• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

What's the consensus on the use of shadow functions?

Snow Turtle

New member
Joined
May 28, 2007
Messages
1,335
Wanna explain why what :huh: i dont get what these two things have to do with each other or why there is some contradiction or something

We're talking about Jung's concept of the shadows right which is referring to the tertiary and the inferior right?
ISFJ, INSFJs - It'd be Ti, Ne, and Ti, Se respectively.

Many INTJs here identify with Fi as their tertiary function, especially when they do that test by Nardi.
Yet, if we observe the INFJs/ISFJs here... You'll see a mixture of individuals who identify strongly with Ti, and a mixture of individuals that identify more with Te instead in terms of preference and strength.

Maybe they haven't individualized these functions (Ti)? Yet, we're talking about individuals who are way past that stage of development that Jung suggested they'd be developed by. Something can't be right there. It's most likely the theory.

I only recently realised this little note on wikipedia:

Jung theorized that the dominant function acts alone in its preferred world: exterior for the extraverts, and interior for the introverts. The remaining three functions, he suggested, operate together in the opposite world. If the dominant cognitive function is introverted, the other functions are extraverted, and vice versa. The MBTI Manual summarizes references in Jung's work to the balance in psychological type as follows:

This seems to be suggesting an that Si dominant individual, would actually be Si, Fe, Te, Ne as opposed to Si, Fe, Ti, Ne proposed by MBTI.
On a completely unrelated note: FREEDOM from talking about Jung. No more freaking essay till the next exam! =.=
 

INTP

Active member
Joined
Jul 31, 2009
Messages
7,803
MBTI Type
intp
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx
We're talking about Jung's concept of the shadows right which is referring to the tertiary and the inferior right?
ISFJ, INSFJs - It'd be Ti, Ne, and Ti, Se respectively.

Many INTJs here identify with Fi as their tertiary function, especially when they do that test by Nardi.
Yet, if we observe the INFJs/ISFJs here... You'll see a mixture of individuals who identify strongly with Ti, and a mixture of individuals that identify more with Te instead in terms of preference and strength.

Maybe they haven't individualized these functions (Ti)? Yet, we're talking about individuals who are way past that stage of development that Jung suggested they'd be developed by. Something can't be right there. It's most likely the theory.

I only recently realised this little note on wikipedia:



This seems to be suggesting an that Si dominant individual, would actually be Si, Fe, Te, Ne as opposed to Si, Fe, Ti, Ne proposed by MBTI.
On a completely unrelated note: FREEDOM from talking about Jung. No more freaking essay till the next exam! =.=


When it comes to jungs interpration of tert, people are disagreeing about it, there is no clear evidence of jung thinking it being oriented to either way. However there are hints of jung thinking tert being in same attitude than dom, for example in psychological types jung says:
"The unconscious functions likewise group themselves in patterns correlated with the conscious ones"

The pattern of conscious functions for INTP who has differentiated aux, would be according to jung be TiNe, inferior naturally being Fe. Now if the unconscious functions follow the same pattern than conscious ones, this in my opinion would mean that tert is in opposite attitude from inferior, like aux is in different attitude from dom.

And this is the official MBTI tert attitude thing:

Isabel Briggs Myers and Type Development by Katharine Myers said:
The attitude of the tertiary.

We also discussed a question that is now of some interest in the type community - the attitude of the ter- tiary function. This started with Isabel recalling an incident at the first international type conference in 1975, when Harold Grant presented his picture of type development. He presented a development model with an alternating pattern in atti- tudes: dominant E, auxiliary I, ter- tiary E, fourth I; or dominant I, auxiliary E, tertiary I, fourth E. Isabel listened with great interest and afterwards asked him, “Harold, where do you get that ordering?” to which Grant replied, “Why, of course, from you.” She responded in some bewilderment that, ”No, I always assumed that the tertiary would be in the same attitude as the auxiliary and fourth functions.” In our conversation in 1979, Isabel reflected on this, realizing that Jung had not been clear in this area and that she hadn‘t been either. As she said: Well, I guess I had never paid much attention to the tertiary. I suppose that because the pressure on it from the auxiliary is less than the pressure on the inferior from the dominant, it probably moves back and forth between extraverted and introverted more easily.
 

