# Thread: Harmonizing the two eight-function models

1. ## Harmonizing the two eight-function models

In Beebe's model, the "shadows" are simply the first four functions with the attitudes reversed. He points out that we cannot make too much of this order. It is just to parallel the preference order of the primary four, especially in relation to the archetypal complexes which also parallel the hero/parent/child and inferior.
It is never claimed to be an order of relative strengths, or even "development".

Before Beebe's model was more known about, (and in a period where the internet was just becoming mainstream), Lenore Thomson publishes her book with an attempt at an eight function model. She places the "shadows" inbetween the dom/aux and tert/inferior. This also is not claimed to necessarily be an order of strength, but the two functions that are #7 and 8 in Beebe's model, are said to be "the first we run to for solutions" when the dominant and auxiliary can't solve a problem. They are the same brain hemisphere as the dom/aux, and thus their lateral "alternatives".
She calls them the "Crow's Nest" of a ship, with the dom. as the captain, and the aux. as the first mate. The tertiary and inferior are rebels who are off the boat, one heading the ship's direction, and the other trying to pull it the opposite way. The remaining two functions (the dom and aux. with the opposite attitudes), are called "Double Agents".

So on these forums, people take Nardi's cognitive process test, and many come out with results similar to the ship model. At least as far as #8 being strong (often third place), and the inferior being on the bottom (and for many, the tertiary right above it).
so I've been trying to sort out an explanation for all of this.

I figured the answer lies in the disparity between the functions as perspectives, and as behaviors. Many of the familiar definitions we see and use, are actually behavioral "skill", but the functions are really more like perspectives. Basically, interpretations of data; being gathered in the form of tangible or conceptual elements, and decided in terms of technical (impersonal) or humane (personal) considerations.

A few years ago, someone on INTPCentral "reverse engineered" the test, and among other things, figured out which questions corresponded to which functions. There are 48 questions. Four groups of eight, with each of the eight functions having four questions scoring in favor of them. The remaining sixteen questions were for all of the possible dom/aux pairs.

Looking at this again, the common themes of the individual function questions:

Se physical experience, action
Si storehouse of familiar experiences, regular activity
Ne new ideas, random contexts
Ni foreseeing, symbolic, etc.
Te efficiency; esp. with others, straight line of reasoning
Ti definitions, analyzing
Fe taking care of others, communicate to feel unity
Fi true to what you want for yourself, what is good

These you can pretty much see in his book, and other associates such as Berens and Hartzler.

What I find are the best representations of the functions as perspectives:

Se: emergent tangibles
Si: stored tangibles (facts)
Ne: emergent conceptualizations
Ni: stored conceptualizations
Te: set technical considerations
Ti: variable technical considerations
Fe: set humane considerations
Fi: variable humane considerations

The Nardi test "process" definitions are basically behavioral. They are not reflecting an inner cognition of a particular perspective, but rather what we DO with them. How we react to things.
This is what likely causes the difference in order between the test results and the standard order, and thus why some "shadows" might seem stronger than some primary functions.

2. So it seems the Crow's Nests are stronger than the tertiary and inferior, because of the fact that the letter two are vulnerable, and perhaps the venues through which the more serious feelings of threat to the ego (which trigger the lower shadows) occur.

So we will tend to react with our "Trickster" and "Demon" (7, 8) more than the "Child" (tertiary) and inferior (3, 4). Those are more vulnerable.
(She doesn't equate the Crow's Nests with the Trickster and Demon archetypes, as she had not discovered Beebe's theory yet at that time.Yet, since they are associated with the same functions, they can be treated as the same).

Likewise, we'll react more with the Opposing and Witch (5, 6) than with the child and inferior.

Hence, the "ship order" of 1-2-8-7-6-5-3-4

(For one thing, the tertiary was originally believed to default to the opposite orientation, like the aux. and inferior. We now believe that the Puer complex orients it to the dominant attitude. Even Beebe says the Trickster develops right behind the Puer. So if you take the tertiary tending to be used more, and in more positive senses than the trickster, but then used less for reaction than the Trickster, it will balance out).

And the Crow's Nests will tend to be stronger than the Double Agents (opposing, witch), because they involve bigger threats to the ego. (binding and death, rather than mere obstruction and negation).
Hence, they are more visible and memorable when they do surface.

