Thoughts on Function Hierarchy & Archetypal Expressions

Last week I wrote about a question I’ve been having about whether Type preferences might have evolved in part as a response to childhood trauma, or to what extent our innate preferences influenced how we developed and dealt with that. My friend Cindy emailed me a paper about whole Type and the archetypal Self in response, and that helped put some shape around something else I’ve been noodling on.

So this week, I’m going to go a little further “out there” and ask, what if the MBTI®’s four function, or even John Beebe’s eight function models aren’t as dynamic as they could be? Specifically:

What if the function pairs and opposites are not in the order we presume?

What if all functions could be inhabited by all kinds of archetypes at any given time, depending on context?

I know, blasphemy. Still, worth a ponder. Fair warning, I tried to keep this short, but it’s a lot to cover.

Ready? Let’s dive in.

The Question of Function Hierarchy

In Jungian psychology, cognitive functions are typically understood as how we orient to, and make meaning of the world. The processes are judging or perceiving, the functions are Thinking, Feeling, Sensing, Intuiting, and the attitudes are extraverted or introverted.

Jung described eight function attitude Types as patterns central to ego consciousness (aka superior), with a complementary, compensatory, and opposing unconscious function attitude (aka inferior). His works also mention an auxiliary function to balance the dominant in process, although he did not specify the attitude (see Table 1).

Table 1, Type overview

As Myers and Briggs developed their questionnaire based on Jung’s writings, they introduced the following assumptions (among others):

• There is complementarity between process, function, and attitude

• There is a hierarchy of remaining preferences underneath what they called the dominant function

• Choosing preference between dichotomies yields a four function model, focusing on superior/dominant, auxiliary, tertiary, and inferior

• e.g., in an extraverted Thinking Type with a Sensing auxiliary, that Sensing would be introverted, followed by its opposite extraverted Intuiting in the tertiary, rounded out by inferior introverted Feeling, aka ESTJ (Te, Si, Ne, Fi)

In doing so, we went from eight function-attitude Types, to 16 four-letter Types.

Of course there were other folks who also read Jung, and who have interpreted his theories slightly differently. For example, Gray and Wheelwright (1945) suggested the superior and auxiliary function are in the same attitude. Roger Pearman wrote in his book “YOU” that if the superior is extraverted, the remaining auxiliary, tertiary, and inferior will be introverted. It’s fair to say, there is some ongoing disagreement about the specifics.

Jung was simply not explicit enough about what exactly he meant by balance or what a hierarchy beyond superior, auxiliary, and inferior might look like, but then again he never intended for his theory to be prescriptive anyway.

“He was averse to his theory being anything more than a lens to view and make sense of people’s behaviors, decisions, cognitions, values, and choices. For Jung, the strength of the theory lay in the fact that it emerged from his observations, rather than the other way around. In his opinion, an over-indoctrination in his, or any other framework, for that matter, was shortsighted. Moreover, Jung qualified his theory by warning that it did not, and would not, describe each and every person; Psychological Type was not intended to be an exhaustive theory (Cook, 1970).” (Barimany, 2017, p. 44)

Mina Barimany addressed the question of hierarchy in her 2017 doctoral dissertation taking a statistical, quantitative approach. She did a latent class analysis on large (like, over 5,000 entries large) data sets of the Majors Personality Type Inventory. Here are some of her findings that stand out:

• The superior and auxiliary function were opposite in process, function, and attitude in 59% of the latent classes (i.e. as expected, e.g., Fe & Ni, Te & Si, Ni & Te)

• The superior and auxiliary function were in the same attitude for 30% of the classes (i.e., supporting Gray & Wheelwright’s theory; e.g., Te & Ne, Fi & Si, Ne & Fe)

• 13 out of 14 of these classes had the tertiary function in the opposite attitude (i.e., providing balance; e.g., Te, Ne, & Ni; Fi, Si, & Fe)

• The relationships between auxiliary and tertiary functions were complementary in some way, consisting of same process, same function, opposing attitude in 51% of the classes, i.e., not wholly opposite as MBTI® suggests (e.g., Te, Ne, & Ni; Fi, Si, & Se)

• “Finally, it was evident that two clear forces anchored the entire system of the psyche—the superior and the inferior preference are the “bookends” of the hierarchy of preferences.” (p. 117)

• i.e., once the superior, auxiliary, and inferior functions are determined, the remaining five “fall somewhere between the auxiliary and the inferior” (p. 26)

Sticking to Jung’s guidelines of the relationships between superior, inferior, and auxiliary functions, then, our potential Type pool has expanded to a possible 48 superior-auxiliary combos, or 240 superior-auxiliary-tertiary ones.

