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

[JocktheMotie]

I sort of like how Socionics handles all 8, from a general point of view. I've found that with the 4 opposing attitudes people sort of have an unconscious fidelity with the opposite attitudes of their dom/aux as well as comparable frustration/aspiration with the opposite attitudes of their tertiaries and inferiors. Such a structure makes sense to me based on my own introspection and I think also offers a more accurate description of a person's psyche.

It's one of the reasons why the whole, INTP-INTJ miscommunication "problem" has never really made much sense to me, as I find Ni-Te cognition perfectly easy enough to understand, even though I don't think that way, because the concerns are ultimately more similar to my dominant concerns than someone whose cognition is largely dominated by Si-Fe or Se-Fi.

These are really just my own thoughts with no link to anything written on the subject however, so use them how you will.

 

[Eric B]

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 ):

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).

It's not really about "switching" functions or I/E, J/P, etc. You always maintain your preferences, and they don't begin "switching" to the other functions when they come up like that under stress. Precisely because they are not preferred, and not your natural orientation, that's why they are coming out like that to begin with.
It's really not even about "using" anything, or behavior (Though that does surface in one way or another).

Undifferentiated functions are tied to the limbic system of emotions and reactions, and the different complexes (set up by the ego structure) become associated with the different perspectives of every situation represented by the functions. So the "other four" are tied to more negative complexes (which involve "emotionally freighted images" of feelings like negation, obstruction, or destruction), and thus, that is how those functions will often come off, when the complex is constellated by a stressful situation.

When speaking of the eight function-attitudes in a type, we must think in terms of the complexes. For that is the key to that theory, and it was almost impossible to make any sense of it otherwise.

As for whether there are eight, or four, that's what I addressed earlier:

I now also go along with 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).
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.

 

[Society]

It's not really about "switching" functions or I/E, J/P, etc. You always maintain your preferences, and they don't begin "switching" to the other functions when they come up like that under stress. Precisely because they are not preferred, and not your natural orientation, that's why they are coming out like that to begin with.
It's really not even about "using" anything, or behavior (Though that does surface in one way or another).

Undifferentiated functions are tied to the limbic system of emotions and reactions, and the different complexes (set up by the ego structure) become associated with the different perspectives of every situation represented by the functions. So the "other four" are tied to more negative complexes (which involve "emotionally freighted images" of feelings like negation, obstruction, or destruction), and thus, that is how those functions will often come off, when the complex is constellated by a stressful situation.

When speaking of the eight function-attitudes in a type, we must think in terms of the complexes. For that is the key to that theory, and it was almost impossible to make any sense of it otherwise.

As for whether there are eight, or four, that's what I addressed earlier:

i see what your saying (i think), but think we are saying the same thing from opposite directions, and i don't think it matters for the shadow function theory to hold: the only basic assumption needed for it to work is that we loose mental clarity when we are under deep states of distress. its an assumption i think most people having experienced deep states of distress throughout their lives would find it difficult to deny, and as such there's very little point in arguing that this is the case, a.k.a. explaining gravity can be fascinating, but we are all already in agreement that apples have being falling.

and from that point on - understanding that we loose touch with our dominant forms of cognitive processing and downwards, we can conclude that the forms of processing that would be availble to us are in the opposite order:
i'm an intuitve, but if my intuition is blocked, i will have to relay on my sensing for percieving.
i'm a thinker, but if my thinking is blocked, i will have to relay on my feeling for my judging.

given that, and given that we "know" (anecdotally, for now) that we maintain and/or go to further down an extreme on our introverted/extroverted and perceiving/judging functions even when under distess, the result would naturally bring out the opposite orientation of each function.

in other words, we know that if your an NT you would be processing information as an SF, and we know that if your an ExxP you would still be processing information as an ExxP, so we can conclude that an ENTP shadow is an ESFP. this switch will always bring the mirror orientation of each function in an opposite order.

now, whether the lose of clarity stems from an association to inner complexes, or any other hypothetical answer to why we loose clarity when we are under stress, would be both unknowable and irrelevant.

 

[Eric B]

i see what your saying (i think), but think we are saying the same thing from opposite directions,

I wasn't disputing, and pretty much agree with what you said; I was just clarifying what I understood as a question as to whether we "switched" or still maintained our preferences when in stress mode.

 

[Society]

I wasn't disputing, and pretty much agree with what you said; I was just clarifying what I understood as a question as to whether we "switched" or still maintained our preferences when in stress mode.

o... you where agreeing and going from the different direction, sorry i guess i saw a misunderstanding that wasn't there.

going back: why do you think the lack of clarity is derived from negative complexes regarding our undeveloped functions? you seem to suggest that the lack of clarity isn't the dysfunction of the core functions leaving us (or leading us) with the shadow function, but an overtaking by the shadow functions. care to explain further?

 

[Eric B]

I myself haven't completely squared away the whole thing about "overtaking", or whether you stop "using" one function when you "use" the other. I don't think it works as "mechanically" as that. Hence, I've for a while been trying to get away from the whole concept of "using"; as if the functions are concrete "things" like gears where you shift from one to the other.
That's what needs to be clarified. So it's probably a matter of finding better ways of expressing these things.

The way I see it is that the functional perspectives are implicit in the data itself; in each event or circumstance we experience (not in the ego), and the ego and its complexes divide/separate it out, paying more attention to one or the other. So sometimes we pay attention to some things, and other times (including stress) we pay attention to other things.