Henry L. Thompson, Ph.D.
Bulletin of Psychological Type, 2003, 26(3), 36-39.

Since the early 1990’s there has been a steady movement (initially led by Margaret Hartzler) popularizing the use of Jung’s function-attitudes (a.k.a., mental processes, functions in their attitude, Jungian functions, etc.). Today, the concept of function-attitudes (FA) has reached a level of acceptance such that it is replacing the four psychological functions (sensing, intuiting, thinking, feeling) as the preferred way to introduce people to the concept of psychological Type.  Not only are we beginning to teach Type differently, theories about the FAs are becoming like noses, every practitioner has one. In reality, many of these “theories” tend to be untested opinions. Concurrently, there are many debates on within the Type community as to the definition of each FA and its role in psychological Type.

This might be a good time to review the FA journey up to this point, look at what we think we know about FAs and what might be a productive path forward. I think it is important to remind ourselves that Jung’s model of psychological Type is just that, a model.  Models are methods for describing something complex in a simplistic manner that enables us to understand and talk about it.  Sensing does not exist as a concrete entity.  It is a label that Jung used to talk about a very complex series of events, both physical and cognitive, that takes place within the human brain and psyche. Therefore, an FA such as extraverted sensing does not exist as an entity. I know this is an obvious statement; however, as I listen to people around the world use the concepts, I fear they have begun to think that these labels are entities.

Jung proposed the concept of FAs as part of his personality model in his 1923 book, Psychological Types. Table 1 shows the breakout of the FAs. Over the years there have been many attempts at enhancing Jung’s model of the FAs. I will briefly describe those that have taken the study and understanding of Type to a new level.

Table 1
Function-Attitudes

Isabel Myers (1980) made the first significant contribution to understanding and using Jung’s typology by developing a Type code that showed the preferred attitude (E or I), the dominant and auxiliary FA and a “pointer” (J or P) for identifying which FA is used to adapt to the outer world (the extraverted FA). This code identified 16 Type patterns and suggested a hierarchical ranking and developmental sequence of dominant, auxiliary, tertiary and inferior. Thus, she incorporated four of the eight FAs into each Type pattern.

Table 2
Myers’ Model

In the 70’s, June Singer and Mary Loomis questioned the use of forced choice instruments, such as the MBTI instrument, to measure Type. The result of their research was the development of the Singer Loomis Inventory of Personality (1979; revised and renamed Singer-Loomis Type Deployment Inventory in 1996) which allowed for the strength of each FA (mental/Type mode) to be measured. This often showed significantly different results from those obtained by the MBTI instrument. The results suggested that FAs might not always develop in accordance with the Jung/Myers theoretical sequence and that the dominant-auxiliary-tertiary-inferior relationship did not always hold true to the Jung/Myers theory. I find that their work is little known by most Type users. Unfortunately, as often happens when research emerges that doesn’t fit the dominant theory of the time, it becomes “lost.”

Harold Grant, Magdala Thompson and Thomas Clarke (1983) made what turned out to be two very popular enhancements to Myers’ model. They suggested a time horizon for the developmental sequence of the four FAs.  Grant et al. also added a specific attitude to the tertiary function which created a second school of thought around the attitude of the tertiary function. In their book, From Image to Likeness, they suggest developmental time horizons based on a theological perspective and data they collected over a period of time (the data is unpublished at this point). A significant, but little discussed, part of their suggested time horizon is what happens after 50 years of age. The authors suggest that a second childhood begins with a new phase of differentiating and integrating the functions.

Table 3
Developmental Time Horizons of Grant et al.

John Beebe proposed a model in the early 90’s relating all eight FAs to archetypal development within each Type (Harris, 1996). Beebe’s model was/is important in that it raised the issue of “Where are the other four FAs?” He also suggested a possible developmental sequence of 1-2-3-7-4-5-8-6 (see Table 4) based on experience with his patients. He does not give specific time frames for FA development. It has taken approximately 15 years for Beebe’s model to reach the forefront of FA popularity.

Table 4
Beebe’s Model

In 1996 I proposed a Systems Model of Psychological Type with the first book on the FAs, Jung’s Function-Attitudes Explained. The Systems Model makes several important proposals in advancing Type and the FAs to a new level.  For example:

• The extraverted and introverted forms of a function (e.g., Se & Si) are opposite sides of the same coin (sensing).
• The extraverted and introverted forms of a function have a degree of parallelism in their development.
• All eight FAs are in use simultaneously to some degree at all times.
• Se is the most used FA for all Types.
• Introverted FAs are nonverbal and express themselves through the extraverted functions or through nonverbal activities, e.g., painting.
• The model proposed the concept of a Type DNA strand, e.g., ENFJ: FeNiSeTiFiNeSiTe or (FeNi)(NeFi)(SiFe)(SeFi)(NiTe)(NeTi)(SiTe)(SeTi)

The next advancement for FAs came with Steve Myers’ preference versus usage approach. In 2000 he introduced his Management Team Roles-indicator™ (MTR-i™). The major significance of this work, in addition to the instrument, was the empirical research he conducted during the instrument’s development. Over 20,000 people participated in his research which found that the dominant FA (team role) reported by his instrument did not always match what the Myers model predicts (similar to Singer and Loomis). He explains this mismatch as a difference in preference versus usage (Myers, 2000).

