User Tag List

First 45678 Last

Results 51 to 60 of 116

  1. #51
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    STP
    Posts
    10,501

    Default

    One way that I have found to possibly bring a function into the concious is allow someone the ability to use it unprotected. Basically to find a safe haven to let it out. A haven that can be trusted to protect it and that also pulls it out and extracts it. The kicker is when its extracted it cannot be attacked. Worst case scenario is that one persons shadow pulls out anothes shadow and you end up basically with 2 people projecting their shadows onto each other. In essence they are fighting themselves while triggering each other.
    Im out, its been fun

  2. #52
    Supreme High Commander Andy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6
    Posts
    1,108

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tcda View Post
    I agree with most of your post but I can't say I agree with this bit. The "senex" shadow function is the one where I think John Beebe made most sense (though I agree with most of the other criticisms people have raised of him).

    Or at least, in my relations with Ni-types, I've definitely experiences Ni as a "critic", which sweeps aside attempts of Ti to intricately define things, with a simple compact and, to me, seemingly rash, definition of the "essence" of a person or thing.

    Likewise I know INTJ's will often find Ti to be like an unconstructive critic or "senex".

    On the issue of Si vs Te for an INTP, I think it takes external pressure to make an INTP move into using Te, and it can't last for a sustained period of time, more likely will just be used for a particular situation like an argument or a role at work. Left to their own devices the INTP will fall into the Ti-Si loop long before any Ti-Te loop kicks in.
    I think the emergance of function 5 is linked to the supression of the inferior. When pressure is applied to bring out the inferior, the tendancy to reject the inferior kicks in, and the person slips into the opposing function instead, as it is of the same type (Both Je, for an INTP).

    Trouble is, as a shadow function it is less intimate, and it's use less satisfying. Eventually, the person slips back into the primaries way of thinking without having learned or gained a great deal from the experience.

    For example, an ESTP put under pressure to "be more carefully and think things through better" may find themselves slipping into an Si mind temporarily. Eventually, they get bored of it and go back to living the Se life style. If they could overcome the inferior rejection and use their Ni, they might find the experience more rewarding as they get to grips with a deeply buried urge that's always been there.
    Don't make whine out of sour grapes.

  3. #53
    ⒺⓉⒷ Eric B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    548 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    3,441

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    I still feel like all the secondary personality functions are rather forced... even while I do experience Ni Senex functionality as described. (Ni derails Ti, since Ti has to operate within established boundaries in order to construct a case, and Ni says, "Well, that's just ONE framework, what about all the others?" i.e., it limits Ti's ability to create universal reasoning, delegating it to just one particular frame among countless possibilities.)
    That sounds more like Ne. And for us, as the "parent" function or "first mate" (Lenore), giving advice to the dominant.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    They're similar functions but have opposite energy flow.
    This changes the form of them.

    I tend to see Ne as an explosion of ideas, each trail radiating out from the origin and flowering in every direction at once as idea springboards off idea. Ne thus follows each trail out and explores it, to see what is possible.

    Ni, I perceive more as an infinite deck of cards/overlays I rifle through, each card signifying a possible perspective or configuration of truth, and I compare each card/picture to the current situation and potentially learn something from the insight. (I've had an INTJ compare Ni to a connect-the-dots, where you look at the data points and see the picture as a whole intuitively.)

    Both involve intuition/the ability to see patterns and connections, it's just directed differently. Thus, there should be an affinity there.

    But... maybe not. Just as I've had issues with Te.
    I've heard Ni described as multitude of opportunities before, and I think this is what makes it confusing.
    Ni is more about locking into one possibility. So the connection between Ne and Ni, is that both deal in the hypothetical, but Ne looks at an object and then sees multiple possibilities, where Ni looks within the subject and chooses the most likely one, based on a "template", as I have come to call it. It is what will consist of these "dots" that are connected internally. Ne connections, in contrast, are linking one object to multiple "dots" each representing a possibility.

    Perhaps, what Ni references a multitude of, are these templates, or "archetypal" situations), and again, a likely best one is chosen.

    For us, in the Critical position, it will likely be the most negative one that is chosen, and then we will "put a damper" on plans for the future. (Berens).
    I've only met a few INTPs who claim adeptness at Te.

    I've developed some Te perspective... but only because I had no choice, I had to accomplish certain goals in my life and there was no way through except to organize, plan, set goals, and push through item after item. It was very arduous, even though I was ultimately successful, and I still don't like approaching life that way.

    My natural response is to drop back into the safe Ti-Si loop and hole up and surround myself with meaningful things.