Eric B

ⒺⓉⒷ
Joined
Mar 29, 2008
Messages
3,621
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
548
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
He meams a different shadow i think. Opposite order of your top 4. And or stuff we push down in the bacg we drag behind us
"Shadow" is about the unconscious, so both are connected (the unused functions and all the other stuff we push down. For the unused functions are perspectives we ignore, or push down, in addition to the associated archetypal complexes.

As much as I like her book, I don't really believe in Lenore Thompson's view of the shadow functions. ITJs - they prefer Fi. That's what they "use". Fe is a really big stretch for them. IFJs prefer Fe. ENFPs prefer Ne and Te. That's what they use. So yeah, I don't think we use the shadow functions very much at all if we're operating in a healthy state.

If we do use them, I think the lower down the stack you go, the more difficult it is to access them or it's increasingly disfunctional to use them.

We're talking about Jung's concept of the shadows right which is referring to the tertiary and the inferior right?
ISFJ, INSFJs - It'd be Ti, Ne, and Ti, Se respectively.

Many INTJs here identify with Fi as their tertiary function, especially when they do that test by Nardi.
Yet, if we observe the INFJs/ISFJs here... You'll see a mixture of individuals who identify strongly with Ti, and a mixture of individuals that identify more with Te instead in terms of preference and strength.

Maybe they haven't individualized these functions (Ti)? Yet, we're talking about individuals who are way past that stage of development that Jung suggested they'd be developed by. Something can't be right there. It's most likely the theory.

This seems to be suggesting an that Si dominant individual, would actually be Si, Fe, Te, Ne as opposed to Si, Fe, Ti, Ne proposed by MBTI.
The primary/shadow order is really a stack of archetypes that associate with the functions in a particular attitude. So the tertiary will likely be somewhat conscious, and then the inferior starts becoming conscious,especially as we enter mid-life.

The Nardi cognitive process test (K2C) is measuring the functions as behaviors (and I agree that Fi is greatly Forer-effected so that anyone can identify with it. Like "knowing what you want for yourself"). Lenore Thomson's ship model is also to some extent going by behaviors (she has modified her views since writing that). Hence, the reactions that might stem from the 7th and 8th function may come out "strong", and be picked up by the K2C test as "strength" of "use". And then, Lenore's theory would say they were the "Crow's Nests" or right/left brain alternatives we run to first when the dom. and aux. can't solve the problem. (Socionics Model A is actually similar in having 7th and 8th in 3rd and 4th place!)
Since the tertiary and inferior are the weakest of the conscious functions, they end up coming out "weakest" (So that the inferior really is "inferior" out of the whole 8). (They are the crew members that have been cast off the ship, with one skiing in the same direction, and the other on a lifeboat trying to pull the whole ship the other way).

I now also go along with what INTP has been posting, about the functions going back and forth between subject and object, and the attitude orientation ultimately being determined by the "starting/ending" point.
That to me shows four "natural" functions, S, N, T, and F and that the function-attitudes are an artificial product of these (rather than as eight hard items in themselves, as I was recently debating with someone). So I believe that the complexes are what "turn the volume up" on the opposite end of the objective/subjective cycle, thus differentiating the opposite attitude, but for a time. So if our inferior position is threatened, since this is the anima or soul, then the whole ego feels threatened, constellating the "Daimon" complex, which will turn the volume up on the attitude opposite of what the inferior normally takes. (Thus equaling the dominant attitude, which is reserved for the dominant function, but in this reactive situation, the opposite function takes its place, and it is totally out of conscious control, thus reactive, and often disastrous). If the dominant position is obstructed, then the Opposing Personality Complex will turn up the volume on the opposite orientation. So this process is likely unconscious, and surface mostly through [largely reactive] behavior, and this being picked up by K2C and the ship model.
 

highlander

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 23, 2009
Messages
26,562
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
6w5
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
"Shadow" is about the unconscious, so both are connected (the unused functions and all the other stuff we push down. For the unused functions are perspectives we ignore, or push down, in addition to the associated archetypal complexes.



The primary/shadow order is really a stack of archetypes that associate with the functions in a particular attitude. So the tertiary will likely be somewhat conscious, and then the inferior starts becoming conscious,especially as we enter mid-life.

