Krig the Viking & MegaDoomer, Te & Ti split from "Type changing"

[Park]

Nice avi, labocat.

[silverchris9]

Certainly not Ti. Both are based on experience. "The chairs are made of wood" (or any hard material) is based exclusively on observation; as a concept, the chair can be made out of thin air - doesn't matter, anything that can be sit on, moved and so on is a chair, but what can be sit on - including materials - belongs to empiricism.
The homework conviction may be based on a convention or belief, too (basically it can be either Te or Fi); the time it is started or finished is not included in its concept and from a Ti POV the association is nonsensical, absurd, stupid.

"All chairs have a place one can sit on" and "homework is expected to be completed" would do.

Good point. I mean, I think you're incorrect to assume that Ti can't be based in experience (I mean, that's why Beta STs exist...), but the examples you gave are better examples of pure Ti.

You base you conclusion on your preferences and the assumption that you're IEI. I agree that your reasonings fit very well together, though considering that I type you as IEE, our views radically diverge. In fact you make the mistake to take yourself as an absolute reference, while other Ti valuers have a hard time grasping his information, it looks like a headless barely intelligible amalgam of facts, but the the rules for its consistency fail to emerge. Saying that means that you retype these people who don't process what you call "pure Ti" as Te valuers.

You're like the only person on this forum who types me anything but IEI... anyway, you're right insofar as it is a particular style of Krig's writing that I see as Ti, but if the rules of its consistency fail to emerge, I think that the failure is in your perception rather than his writing.

[glam]

i'm not the one taking positions.

only the position that "everything" on the forum is wrong

[The Ineffable]

I mean, I think you're incorrect to assume that Ti can't be based in experience (I mean, that's why Beta STs exist...)

Hmm we were discussing Ti, not Se of Beta ST's.

You're like the only person on this forum who types me anything but IEI... anyway, you're right insofar as it is a particular style of Krig's writing that I see as Ti, but if the rules of its consistency fail to emerge, I think that the failure is in your perception rather than his writing.

The idea was that you use this argument in support of your hypothesis: you are IEI -> you understand Krig -> Krig is wonderful Ti. But my point was its counterpart: some Ti valuers don't relate to Krig and consider his reasoning nonsensical.

You're making it appear as if I were an exception, but here's glamourama, Ti valuer, and so on. Your claim is an piece of apparent evidence in an ocean of possible inconsistencies, which you don't even explore. What should all the Ti valuers who reject that kind of reasoning do, retype themselves? I'm sorry, but you are not even sure whether you discuss Ti or Ti+Se, how in the world could you convince anyone of it? :|

My typing on you was based on analysis and brought into attention to point out that it's something ancient which fits together with glam's observation and your misunderstanding of Ti. These problems didn't just pop-up now out of nowhere, but if you both acknowledged your mistypings, most of these things will fall in place, what you witnessed is just the tip of the iceberg, IMO.

[mu4]

Ah, I see. I think you have a common misunderstanding of the nature of Te. While Te is concerned with objective data, that's not its primary focus. Te is a dynamic element: explicit dynamics of objects. It keeps track of the way objects in the world change and move over time, and understands how to cause and influence that change. The stock market is a good example. Your stereotypical LIE uses Te to keep track of how companies are changing over time, making and losing money, and uses Ni to extrapolate from the past to predict the direction that change will head in the future. While Te is concerned with getting accurate objective data on the current and past states of the companies, its goal in doing so is to figure out how that data changes and how to influence that change. Te is about profit, productivity, efficiency, practicality -- actions. It seeks the best method for doing things -- spending a lot of time trying to figure out exactly how to precisely define a thing would be a waste of time to a Te type; all they want to know is how to use the information they have, not how to define and categorize it.

On the other hand, Ti is a static element: explicit statics of fields. It seeks to understand the static, unchanging logical connections and categorizations of things. Data about constantly changing things (like the stock market) is uninteresting to a Ti type; they try to see through the constant changes in the world to the unchanging truths underneath. So a Ti type is more interested in things like philosophy, science -- something like socionics appeals to a Ti type, because the whole point is finding the unchanging commonalities underlying the seeming shifting chaos of the human mind. It's no coincidence it was developed by an ILE (Aushra). Ti is about categorization, precise definitions, logical frameworks, analysis -- sorting information into correct static logical systems. Understanding how to use information to accomplish some purpose is boring to a Ti type; they want to precisely and accurately sort information to arrive at a clearer understanding of the world.

