwise, I usually default to more conservative Fe methodologies. By contrast, it seems like some Ne-leads respond to awkward social situations with off-the-wall Ne antics.
    If I had to generalize how I perceive my Fe as manifesting in its heirarchical role, I'd say that it usually feels more free & uninhibited than do Ti & Ne. It's probably less likely to do things that my Si-lead agenda is wary of. I guess this makes sense with the conductor-reviser distinction in CT. Also, I think I've mentioned this before, but it seems like because Pi & Je are in opposite EQ's, the auxiliary is less likely to encroach on the primary's turf.
    It almost feels to me like the true contours of my relationship to the functions is more of a dynamic pattern than a linear ranking. Variables in this pattern include not only heirarchal order, but also level of consciousness and ego-relationship. Even when I think about heirarchy itself, I wonder if there isn't a bit of complexity arising from the fact that the primary and the polar share the same oscillation. If the primary is a big tree that casts a long shadow, the polar is a much smaller tree growing right next to it. Because of this, the polar must strain to grow out of the primary's shadow...yet it has some advantage in that it's of the same species as the primary. The auxiliary is a different kind of tree at the opposite end of the yard, where it can sort of do its own thing because the shadow has less influence on its growth.

    #8497
    Tea
    Participant
    • Type: NeFi
    • Development: l--l
    • Attitude: Seelie

    This got me thinking about how many Ji types here seem more Ne lifestyle-wise than me. But it’s not Ne, it’s simply the carefree aspect of not having a heavy Pi homing instinct (for Ji the home is the self). Ji and Pe work as one in their call to live an unencumbered life true to the self.
    What’s interesting is that even though I tend not to actualize  the Ji Lifestyle, I still feel its pull. For me, external certainly and pragmatism tends to win out. That’s a tension that’s been ever present since adolescence. My pragmatism isn’t for the self alone. There’s a strong communal aspect to it, which is momentarily opposed to the pull of Ji but always laying the groundwork for it. Like “I will come for you, my sweet!”
    And despite all my impulses to be pragmatic, few would call me practical. “The Unrealistic Optimist” my friend calls me. Even my prioritizing of Si matters seems very Ji (selective and idiosyncratic), which perhaps shows that Ji is somehow higher up. I’m unsure if there’s subordination between Pi and Ji. But the subordination to Ne is clear.
     
     
     

    #8547
    EpicEntity
    Participant
    • Type: SeTi
    • Development: l--l
    • Attitude: Directive

    And despite all my impulses to be pragmatic, few would call me practical. “The Unrealistic Optimist” my friend calls me.

    And despite all my impulses to be pragmatic, few would call me practical. “The Unrealistic Opportunist” my friends and folks likely see me.

    #8635
    Elisa Day
    Participant
    • Type: TiSe
    • Development: ll--
    • Attitude: Adaptive

    Thanks for explaining how you’re using “consciousness,” @auburn. I understand now, but I was confused at first because it makes me think of how Carl Jung talked about consciousness and shadow work.
    Before getting typed I thought FiNe WAS my shadow. I didn’t consciously know I was displaying the signals visually. Even though I’ve been studying this system for awhile and can often accurately type others, I was only seeing NiFe in my visual signals. After the FiNe was brought to my awareness I was able to shift my perspective and see it, so to me it became “conscious” then.
    I’m not great at coming up with terms, but it sounds like how you are describing “consciousness” in functions may be something along the lines of “independent,” “rebellious,” or “bratty.” 😛

    #8653
    Hrafn
    Participant
    • Type: SiTe
    • Development: l-ll
    • Attitude: Seelie

    I've been thinking about this topic a bit more, and here's the most cohesive statement I can come up with about how I perceive my experience of my "missing" Fe:
    --Having subconscious Fe seems to mean, first-and-foremost, that it's difficult to act out Je energy in a deliberate way. This manifests as difficulty externalizing order; projecting gravitas on command; maintaining an ongoing, proactive awareness of whomever/whatever I'm to coordinate; keeping my attention distributed evenly across a collective milieu of people or objects (rather letting it get siphoned into just one); getting my shit together; etc. etc. I don't think this means lacking latent energy toward Fe, so much as it means lacking full control over the Fe energy within me and how deliberately it's released.
    --Having Fe as an higher function means that despite my difficulty in projecting it in a controlled way, I'm still relatively tethered to it. Its energy is still present within my body even if I'm not always able to create outlets for it. I think I see this with my Ti-usage--even when I've been pretty heavily into Ti-mode, the "biotic principle" is always at least in my peripheral vision. In other words, Fe colors my experience of Ti, perhaps because the former mistrusts the latter. I feel like I've gotten this vibe from other SiFe I-Ix's....like David Abram, to the limited extent I'm familiar with him, seems to have an intricately constructed Ti castle that ultimately points back toward a kind of animistic, Si+Fe-ish worldview. ... I could say something similar about the interrelationship of my Fe & Ne, but the experience is a bit different because Ne interacts more directly with Si than with Ti or Fe.

    Spoiler

    This said, I should mention that I'm coming to think it might be of limited use to compare my own qualities against those of functions (i.e. Fe) because my perception of my own behavior is based on first-person memories, which I can only review one at a time in an immersive way. Even when I review a bunch of them and try to consolidate them into "trends" or "traits," can always find counterexamples that sway my viewpoint. In other words, it's nearly impossible to get a birds-eye-view of my own first-person experience because these memories are based on highly subjective, particular experiences that I can't access without "zooming in."
    Anyway, I acknowledge that pitfall in considering this topic.

    [collapse]

     
    I tend to be skeptical of Jungian-typology literature with a perscriptive bent, e.g. "the well-developed SiFe ought to do such-and-such." But that said, I do wonder if there are advantages to developing the functions in a more sequential order...e.g. II-- rather than I-I-. I remember AJ Drenth took this view, and talked about attaining "flow states" (cf. Mihály Csíkszentmihályi) by integrating the functions in a top-down order. I wonder if there's something to this. On the other hand, there do seem a sizeable proportion of I-I- samples, at least among the extroverts. But maybe this is because double-extroversion is an advantage in navigating the fast-paced nature of modern life. On the old CT forum, I remember a discussion about overmodulation that was along these lines--double extroverts might be prone to mania, double introverts to depression.

Viewing 14 posts - 1 through 14 (of 14 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
© Copyright 2012-2021 Juan E. Sandoval - Use Policy
searchhomecommentsenvelope