Asks here are fine, but you're encouraged to use the Q&A form at the website below instead:
noferrah.wordpress.com
Pronouns: she/her. INFP (NiFiTeSe). Typology nerd. Armchair philosopher.
This ties in directly with my last post where I discussed why the functions aren’t cognitive functions, but psychic functions. Here, I’d like to add on a small, but notable curiosity to that in order to not only drive the point home even further, but to also call attention to a certain problem in the way we talk about the functions and to suggest a solution to it.
The names of each of the…
What is a “cognitive function”?
No, seriously. What even are they?
Wikipedia defines a cognitive function (the article says “cognitive skill” instead, but a footnote reveals it as a synonym,) as a “. . . [skill] of the mind, as opposed to other types of skills such as motor skills or social skills.” Psychology Today defines them as, quote, “. . . skills involving learning and problem-solving.”,…
Jung Never Intended the Auxiliary to Have the Opposite Attitude
Last post, I spent a good chunk of it focusing on the notion that Isabelle Myers misinterpreted Carl Jung about what he thought the attitude of the auxiliary function is. Because I made a pretty strong claim there and because I don't wish to leave it unbacked for too long, I decided to take care of it now (and besides, I did kinda promise to make a post like this anyway).
I will first quickly outline the bare minimum basics of Jung's model, supported by quotations. Then, I'll bring it all together with simple logical deduction and we shall see what we find in the end; I claim that what we'll find is that, under Classic Jungian, the auxiliary function of the typical individual shares an attitude with the dominant function.
The bare-bones basics of Jung's model
Jung proposed two different "attitudes", which are essentially distinct 'orientations'. One is an orientation towards "the object" -- the extroverted attitude (or extraversion, depending on your preferred spelling,) and the other is an orientation away from the object and towards "the subject" -- the introverted attitude. To quote Jung:¹
Extraversion means an outward-turning of [psychic energy²]. With this concept I denote a manifest relatedness of subject to object in the sense of a positive movement of subjective interest towards the object. Everyone in the state of extraversion thinks, feels, and acts in relation to the object
Chapter XI, p.g. 542³
Curiously, "Everyone in the state of" implies that attitude as such is a kind of mode one can be in. Now, introversion:
Introversion means a turning inwards of [psychic energy,] whereby a negative relation of subject to object is expressed. Interest does not move towards the object, but recedes towards the subject. Everyone whose attitude is introverted thinks, feels, and acts in a way that clearly demonstrates that the subject is the chief factor of motivation
Chapter XI, p.g. 567
We again see that attitude is a matter of one being in a particular state, though it's not as strongly implied here as with the previous excerpt. We can settle this ambiguity by looking at Jung's definition of "attitude":
. . . attitude is a readiness of the psyche to act or to react in a certain direction.
Chapter XI, p.g. 526
This not only seals the deal on what attitude is, but it even specifies on what it applies to. The operative word is "psyche", and not, say, "function".
We can also presume the two attitudes, extroversion and introversion, are primary when it comes to psychological type as, in Chapter X, not only are Jung's pure type descriptions (it will be addressed what exactly a "pure type" is later in this post,) sectioned off into an introverted and an extroverted category, but in the book's very introduction, Jung opens by talking about, of all things, the Introverted and Extroverted types:
IN my practical medical work with nervous patients I have long been struck by the fact that among the many individual differences in human psychology there exist also typical distinctions: two types especially became clear to me which I have termed the Introversion and the Extraversion Types
Introduction, p.g. 9
The next core aspect of Jung's model are the psychic functions, or
"psychological functions" (I will continue to only say "psychic function" for the remainder of the post). Let's see what Jung says a psychic function is:
By psychological function I understand a certain form of psychic activity that remains theoretically the same under varying circumstances.
Chapter XI, p.g. 547
Simple enough. How many functions may there be, Jung?
I distinguish four basic functions in all, two rational and two irrational--viz. thinking and feeling, sensation and intuition.
Chapter XI, p.g. 547
The way this is worded, it could be interpreted in one of two ways: either Jung is definitively saying that there's only four functions total, or he means that these are merely the "basic" functions and that there's ultimately more overall. We will settle this ambiguity later.
The third core aspect is one that is easily forgotten about, but is at least just as important as it intermingles with the other two very intimately. This aspect is 'consciousness' vs 'unconsciousness'.
An important thing to clarify from the outset is that Jung's conception of what the word "consciousness" means is different from many other definitions attributed to it. To quote Jung:
By consciousness I understand the relatedness of psychic contents to the ego . . . in so far as they are sensed as such by the ego
Chapter XI, p.g. 535-536
"ego" here is not meant in the colloquial sense of 'self-importance', but instead means something different:
By ego, I understand a complex of representations which constitutes the centrum of my field of consciousness and appears to possess a very high degree of continuity and identity.
Chapter XI, p.g. 540
In other words, the "ego" is that thing which is reading these words right now. That is, it is essentially you. This then means that, for Jung, consciousness is simply whatever part or parts of your psyche you are most aware of. Therefore, unconsciousness is that area of the psyche which you, the ego, is unaware of.
An easily-understood example of these concepts is memory. Before a memory of yours is recalled, such as your memory of whatever you had for breakfast yesterday (if you do not remember and/or did not have breakfast yesterday, pretend otherwise for a moment -- pretty please,) it was not present within your field of awareness; it was unconscious. However, the moment I mentioned such a memory to you, it suddenly sprung to the forefront of such awareness, and so it became conscious.
As such, the psyche is divided into two parts, the conscious and unconscious sides. Likewise, this applies to every other part of Jung's typology. For this reason, consciousness and unconsciousness are two of the most important things to understand about it, and so you're encouraged to consider the following few paragraphs carefully, perhaps more so than any other on this post.