I don't think this is all that meaningful, ILE have Te as eighth function, so fundamentally this is something they engage in automatically.

ILE's are plenty good at stocks, take George Soros for example. Ultimately, they are a type that learns by doing, creating, designing and seeing what went wrong and what went right.

It's actually a bit funny, because in this post you're disseminated thru your ego functions plenty of "factual/accepted factual" data at least as far as it pertains to Socionics yet ignored the structural side of Socionics, i.e Model A and the importance of where the function is within the psyche vs the strength of the function or just the ego functions.

Stereotypically speaking, Alpha NTs are pure scientists (seeking unchanging truth), while Gamma NTs are engineers (seeking the best method for making changes in the world). Clearly, I am the former: I seek to understand how the human mind is structured; I have no interest in figuring out the best method of using that information.

I think this is wrong, because Alpha NT's described as either "Inventors" or "Architect". These are two engineering tasks. ILE is a type primarily concerned with how to use information in new innovative and hopefully better ways. This is because their 1st and 8th function are Ne and Te. The difference between the mental and vital ring is that the ego ring is a area of social activity and control, while the vital ring is a area of individual activity and control. This is one of the reasons why the ILE's tend to formulate their own methods and practices. I think fundamentally a scientist is a reverse engineer and it is the universe that is being reverse engineered and the means of proof, designing a prototype or the creation of some working design. However, the creating of attractive and economical products is a different form of engineering not just constrained by physical laws but also by personal preferences and resource management.

LII's can easily blueprint something out and never involve themselves in the build out of said product, rather they use designs and models and abstract representation and simulations of those products in order to substantiate their private predictions(Ni). However, the actualization and production of those models may be left to others(Te).

[Jarno]

ILE's are plenty good at stocks, take George Soros for example.

maybe he was just lucky and it had nothing to do with his type?

[mu4]

maybe he was just lucky and it had nothing to do with his type?

Naw, he capitalized on the investor bias where it did not match up with reality and fundamentals. Therefore these areas were not in equilibrium.
He basically did arbitrage based on his analysis of investor bias and speculated on that. I.E shorted the bubbles.

Basically Anti-Fi. Pro-Ne/Ti. Using analysis and economic structure versus available pricing information and trends.

[Jarno]

Naw, he capitalized on the investor bias where it did not match up with reality and fundamentals. Therefore these areas were not in equilibrium.
He basically did arbitrage based on his analysis of investor bias and speculated on that. I.E shorted the bubbles.

Basically Anti-Fi. Pro-Ne/Ti. Using analysis and economic structure versus available pricing information and trends.

I think you are seeing to much connections.

He was just lucky. He could as easely have been wrong and nobody would have heard of him.

[mu4]

I think you are seeing to much connections.

He was just lucky. He could as easely have been wrong and nobody would have heard of him.

What do you mean luck? You mean luck of genetics or circumstance that allowed him to be able to make this sort of analysis and be consistently successful over a long period of time?

Keynes was another stock market ILE and he went almost bankrupt the first time during the Great Depression. Sometimes people just learn from their mistakes.

[Jarno]

What do you mean luck? You mean luck of genetics or circumstance that allowed him to be able to make this sort of analysis and be consistently successful over a long period of time?

no I mean just plain luck. Maybe you've heared of Nassim Taleb who wrote the book Fooled by randomness. People too often think it was their great thinking that made them rich, while it was just luck.

He gives examples of people like George Soros, who make million after million and think they are brilliant, while a couple of months later it seemed they were just lucky because the russians had to buy some extra bonds and drove the price up. Now the quite buying and everything crashes. The person get's fired and he suddenly feels not so brilliant. There are numerous cases of this, and George Soros is most likely just one of them. At the right place at the right time. If there are enough contenders, somebody ought to be the one who guesses everything right in a guessing game. It's not caused by there strong Ti or Hidden agenda Te or whatever.

Edit: I always wondered what type Keynes would be. ILE. hmm interesting. He was certainly a smart man.

[mu4]

no I mean just plain luck. Maybe you've heared of Nassim Taleb who wrote the book Fooled by randomness. People too often think it was their great thinking that made them rich, while it was just luck.