    I dunno. I typically find Te offensive -- it masquerades as thinking but is too Procustean for me, violating the nuances of definition and the essence of things in order to make things fit or accomplish a task. It offends me primarily because it IS a form of thinking... but a bastardized one (from my natural instincts). Other functions are not vying with Ti in the same way, so I don't see them as a corruption/violation of essence.

    (Note: I'm just describing my own internal reaction here. I don't actually *believe* Te is a corruption, rationally. It's just another perspective and way of doing things, with its own value, pro's, and con's, just like Ti. But it FEELS this way to me and I find myself responding to it negatively without even trying.)
    Te is also the "backup" function for the dominant. That might not necessarily fit the Opposing Personality Complex all the time. Again, the line between function attitudes is more fuzzy than we have often made it. So in that light, I would say you were probably right on what you said about Ne and Ni as well. So Te will come up a lot for us, when backing up our dominant, internally based logic.
    Quote Originally Posted by Andy View Post
    I think the emergance of function 5 is linked to the supression of the inferior. When pressure is applied to bring out the inferior, the tendancy to reject the inferior kicks in, and the person slips into the opposing function instead, as it is of the same type (Both Je, for an INTP).

    Trouble is, as a shadow function it is less intimate, and it's use less satisfying. Eventually, the person slips back into the primaries way of thinking without having learned or gained a great deal from the experience.

    For example, an ESTP put under pressure to "be more carefully and think things through better" may find themselves slipping into an Si mind temporarily. Eventually, they get bored of it and go back to living the Se life style. If they could overcome the inferior rejection and use their Ni, they might find the experience more rewarding as they get to grips with a deeply buried urge that's always been there.
    Yeah, these things are all mirrors of each other. So #5, as part of the "Double Agent" block may back up the dominant (opposite brain hemisphere), and at other times, degrade from the inferior (both the same hemisphere, opposite the dominant). When the archetypal complexes erupt, both are said to be usually the opposite gender. the inferior will be the innocent, vulnerable side, and the OP will be the less innocent, offensive side of it that can be triggered by the vulnerable side being threatened.
    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

  4. #54
    Administrator highlander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/sp
    Socionics
    ILI Ni
    Posts
    17,906

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    They're similar functions but have opposite energy flow.
    This changes the form of them.

    I tend to see Ne as an explosion of ideas, each trail radiating out from the origin and flowering in every direction at once as idea springboards off idea. Ne thus follows each trail out and explores it, to see what is possible.

    Ni, I perceive more as an infinite deck of cards/overlays I rifle through, each card signifying a possible perspective or configuration of truth, and I compare each card/picture to the current situation and potentially learn something from the insight. (I've had an INTJ compare Ni to a connect-the-dots, where you look at the data points and see the picture as a whole intuitively.)

    Both involve intuition/the ability to see patterns and connections, it's just directed differently. Thus, there should be an affinity there.

    But... maybe not. Just as I've had issues with Te.

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric B View Post
    That sounds more like Ne. And for us, as the "parent" function or "first mate" (Lenore), giving advice to the dominant.

    I've heard Ni described as multitude of opportunities before, and I think this is what makes it confusing.

    Ni is more about locking into one possibility. So the connection between Ne and Ni, is that both deal in the hypothetical, but Ne looks at an object and then sees multiple possibilities, where Ni looks within the subject and chooses the most likely one, based on a "template", as I have come to call it. It is what will consist of these "dots" that are connected internally. Ne connections, in contrast, are linking one object to multiple "dots" each representing a possibility.

    Perhaps, what Ni references a multitude of, are these templates, or "archetypal" situations), and again, a likely best one is chosen.
    Maybe Ni can look and feel like Ne if one feels very comfortable vocalizing the insights. While there is an orientation towards locking into one possibility, there is also an orientation towards looking at things from a different lens or perspective. That process can be repeated - sequentially, listing one locked in possibility after another - looking Ne'ish. Maybe those cognitive function tests don't really do a very good job of differentiating between these two .

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

    Tri-type 639

  5. #55
    ⒺⓉⒷ Eric B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    548 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    3,441

    Default

    The cognitive process tests go largely by key words (behaviors), and while those aim to simplify the concepts, it also seems to create Forer effects (ambiguity), where almost anyone can indentify with it.
    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

  6. #56
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric B View Post
    The cognitive process tests go largely by key words (behaviors), and while those aim to simplify the concepts, it also seems to create Forer effects (ambiguity), where almost anyone can indentify with it.
    That seems to be the biggest issue with personality tests, where people don't even know how to understand /perceive the item, so the answers you're getting aren't really specifying the trait you're trying to isolate...
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  7. #57
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    STP
    Posts
    10,501