The Nardi cognitive process test (K2C) is measuring the functions as behaviors (and I agree that Fi is greatly Forer-effected so that anyone can identify with it. Like "knowing what you want for yourself"). Lenore Thomson's ship model is also to some extent going by behaviors (she has modified her views since writing that). Hence, the reactions that might stem from the 7th and 8th function may come out "strong", and be picked up by the K2C test as "strength" of "use". And then, Lenore's theory would say they were the "Crow's Nests" or right/left brain alternatives we run to first when the dom. and aux. can't solve the problem. (Socionics Model A is actually similar in having 7th and 8th in 3rd and 4th place!)
Since the tertiary and inferior are the weakest of the conscious functions, they end up coming out "weakest" (So that the inferior really is "inferior" out of the whole 8). (They are the crew members that have been cast off the ship, with one skiing in the same direction, and the other on a lifeboat trying to pull the whole ship the other way).

I now also go along with what INTP has been posting, about the functions going back and forth between subject and object, and the attitude orientation ultimately being determined by the "starting/ending" point.
That to me shows four "natural" functions, S, N, T, and F and that the function-attitudes are an artificial product of these (rather than as eight hard items in themselves, as I was recently debating with someone). So I believe that the complexes are what "turn the volume up" on the opposite end of the objective/subjective cycle, thus differentiating the opposite attitude, but for a time. So if our inferior position is threatened, since this is the anima or soul, then the whole ego feels threatened, constellating the "Daimon" complex, which will turn the volume up on the attitude opposite of what the inferior normally takes. (Thus equaling the dominant attitude, which is reserved for the dominant function, but in this reactive situation, the opposite function takes its place, and it is totally out of conscious control, thus reactive, and often disastrous). If the dominant position is obstructed, then the Opposing Personality Complex will turn up the volume on the opposite orientation. So this process is likely unconscious, and surface mostly through [largely reactive] behavior, and this being picked up by K2C and the ship model.

That makes complete sense about the unconscious and them all being connected. It absolutely ties these things together.

So are you saying then that you believe in the ship model?
 

Eric B

ⒺⓉⒷ
Joined
Mar 29, 2008
Messages
3,621
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
548
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Well, yes, I have always adopted the ship model, as another perspective on Beebe's model. It explained why the 8th place function might seem "strong".
 
G

garbage

Guest
I now also go along with what INTP has been posting, about the functions going back and forth between subject and object, and the attitude orientation ultimately being determined by the "starting/ending" point.
That to me shows four "natural" functions, S, N, T, and F and that the function-attitudes are an artificial product of these (rather than as eight hard items in themselves, as I was recently debating with someone).
Hey, this makes sense. It sure would explain why intuition-dominants may identify with both intuition functions, or why INTJs may identify with Ti (as [MENTION=306]Kai[/MENTION] says) for example. It also channels what [MENTION=15291]Mane[/MENTION] has suggested.

My question is simply still along the lines of--"how do the shadow functions play out?" I'm bumpin' this thread largely because I'm curious as to whether there's any consensus--do we even use them, are they mimicked by ego functions, are they repressed, are they the functions that we ought to try to bring into conscious awareness.. ?

If we don't even have an answer as to how shadow functions act in an individual's type.. well, I can't even count the number of discussions that we've had and conclusions that we've held that all rest upon insanely shaky foundations.

:popc1:
 

AphroditeGoneAwry

failure to thrive
Joined
Feb 20, 2009
Messages
5,585
MBTI Type
INfj
Enneagram
451
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
Shadow functions are just functions not preferred. It's not that they are avoided.


Therefore reading anything into shadow functions is a waste of time.


Man takes the path of least resistance. It's that simple.
 

INTP

Active member
Joined
Jul 31, 2009
Messages
7,803
MBTI Type
intp
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx
Hey, this makes sense. It sure would explain why intuition-dominants may identify with both intuition functions, or why INTJs may identify with Ti (as Kai says) for example. It also channels what Mane has suggested.

My question is simply still along the lines of--"how do the shadow functions play out?" I'm bumpin' this thread largely because I'm curious as to whether there's any consensus--do we even use them, are they mimicked by ego functions, are they repressed, are they the functions that we ought to try to bring into conscious awareness.. ?

If we don't even have an answer as to how shadow functions act in an individual's type.. well, I can't even count the number of discussions that we've had and conclusions that we've held that all rest upon insanely shaky foundations.

