I had been having a debate on PerC with Naama (simply "INTP" over here), over the eight function model versus a four function model where opposite tandem mates combine to form "fabrications" of apparent "shadow" functions (i.e. reversed in attitude from the primary four).
This led to a discussion of Jung's concept of "abstraction", which was actually associated with introversion rather than intuition, as it is commonly used! Likewise, "empathy" is associated with all extraversion, not just Fe.
A form of mental activity by which a conscious content is freed from its association with irrelevant elements, as a backflow of value from the object into a subjective, abstract content. [paraphrase: taking out what doesn't make sense to the functional perspective] Therefore, abstraction amounts to an energic devaluation of the object. I visualize the process of abstraction as a withdrawal of libido from the content. For me, therefore, abstraction amounts to an energic devaluation of the object.
An introjection of the object, based on the unconscious projection of subjective contents. Empathy presupposes a subjective attitude of confidence, or trustfulness towards the object. It is a readiness to meet the object halfway. The man with the empathetic attitude finds himself in a world that needs his subjective feeling to give it life and soul. He animates it with himself.
I had already heard about this meaning of "abstraction" from Lenore, and just hadn't come to the point of integrating this way of looking at it into my understanding and exposition of the theory yet.
It seems to be a more deeply technical way of expressing i/e that might take time to digest (as it gets into so many other concepts that aren't as widely used in hobbyist discussions), but can help further clarify what exactly the differences between function attitudes are.
I still maintain the attitudes independently from the four functions, so that a person differentiates a dominant function, in a dominant attitude, and suppresses everything else, so that the other, undifferentiated functions "collect" in the opposite attitude, and the initial exception to this is the Puer complex which reorients the tertiary to the dominant attitude.
The "shadows" then consist of negative versions of the first four complexes, which then reorient the four functions into the opposite attitudes from the primary assignments, generating eight "function-attitudes" connected to eight archetypal complexes.
So I've been trying it out on myself. Here's how it appears to work with the "spine" tandems:
Ti: free technical content from its association with irrelevant elements. Value is transferred from the object to the now subjective content (internalized "impersonal" frameworks)
This is unconsciously compensated by:
Fe: humane content is then entrusted to the object (A subjective attitude of trust is then introjected into other people or social values).
Introverts make this transfer from the object to the subject. Their inner world is what they prefer, and the outer world is where they are less confident. So the dominant function with which they are most confident is introverted, and the inferior function is extraverted. This makes a lot of sense, naturally.
I then wondered why extraverts make the transfer from the subject to the object. Why would they not want to favor their own subjective realm?
I find that it seems to tie into concepts such as "identification" and "participation mystique" (Definitions available on Jung Lexicon). These involve the merging of the subject with the object. To them the object is what they identify with. And as the quote says, his subjective feeling is simply what he uses to give the outer world life.
So then, the inner world in its own right is the untrusted realm.
So while their ego entrusts the object with their preferred functional content, it is the internal world that is suppressed, and used to collect the other functions (again, until the Puer reorients the tertiary to the external) The inferior complex maintains the internal orientation, of course.
So now, to do the opposite Thinking dominant types:
Te: technical content is confided to the object, which the ego identifies with (most likely whatever is being organized, or an objective, agreed upon standard).
Fi: humane content is dissociated from object, (stripped of irrelevant elements). Value is transferred from the object to the now subjective content (internalized "personal" frameworks)
Te as OP: transfers value back to the object, in order to back up subjective content (e.g. shows how internally recognized frameworks are proven by external efficiency).
Fi as right-brain "Crow's Nest": Switches subjective content from technical to humane, when a technical perspective doesn't solve the problem.
As Demon: withdraws humane confidence entrusted in object (group standards) back into the subject. (Very negative, reactive process in which extreme vulnerability in interpersonal relations feels taken advantage of, and is compensated by a subjective counter-content that aims to destroy the threat).
Ti as OP: transfers value from to subject, eliminating irrelevant elements, to back up objective content (e.g. shows how external efficiency is supported by internally held universal principles).
Fe as left brain "Crow's Nest": switches objective content from technical to humane, when a technical perspective doesn't solve the problem.
As Demon: formerly subjective humane content is now introjected into the object (reactive process in which extreme vulnerability in internal integrity feels taken advantage of, and is compensated by a subjective counter-content that aims to destroy the threat).
(Hope I'm understanding "content" and "object" right).
The other way the functions are said to work:
Fe sees the value, Ti abstracts the values away that doesnt compute.
I believe it does work like this as well. This would be the more normal situation, while the Crow's Nests and shadows are for the more stressful situations where Ti and Fe are not able to solve the problem, or are threatened by the situation.