Almost every analyst agrees that we have all cognitive functions.They don't all agree on their role though. Terms usually applied to this are "shadow", "subconscious" vs "conscious". Often, they are ill defined or random, and sometimes the authors don't really bother to define them. I suppose they use them because they make some intuitive sense to them. Very often the definition varies by author.
The most common view is that the first four functions are "conscious" and the rest are "unconscious" or "subconscious". Which apparently means that they exert some sort of invisible influence of the top functions without the individual's ability to be aware of this in a "normal" state of consciousness. I'm not at all clear on this.
Naomi Quenk's book reflects my understanding the best.
The Inferior Function and the Shadow Many people confuse the inferior
function with the concept of the shadow and use the terms interchangeably
(Quenk, 1982). In Jung’s system, the shadow is an archetype,
one of our innate modes of responding to important universal psychological
realities. The shadow includes those things people are unable or unwilling
to acknowledge about themselves, such as undesirable character
traits, weaknesses, fears, and lapses in morality, or desirable qualities such
as intelligence, attractiveness, and leadership skills. The shadow is a key
component of a person’s personal unconscious, a layer of the psyche
that is more accessible than its much larger counterpart, the collective
unconscious.
Although they are not the same concept, the relationship between the inferior function and the shadow is very important. In effect, one’s
shadow supplies the personal contents that appear when the inferior function
is constellated, or evoked. Metaphorically, the inferior function is
the skeletal form and the shadow is the flesh that gives it substance and
life.
As Jung said in a quotation cited earlier, the inferior function serves as
a doorway through which the contents of both the personal and collective
unconscious may enter.
Quoted from "Was that really me? How the inferior function brings out our hidden personality" by Naomi Quenk.
There's something else though, that could explain this phenomena.
Functional Differentiation.
Differentiation. The separation of parts from a whole, necessary for conscious access to
the psychological functions.
So long as a function is still so fused with one or more other functions-thinking with
feeling, feeling with sensation, etc.-that it is unable to operate on its own, it is in an
archaic condition, i.e., not differentiated, not separated from the whole as a special part
and existing by itself. Undifferentiated thinking is incapable of thinking apart from other
functions; it is continually mixed up with sensations, feelings, intuitions, just as
undifferentiated feeling is mixed up with sensations and fantasies.["Definitions," CW 6, par.
705.]
Quoted from "Jung's Lexicon" by Daryl Sharp.
As for the Fe and Fi. Functions basically work like complements often, and not just the expected pairs.
The reasoning behind why don't have Fe and Fi is that you basically don't need them both, as that would introduce unnecessary redundancy and friction into your cognitive configuration. The four conscious functions are quite enough, combined to fulfill the purpose of the rest of the functions.
I'm going to use the definitions my discussion partner wrote after a lot of brainstorming together. (this is not begginers stuff)
Fi orients toward a process that takes an affective reductionist approach to problem solving, creating categories only to easier break down the affective values that are being dismantled into smaller categories; it orients inwards from the manifestations to the root of the concept. Hence „ABCD‟ cannot be fully understood without identifying the principles of each „AB‟ and „CD‟ before further reducing it down to „A‟, „B‟, „C‟, and „D‟ in isolation then identifying the root (A) from which all others are derived and assessing the principles of each through a deductive process and summating them into an understanding of the overall concept.
Te, as a function, orients towards a process involved in expanding cognitive categories and sub-categories to create a framework developed through the method of deduction. It works on the principle of cognitive value and cognitive understanding being extracted or added from and to the context of the selected concept or observation; it orients outwards from the root to the manifestations. Hence idea „A‟ is worthless to any cognitively expounded foundation without forming the framework between „A‟, „B‟, „C‟, and „D‟, (AB, CD, ABCD, etc) connected according to a related pattern or function and forming related categories.
Fe, as a function, orients towards a process involved in expanding affective categories and sub-categories to create a framework developed through the method of deduction. It works on the principle of affective value and affective understanding being extracted or added from and to the context of the selected concept or observation; it orients outwards from the root to the manifestations. Hence idea „A‟ is worthless to any affectively expounded foundation without forming the framework between „A‟, „B‟, „C‟, and „D‟, (AB, CD, ABCD, etc) connected according to a related pattern or function and forming related categories
So, you see, when you have a INFP that thinks they are using Fe, what they are actually doing, is taking their Fi, and applying the derived affective principles; interjecting them into their Te understanding of the broader context. Because Fi is the dominant function, everything else is invariably colored by it, and Te, especially, being the weakest link in the hierarchy, is going to be very colored by the Fi influence. Fi is the lens all other functions go through.
It's a form of functional interaction, not using an entirely different function. It just looks a hell of a lot like a different function, especially because it is difficult to recognize the fact you're using a thinking function in conjunction with Fi, not another feeling function (Fe), but it happens because Fi, as an affective component and the king of the hierarchy itself basically predetermines a bias in interpretation on its own terms.
