User Tag List

First 12

Results 11 to 17 of 17

  1. #11
    Senior Member NewEra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    I
    Posts
    3,104

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by aphrodite-gone-awry View Post
    I'm not an expert by any means, but I find functions fascinating, and enlightening and downright necessary when one is struggling with typing. There are others here who I've talked to on these same questions. In the Functions of Type book by the Hartzlers they talk about the characteristics of each of the eight functions. I also have The 16 Personality Types by Berens and Nardi. In this book they say the first function develops from birth to age 12, the second from 12-20, the third from 20-35, and the fourth 35-50. I don't see how one could develop singly. Of course, you use all to a varying degree throughout your lifetime. I perceive though, that that is at least one reason why older people can seem so Wise; they simply have more facility and experience with using all their functions.

    Some have said that instead of going from Ni>Fe>Ti>Se>Ne>Fi>Te>Si as Beebe posits, that you really work on a function group Ni/Ne instead. This makes sense to me. I use Ni and Ne and Fe and Fi more than say, S or T in either form.
    Yeah I have heard about those ages too. I guess the ranges are wide because it varies in different people. And regarding your second paragraph, that is interesting because it would go against traditional Jung function order.


    Quote Originally Posted by Seymour View Post
    I think the exact ordering of the functions for the different types and what they all mean varies according to who you read. Thompson's functional ordering for INFJ would be:

    Ni (dominant)
    Fe (secondary)
    Si (left brain alternatives)
    Te
    Fe (right brain double-agents)
    Ne
    Ti (tertiary)
    Si (inferior)
    I think you mean Ni Fe Si Te Fi Ne Ti Se ?? Do you have any links on this Thomson's ordering?


    Quote Originally Posted by Eric B View Post
    Lenore's theory is not in opposition to Beebe's. She just reminds us that the archetypes are complexes employed byt he ego, and she clarifies him. So Based on his model with input from her, here is how I understand a person develops with the functions:

    •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.

    For example, if Thinking 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).


    •Soon, an auxiliary will be chosen, which will be of the rejected perceiving mode of processing.
    These two functions will become apart of heroic and parental complexes.
    •A "child" complex will take on the opposite process from the auxiliary, and align it with the dominant attitude.

    •The opposite function from the dominant, will be inferior and most rejected, yet in the opposite outer orientation will be what the ego believes will complete it.
    So what would be the role/ordering of all the functions according to Thomson?


    Quote Originally Posted by Eric B View Post
    The "shadows" are just the opposite orientations further rejected from the above:

    •So the rejected orientation of the dominant then becomes apart of an oppositional complex.

    •The function attitude rejected from the auxiliary then takes on a negative parent role.

    •The aspects of the tertiary function not in the same orientation by the child take on a negative childlike nature.

    •The inferior in the dominant orientation will remain the most rejected of all by the ego, and take on the most negative role.
    Interesting... can you explain more about the roles of these shadow functions? Not much is written about them.

  2. #12
    ⒺⓉⒷ Eric B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    548 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    3,438

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TheChosenOne View Post
    Yeah I have heard about those ages too. I guess the ranges are wide because it varies in different people. And regarding your second paragraph, that is interesting because it would go against traditional Jung function order.

    I think you mean Ni Fe Si Te Fi Ne Ti Se ?? Do you have any links on this Thomson's ordering?

    So what would be the role/ordering of all the functions according to Thomson?
    In the book, it seems to be the one listed above. It was apparently called the "lasagna model" because she basically took the "shadows" (the "other four", usually left out of function discussions) and placed them between the dom/aux and tert/inferior. You can see this described here:
    What's New In Type and Temperament

    The other main source for information on the book is the "Exegesis Wiki":
    The Lenore Thomson Exegesis Wiki

    More recently, she seems to accept Beebe's model, though she doesn't go into a hard "order" either way. I assumed Beebe's roles matched hers (e.g. "Crows Nest"=Trickster/demon), though she didn't exactly say that. She does seeem to say that degradation into either set of archetypes is something that occurs during "ego-disintegration" and "individuation". Beebe and his followers seem to hold these things as something that can come up in daily stress, and that seem to make more sense to my experience. If I understand correctly, ego-disintegration would be more dire instances of stress, and of course, in Beebe's theory, they will come up then too. Individuation I do not understand yet, but it seems to be the goal connected with what we would call "developing the functions", though she says it is not really about "developing" functions.

