Okay, I've done a ton of reading by Jungian analysts about the auxiliary. Just as I've done in some of my previous entries, I want to start off by talking about some of the ways this has been interpreted in the MBTI theory, then what some of the more traditional Jungian interpretations are. After I do that, I'll toss my own ideas into the mix.
The MBTI states that there is a dominant function, an auxiliary, tertiary and inferior function. The theory states that the dominant function is in the opposite attitude of the dominant. It also states that there is a "tertiary" (i.e. the third function). Some (but not all) MBTI theorists suggest that the tertiary is in the same attitude of the dominant function. This doesn't really make a lot of sense to me, since each function is buried in a deeper layer of unconscious, with the dominant the only fully conscious function. Since Jung's system is divided along I/E lines, if the third function were in the same attitude as the dominant, that would mean it was more accessible than the auxiliary. However, if it's more accessible than the auxiliary, then it wouldn't be the third function. By definition, "more unconscious" means less accessible to consciousness. It should be noted that not all MBTI writers hold to this position, and I've seen some get out of the muddle by simply not specifying which attitude the third is in.
Many Jungians don't use the phrase "tertiary." Rather, they refer to an auxiliary and a third function. In some cases, they say "auxiliaries" meaning the second and third function. Where there is some dispute nowadays is in whether the auxiliary is in the same or opposite attitude as the dominant. Those who say it's in the opposite attitude hold that both auxiliaries and the inferior are in the same attitude. Those who say it's in the same attitude hold that the dominant and both auxiliaries are in the same attitude with the inferior in the opposing attitude. So, for example, someone that held to what I'm going to call the "Opposite Attitude Thesis" (OAT) would say that if you were an introverted feeling type with auxiliary sensing, you'd be like this: introverted feeling-extraverted sensing-extraverted intuition-extraverted thinking. Under the "Same Attitude Thesis" (SAT) the person would be as follows: introverted feeling-introverted sensing-introverted intuition-extraverted thinking.
The conflict over this arises out of differing interpretations of one puzzling phrase in Jung's Psychological Types:
For all the types met with in practice, the rule holds good that besides the conscious, primary function there is a relatively unconscious, auxiliary function which is in every respect different from the nature of the primary function.
So, one might interpret this as saying that, if it's different in every respect, if you're an introverted type, the auxiliary would be extraverted. However, a paragraph above, there is another passage which complicates matters:
Experience shows that the secondary function is always one whose nature is different from, though not antagonistic to, the primary function.
Now, Jung goes on to talk about it in terms of functions. So, if you were in favor of the OAT, you could argue he's only talking about the functions, not the attitudes. However, if you take that position, you have to bite the bullet and say that, in the next paragraph, he's only talking about the functions when he says "different in every respect" as well. The proponent of SAT could additionally argue that since Jung thought the greatest difference was between the introverted and extraverted attitudes, that having a supporting function in the opposing attitude would be antagonistic to the dominant and therefore could not be an auxiliary.
In this article, Andi Lothian explains how, for the longest time, it was nearly blasphemous to suggest that the auxiliary could be in an opposing attitude. While Marie-Louise von Franz doesn't specify an attitude for the auxiliaries, her frequent use of "inferior" to describe both the fourth function and the opposing attitude suggests she held that view as well. She states,
(Psychotherapy, pg 121)
This barbaric quality of the inferior function which is mixed up with the other attitudinal type is one of the great practical problems and constitutes the great split of the human personality, for not only has one to switch from one function to another, but with the fourth function one definitely has to switch to the other attitudinal type, and then one risks (or even cannot avoid) being temporarily possessed by the opposite attitude and thereby become barbaric and unadapted.
Obviously if (a)one has to work through the auxiliaries before getting to the inferior and assimilating it and (b) the difficulty of assimilating the inferior function is due in part to having to switch to the opposing attitude, then the other two functions would need to be in the same attitude as the dominant...if they weren't, then one wouldn't have to switch when they got to the inferior, they would have already done this.
Now, some people like Spoto advocate the OAT approach, although he also allows for an "aberrant type" which can be in the same attitude of the dominant. However creative Spoto's idea may be, this may be a bit too loose, and runs contrary to Jung's intent. Under Spoto's aberrant type, you would have a personality that was more comfortable with ambiguity, and may be more emotionally volatile. Unfortunately, he allows for any possible auxiliary, so thinking could have feeling as an auxiliary or sensing accompanied by intuition . The problem is this pretty much would unravel the whole cornerstone of Jung's system: not only does he (many times) explain how the opposing type always represses the expression of the other, but he considers the greatest challenge to be assimilating of the inferior function. However, if a person could have extraverted thinking with auxiliary feeling, then what would the inferior function even be? This seems to remove it entirely. A more probable explanation seems to be that the people who seem to use both are really caught in the throes of a dominant/inferior split, where the inferior was cropping to the surface so much that it seemed more well defined in the personality. The emotional volatility that Spoto recognized would then be better attributed to the touchiness of the inferior function erupting on a frequent basis.
As is no doubt obvious, I'm more persuaded by SAT. However, Andi Lothian makes a compelling suggestion: that we could expand it to a total of 32 types, allowing for the auxiliary to follow either the SAT or OAT pattern. I would guess that people who are better described by OAT might rely more exclusively on the dominant function or take longer to integrate the auxiliary, since they have to make an attitudinal jump. You could think of it as something similar to the enneagram theory, with wings and instincts. Just as there are Social 4w5s , Sexual 4w3s etc, there are NiFis and NiFes, etc. I think the hierarchy of type would go something like this:
8 functions--> so basic qualities and same core issues for people of the same function. e.g. all introverted thinking types have to wrangle with inferior extraverted feeling.
Function + auxiliary-->A distinction is made in how the function is fueled, for example thinking fueling philosophical speculation in introverted intuition with thinking versus fueling artistic vision with feeling.
Function+auxiliary+attitude-->the attitude the auxiliary is in determines how it is expressed. So, as the auxiliary differentiates, how it is expressed is determined through which attitude is dominant.
I do think you need to stick to the traditional auxiliary function breakdown (e.g. rational type with irrational auxiliary and vice versa), otherwise it just becomes an attempt to account for everything to the point of losing its value as a construct and a psychological tool...but allowing for either attitude as subtypes gives enough flexibility to incorporate both theories. I would say, the important thing is to stay consistent: if you're an introverted sensing type and determine yourself to have extraverted feeling, then your thinking has to be extraverted too. No attitudinal leapfrogging, please.