:popc1:

but the whole point of this what eric said(and what i have been saying and what jung has been saying) is that there is no "shadow functions", there is just function S T F N, which can be applied to objective perspective and subjective perspective and whether the function is introverted or extraverted, is just a matter of whether the individual finds the objective or subjective perspective more trusted and orients himself consciously from one perspective, while seeing the other as untrustworthy or irrelevant for the conscious attitude. but naturally we also compare the conscious attitude(actual function) to the opposite attitude(what you call shadow function) and we might become conscious of the opposite and it might turn out to be the one that should be trusted in certain situations more if the preferred one is clearly lacking in perception or ability to judge. but usually the other side is handled by aux function and also gets mixed with inferior more as its the same attitude as aux.

so basically it would lead to a preferred perception and judgment which looks at things from objective perspective(used in comparison with things in line with external world = extraverted) and for the subjective point of view.

the deal with this whole differentation of a function thing is, while being equal to learning how to consciously use the functions, but more importantly differentiation is that you start to see the perspective of a function, gain an attitude for the function, thus it becomes conscious. if you dont have preferred attitude for a function, it just unconsciously mixes to both subjective and objective side through projections and introjections. undifferentiated thinking is for example mostly just an afterthought which is reflected from some experience, not what you see ENTJs doing with the stock markets.

now if you think this afterthought of undifferentiated thinking, by the time something has has happened, you already have sensed it, used F(made an judgment for example that it wasnt worth it) and probably intuition also(where it came from and where its going), so the thinking would most likely be quite negative due to F judgment etc. ramblerambleramble
 

Mal12345

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 19, 2011
Messages
14,532
MBTI Type
IxTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Hey, this makes sense. It sure would explain why intuition-dominants may identify with both intuition functions, or why INTJs may identify with Ti (as [MENTION=306]Kai[/MENTION] says) for example. It also channels what [MENTION=15291]Mane[/MENTION] has suggested.

My question is simply still along the lines of--"how do the shadow functions play out?" I'm bumpin' this thread largely because I'm curious as to whether there's any consensus--do we even use them, are they mimicked by ego functions, are they repressed, are they the functions that we ought to try to bring into conscious awareness.. ?

If we don't even have an answer as to how shadow functions act in an individual's type.. well, I can't even count the number of discussions that we've had and conclusions that we've held that all rest upon insanely shaky foundations.

:popc1:

I don't know if there is a consensus on shadow functions. But there is a book called "Dynamics of Personality Type" which covers them.

For example, the shadow type at the bottom of the order, at 8, is called Devilish (-) / Transformative (+). Its function has the opposing attitude of the inferior of a type, such that in my case Inferior Fe becomes Shadow Fi.

16types also has a description containing much the same elements.
http://www.bestfittype.com/cognitiveprocesses/16types.html

"The Devilish Role (sometimes referred to as the 8th function)
The devilish role can be quite negative. Using the process that plays this role, we might become destructive of ourselves or others. Actions (or inactions) taken when we engage in the process that plays this role are often regretted later. Usually, we are unaware of how to use the process that fills this role and feel like it just erupts and imposes itself rather unconsciously. Yet when we are open to the process that plays the devilish role, it becomes transformative. It gives us the impetus to create something new—to make lemonade out of lemons, rather than lament their sourness."
 
G

garbage

Guest
I guess my question (with an assertion thrown behind it) at this point is--should we associate INTJs with 'lacking Ti,' INTPs with overuse of Ti, INTPs with inferior Fe, ENTJs with Te-Se loops, ENFPs with 'using' FiTe, ENTPs with Fi as a 'right-brained alternative' to Ti, so on and so forth?

If there are shadow functions at play or combinations of undifferentiated attitudes of functions, if we haven't thought about the role of the 'shadow functions' before we talk about types' capabilities and shortfalls, and if we're able to integrate our shadows as Jung suggests, then these notions are built upon an extremely shaky foundation.