In Chapter X, Jung describes "the general attitude" of both consciousness and unconsciousness for the extroverted and introverted types. We will use the former one as an example. For the extroverted types, he writes,
His entire consciousness looks outwards to the world, because the important and decisive determination always comes to him from without . . . Interest and attention follow objective happenings and, primarily, those of the immediate environment
Chapter X, p.g. 417 (Bold emphasis added; italics are of the original text)
Without a doubt, the attitude of consciousness for such kind of type is extroverted. This much was expected. However, for the unconscious side, it seems quite different:
The attitude of the unconscious as an effective complement to the conscious extraverted attitude has a definitely introverting character.
Chapter X, p.g. 422 (Emphasis added)
Why would an extroverted type's unconscious be introverted? Jung explains,
I regard the relation of the unconscious to the conscious as compensatory . . . It is only to be expected, therefore, that a psychic compensation of the conscious extraverted attitude will lay especial weight upon the subjective factor
Chapter X, p.g. 422 (Emphasis added)
In other words, Jung indicates that the unconscious's own nature serves as a compensation to the nature of consciousness. When the conscious is one way, the unconscious will be the exact opposite way. In the case of an extroverted type, since the consciousness of such is extroverted, the unconscious compensates for this by assuming an introverted nature. And an analogous situation is found with the introverted types as well:
The superior position of the subjective factor in consciousness [for the introverted types] involves an inferiority of the objective factor . . . a compensation naturally develops under the guise of an unconscious reinforcement of the influence of the object
Chapter X, p.g. 477-478 (Emphasis added)
Now, we will see how the concept of unconscious compensation applies to the psychic functions. Recall that Jung proposed four "basic" functions: Thinking, Feeling, Sensing, and Intuition. These functions have a very particular relationship with one another. The former two, Thinking and Feeling, are what Jung called the "rational" functions, while the latter two are designated the "irrational⁴" functions. What exactly those words mean is inconsequential in regards to the point being made here, and so the terms will not be explained in detail. The important thing to note about the groups is that, for each one, the two functions within are diametrically opposed; total opposites. For example, while describing Feeling, Jung says,
. . . thinking belongs to a category quite incommensurable with feeling.
Chapter XI, p.g. 545
And,
. . . [feeling's] nature stands in too strong a contrast to thinking. Thinking, if it is to be real thinking and true to its own principle, must scrupulously exclude feeling.
Chapter X, p.g. 514
The same tenet also applies to Sensing and Intuition.
It is important to note that this inter-function conflict is not as pronounced when one rational function and an irrational function are considered:
Neither intuition nor sensation are antagonistic to thinking, i.e. they have not to be unconditionally excluded, since they are not, like feeling, of similar nature, though of the opposite purpose, to thinking--for as a [rational] function feeling successfully competes with thinking -- but are functions of perception, affording welcome assistance to thought.
Chapter X, p.g. 515
Anyway, as with extroversion and introversion, there is the concept of opposites at play. As one might expect, this also implies that psychic functions relate to consciousness and unconsciousness in a very similar manner as the attitudes do.
If you're familiar with Pop-Myers-Briggs, or any other similar typology, you likely already know the idea of "function stacks". Jung never explicitly talks about such type of concept, but he does talk about three aspects of it: the "dominant", "auxiliary", and "inferior" functions (if you're going, "Where's the other one?" don't worry, we'll get there.)
The dominant and inferior positions are the ones most elaborated upon by Jung. In fact, the eight type descriptions found in Chapter X of Psychological Types are what he calls the "pure types": a type with only one function -- that is, the dominant one -- present in consciousness. As for the non-pure types, the auxiliary only receives a passing mention. To quote:
In the foregoing descriptions I have no desire to give my readers the impression that such pure types occur at all frequently in actual practice . . . Accurate investigation of the individual case consistently reveals the fact that, in conjunction with the most [conscious] function, another function of secondary importance, and therefore of inferior differentiation in consciousness, is constantly present, and is a relatively determining factor.
Chapter X, p.g. 514 (Emphasis added)
In other words, for the average person, consciousness has a total of two "basic" functions: the dominant function and the auxiliary function. If you're familiar with the function "stacks" of the Pop-Myers-Briggs system, you may recognize that they share a very similar pattern with Jung's own theory here. You may also be wondering where the other two functions are. Well, at least one of them, the inferior, is also here in Classic Jungian, except for one major difference: it is unconscious.⁵
Recall that when consciousness is extroverted, unconsciousness is then introverted. A very similar case happens with the functions. When Feeling is dominant, the unconscious compensates for this by taking on the Thinking function as its own "dominant" -- this does not mean that there are two dominant functions per se, but simply that the inferior function is the unconscious equivalent of consciousness's own dominant function. For example, the case of Jung's pure Extroverted Thinking type:
Since feelings are the first to oppose and contradict [extraverted thinking], they are affected first by this conscious inhibition, and upon them the most intense repression falls . . . Should the repression succeed, it disappears from consciousness and proceeds to unfold a[n unconscious] activity, which runs counter to conscious aims
Chapter X, p.g. 437-438
Now, although Jung only mentions these three positions -- dominant, auxiliary, and inferior, we can yet deduce that there must also exist an additional one as well, sitting between the auxiliary and inferior. If the dominant function has an unconscious counterpart found in the inferior function, then the auxiliary then must as well have its own counterpart also found within the unconscious. You may already know this as the "tertiary" function.
To sum up, the typical, fully developed psyche's function-arrangement within Classic Jungian goes like so:⁶
Dominant - Auxiliary <> Tertiary - Inferior
The "<>" separates the conscious (left) from the unconscious (right).
Following this general structure, here's an example of a Sensing type with a Thinking auxiliary:
Sensing - Thinking <> Feeling - Intuition
Bringing it all together
To recap, there are two different "attitudes"; two opposing modes of orientation regarding the world. One is a positive orientation to the object, extroversion, the other a negative relation to the object, introversion. Both modes apply to the psyche of each type, but in a dialectical manner, such that when the conscious side is of one mode, the unconscious finds itself in the exact opposite mode.
Additionally, Jung delineated four "basic" psychic functions: Thinking, Feeling, Sensing, and Intuition. The first two are designated as "rational", the other two "irrational". A function of one given category is mutually opposed with that of the same category, and therefore when one of them is conscious, the other is unconscious. However, this conflict does not apply as such across categories, and so, for instance, when there is an irrational function as the dominant function, there can be a rational auxiliary, which, like the dominant, is also conscious.
