User Tag List

First 123 Last

Results 11 to 20 of 25

  1. #11
    Senior Member Jaguar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    12,409

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ragashree View Post
    Indeed. I do find it wearying sometimes when people insist on trying to make deductions about someone's thinking processes based purely on the theoretical function orientation of their Mbti type.
    And what are they doing in the process? Avoiding looking at themselves.

    There seems to be a tendency for people to get so enthusiastic about the nice, neat, apparently comprehensive theory and the way it arranges the functions that they presume it to have some meaningful predictive capacity and to be capable of providing valid conclusions without the need for further information about the individual. This is simply not true, though I suppose it saves theory fetishists having to actually use their powers of observation, when there exists a convenient. hermetically sealed set of self-validating prejudices they can turn to...
    It's their way of avoiding what? Intimacy. Depth. Getting to know people on their own.
    It tells me they're terrified of not only who they really are, but who others are.
    So by having a paint-by-numbers theory they can stand even farther away from people.

    There are some unintended consequences that I don't think Myers anticipated all those years ago.
    That's unfortunate.

    Take you, for example. You don't really think I believe you're like Tater, PeaceBaby or Beefeater do you?
    Not on your life. You have your own vibe. It's very distinct to me.
    I sure as hell would never be so arrogant as to tell you how you think.

    Only you know that, buddy.

  2. #12
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tcda View Post
    However the highlighted bit wouldn't necessarilly be incompatible, as the "opposing personality" as I understand it would tend to be our most developed shadow function.
    For the record, Te is not my most developed shadow function.
    It's near the bottom-bottom-bottom for me... and it took a literal "do it or die" life circumstance for me to actually commit to using.

    I hate the thing.
    Hate it.

    I can't say everyone is like me, but I have my doubts about this "alternate shadow personality theory" being generally useful. It just sounds like it's driven by a natural extension of the main theory, without it having real grounding in case studies.

    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.
    I think my feelings are somewhere in-between. Te is more similar to Ti than Ti is to Fe, I guess, but it's so inside-out it's almost a completely different way to thinking.

    Te is goal-oriented. It is an application of power, making things conform to the predetermined concrete rational ideal in order to achieve congruence. Ti is essence-oriented. It explores and seeks what is within, the underlying nature, based on what already is apparent. Whereas Te wields power to bring about the desired outcome, Ti abandons power and takes what already exists to figure out what it must be inside.

    Both are detached functions, the "self" is irrelevant.
    But going in COMPLETELY opposite directions.

    I'm SO "informative" that I am so NOT "directive."

    So I can't tell you which is more right.
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  3. #13
    psicobolche tcda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    MBTI
    intp
    Enneagram
    5
    Posts
    1,292

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post

    I'm SO "informative" that I am so NOT "directive."
    That's kind of what the idea of a "shadow function" means, though.

    As I understand it the theory is that using one attitude of a function negates the other attitude precisely because they are different attitudes of the same function. And therefore the opposing attitude of the function is relegated to the subconscious. That makes sense to me.
    "Of course we spent our money in the good times. That's what you're supposed to do in good times! You can't save money in the good times. Then they wouldn't be good times, they'd be 'preparation for the bad times' times."

    "Every country in the world owes money. Everyone. So heere's what I dont get: who do they all owe it to, and why don't we just kill the bastard and relax?"

    -Tommy Tiernan, Irish comedian.

  4. #14
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Again, my issue is not particular "shadow functions," it's the conjuration of an entire "shadow type" based solely on my strongest first four functions and the theoretical derivation thereof.

    That is what I think is entirely arbitrarily.
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  5. #15
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Again, my issue is not particular "shadow functions," it's the conjuration of an entire "shadow type" based solely on my strongest first four functions and the theoretical derivation thereof.

    That is what I think is entirely arbitrarily.
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  6. #16
    psicobolche tcda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    MBTI
    intp
    Enneagram
    5
    Posts
    1,292

    Default

    Fair enough. I have only read the works by Beebe which I posted here (kind of why I was asking for more reading or examples ) and here he doesn't really mention a "shadow type", rather different qualitative roles which we assign to each of the functions. He said himself he was trying to get away from a "heirarchy of functions" and instead concentrate on them more qualitatively.

    For example the theory goes that you and I as intp would fall back on Ni to criticize/demoralize others (senex/witch), or when in complete meltdown, express oruselves through Fi (demon).

    Personally this is what I am most interested to see examples of in practice.
    "Of course we spent our money in the good times. That's what you're supposed to do in good times! You can't save money in the good times. Then they wouldn't be good times, they'd be 'preparation for the bad times' times."

    "Every country in the world owes money. Everyone. So heere's what I dont get: who do they all owe it to, and why don't we just kill the bastard and relax?"

    -Tommy Tiernan, Irish comedian.

  7. #17
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tcda View Post
    Fair enough. I have only read the works by Beebe which I posted here (kind of why I was asking for more reading or examples ) and here he doesn't really mention a "shadow type", rather different qualitative roles which we assign to each of the functions. He said himself he was trying to get away from a "heirarchy of functions" and instead concentrate on them more qualitatively.

    For example the theory goes that you and I as intp would fall back on Ni to criticize/demoralize others (senex/witch), or when in complete meltdown, express oruselves through Fi (demon).