In that article Cindy sent me (Experiencing Whole Type: Living into the Archetypal Self), Angelo Spoto (2021) also conceptualized Jung’s original typological model into a developmental arc. He argues that the first half of life is typically devoted to developing one’s four superior functions, those most accessible to consciousness and essential for building ego identity. He suggests they be one judging and one perceiving function in both attitudes, e.g. Fi with Ni and Ne and Fe. (I seem to remember seeing Barimany talking about this as a case of “super balance”, but I can’t find the reference.)

Starting in midlife, the remaining four inferior functions begin playing a bigger role. (Note he abbreviates the functions in a way that gives equal footing to the attitude instead of subordinating it to the function, so “Introverted Feeling” becomes “IF” instead of Fi.)

Angelo Spoto, 2021, p. 1101

Spoto says,

“Most importantly, the individual’s ‘whole type’ is there at the beginning and throughout life, but only as potential, waiting to be actualized in lived experience and made conscious.” (p. 1102)

Just to be clear, I’m not here to start any beef with the MBTI® or with other Type models. I’m just tickled to think about reimagining it all. Especially since I’ve always thought my own brain works in a very Fe-Ne-Fi-Ni way, but definitely flipping into Thinking and Sensing over the last 10 years.

If you’re curious to see now what the order of your function attitude preferences are, independent of a four-letter Type structure, Dario Nardi has a free Keys2Cognition assessment available here: https://www.keys2cognition.com. Please add my name as the person who referred you and lmk if you’d like to talk about it! And of course he has also recently published a couple of books detailing how each of the eight cognitive function attitudes can be expressed with different “flavors”, and I made videos about all of them. You can find those here: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL-akUgWHUNk8gUwUZCaRDvoE8Q5bJvaci

To sum up, instead of thinking about our favorite functions as opposites in all aspects (process, function, and attitude) ordered into a neat stack, it might be worth considering that we develop our ego consciousness around one judging and one perceiving function in both attitudes first, before the inferior or other functions make themselves known.

Moving on to…

The Question of Archetypes

John Beebe made a pivotal contribution by integrating archetypal language directly into typological theory. In Energies and Patterns in Psychological Type (2016), he described how analyzing his dreams helped him assign archetypal roles to each of his function-attitudes in the eight-function model. For example, the dominant function is cast as the Hero/Heroine, the auxiliary as the Good Parent, the tertiary as the Eternal Child, and the inferior as the Anima/Animus. The shadow functions (in his model, fifth through eighth) are associated with Opposing, Critical Parent, Trickster, and Daemon archetypes, respectively.

Beebe’s model elegantly bridges structure (function position) and symbolism (archetype), and has inspired further research into typological development, e.g. by Dr. Linda Berens. However, tethering archetypes to fixed function positions limits individual differences in how functions and archetypes might be experienced and expressed.

Enter Spoto, and the one line in the whole paper that sparked this post. Remember how he describes the inferior functions as latent capacities that emerge in the second half of life? Well, by engaging these functions, individuals gain access to symbolic material and archetypal patterns that foster individuation. He says,

“because this model stipulates four inferiors functioning throughout typological development, archetypal patterns and archetypal energies of all kinds are constantly entering and influencing consciousness, both in the first half of life and most significantly in the second half of life. In fact, in this model, typological development must at all times acknowledge, work with, and even honour the archetypal energy coming up from the depths of the psyche, though clearly this work is a much more urgent and significant part of the second half of life agenda.” (p. 1103, emphasis mine.)

Now, just for completeness’ sake, allow me to bring in Carol Pearson. In her book, What Stories are you Living (2021), Carol Pearson’s introduces twelve archetypes: Idealist, Seeker, Sage, Realist, Lover, Jester, Caregiver, Ruler, Creator, Warrior, Revolutionary, Magician. They are not purely based on Jung’s works, but on her research into myths and stories across time and cultures. These archetypes represent universal energies that shape the stories we live and the identities we embody.

She describes them as “unconscious blueprints that order human thinking and acting.” (Pearson, 2021, p. 25). In The Hero Within (1986), she framed archetypes not only as mythic forces but also as psychological potentials and patterns that shaped how people saw themselves, made decisions, and related to others.

So, I know she’s not using Jung-specific archetypes as Beebe did, but bear with me. While Pearson did not propose a specific developmental sequence, she suggests individuals often access different archetypes as they move through life’s challenges and transitions. Archetypes such as the Idealist and Realist may dominate early life, while the Seeker and Revolutionary emerge during periods of crisis or growth, and the Magician or Ruler may reflect post-transformational integration.