He gives examples of people like George Soros, who make million after million and think they are brilliant, while a couple of months later it seemed they were just lucky because the russians had to buy some extra bonds and drove the price up. Now the quite buying and everything crashes. The person get's fired and he suddenly feels not so brilliant. There are numerous cases of this, and George Soros is most likely just one of them. At the right place at the right time. If there are enough contenders, somebody ought to be the one who guesses everything right in a guessing game. It's not caused by there strong Ti or Hidden agenda Te or whatever.

Edit: I always wondered what type Keynes would be. ILE. hmm interesting. He was certainly a smart man.

Funny this is what Talib said about Soros.

If given a choice between investing with Buffett and billionaire investor George Soros, Taleb also said he would probably pick the latter.

"I am not saying Buffett isn't as good as Soros," he said. "I am saying that the probability Soros's returns come from randomness is much smaller because he did almost everything: he bought currencies, he sold currencies, he did arbitrages. He made a lot more decisions. Buffett followed a strategy to buy companies that had a certain earnings profile, and it worked for him. There is a lot more luck involved in this strategy."

I guess he is lucky.

Or maybe he's a Oracle.

http://www.businessinsider.com/taleb...nvestor-2010-2

[silverchris9]

Hmm we were discussing Ti, not Se of Beta ST's.

Functions don't exist in a vacuum. When you start talking about the application or manifestations of functions, one of the first things to talk about is what quadra/what function it is blocked with.

Also, assuming that the set called Ti includes both Ti + Se and Ti + Ne, any claim that I make about Ti + Se can provide a valid counterexample to something you say about Ti. That is, if you claim Ti is x, but it is shown that Ti + Se is not x, then one can deduce that Ti =/= x, because Ti includes Ti + Se (or Beta Ti or whatever you want to call it).

The idea was that you use this argument in support of your hypothesis: you are IEI -> you understand Krig -> Krig is wonderful Ti. But my point was its counterpart: some Ti valuers don't relate to Krig and consider his reasoning nonsensical.

You're making it appear as if I were an exception, but here's glamourama, Ti valuer, and so on. Your claim is an piece of apparent evidence in an ocean of possible inconsistencies, which you don't even explore. What should all the Ti valuers who reject that kind of reasoning do, retype themselves? I'm sorry, but you are not even sure whether you discuss Ti or Ti+Se, how in the world could you convince anyone of it? :|

My typing on you was based on analysis and brought into attention to point out that it's something ancient which fits together with glam's observation and your misunderstanding of Ti. These problems didn't just pop-up now out of nowhere, but if you both acknowledged your mistypings, most of these things will fall in place, what you witnessed is just the tip of the iceberg, IMO.

This is more incisive than normal. Nevertheless... you're still wrong. a) your typing of me is wrong (but by all means start a thread about it, because I like to hear people talk about me); b) I base my typing of Krig is a Ti-ego not only upon my personal enjoyment of his writing, but because his writing contains something that I have learned to recognize in the world as Ti. One of the ways that I recognize it is that it gives me pleasure, yes, but obviously, that is not the only criteria I apply; Walt Whitman gives me pleasure, but I don't type his work Ti. Furthermore, even if the criterion were pleasure alone, that would not imply that a) I find all manifestations of Ti pleasurable, or b) that all Ti-valuers must find all manifestations of Ti pleasurable. Thus I can use pleasure as one criterion in my "test" for Ti, even though I do not find every use/instance of Ti pleasurable (I didn't find reading your post, for example, terribly pleasurable, since we're disagreeing, but I still recognize it as Ti-related), and even though other Ti-valuers (such as Glam) do not find a particular instance of Ti pleasurable.

[Jarno]

Funny this is what Talib said about Soros.

haha I didn't know that.

Oke then there is probably less chance that luck played such a big part in Soros' results as I thought.

I withdraw my statement!

[The Ineffable]

This is more incisive than normal.

Sorry . It was because I found your conclusion pretty unfounded but at the same time absolute and overly-confident. It feels like you're trying to force your view by lousy means, I especially dislike the approach of deciding the validity of a principle based on the number of people who believe it. I have no idea how to convince you that it's fundamentally wrong.

Functions don't exist in a vacuum. When you start talking about the application or manifestations of functions, one of the first things to talk about is what quadra/what function it is blocked with.

Also, assuming that the set called Ti includes both Ti + Se and Ti + Ne, any claim that I make about Ti + Se can provide a valid counterexample to something you say about Ti. That is, if you claim Ti is x, but it is shown that Ti + Se is not x, then one can deduce that Ti =/= x, because Ti includes Ti + Se (or Beta Ti or whatever you want to call it).

Is this a joke? This is absurd, but assuming you were serious just maybe miss something, I feel obliged to explain:

I know very well that functions work together - and never claimed otherwise - but Ti+Se =/= Te. You first claimed that Ti can deal with empirical data, but when contradicted, you put Se in, which is in fact not Ti, but Se. Let's put it this way: the brain has a certain function, so do the lungs. You can't claim that the brain has a respiratory function just because it can never function without lungs. So is Ti an information element and function with precise attributes. Naturally, you can't be right unless you don't decide what is what.

You make a gross fallacy of correlation implying causation there, let me tell you. Your example in our case roughly means that x = purely conceptual information (in opposition to empirical one). Now, you state:
"That is, if you claim Ti is x, but it is shown that Ti + Se is not x, then one can deduce that Ti =/= x, because Ti includes Ti + Se"
That means I claim Ti is purely conceptual, but it is shown that Ti+Se is not exclusively conceptual, but handle empirical information. Now your conclusion that we can deduce that Ti =/= purely conceptual is false, because the the empirical part was caused by the Bodies property of Se alone.

Above all, Ti is by definition conceptual. Claiming otherwise is exactly like claiming that "some bachelors are married". A married bachelor is not a bachelor.
---

For the record, something else but on-topic emerges from your post, IMO. You're not truly capable of understanding the functions through definitions, instead you perceive them as some objects/people that you experiment with and "discover" that you can't tell apart which causes the empiricism, as long as they're inseparable. If functions were some objects you could experiment with then yes, what you said would be true, but it's in fact just your weakness in conceiving that something more complex can be just what it is defined. Yes, simple things you can comprehend - like the fact that a bachelor is by definition unmarried, you don't need to discover this property - but it apparently feels awkward to you the idea that such complex things can be analyzed exclusively by means of logical rules. Although we were both talking about allegedly the same thing, functions, I had to give you extremely simple examples to hopefully explain this reasoning to you.
This is what I know to be Ti-PoLR.

[silverchris9]

Sorry . It was because I found your conclusion pretty unfounded but at the same time absolute and overly-confident. It feels like you're trying to force your view by lousy means, I especially dislike the approach of deciding the validity of a principle based on the number of people who believe it. I have no idea how to convince you that it's fundamentally wrong.

And it feels like you're trying to force your view by insulting me, but whatever. Also, without extraordinary reason to disbelieve it, one should generally believe the consensus view. There are some scientists who don't believe in global warming, some who don't believe in evolution, etc. But we go on acting as if those theories are true, because the overwhelming consensus is that they are. In the same way, if there is a consensus among people here about the type of a particular person, after a while it's best to just go with that consensus, or at least operate under the assumption that it is true until some extraordinary evidence to the contrary comes along.

Also... are you clear on what incisive means? I wasn't saying that your argument was meaner than usual or more biting than usual or anything. I just meant that you were making better points. You actually understand many aspects of my point of view pretty well. Of course, you think the point of view is wrong, I think it's right, but the fact that you noticed that I prefer object to propositional knowledge is impressive, even if we disagree on which ought to take priority.

For the record, something else but on-topic emerges from your post, IMO. You're not truly capable of understanding the functions through definitions, instead you perceive them as some objects/people that you experiment with and "discover" that you can't tell apart which causes the empiricism, as long as they're inseparable. If functions were some objects you could experiment with then yes, what you said would be true, but it's in fact just your weakness in conceiving that something more complex can be just what it is defined. Yes, simple things you can comprehend - like the fact that a bachelor is by definition unmarried, you don't need to discover this property - but it apparently feels awkward to you the idea that such complex things can be analyzed exclusively by means of logical rules. Although we were both talking about allegedly the same thing, functions, I had to give you extremely simple examples to hopefully explain this reasoning to you.
This is what I know to be Ti-PoLR.

Argh. This is what I know to be your lack of knowledge. The idea that everything is object knowledge rather than merely propositional knowledge comes from Plato. Forgive me for holding to his opinions rather than yours...

Also, we have sharply differing epistemological views. Suffice to say that I a laundry list of well-considered objections to pure reason (without experience or a significant amount of assumption) as a means to truth.

This is probably unproductive. You hold a set of assumptions; I hold a set of assumptions. The difference is, I don't find it necessary to denigrate your set of assumptions in order to dispute your conclusions. Now I see that we are talking in terms of self-consistent(ish) but mutually exclusive theories. So I'm just going to generalize from my experience, assume that you're crazy in this case, and move on.

[Pa3s]

Reagarding the (other) original topic of this thread split: Is there anyone who still has some arguments against Krig &/or my self-typing? (except for the people who already made their point)

[mu4]

Also, without extraordinary reason to disbelieve it, one should generally believe the consensus view.

A. There is no consensus view and it doesn't matter. If Krig and Megadoomer gets into a dual relationship with a ESE that gets along with other Alphas, and fulfills some of the predictions of that interaction. Then that's evidence. The only evidence we have available is Krig and Megadoomer's words and thought, and any analysis we can make of their words and thought.
B. You should be skeptical of all beliefs, including your own.
C. If you continue to think like this, stay out of science and stick with religion and art history.

There are some scientists who don't believe in global warming, some who don't believe in evolution, etc. But we go on acting as if those theories are true, because the overwhelming consensus is that they are. In the same way, if there is a consensus among people here about the type of a particular person, after a while it's best to just go with that consensus, or at least operate under the assumption that it is true until some extraordinary evidence to the contrary comes along.

The validity of a person's type does not have the quality of evidence that climate change has, and some of the more extreme climate change doomsayers are probably wrong. To compare the two is a rhetorical farce and without any merit. Don't be a philistine.

Argh. This is what I know to be your lack of knowledge. The idea that everything is object knowledge rather than merely propositional knowledge comes from Plato. Forgive me for holding to his opinions rather than yours...

Also, we have sharply differing epistemological views. Suffice to say that I a laundry list of well-considered objections to pure reason (without experience or a significant amount of assumption) as a means to truth.

This is probably unproductive. You hold a set of assumptions; I hold a set of assumptions. The difference is, I don't find it necessary to denigrate your set of assumptions in order to dispute your conclusions. Now I see that we are talking in terms of self-consistent(ish) but mutually exclusive theories. So I'm just going to generalize from my experience, assume that you're crazy in this case, and move on.

Carl Sagan said of Plato: "Science and mathematics were to be removed from the hands of the merchants and the artisans. This tendency found its most effective advocate in a follower of Pythagoras named Plato." and: "He (Plato) believed that ideas were far more real than the natural world. He advised the astronomers not to waste their time observing the stars and planets. It was better, he believed, just to think about them. Plato expressed hostility to observation and experiment. He taught contempt for the real world and disdain for the practical application of scientific knowledge. Plato's followers succeeded in extinguishing the light of science and experiment that had been kindled by Democritus and the other Ionians."

Plato has a pretty crappy record concerning the material world, science, etc. Ultimately bringing Plato as a authority into this discredits you in the mind of anyone that respect evidence.

[The Ineffable]

Also, without extraordinary reason to disbelieve it, one should generally believe the consensus view. There are some scientists who don't believe in global warming, some who don't believe in evolution, etc. But we go on acting as if those theories are true, because the overwhelming consensus is that they are. In the same way, if there is a consensus among people here about the type of a particular person, after a while it's best to just go with that consensus, or at least operate under the assumption that it is true until some extraordinary evidence to the contrary comes along.

Believing the consensus like you do is blind trust. I said "like you do" because yes, consensus can be taken as an indicative, but it has zero power of validation. After a while it's not "best" to go with the consensus, it's the worst case scenario, and you do that for a while only, until you can validate out yourself the truth, by personal experience or logical means. Therefore it's a "before" instead of "after".

Also... are you clear on what incisive means? I wasn't saying that your argument was meaner than usual or more biting than usual or anything. I just meant that you were making better points.

Oh yeah, I misunderstood that - probably because I felt you're a bit irritated and in a defensive overall.
Note that when I point out your flaws, I don't mean to insult or discredit you, it's intended to emphasize some fundamental differences, but also emphasize my view on your values, as long as our self-typings have a word to say - I hope that you acknowledge that the subdued values are perceived as "bad", "wrong" and "stupid" by types, the actual cause of type-related conflict and other things. I'm absolute only in what concerns your wrong conclusions, when applicable.

