User Tag List

Page 6 of 13 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 129

Thread: Archetypes of the Functions

  1. #51
    Banned Array
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    6

    Default Hierarchy of Mental Functions

    Hierarchy of Mental Functions. Each of the 16 personality types has a characteristic pattern in the alignment of the four mental functions. This pattern is referred to as a "hierarchy" because they typically differ in the degree of influence on the personality and the degree they are consciously experienced. As indicated above, the most important or influential function is termed the "Dominant" function (#1) and the second most important is termed the "Auxiliary" (#2). The third in the hierarchy is called the "Tertiary" (#3) and is the polar opposite of whatever function is the Auxiliary. The 4th in order Jung termed the "Inferior" function (#4). It is the mental process with the least conscious awareness and typically the least developed of the four functions. It is the polar opposite of whatever is the Dominant.



    So if INtuition is Dominant, its opposite - Sensing - is the Inferior or 4th. If Feeling is Dominant, then its opposite - Thinking - is Inferior or 4th.



    The rationale for the opposite relationship of the Dominant and the Inferior (fourth function) has to do with energy and the natural polarity of the mental functions. For example, a person with dominant Intuition will direct his/her primary energy to this function - which happens to be in the exact opposite direction of Sensing. It is like trying to go North and South at the same time. It is much easier to couple that dominant with either the Auxiliary or Tertiary because these are not polar opposites to the main direction. They are like East and West on the compass. So navigating NW or NE is a natural direction of movement -- but North-South is not.



    You may be uncomfortable with using Jung's term for the 4th function: "Inferior." Bear in mind Jung was writing in the 1920's and his works had to be translated from German to English. Caution against jumping to conclusions on this Dominant-Inferior pairing. To wit, although a person's dominant function might be Feeling and therefore their inferior function is Thinking, do not presume that their "thinking" is inferior, i.e. defective!! There is often a built-in growth dynamic to consciously develop whatever is opposite one's dominant mental function.

    Attitude is Also Important. Here's another Jungian term that carries a somewhat different meaning in the English speaking world. We don't mean your world view or the rosyness of your outlook. It isn't like "Lose the attitude, Dude!"

  2. #52
    Banned Array
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    8

    Default

    Awesome explanation of the archetypes of the functions on the part of PersonalityPathways! Already printing the thread out!

  3. #53
    Doesn't Read Your Posts Array Haight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTj
    Posts
    6,526

    Default

    You owe me five bucks!
    "The only time I'm wrong is when I'm questioning myself."
    Haight

  4. #54
    Senior Member Array LostInNerSpace's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    1,027

    Default

    Great post.

    Quote Originally Posted by gotbeef View Post
    Attitude is Also Important. Here's another Jungian term that carries a somewhat different meaning in the English speaking world. We don't mean your world view or the rosyness of your outlook. It isn't like "Lose the attitude, Dude!"
    So Jung talked about the duality of attitudes. One such duality being conscious and unconscious. Why would that not include the rosiness of a person's outlook? Where do attitudes originate? Are they consciously or unconsciously motivated? It's not too difficult to alter attitude temporarily in any given situation, but that's not the same as permenently altering attitude.

  5. #55

    Default

    The main (but not only) attitude dualities that Jung defines are the following:

    • Consciousness and the unconscious. The "presence of two attitudes is extremely frequent, one conscious and the other unconscious. This means that consciousness has a constellation of contents different from that of the unconscious, a duality particularly evident in neurosis."

    • Extraversion and introversion. This pair is so elementary to Jung's theory of types that he labeled them the "attitude-types."

    • Rational and irrational attitudes. "I conceive reason as an attitude." The rational attitude subdivides into the thinking and feeling psychological functions, each with its attitude. The irrational attitude subdivides into the sensing and intuition psychological functions, each with its attitude. "There is thus a typical thinking, feeling, sensation, and intuitive attitude."

    • Individual and social attitudes. Many of the latter are "isms."


    The MBTI write-ups limit the use of "attitude" to the extraversion-introversion (EI) and judging-perceiving (JP) indexes.

    The JP index is sometimes referred to as an orientation to the outer world and sometimes JP is classified as an "attitude." In Jungian terminology the term attitude is restricted to EI. In MBTI terminology attitude can include EI and also JP.
    The above MBTI Manual statement, "is restricted to EI," is directly contradicted by Jung's statement above that there is "a typical thinking, feeling, sensation, and intuitive attitude" and by his other uses of the term "attitude". Regardless of whether the MBTI simplification (or oversimplification) of Jung can be attributed to Myers, Gifts Differing refers only to the "EI preference", consistently avoiding the label "attitude." Regarding the JP index, in Gifts Differing Myers does use the terms "the perceptive attitude and the judging attitude." The JP index corresponds to the irrational and rational attitudes Jung describes, except that the MBTI focuses on the preferred orientation in the outer world in order to identify the function hierarchy. To be consistent with Jung, it can be noted that a rational extraverted preference is accompanied by an irrational introverted preference.