    So I basically hold Beebe's order, since it is parallel. (The four shadows are the functions in the same order as the [primaries, but with the attitudes reversed). The brain lateralization theory would simply introduce additional "tandems" of functions. So the dominant would degrade directly into the "demon" or 8th function, and the aux. into the 7th.

    Interesting... can you explain more about the roles of these shadow functions? Not much is written about them.
    The basics, by he himself:
    http://www.ccc-apt.org/system/files/...+model+APT.pdf
    http://www.ccc-apt.org/system/files/...+The+Spine.pdf
    http://www.ccc-apt.org/system/files/...+The+Arms+.pdf

    Here, I try to describe each function in each possible shadow position:
    http://www.typologycentral.com/forum...tml#post844121
    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

  3. #13
    Vaguely Precise Seymour's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/so
    Posts
    1,565

    Default

    Most of the rest has been addressed by Eric B (thanks, Eric!), but...

    Quote Originally Posted by TheChosenOne View Post

    I think you mean Ni Fe Si Te Fi Ne Ti Se ?? Do you have any links on this Thomson's ordering?
    That was what I meant... a bad point to typo. I apologize.

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric B View Post
    In the book, it seems to be the one listed above. It was apparently called the "lasagna model" because she basically took the "shadows" (the "other four", usually left out of function discussions) and placed them between the dom/aux and tert/inferior. You can see this described here:
    What's New In Type and Temperament

    The other main source for information on the book is the "Exegesis Wiki":
    The Lenore Thomson Exegesis Wiki

    More recently, she seems to accept Beebe's model, though she doesn't go into a hard "order" either way. I assumed Beebe's roles matched hers (e.g. "Crows Nest"=Trickster/demon), though she didn't exactly say that. She does seeem to say that degradation into either set of archetypes is something that occurs during "ego-disintegration" and "individuation". Beebe and his followers seem to hold these things as something that can come up in daily stress, and that seem to make more sense to my experience. If I understand correctly, ego-disintegration would be more dire instances of stress, and of course, in Beebe's theory, they will come up then too. Individuation I do not understand yet, but it seems to be the goal connected with what we would call "developing the functions", though she says it is not really about "developing" functions.
    I think Thompson does make a distinction between normal, day-to-day, relatively conscious use and development of the functions vs their role in individuation. I think in her view, our egos tend to make up their minds (to so speak) and keep heading in the same direction as long as possible. Eventually, our previously adaptive behaviors and definitions of ourselves are not sufficient, and we need to change something.

    The ego doesn't want to change even when it's current approach and toolbox of functional use isn't sufficient, and that's where our unconscious tends to grab the reins, and express itself archetypically (or at least against our conscious aims). At that point, our current conception of who we are needs to adjust or expand.

    I feel that Jung's description of the process of individuation is nebulous and confusing. (By the way, if there was anyone who needed a good editor to force conciseness and clarity, it was Jung.) There are different aspects of it, but the basic concept is that we start as mostly unconscious. Then we embrace some aspects of ourselves, meaning we reject others (these become things like the Shadow, our Anima/Animus, etc). Over time we become aware of the rejected parts, and are forced to acknowledge them. Eventually, we learn how to claim them as parts of ourselves, even if they never become equally favored and preferred.

    So, in general, the process of individuation involves choosing initially and making conscious (we are not usually aware of this because mostly it happens during childhood), developing the initial choice, become aware of the rejected, and then accepting the rejected in some way (including by expanding our definition of who we are, or seeing the rejected parts as part of a greater whole or cycle).

    For Jung, this process happens with the Shadow, the Anima, the archetypal spirit (wise old man or earth mother) and finally the Self. Note that the Self here doesn't mean the individual self or ego, it means more a transformative unifying view/process that stands apart from the ego and moves toward true wholeness.

    Individuation isn't a one time thing, but an ongoing process that happens over and over again in different parts of the psyche.

    So one can see how a similar process could happen with the 8 functions. We make our initial choices, develop them, become aware of their opposites, and learn how to deal with those opposites. At first, the opposites of our primary functions are entirely the threatening Other, but eventually we see acknowledge them as parts of ourselves (however under-developed), and grant them some role in our lives (however minimal).

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric B View Post

    So I basically hold Beebe's order, since it is parallel. (The four shadows are the functions in the same order as the [primaries, but with the attitudes reversed). The brain lateralization theory would simply introduce additional "tandems" of functions. So the dominant would degrade directly into the "demon" or 8th function, and the aux. into the 7th.
    I do think Beebe's order does better represent the order in which individuals of given types become aware (on some level) of the functions. As an Fi-dom, my early encounters with Te (and demands that I use Si) were intrusive, jarring, and definitely the Other. My awareness of Ti and Se (for example) came later, because they tend to blend more (internally, anyway) with my most preferred functions.

    I do think Thompson's order does better represent a typical order of preference for functional use and development, though. For most INFPs, for example, their Te is not going to be their fourth best/preferred/most-efficient function, even though we can and do use it consciously. There are going to be exceptions to that ( thehigher) and it certainly isn't set in stone. Any number of environmental and personal factors seem to make a difference... otherwise there wouldn't be anything to debate on this and we would all agree.

    I do like the "tandems" concept, as well, because my Ti tends to subtly back my Fi a lot, and Se steps in and expands what I can take in via Ne on occasion. It took me a long time to become aware of that, since it's a subtle process and it doesn't feel like a big clashing or shifting of gears. I also realize that in others (and between others) Ti and Fi, for example, aren't necessarily best buds.

    Where I'm still struggling with Beebe is assigning specific archetypes to specific functions. I'm fine with his primary few, but the shadow functions feel arbitrary and don't fit with my personal experience. I've tried warping my brain around to try to MAKE them fit with my personal experience, but it just doesn't work for me. I've posted on it before, but my guess is that the nature of the operation of the function itself and one's early encounters with it are going to have an effect on its archetypal association and expression.
    Last edited by Seymour; 01-03-2010 at 07:10 PM.

  4. #14
    Senior Member NewEra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    I
    Posts
    3,104

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric B View Post
    In the book, it seems to be the one listed above. It was apparently called the "lasagna model" because she basically took the "shadows" (the "other four", usually left out of function discussions) and placed them between the dom/aux and tert/inferior. You can see this described here:
    What's New In Type and Temperament

    The other main source for information on the book is the "Exegesis Wiki":
    The Lenore Thomson Exegesis Wiki

    More recently, she seems to accept Beebe's model, though she doesn't go into a hard "order" either way. I assumed Beebe's roles matched hers (e.g. "Crows Nest"=Trickster/demon), though she didn't exactly say that. She does seeem to say that degradation into either set of archetypes is something that occurs during "ego-disintegration" and "individuation". Beebe and his followers seem to hold these things as something that can come up in daily stress, and that seem to make more sense to my experience. If I understand correctly, ego-disintegration would be more dire instances of stress, and of course, in Beebe's theory, they will come up then too. Individuation I do not understand yet, but it seems to be the goal connected with what we would call "developing the functions", though she says it is not really about "developing" functions.

    So I basically hold Beebe's order, since it is parallel. (The four shadows are the functions in the same order as the [primaries, but with the attitudes reversed). The brain lateralization theory would simply introduce additional "tandems" of functions. So the dominant would degrade directly into the "demon" or 8th function, and the aux. into the 7th.



    The basics, by he himself:
    http://www.ccc-apt.org/system/files/...+model+APT.pdf
    http://www.ccc-apt.org/system/files/...+The+Spine.pdf
    http://www.ccc-apt.org/system/files/...+The+Arms+.pdf

    Here, I try to describe each function in each possible shadow position:
    http://www.typologycentral.com/forum...tml#post844121

    Thanks a lot for the links.

  5. #15
    Senior Member the state i am in's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    MBTI
    infj
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    2,460

    Default

    eric, are there competing theories to beebe's function model? does socionics posit only four functions per person, upon which the quadras are built?

    i don't find lenore's idea of left or right brained alternatives convincing.

    i also think it's interesting recognizing how we approach jung. seymour's post ties jung to the context of psychoanalysis. i find the enneagram does a better job with ego complexes bc it creates more complex relationships/mappings. the only way to approach beebe is to ascribe alternative function orders, which i think you treat well when you focus on differentiation. making the unconscious conscious. a strong inheritance of 19th century philosophical ideas, particularly transcendental idealism. yet i see the ego complexes of the enneagram as much more informative when cross-referenced and articulated in conjunction with mb types. enneagram does a better job at explaining the construction of desire as we think about them as an energetic system attempting to auto-correct itself.

  6. #16
    philosopher wood nymph greenfairy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    MBTI
    iNfj
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/sp
    Posts
    4,042

    Default

    Interesting. I think as a child I acted like an extrovert who didn't quite know how to be human yet. I was very friendly, even to strangers until age 7, and I had a lot of friends. Then we moved to another state and suddenly people thought I was weird. So I retreated into a fantasy world in which I was a popular extrovert.

    From 7-12 I was IN-P for sure. Before that probably E-P. From 12-18 I started using my Ne to develop Fe and try to be social again. I can't say I've ever been S. I think I was Ne+Ni up until 12, and then started developing Fe.

    I couldn't say which judging function I used growing up. I can't see clear evidence of either. From 12-18 I became analytical, so i guess I started using Ti. I also developed strong opinions about how the world should be and people should be treated, Fe style. I don't think I used Fi that much, because my own emotions weren't all that important to me. Everything I would feel would be translated to this is either congruent or incongruent with how things should be for people.

    Early college I developed a philosophical system based on Ti + Fe, but didn't really start to be able to be rigorously logical until a couple of years ago. That said, I still don't think I used Fi that well either. I preferred Ti to Fi, I just wasn't completely good at it. And I wasn't completely good at Fe or Te either. I was only really good at Ni and Ne.

    At 23 or so, I got into my spiritual group and started releasing all my repressed emotion. It felt really trippy and at times traumatic, but liberating and real. I further developed my Ni and the rest of the functions, and finally connected to Si. I started developing Fi, but balancing it with the T and N functions.

    As I developed my Fe and learned social skills, I also developed Se in order to live int he real world and the present.

    From about 23 to a few months ago, my inferior Fe + repressed emotion really came out, and I learned to manage emotions and my anger issues. A couple of years ago (I'm 27) is when I finally got it together so to speak. I exercised my Ti and Te enough to really enjoy and excel at school, I'm pretty comfortable with F judgment, and my N is balanced with S.

    So I don't know what this all looks like. Am I a repressed extrovert? An INFJ? An atypical INTP or just an atypical human? Once again, using myself as an example of someone confusing.


    *I'll definitely look at those links. Some I've glanced at and they look good.

  7. #17
    ⒺⓉⒷ Eric B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    548 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    3,438

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by the state i am in View Post
    eric, are there competing theories to beebe's function model? does socionics posit only four functions per person, upon which the quadras are built?
    I apparently never saw this response, and now, you're not here. Anyway, the answer to both questions in one stroke is that Socionics "Model A" is the other competing 8 function theory to Beebe's (besides Lenore). It's similar to Lenore, in that functions #7 and 8 (in Beebe's model) are placed after the dom. and aux. But the others are ordered differently.
    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. [JCF] the application of cognitive functions in tess of the durbervilles
    By skylights in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 03-04-2011, 05:20 PM
  2. Wonka's Elucidation of the Functions - Part One
    By Wonkavision in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-19-2010, 02:16 AM
  3. Critique the concept of "Cognitive Functions"
    By Quinlan in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 05-13-2010, 04:27 PM
  4. Order of Cognitive Functions?
    By NewEra in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 01-12-2009, 06:12 PM
  5. Describe each of your functions in one word.
    By Mort Belfry in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 56
    Last Post: 04-05-2008, 11:28 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