That is, we ought to dig at the roots and truly understand these phenomena before we apply surface-level diagnoses to other people. Just sayin', is all.

but the whole point of this what eric said(and what i have been saying and what jung has been saying) is that there is no "shadow functions", there is just function S T F N, which can be applied to objective perspective and subjective perspective and whether the function is introverted or extraverted, is just a matter of whether the individual finds the objective or subjective perspective more trusted and orients himself consciously from one perspective, while seeing the other as untrustworthy or irrelevant for the conscious attitude. but naturally we also compare the conscious attitude(actual function) to the opposite attitude(what you call shadow function) and we might become conscious of the opposite and it might turn out to be the one that should be trusted in certain situations more if the preferred one is clearly lacking in perception or ability to judge. but usually the other side is handled by aux function and also gets mixed with inferior more as its the same attitude as aux.
I like this view myself; it's simpler, closer to reality, and much less limiting. In fact, I'd like it if everyone bought into it, which first requires that we recognize that there's a problem with the way that we're thinking about so-called 'shadow functions' :wink:

I don't know if there is a consensus on shadow functions. But there is a book called "Dynamics of Personality Type" which covers them.
Yup, this is one of the going theories that's out there as well.
 

INTP

Active member
Joined
Jul 31, 2009
Messages
7,803
MBTI Type
intp
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx
I guess my question (with an assertion thrown behind it) at this point is--should we associate INTJs with 'lacking Ti,' INTPs with overuse of Ti, INTPs with inferior Fe, ENTJs with Te-Se loops, ENFPs with 'using' FiTe, ENTPs with Fi as a 'right-brained alternative' to Ti, so on and so forth?

If there are shadow functions at play or combinations of undifferentiated attitudes of functions, if we haven't thought about the role of the 'shadow functions' before we talk about types' capabilities and shortfalls, and if we're able to integrate our shadows as Jung suggests, then these notions are built upon an extremely shaky foundation.

That is, we ought to dig at the roots and truly understand these phenomena before we apply surface-level diagnoses to other people. Just sayin', is all.


I like this view myself; it's simpler, closer to reality, and much less limiting. In fact, I'd like it if everyone bought into it, which first requires that we recognize that there's a problem with the way that we're thinking about so-called 'shadow functions' :wink:

when jung was talking about integrating the shadow, he wasnt talking about shadow functions that you are talking. jungian shadow doesent really have anything to do with typology, except that it manifests through inferior(and possibly tert when tert is undeveloped) according to marie von franz(who is possibly the most recognized jungian after jung and was a close friend of jungs).

ps. what i said in that post was what jung has been saying, but unluckily the misconceptions of jungs work in MBTI has gained more popularity due to its simplistic(easy to understand, but distorted and lacking heavily) view on typology.
 

21%

You have a choice!
Joined
May 15, 2009
Messages
3,224
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
4w5
but the whole point of this what eric said(and what i have been saying and what jung has been saying) is that there is no "shadow functions", there is just function S T F N, which can be applied to objective perspective and subjective perspective and whether the function is introverted or extraverted, is just a matter of whether the individual finds the objective or subjective perspective more trusted and orients himself consciously from one perspective, while seeing the other as untrustworthy or irrelevant for the conscious attitude.
I agree with this.

I don't think it's even a 'sliding scale', where you can use 80% Fe and 20% Fi. The shadow/opposite orientations add a totally different dimension to your functions, and if we can embrace it all it will help us become more balanced.
 
G

garbage

Guest
when jung was talking about integrating the shadow, he wasnt talking about shadow functions that you are talking. jungian shadow doesent really have anything to do with typology, except that it manifests through inferior(and possibly tert when tert is undeveloped) according to marie von franz(who is possibly the most recognized jungian after jung and was a close friend of jungs).

ps. what i said in that post was what jung has been saying, but unluckily the misconceptions of jungs work in MBTI has gained more popularity due to its simplistic(easy to understand, but distorted and lacking heavily) view on typology.

Ah, thanks for the clarification. I know that Jung sprinkled a bunch of seeds across a bunch of different domains, with his typology being one of them--best for me not to conflate them. I'm of the mind that 'integration with our shadow,' individuation, etc. is an extremely useful concept at least.
 

INTP

Active member
Joined
Jul 31, 2009
Messages
7,803
MBTI Type
intp
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx
Ah, thanks for the clarification. I know that Jung sprinkled a bunch of seeds across a bunch of different domains, with his typology being one of them--best for me not to conflate them. I'm of the mind that 'integration with our shadow,' individuation, etc. is an extremely useful concept at least.

you should look at how soul works also if you want to find out more useful stuff from jung. this whole typology thing is just a small(but quite important to many things) part of analytical psychology.
[QUOTE="Definitions," CW 6, par. 797]By psyche I understand the totality of all psychic processes, conscious as well as unconscious. By soul, on the other hand, I understand a clearly demarcated functional complex that can best be described as a "personality."[/QUOTE]
basically the persona and anima(/animus) are collective parts of personality. persona and anima are basically opposites as persona relates to external world and anima is the inner personality(do note that typology according to jung is about psychological types, not personality types, even tho they have huge impact on personality, but personality is a bit wider concept).