  6. #56
    Senior Member Array Valuable_Money's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    5w6
    Posts
    681

    Default

    (FE)Trickster: "Let me assist you to make us both feel uncomfortable"
    Movie: Heath Ledger in "Brokeback Mountain"

    O_o
    Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh? wgah'nagl fhtagn

  7. #57
    ⒺⓉⒷ Array Eric B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    548 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    3,363

    Default

    I have been modifying my views on the eight archtypes. I had begun looking into Lenore Thomson's model, and now have most recently gotten into an e-mail discussion with her. I have found that her full model is much more different from popular type theory than it first appeared. She is trying to be true to Jung's original theory, where type theory has deviated. Many I have heard complain that Myers' system strayed from Jung (leading many to prefer alternate type theories such as Socionics which they see as truer to Jung).
    So she goes into concepts such as differentiation and individuation, which type theory has used to denote "developing" unused functions, but Jung originally used differently.

    She holds Beebe's archetype model as really referring to "complexes". And I think Beebe partly implied this by naming some of them that, such as "Opposing Personality Complex". What this means, is the way we have been using them treats the complexes, which we call the "archetypes" as synonymous with the process playing the role for each given type. Therefore, it ends up assumed that we only use the process according to this role (either the good side or the bad side), and this is where we have run into most of our problems trying on types; especially regarding "shadows", which we expect to be hardly ever used. (especially from descriptions such as Berens': "The other fouyr processes operate more on the boundaries of our awareness. It is as if they are in the shadows and only come forward under certain circumstances").
    So if it doesn't "fit", we end up questioning our (or others') type. Or perhaps, trying to force it into a particular archetype role (which was pretty much my approach). We also become confused when Cognitive Process test results seem all out of place, with supposed "shadows" strongly used.

    But to Jung, it seems (as is evidenced from the Psychological Types chapter, Classics in the History of Psychology -- Jung (1921/1923) Chapter 10) that we start out with our dominant function, and the "comfort zone" (as Lenore calls it) of the inner or outer world. I always noticed that Jung calls his types "introverts" or "extroverts" who use sensing, intuiting, thinking or feeling; rather than speaking of introverted or extraverted "sensors/intuiters/thinkers/feelers".

    The ego is 'compensated' by whatever is rejected by the ego. That is, the unchosen functions and the opposite orientation.
    They remain undifferentiated, like an egg cell that has not divided into different cells with distinct functions yet (You can see some ofher teaching on this here: Jung MBTI Theory | Lenore Thomson Bentz). Of course, we do choose an auxiliary function, which is the opposite kind of process (j or p) from the dominant, and takes on the opposite orientation. Everything else remains more fuzzy.

    Of course, many here and elsewhere have all along said this. After all, the type is determined by the first two. Most will add on a tertiary and inferior function. But beyond that, it seemed up in the air.
    Beebe seemed to find good places for the unused four with his system of parallel archetype roles. The hero is shadowed by an opposer, and good parent and child were shadowed by bad parent and child figures. What was "most rejected" by the ego lied at the very bottom, shadowing the inferior. These archetypes were actually chosen out of hundreds Jung had outlined.

    So we treat the different "function attitudes" as totally separate animals, that totally clash with one another. But to Jung, there were really just the four, with the dominant used in the person's comfort zone, which would then make it take on the internal or external orientation we associate with Xe or Xi. So likewise, there are really four complexes, which consist of what the ego has accepted (the "good" roles") vs what it has rejected (the "bad" roles). This means that the line between one "attitude" and the other is not as sharp as we have been using it.

    To Lenore, the two lowest complexes, the Trickster and Demon, come out when the ego is in danger of disintegration. So this is where her brain alternative theory comes in.
    This however is not a usual occurrence. She used examples such as war. So at first, that seems to bring us right back to the problem of how to explain when these processes are strong. But that is making the mistake of conflating the processes with the complexes. The complexes simply take the shape of the processes falling into the role.

