User Tag List

123 Last

Results 1 to 10 of 66

  1. #1
    garbage
    Guest

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

    So, yeah. We've got dominant and auxiliary functions, which types are known for. Some folks like to drag in tertiary and inferior functions as well (often as an 'argument by my type knowing better than yours because you have inferior Fe, haw haw haw'; but I digress).

    What about those poor, poor shadow functions? Our perceptions of how those are supposed to play out are all over the place.

    Some regard, say, INTJs as not 'having' or 'using' Ti because they use Te instead--that they synthesize Ti with a combination of Te and Se (or something). Some claim that Ti for them would be in some 6th position that means something-or-other; I forget exactly.

    Others, like me, believe differently and invoke time-proven principles such as Occam's Razor and 'if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then we may as well call it a flippin' duck' and that, screw it, INTJs can and do 'use' Ti.

    So, when we talk orientations to different functions or treat functions as axes (e.g. SeNi axis versus SiNe axis), we may as well get a bunch of ideas out there and see which ones stick.

    Personally, I regard most of the function position talk as unnecessary and counterproductive. I'm of the belief that the fluff consists of any discussion past the dominant function, a smidgeon of auxiliary, and a mental note that we innately repress the opposite of the dominant. Defining function positions more rigidly lead us to describe complex mental phenomena with a structure composed largely of toothpicks and chewing gum--it might hold up as adequate for a 3rd grade science fair, but not for a proposal to a panel of keen psychologists.

    If we're to assign roles for all of the functions, I like the way Socionics does it. It actually acknowledges that all types 'access' all functions, even those that are counter to the types' egos.

    What say you?

  2. #2
    not to be trusted miss fortune's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Enneagram
    827 sp/so
    Posts
    20,121

    Default

    I'm still sticking to the idea that types are just people's ways of trying to corral people who use similar functions into definable groups because people feel more comfortable with people who they can label... the problem is that there's 8 different functions and nobody wants to deal with as many different types as it would take to describe the different combinations (like 40,000 or something), so it's narrowed down to 16 and fails to take into account that people most frequently DON'T use their functions in the same orders as the different types prescribe... in other words, saying that types use their functions in a specific ordering is just oversimplifying the complexity of human brains and processing manners

    I should quit trying to condense ideas into something that can be typed quickly for fear that the forum will die because that was probably ununderstandable
    “Oh, we're always alright. You remember that. We happen to other people.” -Terry Pratchett

  3. #3
    Senior Member Mal12345's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    MBTI
    IxTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ti
    Posts
    13,989

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bologna View Post
    So, yeah. We've got dominant and auxiliary functions, which types are known for. Some folks like to drag in tertiary and inferior functions as well (often as an 'argument by my type knowing better than yours because you have inferior Fe, haw haw haw'; but I digress).

    What about those poor, poor shadow functions? Our perceptions of how those are supposed to play out are all over the place.

    Some regard, say, INTJs as not 'having' or 'using' Ti because they use Te instead--that they synthesize Ti with a combination of Te and Se (or something). Some claim that Ti for them would be in some 6th position that means something-or-other; I forget exactly.

    Others, like me, believe differently and invoke time-proven principles such as Occam's Razor and 'if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then we may as well call it a flippin' duck' and that, screw it, INTJs can and do 'use' Ti.

    So, when we talk orientations to different functions or treat functions as axes (e.g. SeNi axis versus SiNe axis), we may as well get a bunch of ideas out there and see which ones stick.

    Personally, I regard most of the function position talk as unnecessary and counterproductive. I'm of the belief that the fluff consists of any discussion past the dominant function, a smidgeon of auxiliary, and a mental note that we innately repress the opposite of the dominant. Defining function positions more rigidly lead us to describe complex mental phenomena with a structure composed largely of toothpicks and chewing gum--it might hold up as adequate for a 3rd grade science fair, but not for a proposal to a panel of keen psychologists.

    If we're to assign roles for all of the functions, I like the way Socionics does it. It actually acknowledges that all types 'access' all functions, even those that are counter to the types' egos.

    What say you?
    You are free to report such typism with the "report post" button. I believe that the admin here have been trying to get this under control lately and that your complaint will be taken seriously. It is the height of douchebaggery for anybody to do this to someone. But you can't get rid of function analysis as there are too many here who take it seriously.
    "Everyone has a plan till they get punched in the mouth." Mike Tyson
    “Culture?” says Paul McCartney. “This isn't culture. It's just a good laugh.”

  4. #4
    not to be trusted miss fortune's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Enneagram
    827 sp/so
    Posts
    20,121

    Default

    furthermore, would it be that types are functions instead of that they use them... and are there really types anyways?



    ... wait... that idea could piss a lot of people off! I LIKE it!
    “Oh, we're always alright. You remember that. We happen to other people.” -Terry Pratchett

  5. #5
    garbage
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by whatever View Post
    I'm still sticking to the idea that types are just people's ways of trying to corral people who use similar functions into definable groups because people feel more comfortable with people who they can label... the problem is that there's 8 different functions and nobody wants to deal with as many different types as it would take to describe the different combinations (like 40,000 or something), so it's narrowed down to 16 and fails to take into account that people most frequently DON'T use their functions in the same orders as the different types prescribe... in other words, saying that types use their functions in a specific ordering is just oversimplifying the complexity of human brains and processing manners
    We love to come up with explanations for things. Sometimes, those explanations are universal and generalizable. Often, they're not. Less often, but still frequently, they're flat out silly when we share them with the real world and treat them as absolutes; they're more useful as nebulous constructs in our heads.