Now, the punchline.
As the two attitudes apply primarily to the psyche and not the functions themselves, and as the manner in which they apply to the psyche is dialectical and one-sided in nature -- meaning, the conscious side can only ever be either extroverted or introverted, not both at the same time, and the unconscious must have the opposing attitude to consciousness -- this unequivocally necessitates the fact that, under Classic Jungian, the auxiliary function has to be under the same attitude as the dominant function, and vice versa. So, if there is an Introverted Intuitive type with a Feeling auxiliary, both Intuition and Feeling must share the same attitude; for either to differ in attitude would mean consciousness has two attitudes at once, which is impossible given the parameters of Jung's model as previously stated. The same logic applies to the unconscious side of the function-arrangement, i.e., the inferior and tertiary functions share an attitude as well.
Addressing potential counterpoints
I will now address two certain arguments against my conclusion that I anticipate being made.
Counterargument #1: As alluded to earlier, one could point to Jung qualifying the four functions as the "basic" ones to mean that there are ultimately eight. That is to say, the four functions Jung describes would be the 'base functions', with each of them having two derivative forms: one extroverted, one introverted. This opens the door to there existing functions that have attitudes independent of both consciousness's and unconsciousness's overarching ones.
However, this is very unlikely. In Chapter XI of Psychological Types, which Jung dedicated to exhaustively defining his terms in detail, no entry for something like "introverted feeling" is to be found; there are entries for the four functions only. If he indeed thought there were ultimately eight functions in total, why does he not have definitions for both the supposed 'base functions' and their derivatives? Furthermore, Jung specifying that the functions remain "theoretically the same under varying circumstances" contradicts the notion of there being such derivative functions, as for something like Thinking turning into Extroverted Thinking would suggest that Thinking's intrinsic nature has changed as a result.
Counterargument #2: In Jung's Psychological Types, near the end of Chapter X, he proclaims this:
For all the types appearing in practice, the principle holds good that besides the conscious main function there is also a relatively [conscious⁷], auxiliary function, which is in every respect different from the nature of the main function.
Chapter X, p.g. 515 (Emphasis added)
Many, including Isabelle Myers, have taken "in every respect" to mean the auxiliary must be the opposing attitude to the dominant. However, this is also unlikely. Before where the previous quote was taken from, we find this:
Naturally only those functions can appear as auxiliary whose nature is not opposed to the leading function. For instance, feeling can never act as the second function by the side of thinking, because its nature stands in too strong a contrast to thinking.
Chapter X, p.g. 514
Upon careful consideration, it is clear that by "nature", Jung is referring to the 'rationality'/'irrationality' of a function. If he meant something other than that, one would expect him to also mention the two attitudes. This is not even withstanding the fact that, as established earlier, attitude only applies to the psyche, not functions, and so neither extroversion nor introversion could be part of a function's intrinsic nature anyway.
Closing off
As one can readily see (hopefully) from my argumentation, given the core aspects of Classic Jungian, the auxiliary function's attitude for every one of the sixteen types matches that of the dominant function. To say otherwise is to simply misunderstand the very fundamentals of the system.
It may be helpful to combine the overarching argument presented in this post with Akrhomant's own post on this subject, as it mentions things I haven't touched upon here. Taking all of his points into consideration alongside my own, I'd say there's zero to no leeway for thinking the auxiliary's attitude mismatches the dominant's.
---
FOOTNOTES:
All quotations are from a certain copy of “The Collected Works of C.G. Jung, Volume 6: Psychological Types”. You can find it here: https://archive.org/details/Vol06PsychologicalTypes/
The original quotation says “libido”, but Jung defined such a word in a manner equivalent with the general concept of psychic energy, which can involve sexual desire, but does not always involve it.
All emphasis -- italics, bolded text, or otherwise, is of the original text for all quotations unless otherwise specified.
Jung did not say the word “irrational” to mean something against reason, but rather meant it as, quote, “something outside the province of reason, whose essence, therefore, is not established by reason.” (Chapter XI, p.g. 569). A more suitable term for such a concept would perhaps be “arational”.
Some interpretations of Pop-MB may have some concept of the inferior being unconscious, or at least being related to the unconscious, but it’s not that common and is certainly not very well-emphasized as shown here in Classic Jungian.
Somewhere just before or around the age of adolescence, or after in the case of an atypical psychology, the function-arrangement under Jung’s original typology may (theoretically) look different. For example, the arrangement matching that of one of the eight pure types -- that is, one conscious function and three unconscious functions.
The original text says “unconscious”. However, this is a known translation error; the source text, Psychologische Typen, says “bewusste“, which is German for ‘conscious’. For this reason, I have corrected it here.
Last post, I spent a good chunk of it focusing on the notion that Isabelle Myers misinterpreted Carl Jung about what he thought the attitude
@thewickedbohemian I don't know where you got the idea that this could mean it's impossible to type yourself. My guess is that the mere idea of the auxiliary being the same attitude is confusing you, in some way, since you're used to the usual alternating "stacks".
Well, first, for transparency and clarity, the post was just about the Classic Jungian system, as opposed to Pop-Myers-Briggs (commonly and erroneously referred to as "MBTI",) or Socionics, or whatever other Jungian[-adjacent] typology there is. That's all. None of what I wrote in that post changes those particular models, because it couldn't: all such systems stand on their own terms. Not to imply every system is necessarily as equally valid or correct as every other system, of course. Because they aren't. But that's beside the point.
Second, no, it's certainly possible to [assign a] type [to] yourself in Classic Jungian, or any model that has double "stacks" for that matter. It's not particularly easy (Jung's not an easy read, scarcity of secondary [re]sources, having to learn a new system, etc.,) but it's definitely not impossible. You just have to learn how the model works, just like any other model.
Jung Never Intended the Auxiliary to Have the Opposite Attitude
(Correction 05/09/2025: In this post, I construed "attitude" as being precisely either extroversion or introversion. However, Jung technically did not define it as being those things per se, but something different. See footnote 4 for more information.)