In 2002 I proposed a specific aspect of the Systems Model of Type, the Wave Theory of Type Dynamics and  DevelopmentJ ,that incorporates and expands many of the key aspects of the above models. The Wave Model uses a dynamic, integrative approach to the interaction of the basic FA pairs, their interaction and development across the life span and the significant influence of environmental and life-space factors. It also uses a multidisciplinary approach incorporating research from many disciplines outside of the Type community. Table 5 shows the model’s ten Levels of development from birth to wholeness (Thompson, 2002).

Table 5
Type Development Across the Life Span

Some of the implications of the Wave Model are described below.

Type Dynamics. The model expands and elaborates current thinking about type dynamics.

• The development of the extraverted and introverted forms of a function, e.g., Se and Si, follows closely in time.
• Perceiving FAs (Se, Si, Ne, Ni) have a strong affinity for the judging FAs (Te, Ti, Fe, Fi). The result is the creation of eight basic Perceiving-Judging FA pairs (SeTi, SeFi, NeTi, NeFi, SiTe, SiFe, NiTe, NiFe).
• The eight basic Perceiving-Judging FA pairs are the building blocks of Type DNA.

Type Development Space™. A substantial body of research data suggests that human cognitive development can continue throughout one’s life. Generalizations from these studies can be made to Type development. My study of related research in developmental psychology, neuropsychology, geriatrics and Type, leads me to the following propositions.

• An extraverting or introverting preference may be visible during the first month of an infant=s development.
• A person’s dominant function may be visible by age three.
• The auxiliary function and, consequently, Type may be visible by age six.
• The tertiary function-attitude pair may be developed around the age of twenty.
• There is a transition phase between tertiary development and the beginning of inferior development.
• In most cases, people do not reach full Type development (individuation). If a person does reach individuation, it usually does not occur until after the age of 70.
• The greatest difference among Types occurs around the age of twenty with completion of tertiary development. After this wave, Types begin to move closer together in their behavior.
• Actual differentiation of the functions occurs after development of the inferior function-attitude pair.
• We can expect wide variation in how and to what Level a person develops.

Interpersonal Communication. Both oral and written communication are significantly influenced by the FAs. Much of what has been written about Type and communication, has been based on supposition. What follows are a few of the communication propositions based on Type data (empirical and anecdotal) collected since 1983.

• Type languages and dialects can be described and identified in oral and written communications.
• There is a high correlation (r = .51; p<.001) between a person’s Type preference and the Language (Se, Ne, Te, Fe) that a person speaks.
• Languages are composed of dialects, e.g., SeFi, that more accurately identify how a person communicates. The eight dialects are the eight basic FA pairs (SeTi, SeFi, NeTi, NeFi, SiTe, SiFe, NiTe, NiFe).
• When someone “hears” an introverted FA, e.g., Ti, they actually hear it through an extroverted FA, e.g., SeTi or NeTi.

Stress. How stress plays out in individuals is much more complex than just the eruption of an inferior FA. There is substantial evidence that reaction to stress is a measured response, that it changes across time and with the magnitude and duration of the stressor.

• The inferior function (evil twin ASkippy@) does not appear as a single function-attitude, but as one of the basic eight FA pairs, e.g., SeTi for an ENFJ (Thompson, 2000).
• The Grip Meter™ provides a relatively straightforward visual for understanding how Type changes under stress.

This model has obvious implications for how we understand Type dynamics and development across the life span. A model such as this is necessary in order to understand “whole” Type and to advance our knowledge and understanding to the next level. My hope is that it will not take another 15 years to take this “next step.”

References

Grant, H., Thompson, M. & Clarke, T. (1983). From image to likeness: A Jungian path in the Gospel journey. Ramsey, NJ: Paulist Press.

Harris, A. (1996). Living with paradox: An introduction to Jungian psychology. Pacific Cove, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company.

Jung, C. (1976). Psychological Types. (A revision by R. F. C. Hull of the translation by H. G. Baynes.) Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Loomis, M. (1991). Dancing the wheel of psychological types. Wilmette, IL: Chiron Publications.

Myers, I. (1980). Gifts differing. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc.

Myers, S. (2000). The MTR-i users manual. Oxum, UK: The Test Agency

Singer, J. K. (1994). Boundaries of the soul: The practice of Jung=s psychology. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books.

Singer, J., Loomis, M., Kirkhart, E. & Kirkhart, L. (1996). Singer-Loomis type deployment inventory. Gresham, OR: Moving Boundaries, Inc.

Thompson, H. (1996). Jung=s function-attitudes explained. Watkinsville, GA: Wormhole Press.

Thompson, H. (1997). Coaching, stress and communication style. Bulletin of Psychological Type, 20, 4, 19-20.

Thompson, H. (2002). Wave theory of type development and dynamics. Bulletin of Psychological Type, 25, 4, 41-45.                           

© 2003 Henry L. Thompson, Ph.D.
hpsys2@aol.com