    I should quit trying to condense ideas into something that can be typed quickly for fear that the forum will die because that was probably ununderstandable
    I have a potential solution to this.

    Quote Originally Posted by mal12345 View Post
    You are free to report such typism with the "report post" button. I believe that the admin here have been trying to get this under control lately and that your complaint will be taken seriously. It is the height of douchebaggery for anybody to do this to someone.
    Hahaha, I'm totally just going to start doing this.

    But you can't get rid of function analysis as there are too many here who take it seriously.
    Yeah. There's some merit to the theory. For me, it's a matter of exploring how much merit there actually is.

    At least, I think classifying into thinking and feeling, sensing and feeling, and each of those into introverted and extraverted components is a neat way of looking at cognitive processing--and, for many purposes, it can even be said to be comprehensive.

    That idea has merit. Many extensions of that idea (though not all), possibly including tertiary and inferior functions, do not. Notions of what to do about 'shadow functions' are all over the place and lack merit the most, in my view, and the fact that they are contentious raises questions about the tertiary and inferior.

    Quote Originally Posted by whatever View Post
    furthermore, would it be that types are functions instead of that they use them... and are there really types anyways?



    ... wait... that idea could piss a lot of people off! I LIKE it!
    I made the argument in another thread that Jung himself describes e.g. "The Extraverted Intuitive" rather than "The Extraverted Intuition function" and we may want to look at people rather than functions, but then it turned into like a three page argument about a single word so I gave up.

    I like ideas that 'piss people off' regarding type. It shakes up our complacency and keeps us fresh.

  6. #6
    royal member Rasofy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    5,933

    Default

    I've been thinking about that lately. I reject the shadow functions theory. I don't think people need to be stressed to access their shadow functions. I believe they are there all the time, but one usually stands out - and the other tends to be overshadowed.


    I have this theory:


    Roughly,
    what we call ''Si'' is actually something like 75% Si 25% Se
    what we call ''Ti'' is actually something like 75% Ti 25% Te
    etc.
    This way, it is not unlikely that an INTP(Ti-dom) could use more Te than an ENFP(Tert-Te).
    An INTJ could use more Ti than an ENFJ.
    -----------------

    A man builds. A parasite asks 'Where is my share?'
    A man creates. A parasite says, 'What will the neighbors think?'
    A man invents. A parasite says, 'Watch out, or you might tread on the toes of God... '


    -----------------

  7. #7
    not to be trusted miss fortune's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Enneagram
    827 sp/so
    Posts
    20,121

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bologna View Post
    We love to come up with explanations for things. Sometimes, those explanations are universal and generalizable. Often, they're not. Less often, but still frequently, they're flat out dumb.
    like lies to children... only the problem is that everyone stops on the bottom rung and refuses to explore any further


    yes... I do know how to save them, but it still pisses me off to get that stupid "not found" screen nonetheless

    I made the argument in another thread that Jung himself describes e.g. "The Extraverted Intuitive" rather than "The Extraverted Intuition function" and we may want to look at people rather than functions, but then it turned into like a three page argument about a single word so I gave up.
    people enjoy arguing over single words WAY too much... watching this forum is like watching religious sects form

    I like ideas that 'piss people off' regarding type. It shakes up our complacency and keeps us fresh.
    I will have to check that out... new ideas are like new toys... possibly toy dinosaurs or pterodragons
    “Oh, we're always alright. You remember that. We happen to other people.” -Terry Pratchett

  8. #8
    Ginkgo
    Guest

    Default

    I cannot deny the "use" of shadow functions because their presence is just as evident in the expression of their dominant function as their dominant is. I see it, even in the descriptions of the functions themselves. The whole "preference" term severely detracts from the actual essence of what the functions are, and suggests that any single one "likes" being in the position it's in.

  9. #9
    Senior Member INTP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    MBTI
    intp
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx
    Posts
    7,823

    Default

    Introverted functions start from subjective aspect, can wander around on objective aspects also, but lead back to subjective one.

    Extraverted functions start from objective aspect, can wander around on subjective aspects also, but lead back to objective one.

    When functions are working together, for example Fe leading Ti. It starts from objective factor of F, but does so unconsciously, lead to subjective factor of T, go back to objective factor of F and back to subjective factor of T.
    So its Fe(external world) -> Ti/Fe(internal world) -> Fe/Ti(external world) -> Ti(internal world).

    So even tho Fe goes to internal world, its not Fi, because it starts and leads back to objective world.
    "Where wisdom reigns, there is no conflict between thinking and feeling."
    — C.G. Jung

    Read

  10. #10
    Lay the coin on my tongue SilkRoad's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sp/sx
    Posts
    3,939

    Default

    The idea that we're actually accessing all the functions will certainly be a problem for the "I hate, loathe and despise Fe - it is a vile piece of slime on the face of the universe" squad!
    Female
    INFJ
    Enneagram 6w5 sp/sx


    I DOORSLAMMING

Similar Threads

  1. what do you guys think of the theory of shadow functions coming foward during stress?
    By chado in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 03-04-2017, 05:26 AM
  2. The Role of Shadow Functions in MBTi Type
    By MerkW in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 11-03-2010, 11:26 PM
  3. What are the uses of technology?
    By yenom in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 03-18-2009, 03:39 AM
  4. What's the MBTI of..
    By Alfa Prime in forum Popular Culture and Type
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 11-06-2007, 08:59 PM
  5. What is the point of the MBTI?
    By Dufresne in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 05-31-2007, 04:37 AM

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