Archetypes of the Functions

["?"]

Again, each role alluded to by Protean can contribute both positive and negative results. As a supporting role (auxilary function), Berens proposes that:

The supportive role is how are helpful to others as a well as supportive of oursleves. Once we have developed some facility with our leading role process, we are likely to engage a different process is supporting role behavior. In it's most positive form, it can be quite like a nurturing parent. In it's negative aspect, it can be overprotective and stunting rather that helpful.

I see my Se usage used more negatively on occasion, because I stop seeking new experiences or just living in the moment. That is usually an indication that I am too much in my head and not allowing the body to live. When that occurs for me personally, I am in teritiary function mode (or what is described here as "The Relief Role". That would be Ni, which Berens describes as:

...giving us a way to energize and recharge ourselves. It serves as backup to the supporting role and often works in tandem with it. When we are younger, we might not engage in the process that plays this role very much unless our life circumstances require it or make it hard to use the supporing role process. Usually in young adulthood we are drawn to the activities that draw upon this process. The relief role is how we often express our creativity. In it's most negative expression, this is how we become childish. This has an unsettling quality, and we can use it to distract ourselves and others, getting us off target.

Wow, again my relief role being Ni can be so unsettling and distracting at times that I can become immobolized by it's internal presence. I can stop acting due to unforseen visions that I have or stop acting taking on an almost entitled attitude about my future. Usually my Ti dismisses the Ni and later I realize that the Ni was correct. At the time however, I question how anyone could be that accurate on what has yet to come.

["?"]

I am a bit perplexed by John Beebe's theory. Meyers-Briggs only alludes to four of the eight functions, allowing us to infer that either we only use four and/or she simply states the most natural and the two least natural. As a result, Lenore Thomson's lasagna theory shows a type's secession in a different way than Beebe, with the dominant function and auxilary being first and second, followed by the other four remaining roles, and then ending it with the teritiary and weakest function. Beebe seems to say that the four alluded to by Meyers-Briggs is our four most used functions, followed in some seccession by the other four remaining. Any thoughts from your own experiences how that plays out?

[Gabe]

Originally Posted by "?"

I am a bit perplexed by John Beebe's theory. Meyers-Briggs only alludes to four of the eight functions, allowing us to infer that either we only use four and/or she simply states the most natural and the two least natural. As a result, Lenore Thomson's lasagna theory shows a type's secession in a different way than Beebe, with the dominant function and auxilary being first and second, followed by the other four remaining roles, and then ending it with the teritiary and weakest function. Beebe seems to say that the four alluded to by Meyers-Briggs is our four most used functions, followed in some seccession by the other four remaining. Any thoughts from your own experiences how that plays out?

I'll admit I haven't heard of Lenore's model before.
As for Beebe, he himself has stated that some of the ordering (especially of the shadow functions) might be arbitrary. Personally, I find the 'spine and arms' model, with the archetypes, to be particularily powerful (especially the archetypes). For instance, regardless of whether I might use extraverted feeling more than introverted intuition, introverted intuition is the 'opposing personality' and I think it was expressed in the creepiest (and most memorable) dream I've ever had. I had a dream that, for some reason was all in drab colors (almost in greyscale), and took place in November. I was informed, by a voice from who-knows-where that some wierdo had decided the world was going to end, and that (therefore?) he thought he had to kill every person left. The rest of the dream was spent trying to run away from this guy.
I even hate the idea of anything being 'inevitable'.
good example?

["?"]

Originally Posted by Gabe

I'll admit I haven't heard of Lenore's model before.
As for Beebe, he himself has stated that some of the ordering (especially of the shadow functions) might be arbitrary. Personally, I find the 'spine and arms' model, with the archetypes, to be particularily powerful (especially the archetypes). For instance, regardless of whether I might use extraverted feeling more than introverted intuition, introverted intuition is the 'opposing personality' and I think it was expressed in the creepiest (and most memorable) dream I've ever had. I had a dream that, for some reason was all in drab colors (almost in greyscale), and took place in November. I was informed, by a voice from who-knows-where that some wierdo had decided the world was going to end, and that (therefore?) he thought he had to kill every person left. The rest of the dream was spent trying to run away from this guy.
I even hate the idea of anything being 'inevitable'.
good example?