    But outside of those situations, we are free to use the processes, in any context, and without worrying that they might be "ego-syntonic" or "preferred" and that thus we must be mistyped. They processes are not rejected by the ego; they simply are undifferentiated. This frees us from having to force all of the processes into archtypes every single use, or conclude that Ne preferring egos somewhow reject current senses.
    What many of us have gotten caught up in is what I now call "HyperBeebeanism". (Beebe's theory itself is valid, but this interpretation of it is being taken beyond ["hyper-"] its practical use). I've had two observers describe it to me in terms of a "set of rules" on personality and functions. It sought to explain practically every move we make through the eight archetypes. When I saw this, it looked fascinating and elegant, so I grabbed it and tried to fit into it myself and use it with others. But now I see that it is just not working completely for anybody (I even framed an informal "test" on it, http://www.typologycentral.com/forum...type-test.html with very poor results).
    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

  8. #58
    ⒺⓉⒷ Array Eric B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    548 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    3,363

    Default

    Using Jung's original definitions makes my type all the more obvious. My comfort zone has always been in the inner world. Regardless of how enthuiastic I may get, or how long my posts, how much I post, etc (all of which taken as "external focus" by some). And my focus is obviously logic. Even if it appears to be used in an "extraverted" manner at times, by definition, putting these two factors together, it still matches Jung's "thinking introvert".
    The other method acknowledges that a lot of logic is being used, but declares it "extraverted" because of the working with existing concepts and the extensive rationale used to prove it all to people (where Ti analysis is presumed to always be kept internal, to be concise, and come up with new concepts), and "childish" because of the enthusiasm. So then, you have to prove a less apparent Fi is really the preferred judging function, in the "parent" position. This is done by searching for any form of emotion or valuing, including even expressing likes or dislikes. This seems to lend itself to a notion of INTP's as "Spocks", who apparently do not have many likes and dislikes, or do not "know what they want". Even valuing of and enthusiasm over logical things and theories is said to be Fi, even though it is traditionally characteristic of NTP's! (Ironically, Beebe himself said in his "An Archetype Model of the Self in Dialogue" (which I finally purchased), that all functions make valuation, and that F is simply the one that places the highest premium on assigning value!)
    Continuing; Fe is forced into the Critical Parent, with any negative use of it as proof. But then, inferior can also be negative; the Anima archetype even described by Jung in a similar fashion as the witch/senex:

    Jung's Archetypes
    The Anima may appear as an exotic dancing girl or a weathered old hag--the form generally reflects either the condition or the needs of our soul presently. Remember the wicked witch encountered by Hanzel and Gretel. The Animus may appear as an exotic, sensual, young man or as an old grouch.)

    So all of this creates ambiguity. Then, the struggle to figure all this out is used as proof Ti is "trickster". Also, the perception functions must be forced into the spines (as opposed to the arms), which involves the difference between Ne as hero or parent, Si as puer or anima, Ni as opposing or critical, and Se as trickster or demon. These also are very ambiguous, as those pairs of roles are very similar.

    So this is what I had been sorting through since I've been here. There seemed to be great evidence for either side. Except that the type this latter method suggested simply did not fit! And the other type ended up seeming questionable, because of its characterization as unemotional! So I was really in a squeeze! And no further information or details from Beebe explaining how these things are resolved could be found.
    This influential system was also the main method used here, earlier on in the Mistyped TYPOc Members thread, with Solitary Walker and Edahn the biggest targets. (SW because of his long posts interpreted as Te/Ni).

    Others commenting on T/F questions would always affirm "T's can be emotional, everyone values things...", etc. and that seemed to be the general consensus based on experience or common sense. The problem for me was that I had seen an intricate, systematic model proving the "hyper" view, and did not see any solid theoretical proof of what these others were saying. So it often sounded like a cop-out, borne of admitted ignorance as to how these "exceptions" all fit. The most you would get would be INTP's attributing their emotion to "inferior Fe". But much of what we mean by "emotion", and especially liking things, involves personal values, which is defined as Fi. So how do we explain this with the theories? Is the INTP going into demon/transformative mode everytime he enjoys something or gets angry or sad? It just did not seem right. Or maybe we just go back to the old view, that nothing is certain beyond the first two or four functions.

    But to undertand the eight archetypes as complexes removes all of this and makes it all simple. According to Lenore, a T does not have to "use" F when having emotions. It's just apart of being human. She says that our dominant function (whichever it may be, and I think in another place she says, any differentiated function) gives us emotional investment in what we're doing. I do not hold her view that the complexes only come out under such severe cases as ego-disintegration. I believe milder forms of the complexes do come out in lesser forms of stress. Which is basically what the standard Beebe view says. So I so still indentify with the Puer Si, Opposing Te, Critical Ni, Trickster Se, and potentially destructive Fi.
    The difference is that they are "complexes", and that not every use of the functions has to fit the archetypes, and also, not every apparent instance of the archetype role ("critical", "double-binding", etc) indicates the function playing that role.