Last post, I spent a good chunk of it focusing on the notion that Isabelle Myers misinterpreted Carl Jung about what he thought the attitude of the auxiliary function is. Because I made a pretty strong claim there and because I don't wish to leave it unbacked for too long, I decided to take care of it now (and besides, I did kinda promise to make a post like this anyway).
I will first quickly outline the bare minimum basics of Jung's model, supported by quotations. Then, I'll bring it all together with simple logical deduction and we shall see what we find in the end; I claim that what we'll find is that, under Classic Jungian, the auxiliary function of the typical individual shares an attitude with the dominant function.
The bare-bones basics of Jung's model
Jung proposed two different "attitudes", which are essentially distinct 'orientations'. One is an orientation towards "the object" -- the extroverted attitude (or extraversion, depending on your preferred spelling,) and the other is an orientation away from the object and towards "the subject" -- the introverted attitude. To quote Jung:¹
Extraversion means an outward-turning of [psychic energy²]. With this concept I denote a manifest relatedness of subject to object in the sense of a positive movement of subjective interest towards the object. Everyone in the state of extraversion thinks, feels, and acts in relation to the object
Chapter XI, p.g. 542³
Curiously, "Everyone in the state of" implies that attitude as such is a kind of mode one can be in. Now, introversion:
Introversion means a turning inwards of [psychic energy,] whereby a negative relation of subject to object is expressed. Interest does not move towards the object, but recedes towards the subject. Everyone whose attitude is introverted thinks, feels, and acts in a way that clearly demonstrates that the subject is the chief factor of motivation
Chapter XI, p.g. 567
We again see that attitude is a matter of one being in a particular state, though it's not as strongly implied here as with the previous excerpt. We can settle this ambiguity by looking at Jung's definition of "attitude":
. . . attitude is a readiness of the psyche to act or to react in a certain direction.
Chapter XI, p.g. 526
This not only seals the deal on what attitude is,⁴ but it even specifies on what it applies to. The operative word is "psyche", and not, say, "function".
We can also presume the two attitudes, extroversion and introversion, are primary when it comes to psychological type as, in Chapter X, not only are Jung's pure type descriptions (it will be addressed what exactly a "pure type" is later in this post,) sectioned off into an introverted and an extroverted category, but in the book's very introduction, Jung opens by talking about, of all things, the Introverted and Extroverted types:
IN my practical medical work with nervous patients I have long been struck by the fact that among the many individual differences in human psychology there exist also typical distinctions: two types especially became clear to me which I have termed the Introversion and the Extraversion Types
Introduction, p.g. 9
The next core aspect of Jung's model are the psychic functions, or "psychological functions" (I will continue to only say "psychic function" for the remainder of the post). Let's see what Jung says a psychic function is:
By psychological function I understand a certain form of psychic activity that remains theoretically the same under varying circumstances.
Chapter XI, p.g. 547
Simple enough. How many functions may there be, Jung?
I distinguish four basic functions in all, two rational and two irrational--viz. thinking and feeling, sensation and intuition.
Chapter XI, p.g. 547
The way this is worded, it could be interpreted in one of two ways: either Jung is definitively saying that there's only four functions total, or he means that these are merely the "basic" functions and that there's ultimately more overall. We will settle this ambiguity later.
The third core aspect is one that is easily forgotten about, but is at least just as important as it intermingles with the other two very intimately. This aspect is 'consciousness' vs 'unconsciousness'.
An important thing to clarify from the outset is that Jung's conception of what the word "consciousness" means is different from many other definitions attributed to it. To quote Jung:
By consciousness I understand the relatedness of psychic contents to the ego . . . in so far as they are sensed as such by the ego
Chapter XI, p.g. 535-536
"ego" here is not meant in the colloquial sense of 'self-importance', but instead means something different:
By ego, I understand a complex of representations which constitutes the centrum of my field of consciousness and appears to possess a very high degree of continuity and identity.
Chapter XI, p.g. 540
In other words, the "ego" is that thing which is reading these words right now. That is, it is essentially you. This then means that, for Jung, consciousness is simply whatever part or parts of your psyche you are most aware of. Therefore, unconsciousness is that area of the psyche which you, the ego, is unaware of.
An easily-understood example of these concepts is memory. Before a memory of yours is recalled, such as your memory of whatever you had for breakfast yesterday (if you do not remember and/or did not have breakfast yesterday, pretend otherwise for a moment -- pretty please,) it was not present within your field of awareness; it was unconscious. However, the moment I mentioned such a memory to you, it suddenly sprung to the forefront of such awareness, and so it became conscious.
As such, the psyche is divided into two parts, the conscious and unconscious sides. Likewise, this applies to every other part of Jung's typology. For this reason, consciousness and unconsciousness are two of the most important things to understand about it, and so you're encouraged to consider the following few paragraphs carefully, perhaps more so than any other on this post.
In Chapter X, Jung describes "the general attitude" of both consciousness and unconsciousness for the extroverted and introverted types. We will use the former one as an example. For the extroverted types, he writes,
His entire consciousness looks outwards to the world, because the important and decisive determination always comes to him from without . . . Interest and attention follow objective happenings and, primarily, those of the immediate environment
Chapter X, p.g. 417 (Bold emphasis added; italics are of the original text)
Without a doubt, the attitude of consciousness for such kind of type is extroverted. This much was expected. However, for the unconscious side, it seems quite different:
The attitude of the unconscious as an effective complement to the conscious extraverted attitude has a definitely introverting character.
Chapter X, p.g. 422 (Emphasis added)
Why would an extroverted type's unconscious be introverted? Jung explains,
I regard the relation of the unconscious to the conscious as compensatory . . . It is only to be expected, therefore, that a psychic compensation of the conscious extraverted attitude will lay especial weight upon the subjective factor
Chapter X, p.g. 422 (Emphasis added)
In other words, Jung indicates that the unconscious's own nature serves as a compensation to the nature of consciousness. When the conscious is one way, the unconscious will be the exact opposite way. In the case of an extroverted type, since the consciousness of such is extroverted, the unconscious compensates for this by assuming an introverted nature. And an analogous situation is found with the introverted types as well:
The superior position of the subjective factor in consciousness [for the introverted types] involves an inferiority of the objective factor . . . a compensation naturally develops under the guise of an unconscious reinforcement of the influence of the object
Chapter X, p.g. 477-478 (Emphasis added)
Now, we will see how the concept of unconscious compensation applies to the psychic functions. Recall that Jung proposed four "basic" functions: Thinking, Feeling, Sensing, and Intuition. These functions have a very particular relationship with one another. The former two, Thinking and Feeling, are what Jung called the "rational" functions, while the latter two are designated the "irrational⁵" functions. What exactly those words mean is inconsequential in regards to the point being made here, and so the terms will not be explained in detail. The important thing to note about the groups is that, for each one, the two functions within are diametrically opposed; total opposites. For example, while describing Feeling, Jung says,
. . . thinking belongs to a category quite incommensurable with feeling.
Chapter XI, p.g. 545
And,
. . . [feeling's] nature stands in too strong a contrast to thinking. Thinking, if it is to be real thinking and true to its own principle, must scrupulously exclude feeling.
Chapter X, p.g. 514
The same tenet also applies to Sensing and Intuition.
It is important to note that this inter-function conflict is not as pronounced when one rational function and an irrational function are considered:
Neither intuition nor sensation are antagonistic to thinking, i.e. they have not to be unconditionally excluded, since they are not, like feeling, of similar nature, though of the opposite purpose, to thinking--for as a [rational] function feeling successfully competes with thinking -- but are functions of perception, affording welcome assistance to thought.
Chapter X, p.g. 515
Anyway, as with extroversion and introversion, there is the concept of opposites at play. As one might expect, this also implies that psychic functions relate to consciousness and unconsciousness in a very similar manner as the attitudes do.
If you're familiar with Pop Myers-Briggs, or any other similar typology, you likely already know the idea of "function stacks". Jung never explicitly talks about such type of concept, but he does talk about three aspects of it: the "dominant", "auxiliary", and "inferior" functions (if you're going, "Where's the other one?" don't worry, we'll get there.)
The dominant and inferior positions are the ones most elaborated upon by Jung. In fact, the eight type descriptions found in Chapter X of Psychological Types are what he calls the "pure types": a type with only one function -- that is, the dominant one -- present in consciousness. As for the non-pure types, the auxiliary only receives a passing mention. To quote:
In the foregoing descriptions I have no desire to give my readers the impression that such pure types occur at all frequently in actual practice . . . Accurate investigation of the individual case consistently reveals the fact that, in conjunction with the most [conscious] function, another function of secondary importance, and therefore of inferior differentiation in consciousness, is constantly present, and is a relatively determining factor.
Chapter X, p.g. 514 (Emphasis added)
In other words, for the average person, consciousness has a total of two "basic" functions: the dominant function and the auxiliary function. If you're familiar with the function "stacks" of the Pop Myers-Briggs system, you may recognize that they share a very similar pattern with Jung's own theory here. You may also be wondering where the other two functions are. Well, at least one of them, the inferior, is also here in Classic Jungian, except for one major difference: it is unconscious.⁶
Recall that when consciousness is extroverted, unconsciousness is then introverted. A very similar case happens with the functions. When Feeling is dominant, the unconscious compensates for this by taking on the Thinking function as its own "dominant" -- this does not mean that there are two dominant functions per se, but simply that the inferior function is the unconscious equivalent of consciousness's own dominant function. For example, the case of Jung's pure Extroverted Thinking type:
Since feelings are the first to oppose and contradict [extraverted thinking], they are affected first by this conscious inhibition, and upon them the most intense repression falls . . . Should the repression succeed, it disappears from consciousness and proceeds to unfold a[n unconscious] activity, which runs counter to conscious aims
Chapter X, p.g. 437-438
Now, although Jung only mentions these three positions -- dominant, auxiliary, and inferior, we can yet deduce that there must also exist an additional one as well, sitting between the auxiliary and inferior. If the dominant function has an unconscious counterpart found in the inferior function, then the auxiliary then must as well have its own counterpart also found within the unconscious. You may already know this as the "tertiary" function.
To sum up, the typical, fully developed psyche's function-arrangement within Classic Jungian goes like so:⁷
Dominant - Auxiliary <> Tertiary - Inferior
The "<>" separates the conscious (left) from the unconscious (right).
Following this general structure, here's an example of a Sensing type with a Thinking auxiliary:
Sensing - Thinking <> Feeling - Intuition
Bringing it all together
To recap, there are two different "attitudes"; two opposing modes of orientation regarding the world. One is a positive orientation to the object, extroversion, the other a negative relation to the object, introversion. Both modes apply to the psyche of each type, but in a dialectical manner, such that when the conscious side is of one mode, the unconscious finds itself in the exact opposite mode.
Additionally, Jung delineated four "basic" psychic functions: Thinking, Feeling, Sensing, and Intuition. The first two are designated as "rational", the other two "irrational". A function of one given category is mutually opposed with that of the same category, and therefore when one of them is conscious, the other is unconscious. However, this conflict does not apply as such across categories, and so, for instance, when there is an irrational function as the dominant function, there can be a rational auxiliary, which, like the dominant, is also conscious.
Now, the punchline.
As the two attitudes apply primarily to the psyche and not the functions themselves, and as the manner in which they apply to the psyche is dialectical and one-sided in nature -- meaning, the conscious side can only ever be either extroverted or introverted, not both at the same time, and the unconscious must have the opposing attitude to consciousness -- this unequivocally necessitates the fact that, under Classic Jungian, the auxiliary function has to be under the same attitude as the dominant function, and vice versa. So, if there is an Introverted Intuitive type with a Feeling auxiliary, both Intuition and Feeling must share the same attitude; for either to differ in attitude would mean consciousness has two attitudes at once, which is impossible given the parameters of Jung's model as previously stated. The same logic applies to the unconscious side of the function-arrangement, i.e., the inferior and tertiary functions share an attitude as well.
Addressing potential counterpoints
I will now address two certain arguments against my conclusion that I anticipate being made.
Counterargument #1: As alluded to earlier, one could point to Jung qualifying the four functions as the "basic" ones to mean that there are ultimately eight. That is to say, the four functions Jung describes would be the 'base functions', with each of them having two derivative forms: one extroverted, one introverted. This opens the door to there existing functions that have attitudes independent of both consciousness's and unconsciousness's overarching ones.
However, this is very unlikely. In Chapter XI of Psychological Types, which Jung dedicated to exhaustively defining his terms in detail, no entry for something like "introverted feeling" is to be found; there are entries for the four functions only. If he indeed thought there were ultimately eight functions in total, why does he not have definitions for both the supposed 'base functions' and their derivatives? Furthermore, Jung specifying that the functions remain "theoretically the same under varying circumstances" contradicts the notion of there being such derivative functions, as for something like Thinking turning into Extroverted Thinking would suggest that Thinking's intrinsic nature has changed as a result.
Counterargument #2: In Jung's Psychological Types, near the end of Chapter X, he proclaims this:
For all the types appearing in practice, the principle holds good that besides the conscious main function there is also a relatively [conscious⁸], auxiliary function, which is in every respect different from the nature of the main function.
Chapter X, p.g. 515 (Emphasis added)
Many, including Isabelle Myers, have taken "in every respect" to mean the auxiliary must be the opposing attitude to the dominant. However, this is also unlikely. Before where the previous quote was taken from, we find this:
Naturally only those functions can appear as auxiliary whose nature is not opposed to the leading function. For instance, feeling can never act as the second function by the side of thinking, because its nature stands in too strong a contrast to thinking.
Chapter X, p.g. 514
Upon careful consideration, it is clear that by "nature", Jung is referring to the 'rationality'/'irrationality' of a function. If he meant something other than that, one would expect him to also mention the two attitudes. This is not even withstanding the fact that, as established earlier, attitude only applies to the psyche, not functions, and so neither extroversion nor introversion could be part of a function's intrinsic nature anyway.
Closing off
As one can readily see (hopefully) from my argumentation, given the core aspects of Classic Jungian, the auxiliary function's attitude for every one of the sixteen types matches that of the dominant function. To say otherwise is to simply misunderstand the very fundamentals of the system.
It may be helpful to combine the overarching argument presented in this post with Akrhomant's own post on this subject, as it mentions things I haven't touched upon here. Taking all of his points into consideration alongside my own, I'd say there's zero to no leeway for thinking the auxiliary's attitude mismatches the dominant's.
---
FOOTNOTES:
All quotations are from a certain copy of “The Collected Works of C.G. Jung, Volume 6: Psychological Types”. You can find it here: https://archive.org/details/Vol06PsychologicalTypes/
The original quotation says “libido”, but Jung defined such a word in a manner equivalent with the general concept of psychic energy, which can involve sexual desire, but does not always involve it.
All emphasis -- italics, bolded text, or otherwise, is of the original text for all quotations unless otherwise specified.
This footnote is in reference to the correction notice at the start of this post. Attitude is not actually a matter of "being in a particular state", because Jung didn't construe extroversion nor introversion themselves as being "attitudes", but "mechanisms". Quote: "These opposite attitudes are merely opposite mechanisms -- a diastolic going out and seizing of the object, and a systolic concentration and release of energy from the object seized . . . Outer circumstances and inner disposition frequently favour the one mechanism, and restrict or hinder the other; whereby a predominance of one mechanism naturally arises. If this condition becomes in any way chronic, a type is produced, namely an habitual attitude" (Introduction, p.g. 13). So, extroversion/introversion are the states; mechanisms, not attitude in of itself. For Jung, attitude would be far more general, able to apply not only to the two mechanisms of extroversion and introversion, but to the four functions as well: "When a function habitually predominates, a typical attitude is thereby produced . . . there exist a typical thinking, a feeling, a sensational, and an intuitive attitude" (Chapter XI, p.g. 529-530). Essentially, attitude per se is essentially a different way to say "tendency". However, notably, the thesis of the post is not affected by this error. You can replace all other instances of the word "attitude" which come after the point in which this footnote was inserted with "mechanism-attitude" and the overarching argument will still hold strong.
Jung did not say the word “irrational” to mean something against reason, but rather meant it as, quote, “something outside the province of reason, whose essence, therefore, is not established by reason.” (Chapter XI, p.g. 569). A more suitable term for such a concept would perhaps be “arational”.
Some interpretations of Pop MB may have some concept of the inferior being unconscious, or at least being related to the unconscious, but it’s not that common and is certainly not very well-emphasized as shown here in Classic Jungian.
Somewhere just before or around the age of adolescence, or after in the case of an atypical psychology, the function-arrangement under Jung’s original typology may (theoretically) look different. For example, the arrangement matching that of one of the eight pure types -- that is, one conscious function and three unconscious functions.
The original text says “unconscious”. However, this is a known translation error; the source text, Psychologische Typen, says “bewusste“, which is German for ‘conscious’. For this reason, I have corrected it here.
Last post, I spent a good chunk of it focusing on the notion that Isabelle Myers misinterpreted Carl Jung about what he thought the attitude
Everything Currently Wrong with Typology (And, How We Can Fix That)
Most people within the personality typology community consider typology to only be, at best, something to be relegated to merely being some kind of hobby, or a way to 'break the ice' with people. At worst, it's a waste of time, even a straight-up "pseudoscience". And, in a way, it is all of that. But essentially, the only reason why that's even the case is because we have been doing it all wrong entirely.