So for me, my dominant standpoint is that things should make technical (impersonal) sense, according to an internal standard (based on situational variables rather than set, agreed upon procedures).
People and their social or organizational systems often don't make sense like this, but I have a desire to fit in. I then feel inferior in the people's set personal standards. They often don't accept my ideas, or even actively criticize them, or me.
So I then tend to react by maintaining my own standard of personal integrity. I don't like to resort to this, usually, but feel forced to by the external threat. It then becomes more like my dominant perspective. They both are right brain, and "P" in attitude. (So as one person trying to erroneously prove this was evidence of me being ENFP observed, "Fi trumps Fe").

Fe is not what I "used"; it's purely the perspective the feelings of inferiority reached consciousness by. What I then "used" so to speak, was more along the lines of the descriptions or "skills" of Fi. Hence, it seeming to be "stronger" than Fe.
It also ends up stronger than Te, for if I'm feeling inferior, then imposing logical order on the others will be even harder to orchestrate.

TJ's like to order the external world impersonally. This can ruffle people's feathers, challenging the TJ's vulnerable internal sense of humanity (integrity, etc). They then counter this by turning to an external personal standard, where they manipulate their way into acceptance, even taking down others involved in making them feel threatened.
They didn't "use" Fi; it's only what they felt inferior with. They did "use" the "skills" associated with Fe. They thus maintained their J attitude and left brain orientation.

FP's similarly clash along the lines of Te. When feeling inferior, they will "use" Ti to dismantle the threatening impersonal content. FJ's feel inferior through Ti, and make up for this by trying to prove themselves to the world through Te. SJ's feel inferior when presented with multiple possibilities, and thus tend to turn it into a focus on a negative premonition.

3. Originally Posted by Eric B
What I find are the best representations of the functions as perspectives:

Se: emergent tangibles
Si: stored tangibles (facts)
Ne: emergent conceptualizations
Ni: stored conceptualizations
Te: set technical considerations
Ti: variable technical considerations
Fe: set humane considerations
Fi: variable humane considerations
This functions as perspectives suggestion appears to suspend large parts of cognition. The functions appear as states or libraries, it seems. And even with "emergent" written in there, do Se and Ne count as processes?

On that kind of scheme, crow's nests make sense. One library fails, call on another. But what if all functions are powered processes? Whatever happens inside or outside a person, processing begins. On such a model it's less reasonable to speak of powering up less preferred processes. If personality has any structure, it's not us, the conscious we, who provides it. It's provided, and power is directed, by type, or type as it emerges. Crow's nests may instead be thought of as the familiar processes overpowered by some need to address an unfamiliar situation and beginning to mimic (inadequately) an opposite attitude. But it's still the same process with the same attitude, just bent out of shape.

More importantly, since I just proposed an intuition to describe the world and that intuition is blatantly influenced by a willingness to view the world in terms of in-the-moment mechanism, which is to say a Te+Se, heavy on the Se as a descriptive limit for what the world can be and how it can be approached...etc and so on.

4. Well, I originally had "focus on" before most of those phrases. I guess I should have left it. I think I tend to remove it to try to eliminate monotony.

And that's what all of these really are. A focus on certain parts of data. All the aspects of data are there, and are picked up by us. We just choose to focus on some, and ignore others. Yet what we ignore can be forced into consciousness, or brought in in other ways. When it does, it will usually be connected with the emotionally freighted images that make up an archetype or complex.

There is no need to try to force the Crow's Nests to be the same attitudes as their ego-syntonic counterparts (I take it you mean the tertiary and inferior). You simply switch the attitudes of them, or you can look at it as keeping your dominant and auxiliary attitudes, and switching the functions (which maintains the same brain hemisphere).

A good way to represent how the functions are stacked is the Mental Muscles diagrams. The two sides of a line represent orientation. Most of a function is on one side (representing inner [left] or outer [right] orientation), but some of it is on the other.

This keeps them all in the order of 1-4. However, if you take the opposite orientation to be a separate entity, which is called a function-attitude, then, you generate a "#5-8". These are the "shadows" of #1-4

So this way, what we have is:

Dominant (1, 5)
Auxiliary (2, 6)
Tertiary (3, 7)
Inferior (4, 8)

Also, what's "not the conscious we" is not type (which is defined precisely by what is conscious-- the two preferred function-attitudes), but simply the psyche or larger Self. And yes, that's where the suppressed functional perspectives and complexes that form around them lie.

#### 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