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    That seems to be the biggest issue with personality tests, where people don't even know how to understand /perceive the item, so the answers you're getting aren't really specifying the trait you're trying to isolate...
    Thats because people internalize things in a way they can relate to. We have words that define words and it all overlaps and intertwines into one huge mess. Could you imagine the layout if you were to take a single word and its definition and then map each word in that definition with that words definition and proceed. It would never end. Not to mention if you internalize or externalize something, that alone will change the meaning of the word while maintaining the same definition.
    Im out, its been fun

  8. #58
    Happy Dancer uumlau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    953 sp/so
    Posts
    5,708

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by highlander View Post
    From time to time, I've read about the "shadow", more commonly referred to our dark side. It is said that for many a successful person, their downfall can be traced to their shadow. The purpose of this thread is to explore the topic of the Shadow. First - what is it and why we care?

    Jung said the shadow "personifies everything that [one] refuses to acknowledge about himself and yet is always thrusting itself upon him." I have seen the shadow described in several ways including:

    The Bag We Pull Behind Us - There are a number of things relating to our character or history that we try to repress because it is painful or makes us feel inadequate. In this case, the shadow is compared to the "bag we pull behind us" of all the things we don't want to acknowledge about ourselves. The longer life goes, the more full the bag gets, potentially to the point where we can't pull it anymore. This is related to the concept of "projection" where we quickly identify negative qualities in others that we ourselves possess but are not willing to admit.

    The Shadow Functions - The four functions which oppose the functions in our type. For example, if an INTPs function order is: Ti, Ne, Si, and Fe. The shadow functions are correspondingly Te, Ni, Se, and Fi. How these functions manifest themselves in people is unclear or inconsistent in current literature. Lenore Thompson refers to them as "double agents" and "crows nest" functions.

    Eruptions Of The Inferior - In Naomi Quenk's book, "Beside Ourselves," she describes the concept of the eruption of the inferior. During an eruption of the inferior, a person acts like an extremely poor version of their opposite type. During one of these episodes for example, a stressed INTJ behaves like a childish and horrific example of an ESFP. These episodes can be fleeting or in some cases go on for longer periods of time. It is a situation where we are "not ourselves", regress and become childish and after a time come back to equilibrium.

    These are the descriptions I've seen but I'm not an expert. I'm hoping that with the collective knowledge and wisdom of the people on this forum that we can have a discussion that helps to provide some clarity on this confusing topic. What are your perspectives on this?

    - What is the shadow?
    - Why is important?
    - Why do we care about this as individuals?
    I'm sorry, but all of this reads like astrology to me.

    Hmm, basic MBTI, an unfalsifiable set of classifications of personality appears to be incomplete. Let's add even more unfalsifiable rubbish to make a more complete and completely unfalsifiable description.

    To the extent that I like and understand MBTI and Jungian functions, I have always disliked the arbitrary "orderings" and "shadows" and similar extensions of the theory. I think it's all complete nonsense, attempting to describe something that simply is not describable in terms of the top two functional preferences. (Remember, those top two preferences determine everything else that follows. Everything. I simply don't believe that to be true. There is too much legitimate variations within a type for that to be true.)

    In the case of the INTJ, whose functional preferences are NiTe, it isn't possible to describe "how they feel," except empirically. There was for a long while a debate about whether Fe or Fi is really the tertiary (it's a larger debate about whether the tertiary has an orientation the same or opposite the dominant function, and it still goes on today on this forum).

    All that's really going on is that we say, for example, Ni and Te. Then everything else are "other functions" that seem to come into play in odd ways. This cuts to the core of one's understanding of MBTI. Does one's type simply indicate preferences, so one actually has and uses all functions to some degree or another, or does one really only use a couple of function, which wiggle around and try and act like the others, except badly (hence shadows)? There is no way to decide the question. The mind is too flexible, too adaptable, to describe this way, I think. We're simply putting labels on what we think we see, but we have no concept of what it essentially is. Jung eventually abandoned his typology material: it was not a focus of his attention for long.

    I think these shadows and functional orderings make for interesting hypotheses, but in the end, I find no use for them. I would rather be able to figure out how an individual behaves and understands one's environment. I find MBTI moderately useful for this purpose. It's useful to have a label for NeTi behavior, for example, and make some very general predictions about behavior and how that person receives and processes information. I can use that to communicate and interact more effectively than otherwise. But after that initial assessment, the task becomes far more about understanding the individual than about understanding the individual's type. E.g., I might start talking with someone, eventually figure out that their type is ENTP, and then use that to explore other conversations and learn more about the person, all the while being able to use their type to help myself prevent mistakes and miscommunications. I might even be wrong about the type, and it turns out they're "really" ESTP or ENFJ ... when all I've done is find that the ENTP model fails, but the new model works better with this person. It's all based on the person. The hypothesis CHANGES based on the person.