"The inner personality(anima/animus) is the way one behaves in relation to one's inner psychic processes; it is the inner attitude, the characteristic face, that is turner towards the unconscious".
"The persona is thus a functional complex that comes into existence for reason of adaptation or personal convenience, but is by no means identical with the individuality. The persona is exclusively concerned with relation to objects".
"As to the character of anima, my experience confirms the rule that it is, by and large, complementary to the character of persona. The anima usually contains all those common human qualities that the conscious attitude lacks".
"The tyrant tormented by bad dreams, gloomy forebodings, and inner fears is a typical figure. Outwardly ruthless, harsh, and unapproachable, he jumps at every shadow, is at the mercy of every mood, as though he were the feeblest and most impressionable of men. Thus his anima contains all those fallible human qualities that his persona lacks. If the persona is intellectual, the anima will quite certainly be sentimental".
"The complementary character of anima also affects the sexual character, as i have proved to myself beyond a doubt. A very feminine woman has a masculine soul, and a very masculine man has a feminine soul. This contrast is due to the fact that a man is not in all things wholly masculine, but also has certain feminine traits. The more masculine his outer attitude is, the more feminine traits are obliterated: instead, they appear in his unconscious. This explains why those very virile men who are more subject to characteristic weaknesses; their attitude to the unconscious has a womanish weakness and impressionability"
"As to its common human qualities, the character of the anima can be deduced from that of the persona"(attention to all PUAs :D)
"For the same way as persona, the instrument of adaptation to environment, is strongly influenced by environmental conditions, the anima is shaped by the unconscious and its qualities".
"Identity with the persona automatically leads to an unconscious identity with the anima because, when the ego is not differentiated from the persona, it can have no conscious relation to unconscious processes."
"Anyone who is himself his outward role will infallibly succumb to the inner processes; he will either frustrate his outward role by absolute inner necessity or else reduce it to absurdity, by a process of enentiodromia"
(Psychological types, Definitions -Soul)

jung lexicon said:
Enantiodromia
Literally, "running counter to," referring to the emergence of the unconscious opposite in the course of time.


"This characteristic phenomenon practically always occurs when an extreme, one-sided tendency dominates conscious life; in time an equally powerful counterposition is built up, which first inhibits the conscious performance and subsequently breaks through the conscious control. ["Definitions," ibid., par. 709.]"

Enantiodromia is typically experienced in conjunction with symptoms associated with acute neurosis, and often foreshadows a rebirth of the personality.

"The grand plan on which the unconscious life of the psyche is constructed is so inaccessible to our understanding that we can never know what evil may not be necessary in order to produce good by enantiodromia, and what good may very possibly lead to evil."["The Phenomenology of the Spirit in Fairytales," CW 9i, par. 397.]

naturally there is more to these concepts
 

Eric B

ⒺⓉⒷ
Joined
Mar 29, 2008
Messages
3,621
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
548
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
As one person put it to me, "the anima is essentially the inner counterpart of the persona. Just as the persona sits between the ego and the social collective, moving a man to enact the masculine role that adapts him to the outer world, the anima sits between the ego and the unconscious, moving a man to feel his portion in nature itself -- everything he can't control and possess" [which then gets projected onto women. Vice versa for women's persona and animus, of course].
 

Istbkleta

New member
Joined
Jun 11, 2011
Messages
452
MBTI Type
ISFP
Enneagram
2
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
[MENTION=7595]INTP[/MENTION]

Thanks for the nice quotes.

I hope my butting in is not that rude.

I've been reading a couple of von Franz's publications (anima&some shadow in fairy tales).

And from what I gather the anima is both conscious and unconscious, thus establishing a bridge between the two (if I kind of sense the almost unconscious anima, I can learn from this experience to recognize my other functions, which should be fully unconscious).

I like Beebe's model but don't trust it too much.

I guess what I am trying to introduce into the discussion is:

1. Am I right to understand a "function-attitude" is a generalization of a set of somewhat common inner "requirements", e.g., Fi makes us sensitive to the requirements of our ethics, Ti to those of our need for truth, Fe for social harmony, etc.

Failure to feel these have been satisfied results in unpleasant feelings that propel people into attempting to satisfy those.

2. Thus it gets more and more challenging fulfilling the requirements of less integrated "functions".


If my understanding is somewhat correct, then is it correct to think that the usual attachment we all have to our Hero&Father (and the importance they have for what I perceive as "me") makes it impossible to integrate the anima. (EDIT: meaning decreasing the that attachment and dependence can help).

I am trying to improve my understanding.

The idea it's all about the 1st and 2nd functions makes me uneasy (sry Bologna).

EDIT2: I guess my train of thought resembles NF's on this, but I sense humility (accepting) is a key. It's so difficult to express things that are not T or to comprehend them.

von Franz talked about a lack of respect towards "It" by intellectuals, who don't comprehend the consequences of their lack of respect.

This discussion reminded me of this.
 

Rel

New member
Joined
Apr 22, 2012
Messages
18
From an INTP this makes perfect sense.


I've noticed that playing videogames, such as league of legends or star craft II, the best path towards success is to use the Se shadow function coupled with reacting on intuition. The most notable feeling, when I'm playing in the moment and proficiently, is that I'm not in control of my actions; it's as though I've turned into a cyberborg doing things I've never thought mechanically possible. The past has proven that this is a difficult state of mind to get myself into, but when I'm in it it's quite odd and definitely puts me leaps ahead of my peers
 

OrangeAppled

Sugar Hiccup
Joined
Mar 20, 2009
Messages
7,626
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
4w5
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
I think tertiary is a bit overrated around here. It seems like people like to ascribe more to that than the two dominant attitudes.

I agree with this, but then I think I've told you that before...

I think people sometimes overrate their tertiary as a way to distance themselves from an aux that doesn't have the rep that suits their ego. For example, the ISFP with high tert Ni - seems like someone insecure about being a sensing type, IMO.

Another problem is this idea that you USE a function, as well as the idea that there are 8 functions. There are FOUR functions, and 8 psychological types (or function+attitudes). You don't USE a function, you ARE that function. It is how you are oriented to consciousness. It is your EGO, how you see & experience yourself, others, the world, reality.

For example: When an IxFP uses logic, they are not "using Te", IMO. They are still of the Fi mindset. Inferior Te is when the person's mindset is upset by something which causes them to see the world differently, in a way opposed to their preferred way. It's not logical thinking then, but an upset in their own identity & view of reality. For me, I'm at my most unreasonable when "in the grip" of my inferior.

What I see happening in personality typology discussion is using the same labels for mindsets (which leads to the visible personality) and individual modes of thinking one may switch between (and yes, I do it too). No doubt there is some relation there (as Nardi seems to be bridging that gap, or attempting to), but they're really two different things. Many styles of thinking can be associated with Fi types (or whatever type), but a type itself is a way of experiencing reality (ie. in the case of Fi, through the filter of valuations made in relation to the individual's inner world).

Jung says something along the lines of other functions being undifferentiated, mixed up with each other, and also mixed with elements that don't "belong" (ie. such as emotions mixed with inferior feeling). I take other functions to mean anything besides the dominant & auxiliary. You will see things like sentimentality & paranoia mixed in with the tert & inferior because of this.

As for those shadow functions, socionics does present an interesting idea concerning the preferred functions in the opposite attitudes, an idea that makes sense to me. A person is mentally oriented a certain way, so that you could say they "prefer" a function-attitude. Let's say that function-attitude is Ne. The person prefers iNtuition, but they also prefer the extroverted attitude. They are capable of switching to the other attitude more readily than they are of being comfortable in their inferior function, but they don't really see a point in that view (possibly consciously & unconsciously).

Consider the below quote about the ENFp... I think the example is silly & the word "practical" is somewhat misapplied, but the idea of preferring to apply intuition to possible external realities instead of possible, personal internal interpretations seems to hold true. The Ne-dom is at ease with both, but will prefer the external view because that's where their focus is on - that's what's most REAL & therefore relevant to them. So in a sense, the N-doms will find iNtuition in the opposite attitude easy to "access", but may not be interested in doing so very much. You can call this Ni use or a Ne-Ji mimic of it, but it's not the mental shake-up that the inferior causes. It's non-threatening to the ego, which tends to mean it doesn't have a big influence on how the person appears, not like the dominant, aux & inferior do.