    Personally this is what I am most interested to see examples of in practice.
    Well, I think my issues with those "assigned" functions is how these roles were determined to start with. They're all just made up. Why is the sixth function the Trickster function, while the second function is called the Parenting function? Why aren't these something else? Who decided this?

    It just seems very made up to me. And if someone else made up a different system, we'd be nodding and saying, "Oh, yes, I see how that function can be used that way." Or... maybe not.

    Maybe I can see if you label one thing a Parenting function, the opposite of Parenting would the Senex thing... but it's all arbitrary to begin with rather than derived from real life. I used both functions (Ne and Ni) and other functions as well to guide the parenting of my children and of myself.
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  8. #18
    Reason vs Being ragashree's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    Mine
    Enneagram
    1w9
    Posts
    1,770

    Default

    I'm wanting to make up my own alternative Mbti-based function system now. I'm sure I could come up with something internally coherent if I worked on it Whether it reflected any particular reality would of course be as nothing compared to the inherent beauty and unity of the system itself...
    Look into my avatar. Look deep into my avatar...

  9. #19
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ragashree View Post
    I'm wanting to make up my own alternative Mbti-based function system now. I'm sure I could come up with something internally coherent if I worked on it Whether it reflected any particular reality would of course be as nothing compared to the inherent beauty and unity of the system itself...
    Go Go Gadget NT!
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  10. #20
    ⒺⓉⒷ Eric B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    548 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    3,438

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaguar View Post
    Something so simple to understand, and yet people still don't realize the FAs are expressed differently - even with those of the same type.
    This is why it's reckless to make claims about people's "strengths" and "weaknesses" within an alleged type.
    In each type group, the function development can vary to such a degree that the people don't even look alike.
    Some people can develop their Aux and Tert to such a degree they can have more strength than their Dom.
    Quote Originally Posted by tcda View Post
    I am not saying Beebe's model is necessarilly true, because like oyu I have yet to see how it works in reality (though I am still open as the theory is new to me).

    However the highlighted bit wouldn't necessarilly be incompatible, as the "opposing personality" as I understand it would tend to be our most developed shadow function.

    Also to be fair to Beebe he doesn't say that he is listing the fucntions in terms of frequency usage, but rather in a more "qualitative" way, i.e. the role we take on when using them. This is what I am still trying to envisage in practice.
    He said himself he was trying to get away from a "heirarchy of functions" and instead concentrate on them more qualitatively.
    According to Mark Hunziker and Leona Haas Building Blocks of Personality Type (Unite Business Press, a division of Telos, 2006):
    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)
    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).
    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.
    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.

    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.
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    My feeling is that trying to create a whole shadow type of the "unused" bottom four functions is a wash. I mean, this is just smoke and mirrors, isn't it? A fairly arbitrary system created on mostly a theoretical basis?

    I can see where particular functions might be "shadow functions" -- if you are really good at one thing, it's because you spent a lot of energy and focus developing it to the exclusion of its opposite function -- but a whole discernible type? It seems quite the stretch.

    For an example, my shadow type here is supposedly ENTJ. I don't see myself as having ENTJ weaknesses any more than any other type, it's very much a Forer effect (IMO). THe big problem? My Te is pathetic. ENTJ type weaknesses revolve around having a too-dominant Te at the exclusion of Feeling-style functions. ENTJ might be considered my "shadow" by Beebe, but I have a pathetic Te and don't prefer it in the least! Therefore any weaknesses that are related to Te in a typical personality will not be manifest by me. What typically happens is that when Ti+Ne fails, I'll try to drop into an F function as a complete "change out" and because I haven't had much practice with it, that's where I can show ill-use of a function... an F function.

    I never drop into Te functionality unless F is irrelevant.

    Iroincally, the few times I've had to use Te functionality on a personal level, it's actually been positive.
    I have not abused it or overused it, I've used it just enough to fix the problem.

    The only issues I've seen with Te has been in social situations where I am in a position of authority, where I can try to apply a rule to enforce over the behavior of others but then feel bad about it because I feel like it is not being applied consistently or fairly, or that not all considerations are being taken into account. That's probably the strongest support I can offer for the sort of reasoning shown in this thread... but I do not feel it is very compelling.
    Quote Originally Posted by tcda View Post
    Fair enough. I have only read the works by Beebe which I posted here (kind of why I was asking for more reading or examples ) and here he doesn't really mention a "shadow type", rather different qualitative roles which we assign to each of the functions.
    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.
    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.
    APS Profile: Inclusion: e/w=1/6 (Supine) |Control: e/w=7/3 (Choleric) |Affection: e/w=1/9 (Supine)
    Ti 54.3 | Ne 47.3 | Si 37.8 | Fe 17.7 | Te 22.5 | Ni 13.4 | Se 18.9 | Fi 27.9

    Temperament (APS) from scratch -- MBTI Type from scratch
    Type Ideas

Similar Threads

  1. John Edwards On WTC Building 7
    By FranG in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 02-02-2009, 07:11 PM
  2. Dont trip on the Rootball
    By RootBall in forum Welcomes and Introductions
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 08-05-2007, 09:35 PM
  3. My thoughts on the I phone
    By Opivy1980 in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 07-09-2007, 06:38 AM
  4. The archetypes
    By furbo in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 07-08-2007, 07:39 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO