User Tag List

First 89101112 Last

Results 91 to 100 of 116

  1. #91
    Administrator highlander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/sp
    Socionics
    ILI Ni
    Posts
    17,904

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Andy View Post
    First of all, I think that the shadow and concious functions are linked to each other in terms of use and development. The 8th place function is the stongest of the most developed of the shadow functions and the 5th the least. That is to say, both introvered percieving functions develop together, as do both extroverted judging functions and so on.

    This creates a U-shape in terms of development, with the weakest functions in the middle. Thus the functions we have the best use of are 1,2, 7 and 8. Functions 3 - 6 are the ones most likely to give us trouble when they opperate.

    The shadow functions tend to have a somewhat "impersonal feel" to them, I think, especially number 7, the trickster function. When the shadow functions operate, they don't feel as intrinsic to who we are.

    Similarly, we will use Si, but only in the persuit of our Ni goals. It's a way of thinking we can utilise successfully, but it doesn't motivate us like Ni does.

    Of the bothersome functions, 3 and 6 tend to have an inhibiting character about them, when they misfire. In an INTJ both Fi and Ti can undermine confidance. Misfiring Fi causes us to question our motivations and what we really want. Critical Ti sits there and punches holes in our idea, causing us to doubt our ideas. When they work correctly, Fi becomes a source of strength and Ti acts a double check on our ideas.

    In an extrovert, the tertiary can provoke rash actions - it inhibits thinking about the problem too deeply.

    THe 5thand 6th functions tend to be distracting when they fail. THe opposing function will tend to lead us blind allies. For example, while an INTJ is trying to put some long term Ni plan together, 5th place Ne will be suggesting all the other things we could be doing. If followed, it creates a situation in which the INTJ has a half a dozen unfinished projects, which is something that they find unsatisfying.
    So according to this model, best use functions in the INTJ example are Ni (dominant), Te (auxiliary), Fe, and Si (crows nest). It's the tertiary, inferior, and double agents that tend to cause the most problems.

    Quote Originally Posted by Andy View Post
    According to Beebe, the functions usually "develop" in the order of 1,2,3,7,4,5,8,6. Of course, that won't be a hard rule either. It does seem that for me, the 6th is yet the weakest, though with a better understanding of what Ni really is, now, it might be different.

    But what Lenore taught me was that it is really not about "developing functions" (as if they were skills), but rather withdrawing the complexes, which then brings the associated functions under more conscious control.

    So I'm not sure how the two versions of the theory square on that point. I know Lenore is trying to be more purely Jungian, and I think sees some of the other theorists as diverging on some of these points. Especially those who hail from the world of temperament, which the whole notion of functions as skills sets is obviously influenced by.
    Well, that ordering of function development looks a little different than what Andy suggested, unless I'm missing something. It does make sense to me that 3 comes before the others. That being said, with all the Tertiary "trip wires" that seem to be out there, it seems to be one of the more troublesome ones in any scenario.


    Maybe from a practical perspective, a combination of Naomi Quenk's Eruptions of the Inferior (Option 1 described above) and Lenore Thompson's discussion on Double Agents (and maybe Crow's nest) might be the best way to think about some of this stuff. I'm not quite so familiar with Beebe's work and how it fits with those things.

    Please provide feedback on my Nohari and Johari Window by clicking here: Nohari/Johari

    Tri-type 639

  2. #92
    Administrator highlander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/sp
    Socionics
    ILI Ni
    Posts
    17,904

    Default Implications of Beebe's Model from a Neurological Standpoint, by Lenore Thompson

    Quote Originally Posted by Kalach View Post
    No, no. I don't know what the ego is at all. Too busy screwing around with functions to have wondered on it thus far. The thing is, a perilous strange intuition presented itself to me this morning, something that tottered around the mind-body divide. Wikipedia told me the ego, superego and id are functions of the mind and aren't (necessarily) to be confused with any particular somatic structure. So I thought to myself hmmm. Functions are the least likely things in the world to be mistaken for people. They aren't animated. The ego is animated though. So I wondered what it was.

    See, functions seem closer to the body than to the mind. They are at least a lot more amenable to mechanistic talk. Ego by contrast is very clearly some other kind of conceptual thing: it has liveliness built in. So-o-o-...

    ...something about how the mind-body issue just got hurdled and thus some instructive constraints maybe just got left behind, and um, like, we don't get to talk about ego as much more than the structureless spark of life?
    Does this help shed any light on the topic? It includes a discussion on:
    - Some relationships between Beebe's model and Thompsons
    - The ego and the relationship with Beebe's model
    - How Beebe's model links with Neurology
    - References to "eruptions of the inferior" as described by Quenk

    I thought it was interesting

    www.greatlakesapt.org/uploads/media/beebe1.PDF

    Please provide feedback on my Nohari and Johari Window by clicking here: Nohari/Johari

    Tri-type 639

  3. #93
    Administrator highlander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/sp
    Socionics
    ILI Ni
    Posts
    17,904

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by highlander View Post
    - What is the shadow?
    Well, I thought this was quite a good description, from Jungian therapy by Jungian therapist-analyst in New York. Carl Jung therapy , with some nice pragmatic guidance.

    The Shadow

    "Hidden or unconscious aspects of oneself, both good and bad, which the ego has either repressed or never recognized. (See also repression.)

    The shadow is a moral problem that challenges the whole ego-personality, for no one can become conscious of the shadow without considerable moral effort. To become conscious of it involves recognizing the dark aspects of the personality as present and real. ["The Shadow,"CW9ii, par. 14.]

    Before unconscious contents have been differentiated, the shadow is in effect the whole of the unconscious. It is commonly personified in dreams by persons of the same sex as the dreamer.

    The shadow is composed for the most part of repressed desires and uncivilized impulses, morally inferior motives, childish fantasies and resentments, etc.--all those things about oneself one is not proud of. These unacknowledged personal characteristics are often experienced in others through the mechanism of projection.

    Although, with insight and good will, the shadow can to some extent be assimilated into the conscious personality, experience shows that there are certain features which offer the most obstinate resistance to moral control and prove almost impossible to influence. These resistances are usually bound up with projections, which are not recognized as such, and their recognition is a moral achievement beyond the ordinary. While some traits peculiar to the shadow can be recognized without too much difficulty as one's personal qualities, in this case both insight and good will are unavailing because the cause of the emotion appears to lie, beyond all possibility of doubt, in the other person.[Ibid, par. 16.]

    The realization of the shadow is inhibited by the persona. To the degree that we identify with a bright persona, the shadow is correspondingly dark. Thus shadow and persona stand in a compensatory relationship, and the conflict between them is invariably present in an outbreak of neurosis. The characteristic depression at such times indicates the need to realize that one is not all one pretends or wishes to be.

    There is no generally effective technique for assimilating the shadow. It is more like diplomacy or statesmanship and it is always an individual matter. First one has to accept and take seriously the existence of the shadow. Second, one has to become aware of its qualities and intentions. This happens through conscientious attention to moods, fantasies and impulses. Third, a long process of negotiation is unavoidable.

    It is a therapeutic necessity, indeed, the first requisite of any thorough psychological method, for consciousness to confront its shadow. In the end this must lead to some kind of union, even though the union consists at first in an open conflict, and often remains so for a long time. It is a struggle that cannot be abolished by rational means. When it is wilfully repressed it continues in the unconscious and merely expresses itself indirectly and all the more dangerously, so no advantage is gained. The struggle goes on until the opponents run out of breath. What the outcome will be can never be seen in advance. The only certain thing is that both parties will be changed.["Rex and Regina,"CW14, par. 514.]

    This process of coming to terms with the Other in us is well worth while, because in this way we get to know aspects of our nature which we would not allow anybody else to show us and which we ourselves would never have admitted.[The Conjunction," Ibid, par. 706.]

    Responsibility for the shadow rests with the ego. That is why the shadow is a moral problem. It is one thing to realize what it looks like-what we are capable of. It is quite something else to determine what we can live out, or with.

    Confrontation with the shadow produces at first a dead balance, a standstill that hampers moral decisions and makes convictions ineffective or even impossible. Everything becomes doubtful.[Ibid, par. 708.]

    The shadow is not, however, only the dark underside of the personality. It also consists of instincts, abilities and positive moral qualities that have long been buried or never been conscious.

    The shadow is merely somewhat inferior, primitive, unadapted, and awkward; not wholly bad. It even contains childish or primitive qualities which would in a way vitalize and embellish human existence, but-convention forbids![Psychology and Religion,"CW11, par. 134.]

    If it has been believed hitherto that the human shadow was the source of all evil, it can now be ascertained on closer investigation that the unconscious man, that is, his shadow, does not consist only of morally reprehensible tendencies, but also displays a number of good qualities, such as normal instincts, appropriate reactions, realistic insights, creative impulses, etc.[Conclusion,"CW9ii, par. 423.]

    An outbreak of neurosis constellates both sides of the shadow: those qualities and activities one is not proud of, and new possibilities one never knew were there.

    Jung distinguished between the personal and the collective or archetypal shadow.

    With a little self-criticism one can see through the shadow-so far as its nature is personal. But when it appears as an archetype, one encounters the same difficulties as with anima and animus. In other words, it is quite within the bounds of possibility for a man to recognize the relative evil of his nature, but it is a rare and shattering experience for him to gaze into the face of absolute evil.["The Shadow," Ibid, par. 19.]"

    Please provide feedback on my Nohari and Johari Window by clicking here: Nohari/Johari

    Tri-type 639

  4. #94
    ⒺⓉⒷ Eric B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    548 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    3,439

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by highlander View Post
    Does this help shed any light on the topic? It includes a discussion on:
    - Some relationships between Beebe's model and Thompsons
    - The ego and the relationship with Beebe's model
    - How Beebe's model links with Neurology
    - References to "eruptions of the inferior" as described by Quenk

    I thought it was interesting

    www.greatlakesapt.org/uploads/media/beebe1.PDF
    Aw, man; I forgot about both of those articles in the Beebe Resource lists I've been posting on my site and on these boards.

    (Edit:, just realized that the first one is really a reprint of this one: http://www.ccc-apt.org/system/files/...+The+Spine.pdf)
    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

  5. #95
    Supreme High Commander Andy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6
    Posts
    1,108

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by highlander View Post
    So according to this model, best use functions in the INTJ example are Ni (dominant), Te (auxiliary), Fe, and Si (crows nest). It's the tertiary, inferior, and double agents that tend to cause the most problems.



    Well, that ordering of function development looks a little different than what Andy suggested, unless I'm missing something. It does make sense to me that 3 comes before the others. That being said, with all the Tertiary "trip wires" that seem to be out there, it seems to be one of the more troublesome ones in any scenario.


    Maybe from a practical perspective, a combination of Naomi Quenk's Eruptions of the Inferior (Option 1 described above) and Lenore Thompson's discussion on Double Agents (and maybe Crow's nest) might be the best way to think about some of this stuff. I'm not quite so familiar with Beebe's work and how it fits with those things.
    It's supposed to be the NTPs who worry about the precise usage of words, but to explain how I view the types and type development I think a quick lexicon is in order. Note that these are just how I use the words, not necessarilly everyone in the world.

    Function Order: This is the usually 1 - 8 list that gets seen and is concerned with how the functions are used, when they are used.

    Function Preferance: How much you actually use each function.

    Function strength: How easy it is to use a particular function in a healthy manner, rather than it misfireing and giving you problems.

    Function development: Whether or not a given function does work well for a particular person.

    To my way of thinking function order and function strength are invarient for each of the 16 types. They are the same for all individuals of that type. However, function preferance and function development can be radically different from person to person, even in the same type, which creates the differances between seen between people of the same type. It also explains many of the differances seen in the development of the types.

    Thus, I don't believe that function development has to follow the same pattern for each individual at all. Some people may find that the critical function gives them better results than the teriary, while for others the reverse may be true.

    If you like, function strength is like a statistical average along the lines of "At age 21, 50% of ISFPs will get good results from their tertiary Ni."

    To me, the debate over function development is really about function strength, those averages that are so hard to get a grip on. It's hard to say how many members of a type at a particular age will be able to use a function well because it is hard data to obtain, especially as growing into a function is like having your voice break. It will flit back and forth between working well and malfunctioning for awhile. Even in old age, a poor function may still cause trouble on occation.

    THis is why I prefer a Beebe style 1 - 8 ordering, with the concious functions on one side and the shadow functions on the other. You see, while I'm sure that going from 1 through 4 follows decreasing strength and 5 through 8 show increasing strength, I'm not convinced I know the relative strengths of the concouse functions compared to the shadow functions.

    Instead, I simply except that enough fuzzyness, (enough standard deviation, if you like) exists in the function development that variations will exist in the actual order seen. Thus if asked which will develop first, the 3rd or the 7th function, I would tend to reply "wait and see." I don't think it is something that can necessarilly be predicted ahead of time with ease.
    Don't make whine out of sour grapes.

  6. #96
    Administrator highlander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/sp
    Socionics
    ILI Ni
    Posts
    17,904

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Andy View Post
    It's supposed to be the NTPs who worry about the precise usage of words, but to explain how I view the types and type development I think a quick lexicon is in order. Note that these are just how I use the words, not necessarilly everyone in the world.

    Function Order: This is the usually 1 - 8 list that gets seen and is concerned with how the functions are used, when they are used.

    Function Preferance: How much you actually use each function.

    Function strength: How easy it is to use a particular function in a healthy manner, rather than it misfireing and giving you problems.

    Function development: Whether or not a given function does work well for a particular person.

    To my way of thinking function order and function strength are invarient for each of the 16 types. They are the same for all individuals of that type. However, function preferance and function development can be radically different from person to person, even in the same type, which creates the differances between seen between people of the same type. It also explains many of the differances seen in the development of the types.

    Thus, I don't believe that function development has to follow the same pattern for each individual at all. Some people may find that the critical function gives them better results than the teriary, while for others the reverse may be true.

    If you like, function strength is like a statistical average along the lines of "At age 21, 50% of ISFPs will get good results from their tertiary Ni."

    To me, the debate over function development is really about function strength, those averages that are so hard to get a grip on. It's hard to say how many members of a type at a particular age will be able to use a function well because it is hard data to obtain, especially as growing into a function is like having your voice break. It will flit back and forth between working well and malfunctioning for awhile. Even in old age, a poor function may still cause trouble on occation.

    THis is why I prefer a Beebe style 1 - 8 ordering, with the concious functions on one side and the shadow functions on the other. You see, while I'm sure that going from 1 through 4 follows decreasing strength and 5 through 8 show increasing strength, I'm not convinced I know the relative strengths of the concouse functions compared to the shadow functions.

    Instead, I simply except that enough fuzzyness, (enough standard deviation, if you like) exists in the function development that variations will exist in the actual order seen. Thus if asked which will develop first, the 3rd or the 7th function, I would tend to reply "wait and see." I don't think it is something that can necessarilly be predicted ahead of time with ease.
    This is helpful and clarifying. Thanks!

    Please provide feedback on my Nohari and Johari Window by clicking here: Nohari/Johari

    Tri-type 639

  7. #97
    Administrator highlander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/sp
    Socionics
    ILI Ni
    Posts
    17,904

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cascadeco View Post
    Personal detail & nuance indeed becomes an important factor if it causes some of the extensions of the theory to crumble. It becomes important if it means that Person A of a type will in fact not lean on function 7 and instead latches onto function 5 when under extreme duress (whatever..I'm just giving an example, don't take these numbers literally), whereas Person B of the same type will always, in a shadow-state, subconsciously lean on function 7. When the theory begins spelling out precise and exact occurrences and behaviors by type, that's when I find it falls short because by that point the details might quite profoundly impact the turn of events, rather than the overriding psychae.

    The 'detail' of someone being quite narcissistic would probably be much more impactful to their behaviors and actions than their actual mbti type (although I also realize cognitive functions aren't really supposed to be about behavior... but that's what the theory ends up becoming in practical applications as evident on this board). Just as the 'detail' of an INFJ enneagram type 4 vs. an INFJ enneagram type 1 or 5 or 7 could cause resultant 'shadow states' to diverge. An ESTP whose 'S' preference isn't as strong as that of another ESTP would likely have a different resultant 'shadow' complex. And so on.

    In the sense that I'm saying a 'Shadow' will often imply your less than idealized, self-actualized self, yes, it would tend to mean you are then grasping onto subconscious, lesser-used functions or functions that are not part of your 'natural,' preferred state. But in the sense that those functions will be exactly the same for all of the same type, no, I'm not saying that. So the resultant 'shadow state' could vary within type.
    When I read this post earlier, I am not sure it fully sunk in and now, I'm reflecting on the importance of it. These seem like very salient points. It gets down to whether there is a pattern or not for particular types and what their shadows tend to look like.

    I do think there are patterns, but it is a question of what they are and how frequently these types of things occur. It seems like it would be possible to explain all this. There are probably:

    - Negative Shadow characteristics that tend to be the most common across human beings in general (wrath, greed, sloth, pride, lust, envy, gluttony, etc.)

    - Positive Shadow characteristics that tend to be the most common across human beings in general

    - Shadow characteristics and nuances that tend to occur with a particular type

    - Possible patterns in how those characteristics and nuances develop and are dealt with as people go through life

    Any thoughts or feedback on these points?

    Please provide feedback on my Nohari and Johari Window by clicking here: Nohari/Johari

    Tri-type 639

  8. #98
    Filthy Apes! Kalach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    4,318

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by highlander View Post
    Does this help shed any light on the topic? It includes a discussion on:
    - Some relationships between Beebe's model and Thompsons
    - The ego and the relationship with Beebe's model
    - How Beebe's model links with Neurology
    - References to "eruptions of the inferior" as described by Quenk

    I thought it was interesting

    www.greatlakesapt.org/uploads/media/beebe1.PDF
    Jung's Testicles! An article that outlines scientific proof for the existence of type?!

    And then somewhere on page four, right around the paragraph starting "Thus, a zero-sum relationship...", the discussion begins to lean on mind concepts again, doesn't it?

    Still... wow.
    Bellison uncorked a flood of horrible profanity, which, translated, meant, "This is extremely unusual."

    Boy meets Grr

  9. #99
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    MBTI
    ISFP
    Enneagram
    6w7 sx
    Socionics
    SEE Fi
    Posts
    25,301

    Default

    Is the shadow as troubling as an eruption of the inferior? Because I can see points where I have displayed what could very well look like "unhealthy ISTJ" (in fact I comically had someone on here once suggest that was my type!) particularly during periods of my life where I felt out of wack or not balanced...so it could happen momentarily, in a flash, or I could even go through a period of my life where the inferior erupted more than it normally would.

    Shadow doesn't seem like it would necessarily look as "unhealthy" and might be even more comfortable to slip into (for example if ENFP goes INFJ or INTJ goes ENTP, staying within your same little group i.e. NF, NT) doesn't seem like as much of a traumatic stretch, but maybe would just become more and more obvious later in life?

    I don't know. I don't fully understand.

  10. #100
    Senior Member IndyGhost's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    MBTI
    ISFP
    Enneagram
    4w5 sx/sp
    Socionics
    SEI
    Posts
    2,399

    Default

    So... is this to say that my shadow is an ENTJ... and that I might have flashes of ENTJ-like behavior??

    naaaah. that's impossible. ...right?
    "I don't know a perfect person.
    I only know flawed people who are still worth loving."
    -John Green

Similar Threads

  1. The Media Coverage on Syria is the Biggest Lie of our Time
    By Xann in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 02-17-2017, 10:44 AM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-06-2009, 09:01 AM
  3. Lindsay Lohan Applauds the Election of Our First Colored President
    By Usehername in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 11-14-2008, 04:46 AM
  4. Replies: 14
    Last Post: 04-04-2008, 02:33 PM

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