    Shadow functions of all varieties, therefore (I conclude, not that I've proved anything, since it's all unfalsifiable), really can't be used except as post facto explanations of why someone doesn't appear to be behaving/perceiving/reacting according to type, but one hasn't enough justification to say that the person is a different type.

  9. #59
    failure to thrive AphroditeGoneAwry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    MBTI
    INfj
    Enneagram
    451 sx/so
    Socionics
    ENFj Ni
    Posts
    5,651

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by uumlau View Post
    I'm sorry, but all of this reads like astrology to me.

    Hmm, basic MBTI, an unfalsifiable set of classifications of personality appears to be incomplete. Let's add even more unfalsifiable rubbish to make a more complete and completely unfalsifiable description.

    To the extent that I like and understand MBTI and Jungian functions, I have always disliked the arbitrary "orderings" and "shadows" and similar extensions of the theory. I think it's all complete nonsense, attempting to describe something that simply is not describable in terms of the top two functional preferences. (Remember, those top two preferences determine everything else that follows. Everything. I simply don't believe that to be true. There is too much legitimate variations within a type for that to be true.)

    In the case of the INTJ, whose functional preferences are NiTe, it isn't possible to describe "how they feel," except empirically. There was for a long while a debate about whether Fe or Fi is really the tertiary (it's a larger debate about whether the tertiary has an orientation the same or opposite the dominant function, and it still goes on today on this forum).

    All that's really going on is that we say, for example, Ni and Te. Then everything else are "other functions" that seem to come into play in odd ways. This cuts to the core of one's understanding of MBTI. Does one's type simply indicate preferences, so one actually has and uses all functions to some degree or another, or does one really only use a couple of function, which wiggle around and try and act like the others, except badly (hence shadows)? There is no way to decide the question. The mind is too flexible, too adaptable, to describe this way, I think. We're simply putting labels on what we think we see, but we have no concept of what it essentially is. Jung eventually abandoned his typology material: it was not a focus of his attention for long.

    I think these shadows and functional orderings make for interesting hypotheses, but in the end, I find no use for them. I would rather be able to figure out how an individual behaves and understands one's environment. I find MBTI moderately useful for this purpose. It's useful to have a label for NeTi behavior, for example, and make some very general predictions about behavior and how that person receives and processes information. I can use that to communicate and interact more effectively than otherwise. But after that initial assessment, the task becomes far more about understanding the individual than about understanding the individual's type. E.g., I might start talking with someone, eventually figure out that their type is ENTP, and then use that to explore other conversations and learn more about the person, all the while being able to use their type to help myself prevent mistakes and miscommunications. I might even be wrong about the type, and it turns out they're "really" ESTP or ENFJ ... when all I've done is find that the ENTP model fails, but the new model works better with this person. It's all based on the person. The hypothesis CHANGES based on the person.

    Shadow functions of all varieties, therefore (I conclude, not that I've proved anything, since it's all unfalsifiable), really can't be used except as post facto explanations of why someone doesn't appear to be behaving/perceiving/reacting according to type, but one hasn't enough justification to say that the person is a different type.

    YES! I am so glad to hear you say this! I totally agree and have come to the same conclusions, for the most part.

    Does this finally mean you'll quit asserting that INTJs have Fi as their tert function?

    I think I need a cigarette now, Uumlau.
    Ni/Ti/Fe/Si
    4w5 5w4 1w9
    ~Torah observant, Christ inspired~
    Life Path 11

    The more one loves God, the more it is that having nothing in the world means everything, and the less one loves God, the more it is that having everything in the world means nothing.

    Do not resist an evil person, but to him who strikes you on the one cheek, offer also the other. ~Matthew 5:39

    songofmary.wordpress.com


  10. #60
    Happy Dancer uumlau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    953 sp/so
    Posts
    5,708

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by aphrodite-gone-awry View Post
    YES! I am so glad to hear you say this! I totally agree and have come to the same conclusions, for the most part.

    Does this finally mean you'll quit asserting that INTJs have Fi as their tert function?

    I think I need a cigarette now, Uumlau.
    Hahahahah.

    No I'm not agreeing with you. I'm more saying, "There is no such thing as a tert." I'll use the language as a means of describing, but when I do so, I describe PEOPLE, and use language like tert, aux, or dom, to help classify those people.

    For me, as an INTJ, I identify more with Fi than Fe, as I see it play out in my life and elsewhere. However, I do agree with your observations that INTJs often seem to have really good Fe, especially older, more polite ones. I think this is a learned "faux Fe" if you will, playing a game that we know exists but really don't like to play.

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