    I'm still not sure about the good uses of the shadows (backup, discovery, comedic, transformative). Berens briefly mentions them, and elfinchilde on the Spam Pudding mentions them when a shadow function comes up strong on the CP test. (The positive side of the shadows are said to manifest more when the processes are strong or "developed"). To Lenore (who sees "differentiation/individuation" differently than this), the Demon and Trickster manifest more constructive uses when the ego is ready to grow.

    So for a couple of others here; Evan is also definitely a Thinking Introvert, with iNtuition. Just because he used Feeling a couple of times does not override the evident Thinking dominance. And since the "function attitudes" are more about the person's orientation, than something attached to "the functions", then with his obvious inner focus, and both Thinking and Intuition his preferred functions, it would be easy for him to appear to be introverting his intuition at times (especially if his genuine Ni is stronger. Mine is very weak, so I have no illusions of preferring it).
    The same with SW--Thinking Introvert, who expresses his thinking in a way that seems extraverted at times, and his intuition seeming introverted because he's so focusing on his inner thoughts that he does not seem to be exploring external possibilities in his pronouncements.

    Greed is an intuitive Extravert with Thinking (moreso than any Feeling). Little Linguist is an intuitive Extravert with Feeling.

    So I'm not abandoning Beebe's model; just toning it down a bit. It cannot be used to describe our every perception and judgment.
    Does anyone else find this method more helpful to them in finding a best fit type?
    Last edited by Eric B; 07-21-2009 at 09:05 AM.
    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

  9. #59
    Senior Member Array Llewellyn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    MBTI
    INtj
    Enneagram
    9w1
    Posts
    330

    Default

    I also think the different systems (Thomson's, Beebe's, ...) are different patterns, of which one can have several similarities in one's own situation.

    The pattern I got from cognitive functions test suggests:

    Dominant
    Auxiliary
    Shadows (8, 6, 5)
    Tertiary
    Inferior
    Shadow (7)

    Direct action is indeed not my strongest point, I have to do that very consciously. (I even noticed this before I knew about MBTI). And I've had impulse actions that didn't work out well. It does furnish me with the possibility of (positive) surprise acts in the moment (the good side).

    At the same time my function order gives me a relief INTJ shadow (shifting to my less conscious left brain double agents).
    INtj | 9w1

  10. #60
    ⒺⓉⒷ Array Eric B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    548 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    3,363

    Default

    Here is how I'm coming to understand a person develops with the functions. The purpose is to present the eight archetypes complexes in a way where they are not conflated with the eight "Xx" "processes".

    The ego starts with its preferred comfort zone of the inner or outer world. The ego chooses its dominant function, which it uses in its preferred realm.
    If Thinking (for instance) is chosen as the dominant, and in the internal world, then everything else is rejected by the ego: the external world and the other three functions; Feeling along with both perceiving, which remain undifferentiated. (They are engaged, but not as conscious ego functions, and not really distinguished in orientation, though Jung said they would be associated with the rejected orientation; this case being the outer world).

    In Jung's theory, the orientations are more attached to the ego itself, than to the functions themselves.

    Soon, an auxiliary will be chosen, which will be of the rejected perceiving mode of processing, as well as it being in the rejected outer orientation.

    These two functions will become apart of heroic and parental complexes.

    So the rejected outer orientation of the [otherwise internal] Thinking then becomes apart of an oppositional complex.
    The perception rejected from the internal world by the auxiliary then takes on a negative parent role.

    The opposite function from the dominant, Feeling, will be inferior and most rejected, yet in the opposite outer orientation will be what the ego believes will complete it.
    Internally, it will remain the most rejected of all by the ego, and take on the most negative role.

    A "child" complex will take on the opposite process from the auxiliary, and align it with the dominant attitude. (Tertiary Temptation, where the tertiary is more a defense mode that provides justification for remaining in the dominant atitude when the person avoids the tempering influence of the auxiliary).
    The aspects of the perception function not internalized by the child remain external, and take on a negative childlike nature.
    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. World of Warcraft Classes (matching archetypes with archetypes)
    By VagrantFarce in forum Popular Culture and Type
    Replies: 80
    Last Post: 07-28-2015, 09:06 AM
  2. Judging as internal functions, perceiving as external functions
    By garbage in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 08-31-2010, 07:05 PM
  3. Jung and functions, primary, auxiliary and inferior functions plus typology
    By slowriot in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-29-2010, 07:35 PM
  4. Replies: 9
    Last Post: 11-16-2009, 11:29 PM
  5. Introverted Functions + Animals = Extraverted Functions
    By Mort Belfry in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 03-19-2009, 01:38 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