You actually understand many aspects of my point of view pretty well. Of course, you think the point of view is wrong, I think it's right, but the fact that you noticed that I prefer object to propositional knowledge is impressive, even if we disagree on which ought to take priority.

I said that you were wrong because you were (objectively) wrong in that specific matter. The fact that other Ti valuing (also Ti V and strong!) sloppily process the same information that you did to conclude it's Ti automatically invalidates your justification. Besides, there's one more thing: glam explained what happens underneath, the mechanism - the type of information, something that makes the difference regardless of how many people easily process Krig's references, however, both you and Krig simply failed to understand it as if it doesn't even exist, let alone its exclusiveness.

Here's the situation, the way I see it: he tried to convince the others that "it walks like a duck, it talks like a duck, then it is a duck", she claimed that "it has an antenna and LED eyes, therefore it's not a duck". Then both you and Krig further extend this "empirical" approach to the actual divergence itself, nonchalantly concluding that "hmm what we have here: my opinion is this, his/her opinion is that; the conclusion is all we have is two people with two different opinions. our family and friends believe that it's a duck too, so most likely I am right". Not so fast, as long as the antenna and LEDs are inconsistent with your conclusion, you - and anyone who make the same claim - are wrong, objectively. Ignoring the very fact that the antenna is a contradiction to your conclusion doesn't make you right, but wrong+ignorant - actually this is IMO what makes the difference between the Te Valuers able to understand analytical fields (Socionics included) and the ones unable.

Therefore, assuming the information that Krig generates is Te - idea that you both refused to even address - you are both wrong. This is an objective implication, not just my "alternative opinion". The other evidence, the fact that you reject even simple formal logic (just failing at it would not say much, IMO), makes nothing more than support this conclusion that you are both Te valuers.

Argh. This is what I know to be your lack of knowledge. The idea that everything is object knowledge rather than merely propositional knowledge comes from Plato. Forgive me for holding to his opinions rather than yours...

Also, we have sharply differing epistemological views. Suffice to say that I a laundry list of well-considered objections to pure reason (without experience or a significant amount of assumption) as a means to truth.

LOL, whoot? Okay, if you can tell that the object "Ti" processes empirical data (which by the way, is infringing its very definition) by experiencing it, could you please tell me if the object "bachelor" has a stomach?

What you say is some sort of pseudo-synthetic gibberish, it has nothing to do with anything, but mental masturbation. This is not a matter of Plato vs whoever, in Socionics Ti is defined as conceptual, so you either acknowledge it or talk of something else entirely.

This is probably unproductive. You hold a set of assumptions; I hold a set of assumptions. The difference is, I don't find it necessary to denigrate your set of assumptions in order to dispute your conclusions. Now I see that we are talking in terms of self-consistent(ish) but mutually exclusive theories. So I'm just going to generalize from my experience, assume that you're crazy in this case, and move on.

?? There's no denigration, your reasoning was incorrect. Only belief can make your theory "self-consistent", as you validate it exclusively through vague means of belief, with no vigorous implications ("Plato said concepts are objects and I'm a Plato fanboy => I'm not wrong" or "no one doubts that I'm Fe => I'm Fe => Krig is Ti"). As you assume our opinions are self-consistent but contradictory, then one of them is wrong, be it mine or yours; now as long as you can't obtain certainty whether your opinion is correct, you are not justified to make further claims that you demonstrate anything in this matter, unless you use different arguments.

[HERO]

Not to detract or take away anything from Bolt, silverchris9, and hkkmr et al. in this thread. In general, I find them all to be remarkably intelligent and fascinating, and I enjoy a lot of their posts on this forum... They all have their unique strengths and spheres of knowledge (that far transcend my meagre means).

In his book MBTI and Socionics, Moshenkov calls the demonstrative (8th) function "the background function." For an INTj (LII), the background or demonstrative (8th) function is ; for an INTp (ILI), the background or demonstrative (8th) function is . Yet of course what the book has to say could apply to any type.

Sergei Moshenkov and Wing Tung Tang M. Sc., MBTI and Socionics: Legacy of Dr. Carl Jung (Lexington: USA, 2010/2011), 31:

- p. 31 [Model A: The hierarchy of psychic functions]: ". . . Since the background function is of the same vertedness as the base function, the person is very successful in using it, and in some subtypes, the background function may in fact be the most used function in a person."