Interesting Gabe. Can you give me a link?

[Gabe]

Originally Posted by "?"

Interesting Gabe. Can you give me a link?

just google 'evolving the eight function model' or you can find it somewhere on Vicky Jo's website.
it's at the end of that paper. That's also where he illustrates the 'spine and arms' model.

[Gabe]

(responding to one of your earlier posts)

In an interview (just google Beebe's name) Beebe says that it's both underusage and ignoring of the inferior, and overuse of the dominant.

I've seen the growth model on that link, and it also closely fits (with a few un-admitedly speculate claims) the stuff from Myer's old MBTI booklet. personally, I don't think that this dichotomy based growth advice really resonates in real life. I develped my auxiliary feeling early in high school, and was trying to parent people with it two years later. Really, I found it pretty easy to develop too.

According to Von Franz, she never 'pushes people directly to thier inferior'. She instead brings them to develop thier 2nd and 3rd functions. You definately have some idea of the fourth function, and it's an incredibly crucial part of the identity (hence the anima, or 'soul image' archetype). It's also still a constant challenge.

[Badlands]

1. Dominant (Ti) - 38.4
2/3. Auxiliary (Ne)/Devilish (Fi) - 36.4
4. Critical (Ni) - 34.3
5. Inferior (Fe) - 26.5
6. Trickster (Se) - 24.4
7. Tertiary (Si) - 23.2
8. Backup (Te) - 21

Based on my results, I would definitely say the rigid descriptions of function development are false. Your dominant and auxiliary are the two that are certain to be used and develop fully before puberty, while the remaining functions can be embraced or shunned depending on social conditioning (sorted in order from easiest to hardest to develop though). The development of Fi was heavily encouraged when I was younger (language therapy), and the people that I loved most used it a lot, so it eventually became second nature after a couple of years of depression. I mainly use Fi for extroverted purposes, however (I rant about my personal opinions as a bonding tool much of the time, instead of for my own worth and purpose).

[Edu4rd0]

Is there a possibility to change the type during the course of life?

[Eric B]

Originally Posted by "?"

I am a bit perplexed by John Beebe's theory. Meyers-Briggs only alludes to four of the eight functions, allowing us to infer that either we only use four and/or she simply states the most natural and the two least natural. As a result, Lenore Thomson's lasagna theory shows a type's secession in a different way than Beebe, with the dominant function and auxilary being first and second, followed by the other four remaining roles, and then ending it with the teritiary and weakest function. Beebe seems to say that the four alluded to by Meyers-Briggs is our four most used functions, followed in some seccession by the other four remaining. Any thoughts from your own experiences how that plays out?

Originally Posted by Badlands

1. Dominant (Ti) - 38.4
2/3. Auxiliary (Ne)/Devilish (Fi) - 36.4
4. Critical (Ni) - 34.3
5. Inferior (Fe) - 26.5
6. Trickster (Se) - 24.4
7. Tertiary (Si) - 23.2
8. Backup (Te) - 21

Based on my results, I would definitely say the rigid descriptions of function development are false. Your dominant and auxiliary are the two that are certain to be used and develop fully before puberty, while the remaining functions can be embraced or shunned depending on social conditioning (sorted in order from easiest to hardest to develop though). The development of Fi was heavily encouraged when I was younger (language therapy), and the people that I loved most used it a lot, so it eventually became second nature after a couple of years of depression. I mainly use Fi for extroverted purposes, however (I rant about my personal opinions as a bonding tool much of the time, instead of for my own worth and purpose).

If we only used four, then all types other than SP's and NJ's would never perceive (see, hear, smell, taste, touch) the current reality.
So the Cognitive Processes test seems to explain it the best. The strengths of the functions won't always match the supposed development order, but your type will still be determined by which "role" they play in your life.
Beebe and Berens do seem to leave a question mark as to whether the shadows are supposed to follow the last four in the same order, or whether they truly "shadow" the firstfour in the same level of strength. The results we have all been posting would seem to go either way.

[edcoaching]

Beebe's doing a workshop in Chicago on his model in October that you can register for at Association for Psychological Type International. A lot of people I know who've been through the workshop like the model but don't think the order applies to everyone.