The Function Stack
Overview
Leading Function:
most used, i.e. overused
determines if the type is extraverted E, or introverted I
determines if the type is feeling F, or thinking T, or, if it is a perceiving function, if the type is sensing S, or intuiting N
Auxiliary Function:
in support, i.e. under control of the leading function
different direction ( i, e ) than leading
different nature ( perceiving, judging) than leading
Tertiary Function:
further supports leading
diametral to auxiliary, yet in a supportive manner
same direction as leading
same nature as auxiliary
Repressed, Inferior Function:
diametral to leading
contradicts, inhibits leading function
same direction as auxiliary
same nature as leading
Interpretation
To understand any type, it should be enough to know its function stack and what each function in it represents. As every MBTI type consists of two specific function axes in a particular order, it is most useful to know how to interpret these axes.
One axis always connects the types leading and auxiliary function. With these two functions, the one being on the one side, what you might call the strongest function, while on the other, the weakest function of the type, the interaction of these poles is a key-part to understand the inner processes of a specific type.
The leading is actually not the most used function because we like it the most. It is the other way around: We like it the most, because we use it the most. There is no real consensus in the MBTI-community, why most human beings tend to prioritize one cognitive function over all others, but the most common answer here is: because we tend to stick with what has worked.
So in fact, one could imagine, that we all got used to our leading function over the course of our lives, in a need for inner stability, as well as simply pragmatism paired with human laziness. Most likely there may have been not even any talent: We just got better at interacting with the world through a continuing experience.
However, once a certain gap in skill was reached between the most used leading function and it’s opponents, it sounds just natural one unconsciously avoids risking his/her inner stability, by using a function that is not trained as well as the lead. This behavior isn’t something unique to cognitive functions; a decent proportion of psychological problems start with the overuse of one certain area forcing the avoidance of others.
C.G. Jung, the psychologist who originally came up with the idea of psychological types, and who’s work made the base for Myers and Briggs typology model, had certain assumptions about the interaction of the consciousness with the subconscious. Simplifying: As we only have certain control over conscious things, the subconscious is the place where all things get equalled — whether we like it or not.
So, as one overuses the leading function on and on, one also gets into a state of dependence on this cognitive process. From this point on, everything that seems to hinder the leading function is unconsciously suppressed. However, the power of the repressed function grows ever so slightly in the subconscious, while the dependence on the leading function intensifies.
This dynamic is vastly important to understand the repressed function. It might be even lower than the tertiary function, but this does represent neither it’s value nor it’s power. The way how any type reacts with the world is characterized by this tension between the first and the fourth function. The leading function indeed leads — most of the time! If the tension gets too big, the individual experiences a breakdown, colored by fears, doubts or even impulses, that might seem to directly contradict the nature of a given type.
Life actually seems to be, for each and anybody, after all, nothing but a dance on a tightrope, where left and right could be imagined as one’s type leading and inferior function. These specific characteristics might be hard to detect at times, however, they exist as a core part of our personality.
(I think I’ll write an extra chapter on C.G. Jung’s work Psychological Types, as I can see it assisting to get behind the nature of each cognitive function, as well as in what way they were intended originally.)
This is very different for the auxiliary and tertiary function, which also represent two poles on one function axis. There is no power left to force this pair into an unhealthy overuse-compensation dynamic. They simply coexist next to each other in the grip of the leading function.
While the auxiliary is still above the tertiary, there is almost a notion of balance between these two and their kinds of uses. As their natures still contradict each other, there aren’t even that much scenarios, where both had the ability to contribute the same amount to the situation.
To get a feeling for the way in which the auxiliary and tertiary function impact the type, one might look at the natures of the whole axes. I’ll elaborate on these in the posts for the specific function axes.