In other words, while extraverted Feeling Types may frequently identify with Caregiver or Lover archetypes, they're not locked into them.

What could that look like?

Extraverted Feeling is about connecting, harmonizing, relating, empathizing, and group values. With an Idealist archetype energy, it can look like seeking peace and approval from others. With Hero energy, it’s more like a charismatic leader, defending values and taking charge in social endeavors. With a Ruler energy, I can imagine an HR Manager overseeing systems for employee well-being and fair compensation. In her Rebel era, that Fe person would be vocal about confronting injustice.

To be very clear, what I’m saying is, what if our superior function attitude not only carries Hero archetype energy, but can also be inhabited by any other archetypal energy, including Rebel (Trickster), or Innocent (Child), depending on context?

In other words, what if archetypal expression was dynamic and overlapping rather than static and sequential? This developmental rhythm would also align with Jung’s notion of individuation: a lifelong, nonlinear process of becoming more whole, often through conscious engagement with our unconscious narratives.

In conclusion

Pulling Barimany, Spoto, Beebe, and Pearson together, I think it’s fair to say there are opportunities to reinterpret the eight function attitudes. Not only by allowing them to occupy more fluid positions in our psyche, but also expanding their role as archetypal portals. Archetypes, then, become less about a function "match" and more about conceptualizing the energy that’s fueling our unconscious drivers and motivations. As individuals develop over time, particularly through the crises and transformations of midlife, considering which energies our functions are expressing offers richer self-awareness and more opportunities to develop relational skills.

The cover image is Dot/Bindu1 - 7Ar.152 (modified to appear horizontal) from The Book of Symbols: Reflections on Archetypal Images

Source: aras.org archive

“A Tantric image of the recurring cycles of the universe. Out of the most minute point, the universe expands. The three gunas, the stuff of intelligence, energy and matter, combine and separate into the diversity of the phenomenal world. When the cycles are complete, the universe recedes back to the primary source to begin again. Painting on paper, ca. 18th century, Rajasthan, India.

We know it by a dozen names, this tiny spot that Jung calls “the symbol of a mysterious creative center in nature” (CW 14:40). It is referred to as dot, point, jot, tittle, monad, bindu and even mustard seed. In purely formal terms, it is the smallest visible mark. It has position but no extension in space. As well as small size, dot can imply short duration and intense focus (Liungman, 132).

As the smallest, it is the first, the beginning point. It can be seen as an image of infinity, “of the completely formless principle from which all beings and all matter originated” (DoS 306), which we can only represent in concrete terms as a visual pattern, as a dot. But it can also mean the very first material incarnation of such formlessness, the starting point from which all things arise. “ … The universe is conceived as unfurling itself from the bindu” (Khanna, 102). The dot is pure potentiality. “Out of this little point,” said alchemist Gerhard Dorn, “the wisdom of God made … the ‘huge machine’ of the world” (CW 14:41). As the starting point, it is called “bud” and “seed.” As the source of everything, it is imagined as the creative force in the cosmos. In Tantrism, as bindu, it is symbolized and concretized in the body as male semen, the source of new life (Walker, 152).

But there is still more to dot. As the center and source of everything, the dot is imagined as giving rise to all opposing tendencies: above and below, male and female, hot and cold. And it is also the place where they can be reconciled, the still place at the center of life’s multiplicity. This still place is known to Tantric mystics as “the ideal mid-point, the balancing of all polarities” (Khanna, 130), to the poet T. S. Eliot as the “still point of the turning world” and to alchemy as “ … the simplest symbol of wholeness, therefore the simplest God-image” (CW 13:457). Dorn said that “nothing is more like God than the center, for it occupies no space, and cannot be grasped, seen or measured” (CW 13:186). The dot can also be connected with the tiny mustard seed growing into a huge bush, which Jesus likened to the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 13:31-2).

Other traditions speak of the dot as the potent spot of the divine within man. Monoimos, a second-century Gnostic, wrote: “Seek him [God] from out thyself, and learn … whence is sorrow and joy, and love and hate, and waking though one would not, and sleeping though one would not, and getting angry though one would not, and falling in love though one would not. And if thou shouldst closely investigate these things, thou wilt find Him in thyself, the One and the Many, like to that little point, for it is in thee that he hath his origin and his deliverance” (CW 9 II:347).

Khanna, Madhu. Yantra, the Tantric Symbol of Cosmic Unity. London, 1979.

Liungman, Carl G. Dictionary of Symbols. Santa Barbara, CA, 1991.

Walker, Benjamin. Hindu World; an Encyclopedic Survey of Hinduism. NY, 1968.