Originally Posted by Jaguar
Originally Posted by tcda
According to Mark Hunziker and Leona Haas Building Blocks of Personality Type (Unite Business Press, a division of Telos, 2006):
He said himself he was trying to get away from a "heirarchy of functions" and instead concentrate on them more qualitatively.
Actually, the shadow encompasses all processes that are primarily unconscious in an individual. Which processes these are will depend on that person'a type development and can even include all eight in a very young child. Note also, that the normal hierarchy of preference for processes five through eight has not yet been empirically established, and in practice is likely to vary from person to person. Beebe cautions us not to assume too much on the basis of his numbering, which in many ways is simply for convenience in identifying the various positions. He simply puts it forth as a tool that he has found useful and informative and which at least for the first four functions seems to reflect the order of conscious cultivation of the functions that he has observed. The numbers for the shadow functions are identified merely to mirror the ordering of the first four.
(Glossary: "Shadow", p. 215, emphasis added)
I've never gotten that sense from her. She in fact is the one who got me to see it in its original Jungian conception, as only four functions, and that the ego orients them in an inner or outer way (generating eight FA's). This is what really helped me finally understand it all a year ago, allowing for a lot more fluidity in type behavior.
Regarding the issue of Thompson, what I always found hard to accept from some of her biggest admirers on the forum, is the idea that the introverted function is a "compeltely different" one to its extraverted coutnerpart
. Beebe's idea that a function can express itself in extraverted or introverted "attitudes", and that in doing so it casts a shadow of the opposite atittude, makes much more sense to me.
the other model seems much more arbitrary, i.e. to completely seperate Ti and Te rather than seeing a "unity of opposites", within which one pole "negates" the other (but that's my marxism showing I guess).
It's the Berens camp, including the host of the link in your post #2 that make "Xe/i" into hard, fixed things that are totally opposed to one another. That was what threw me and so many others off.
I don't see what you're saying there. But then, perhaps you're going by the book, yet she has modified some of her views since that was published. She has been pointing out to me, that the cognitive preferences (which determine type) are simply the ways that we build neurological connections between the limbic system and the frontal cortex. She criticizes the behavioral focus shaping much of type discussion, which is actually influenced by temperament theory, and basicaly focuses on the limbic system of emotional reaction. Again, I think it is other theorists (especially those using temperament) who make type sound more absolute, and that she has been clarifying it.
By the way, I actually disagree with Eric about Thomson.
She makes way too many assertions about types as if they are absolute
It was the first thing I noticed about her. Her thinking is too rigid for my taste.
Originally Posted by Jennifer
I have not seen anyone really make much of "shadow type". (And no; I've never even seen Beebe mention it). That seems to be something derived from sources like Team Technology, who, using the old four function model, declare the type with all letters opposite, (whose dominant is your inferior), as the "shadow type", and I and others using the eight functions model pointed out that the true "shadow" is the other four functions.
Originally Posted by tcda
So for us, it could be either ENTJ or ISFP. (About a year ago, under unusual stress, I recognized myself going into a freaky ISFP mode one day, and I was clearly not myself). You may not even be conscious of it unless looking for it. It is something that erupts under stress, and would have nothing to do with how "strong" your Te or any of the other functions normally is.