1. We're basing things on misinterpretations on top of misinterpretations.
While probably true for personality typology in general, at least to some extent, this is especially true with the Jungian-inspired systems. Nobody seems to know what Jung originally intended, or even care. Of course, there are people that do genuinely try to get an idea of what he had to say about psychological type, but they usually don't go far enough to get a complete picture, and, naturally, they're an exceptional rarity to begin with. The majority of typology enthusiasts never go past Pop Myers-Briggs -- which is what I call the so-called "MBTI system" (for the record, the MBTI is not a system, it's a psychometric instrument) -- to examine its roots; where it came from. In fact, it's more common for them to look at other Jungian-inspired models, such as the Socionics ones, or C. S. Joseph's system, Objective Personality System, etc.
Why does Classic Jungian (what I call Jung's original system,) get so little attention? Why do so little people bother to take the plunge? I genuinely don't know. Maybe it's the lack of easily accessible resources on it, or -- perhaps more prominently -- maybe everyone just assumes that, since Pop MB can trace its origins back to Classic Jungian, that they must essentially be the same thing. Well, they aren't. They simply aren't.
The problem started with Isabelle Myers.
When she was coming up with the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator alongside her mother, Katherine Briggs, she, of course, had to read through Jung's theory to make a psychometric assessment meaningfully applicable to it. Unfortunately, though she got most things right, she got at least one thing very, very wrong: the "attitude", or orientation, of any given type's auxiliary function.
This single mistake is much more devastating than one may think at first glance. For the uninformed -- the rest can take it as a refresher, Jung often used the word "attitude" while talking about extroversion* or introversion; while he did use "attitude" to refer to other things, it was not uncommon for the term as he used it to be referring to either. Puzzling as the word choice may be, the reason he chose that particular word is not as important as what role attitude, in this sense of the word, plays in his theory.
With the majority of contemporary typology models, Pop MB included, we often think of functions themselves as possessing a particular attitude. In fact, we treat Te, for instance, and Ti as being distinct, independent functions due to this notion. However, for Jung, this would be a misunderstanding of how attitude applies to overall type. In his own view -- and I can't stress the importance of this enough -- it is the person's own psyche who has the attitudes, NOT their functions.
What does this mean? It means that, under his model, consciousness is what is either introverted or extroverted, and the functions are then modified by either orientation. This also means that, in essence, there aren't eight functions in total, but only four. Yes, four. But that's something to elaborate upon in a later post. A more relevant-to-this-moment implication is that this means the auxiliary function of each of the sixteen types, as far as Jung is concerned, shares the exact same attitude as the dominant function. This changes everything about a person's function-arrangement, or function "stack" (god i hate that word,) in terms of how it manifests overall in one's personality and personal life. Well... maybe not literally everything, but pretty much so.
Now, I know some skeptics have read the last few paragraphs and are suspicious about the overarching claim being made about the auxiliary's attitude in Classic Jungian. Because I wish to keep this post as concise as possible, I'll present arguments for this being Jung's true intention in a later one. I also do not want to give the impression that I actually agree with Jung here about the auxiliary's attitude: in fact, I personally think functions do, in fact, possess attitudes, as opposed to the psyche, and that the orientation of the auxiliary is independent of whatever the dominant's is. (Edit 03/29/2025: I have since changed my mind on this matter.)
Anyways, if this all started and ended with Myers, the current state of Jungian and Jungian-adjacent typology wouldn't be much of a problem as it is now. Unfortunately, it seems that not only has nobody caught on to her fatal mistake, but that, in fact, the mistakes only compounded. It even got to the point that trained practitioners of analytical psychology (what Jung referred to his psychology as,) such as John Beebe, regurgitate the misinformation and add on to it.
Shadow "stacks", loops and grips, the distortion of conscious vs unconscious as it applies to function-arrangements -- take your pick. These have only served to confuse and mislead people as well as further damage the veridical integrity of personality typology overall. As per usual, I will save those too for a later post, or posts.
*Before someone tries to "correct" me: I know Jung spelled it "extraversion". I don't care; I'm used to the other spelling, and besides, language evolves. Respectfully, get over yourself.
2. The conceptual and empirical bases are lacking.
If you happen to be well-versed in typology, entertain the following questions: what is a "cognitive function"? Where's the evidence that they exist? If there is evidence, how do you know that it's good evidence? How about Enneagram types, instinctual variants included. What are they, where do they come from, and how do we know they definitely exist?
I could go on with every other system too -- all except Global 5. Why that one in particular? Because at least with that, it's very clear what makes a Global 5 type, and everything that comprises it, what it is. Not to mention it's based on the five-factor model of personality: the empirical gold standard of personality theory in mainstream, academic psychology. Why don't we have that with the other systems? Maybe it's mostly because it's harder to find evidence for and elucidate, say, a "cognitive function", than easily-observable behavioral traits. But I don't think that's really a proper excuse: it simply means the onus is on us to do the work and provide both a sound, solid theoretical basis and adequate evidence for the relevant theories that many claim are valid. And as for those that don't claim that... well, gotta wonder why that could possibly be. Hmm...
3. There’s little to no consensus to be found.
Speaking of conceptual bases, it gets even more difficult to establish those when seemingly nobody can agree on anything at all. How many conflicting definitions and ideas of things do we need? What exactly is Ni? Is it unconscious processing of information? Is it having visions of the future? Or what about Te, is it about productivity? Or maybe it’s looking for empirical evidence? Both have similar respective themes for each idea of them, but that’s not good enough. It needs to be explicitly said what the definition of each term is, and then such definitions need to be agreed upon and established as standard. And that’s to say nothing at all about grounding such decisions on reality.
4. We’re not realizing typology to its fullest potential.
This isn’t really something that can be immediately fixed, at least not entirely -- mostly due to the problems mentioned above. However, a good start is to recognize that the potential does, in fact, exist.
Typology isn’t only good for entertaining curious nerds or otherwise ‘overly’, I guess one could say, enthusiastic people. Knowing your type or the types of others, as a concept, isn’t just something to be considered “for fun”, although I will readily grant that it can have lots of recreational value if you enjoy that sort of thing. No, personality typology is much more than recreation. In fact, at the risk of sounding insane, type is one of the most important, if not the most important, things you can know about a person, especially if it’s a Jungian psychological type (not quite sure about the other kinds of systems yet).
