What about the four last functions?

[Seymour]

Thanks for responding so thoughtfully.

Yeah, I've been mulling over the differences the last couple of days and I think I mostly agree with you. I certainly agree that individual function development is different for every individual. It makes me wish we had good functions test and the ability to give them to a large random sample over their lifespan (maybe combined with the jobs people have at various points and their spouses' types and functions). Hey, I can dream, can't I?

Otherwise, it seems like we are mostly shooting in the dark as far as having solid data to work from. It seems equally clear we are unlikely to get a good set of data any time soon, either, so we are left with subjective evaluation and comparing notes with others.

I still find Thomson's left-brained/right-brained division helpful conceptually but not because I think it necessarily has a physically reality. More as a division between ordered, one-thing-at-a-time vs random and continuous. It makes it much more comprehensible to me how Fi and Ti (in particular) can be rational but not have the solid feel of Te and Si (just to name a couple of functions for contrast).

I also wonder if some of the individual roles functions play are more related to how we encounter them early in our life, rather than being absolutely fixed for each type. I need to read through Beebe again and see if I agree with him. I'm not sure I'll ever know for some of my functions, since they remain either mysteriously vague, or tend to blend with another function for me personally.

Thanks again for responding... it does help to have someone to bounce ideas off of while I attempt to reconcile various models with personal experiences.

 

[Eric B]

I think the strengths would be based on how we encounter them in early life, and the roles are based on the preference.

It makes sense that if you choose one thing, what's left over will fall into an opposite role. And it's these opposites that generate the eight compleses.
What is most rejected by our ego from its most trusted and confident function will be what's most vulnerable (i.e. the anima). What is initially rejected but chosen as next choice will have a supportive nature like a parent. What's rejected from that will have a dependent, childlike nature (tertiary). What's further rejected from all four of the resulting roles will be very negative, and operate in a reverse fashion from them. (shadow versions of hero, parent, child and anima).
So basically, these archetypes consist of different levels of rejection from consciousness; with rejected forms of consciousness (the functions in one orientation or the other) being employed by rejected areas of the self (the lower complexes).