@Sol So I'm gonna put my post here in response to yours so it's not off topic in the Peterson thread.
Exactly what opposite opinion of Jung's are you referring to?
You mean one of the possible interpretations of his writings as in: Dominant function being of one attitude (I or E), and the Auxiliary/Tertiary/Inferior being of the opposite attitude? This is just one possible interpretation by Jung followers. Jung himself never specified his theory to this degree of detail. There is actually another interpretation claiming the Auxiliary is of the same attitude as the Dominant because Jung mentioned that idea too somewhere. These were not finalized ideas is all we can say for sure. Socionics elaborates more here wihout having to contradict Jung since he never made this part of the theory proven and fixed.
Actually Jung doesn't claim this. Show me where you think he does.> that ID is unconscious
Strong function can't be called as unconscious with the Jung's understanding of functions. It's better to use other term, for example "shadow".
All he claims is the conscious Dominant function is abstract pure information and sometimes an Auxiliary function can serve up partially abstracted pure information too (hence also conscious) but the one that is of the same function dichotomy as the Dominant function but of opposite I/E attitude should be unconscious because Jung stated that the Dominant function's I/E attitude is what makes up the attitude of the consciousness. The fourth strong function is not discussed anywhere, it gets "lost" in the debate about what I/E attitude the Auxiliary may have.
So e.g. Ti-dominant Sensing type will have basically quite unconscious Te and at least partially unconscious Se and Si but more unconscious than conscious according to Jung, by default. However if someone develops their Auxiliary a lot, optionally, it's possible to make it somewhat conscious. Jung did not flesh out this part of the theory tho', only Socionics did. Jung does not really say for sure whether this Auxiliary would even be Se or Si. I'm personally the version that developed their Auxiliary into consciousness enough and it fits me alright in both theories, and it happens to be Se and not Si, sure. According to some Socionics views (Talanov test) the conscious Creative function isn't that terribly strong though by default (so not very conscious or focused on beyond a point*) so that's in line with Jung.
*: To elaborate: by default it's subordinated to the Base function and "channeled" by it and not very conscious without it. But it's possible to go beyond that and make it conscious optionally like I said above, it serving up its own information content partially abstracted away beyond just what the Base function gives to it to serve the Base function's cognition and agenda.
So you say all of Ti, Te, Si and Se are conscious for you?> try on LSI and see if that part of the theory works better then.
Te and Si are not neither non-valued, nor unconscious for me. It's the common content of my mind when I think about important.
For me personally Si can get conscious a bit but not for long. Te can't really. I mean the action oriented Dynamic logic, and that's not simply being about being objective. And sure Ti and Se are conscious enough.
Actually I find the problems caused for me by Ne PoLR are bad while insidiuous af. I am really good at ignoring the PoLR but it gets in the way anyway. Thanks to Socionics, I managed to discover its influence in my life and figure out some ways to counter it. I find this a very important development for myself actually. Easiest to counter it though is just by being around EIE, unfortunately this is true lol.> Also the PoLR concept fits me great.
I've given the explanation why this may look so. You may to have harder problems in suggestive region, but lesser notice them directly. They may even manifest through distortions of more conscious functions. But if you'd solve the problem on suggestive level, some problems in other regions "magically" would disappear.
For example. LSI feels shame (Fe) for something and this makes him more suspicious (Ne) to other people in general. So you see a paranoid dude and try to explain him "all is ok. the world is safe" - this will not work, as the real reason is deeper in his unconscious shame. You dig in his soul and find that the dude blames himself for something doing in a not worthy way, explain him that it's lesser bad than seems for him or help him to solve the situation - and then magically notice the dude became lesser mistrustful to people.
The problems hardest to be solved can be in suggestive function. It's what Jung thought. As he dealed with neuroses he should practically see where the hardest problems people have. The annoying issues you have with polr can be lighter and lesser stable than the ones in suggestive region, in case the suggestive indeed is the least conscious like Jung thought.
The other reason for looking polr as the weakest - as suggestive is valued function people may lesser try to ignore info and norms there. LSE may look as more polite compared to SLE. This mb not because Fi in SLE is weaker, but because SLE want lesser care about that - may easier understand the feelings of others but lesser want to take this into account.
Examples of the PoLR issues (and example solutions) I put in spoiler.
As for the Fe shame thingy in your example: I don't relate. I respond to shit with hostility back at the person way more easily than with shame. I see zero point in shame, it leads nowhere. That is, I'd rather orient by what I myself think, not by what other people think of me. Self-respect > shame.
Also... I don't find digging in the soul solves Fe issues efficiently for me lol. Fe is extraverted after all... digging that much just brings out Fi too much after a while. Being around EIE does solve many of the Fe issues, or just simply being around fun engaging people (positivity is a good thing but I don't mind some negative emotions either, can be engaging in a kind of interesting way if not directed at me - I'll just get engaged plus also get into problem solving). No big trick there really. Sometimes it is necessary to dig into my Ni stuff yeah, to sort out some stuff about Fe too but usually no big trick is needed. So yeah in this way Ne is not less of a pain in the ass. Overall Fe can be a pain in the ass too but it's not a bigger pain in the ass than Ne.
Oh also Jung did not say that the Inferior function was the most unconscious. Nope... The Inferior function is the gate to the unconscious but not wholly unconscious itself. This is in line with Socionics theory, too. In line with my own observations of myself etc. The Shadow beyond the Inferior is unconscious yes. But that goes further than the Inferior function.
As for LSE/SLE: nah I find they are polite in different ways. Fe HA of SLE can really make for a lot of nice attentiveness that you can call polite in the sense of it being nice. LSE is just less random so they are more consistently polite in some ways sure but they don't always care to do the same kind of nice emotional attentiveness that SLE can do in cases where LSE fails to, in my experience.
No, not wrong. I prefer not to mix up official notations causing further confusion. Thank-you.> I don't want to use MBTI notation for Socionics.
As it's the same Jung's typology and preferences/dichotomies are correct in MBT - it's possible. And good to help accept the Socionics for the ones which already know MBT.
> The lowercase letters are the Socionics notation
As types in MBT and the description of this dichotomy is identical - it's wrong to use another notation for it like it's not.
Yeah the j/p switch crap is wrongThis goes from the position that types in MBT should be converted in J/P for Socionics theory. It's wrong. In other case you should to get P in dichotomy tests and LSI (with Ti and Se in ego introverts) I know should be lesser organised.