A criticism I already see coming is that type, supposedly, cannot possibly capture the sheer nuance and inner complexities of a person. To this, I have only two things to say:
(A) Of course type isn’t a substitute for fully understanding the finer details of the individual case. There will never be a suitable replacement for understanding the complexities of someone, including yourself, by actually looking at and analyzing such complexities. However,
(B) Understanding someone’s type is the best way to contextualize those finer complexities and to broadly guess how they may evolve over time, as type is the very ‘blueprint‘, as it were, from which the rest of the psyche is ‘constructed’. In addition to that, knowing the types of multiple people provides contrast among them; it helps you to compare people in a relatively quick, yet meaningful way, even and especially if they share a common background, belief set, et cetera.
To put it in a way that may be more immediately connectable to your own life: think about all the times you’ve interacted with or have otherwise seen someone whose behavior, words, ideas -- anything at all, that you just couldn’t understand. Someone who seemed to defy your own common sense, maybe even rationality itself. Someone that, no matter how hard you tried, you just couldn’t wrap your head around. Maybe they did something that you found had no logical reason for doing, or perhaps you found that they believed in something absurd that anyone with their head screwed on straight wouldn’t entertain for even a split second.
You might have concluded that they were simply beyond understanding. I say that you were simply missing the tools that personality typology could have provided to help gain that understanding. Whatever that person, or persons, were and whatever they did, or were like, you just might have been able to get a better grip on the “why” behind it all by apprehending what their type or types were.
And that’s just one example of the application of typology; there’s certainly more (hey, I should do a post about that sometime later!)
Personality typology is very important. Which is why it’s unfortunate that most would say otherwise, because if more people understood that, we would be that much closer to understanding eachother so much better. And with the way the world is right now, I don’t think that’s an insignificant thing to want -- I think most of us could at least agree on that much, if nothing else I’ve said here.
5. So. What to do about it?
Of course, I’m not here to simply criticize. Contrary to merely taking a destructive attitude, the intent here is to also be con-structive and illuminate a better path forward. It might not be the best path, it might not even be good per se, God forbid, but I think it’d be at least slightly better than what the typology sphere has been doing for so long now. The attentive reader may have already noticed that I’ve alluded to a few things in the preceding sections, but now, I will outline everything clearly and more completely here:
First, we need to drop the concept of co-existing personality “systems”, especially when they address the same or very similar subject matters, such as the Jungian[-inspired] ones, to name just one example. While I’d never wish to imply that we can’t have competing ideas, I do not think that’s what such systems are at all, not in practice. As a whole, the differing systems, rather than being ideas that people ultimately seek to either support or disprove, they’re treated something more like different items on a shelf in a candy store. As in, they’re thought of as being arbitrarily selectable alternatives, with none of them being more or less correct than any other on the shelf. The Truth, capital ‘T’, isn’t arbitrary, and in following that tenet, we have to give up the notion that it’s perfectly fine to have ten-something different ‘truths’ at the same time. Essentially, instead of “systems”, we ought to have different theories in the scientific sense of the word “theory”.
Second, we have to return to the roots and start from scratch. I don’t know what to do with other families of models so far, like the Enneagram systems, or Psychosophy and Attitudinal Psyche, but when it comes to the Jungian and Jungian-inspired family, I do have a particularly strong opinion on the next course of action. We have to drop every single one of our current notions on what exactly Jungian psychological typology is. And I mean every single one. Then, we have to shift our focus back to the original source: Carl G. Jung, and carefully analyze what he was saying, what the implications of that are. Luckily, someone already seemed to have done this for the most part. Akhromant has, putatively, carefully read Jung, and then presented what he found here. Despite the resulting interpretation not fully matching up with the original model, I nonetheless find myself enamored by Akhromant’s work, and a lot of what I am to do (and, really, what little I’ve already done with this post,) on my own website here will be largely inspired by it. I’ve found his model, as much as he’d probably prefer I’d not call it “his model”, to be very powerful and nuanced -- miles better than Pop MB, Socionics, or any other such model I’ve seen by far. Right next to reading Jung himself, I think studying Akhromant’s ideas and taking them into consideration at the minimum is a very good start.
Third, once the foundation has been carefully reestablished, we must take care to support it and to not let it crumble again by negligence. After all, at such a point, we only have a weakly supported hypothesis, at best. We have to refine our ideas and connect them, practically or theoretically, to already well-established ones in related fields, including but not limited to broader psychology, sociology, and philosophy of mind -- and if we can’t, go back to the drawing board and try again. We have to gather empirical data that lend support to such ideas, statistical or otherwise, in order to show to ourselves and others that this is actually grounded in or otherwise connected to our material reality. And most importantly of all: we have to be willing to give our ideas up if and when it ever becomes clear that they just do not or can not work. This last point may be the most important one of all. The idea here is to find the truth, not to stick to our preferred dogmas.
6. Conclusion. Or: to end a yapping session.
Hopefully, I’ve not only made my thesis statement quite clear over the course of this post, but made at least one person reading this want to see personality typology change drastically for the better, or perhaps even get the urge to look deeper into the matter themselves, too. Either way, I simply want typology to turn itself around into a proper science, because it has more potential than I think most even realize.
As for the future of this website, particularly the blog you read right now: the next post will be about… whatever the next post will be about. Might come in the next couple months, maybe not. I have more than a few ideas for posts, even ones not strictly related to typology, but I want to stay on that topic for now -- I just don’t know which post idea is best for doing next. Could just be overthinking it, though.
Regarding the more resource-oriented portion of the website, I hope to finish up the preliminary work for it in at least a few months, if not sooner, with stuff gradually added on to it after as time goes on. Expect a future, more-complete version of it to be absurdly detailed, as I want to cover any and all personality typology models that exist, from the well-known to the obscure. Feel free to suggest ones below!
Or, just call me a dumbass that doesn’t know what the hell they’re talking about. Hey, that works too.
Most people within the personality typology community consider typology to only be, at best, something to be relegated to merely being some
germansingergirl
jacobvanloon
stormborns
tangentwithtanner
gummygunk
janainaart
annaxmalina
discoholicmusic