The tert & inferior are opposing to the ego though, which makes them more influential on the person's mind & personality (as the instability they cause can open up the way for positive or negative change). The gap left here is the opposite functions that are in the same attitude (ie. for an ENFP, Se & Ti). Are these just some of that undifferentiated crap mixed in with the inferior? IDK... This cake is only half-baked.

The IEE thoroughly understands discussions and arguments focused on following present trends into the future and their possible implications (Ni), as well as on exploring one specific imaginative vision of personal meaning (Ni), but he much prefers to explore many possibilities, starting from a present point in time and reality (Ne), rather than to concentrate on just a few specific visions or trends (Ni). He understands that the present moment may be changeable or not be as it seems, but refuses to think too much on the matter, choosing instead to keep a more practical view. To an IEE, the question "What if?" usually applies to something that the IEE can do to change his future, not some sort of alternate reality, such as "What if I bike instead of drive to work?" (Ne) as opposed to "What if gravity didn't exist?" (Ni).
 
S

Society

Guest
well, i thought about this the other day...

first of all let me define 'function' - a certain way our consciousness recieves information from our cognitive understanding of the situation. that is, if your functions are Ne, Ti, Fe, and Si, your mind lives in a world portrayed by those structures of information.

now, in this context, the main idea of the shadow functions is that when your under a state of stress - your subjective version of lacking clearity - the information from your main functions are less accessible to you and you end up getting your information from your least conscious and least developed functions.

if we'd have 8 functions, this would mean the 4 functions in the orientation you are not used to having.

but i think the same could be said that if the theory applied to us while have only our 4 functions, a state of mental stress leading us to lack 'clearity', a.k.a. the information we are used to getting, you would have to become reliant on your lesser judging function and lesser percieving function, which means we'd get an opposite order: if your an NT, with T>F and N>S, loosing clearity in your thinking process and intuitve process would leave you to function as an SF, if your an NF, you'd function as an ST.
likewise, if we apply jung's thesis to the 8 function theory - with 4 conscious functions and 4 subconscious functions - he specifically mentions that if your a feeler, your subconscious is a thinker, if your an intuitve, your subconscious would be a sensor. again, if one is lacking clearity and is acting with a lesser degree of consciousness, SFs function as NTs, STs function as NFs.

now, the remaining question can be asked in two forms:

1. we can ask whether we have 8 functions or 4, and we can ask that if we have 4, could stress switch their orientation.
2. we can ask whether we switch our main judgement/perception orientation (j/P) and our main introversion/extroversion orientation (I/E).

the first can be a fascinating debate about the nature of functions, and also a very meaningless one - all the theories would be self sustained based on various definitions. we can explore (and i probably will - the gods know my Ne needs some intellectual wanking), but we have very little to deduct or conclude with.
the second is easier, because we can have answers taken right from our collective experiences (our poor escuse of a test group :p ):

i know that when most of the introverts i have known are under mental distress, they go further into their shells, like wise, i know about myself, that under stress i go into communication overload - i need to get everything out so i can gain a little bit of clearity. i tend to become even more of a perciever and less goal oriented then otherwise, and most judgers seem to become even more extreme judgers. does this apply to all?

if so,, then we can conclude that regadless of the answers to the first question, we do maintain our main I/E orientation and our main J/P orientation in times of stress, which brings us to conclude that if we really do loose mental clearity in terms of our functions in times of distress, thus switching our two middle letters and maintaining the first and last, which would result in each function having its opposite orientation and opposite order.

ENTPs- Ne>Ti>Fe>Si
would function under distress as:
ESFPs- Se>Fi>Te>Ni

INFJs - Ni>Fe>Ti>Se
would function under distress as:
ISTJs - Si>Te>Fi>Ne

etc...

conclusion: the answer to question 1 - whether we have 8 functions or 4 functions, doesn't matter.

edit: or rather it can be answered indirectly - and we can conclude that since we maintian our I/E & J/P orientations but not our T/F & N/S orientations, we really do end up obtaining information from the opposite orientation (such as Fe instead of Fi), which means we are functioning as if we have 8 functions, or as if the functions switch orientation, suggesting that one of those is true (depending on the idea of loosing mental clearity under distress). i would further like to suggest that our indevidual sources of distress can be linked to our enneagram type.
 
Top