Hey there Valaki!
Hey
I am completely aware that models do not DETERMINE reality; I'm an IT Systems Analyst - I build all kinds of models all the time, I get it.
I actually didn't assume that you really thought they determine reality, but the wording you used seemed a bit dangerous regarding that and that's why I mentioned this.
However, models are frequently used to create REPRESENTATIONS of reality that are accurate to a degree acceptable by those using the model. Models also provide an opportunity for those using the model to have the benefits of (a) common language, (b) commonly defined relationships between the components of the model, and (d) commonly defined scope of the model's relevant range & applications, limitations and caveats.
My point? Common understanding of a given phenomena can often be achieved by building a model that is reasonably accurate, and that allows those studying the phenomena do so intelligibly and more accurately than if all parties used their own proprietary jargon for the components of the model, and non-standardized relationships between the model's components and the myriad of potentially applicable outcomes.
Again, my points are from my perspective - I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything, but I'd wager tha others have similar sentiments for their own reasons.
You don't need to convince anyone here, this is basic science 101
I'd just add that we don't even need to use science, our brains build models all the time... and then we have cognitive biases distorting the models and then consequently our viewing of reality may be distorted too. That's what I like to warn about a lot.
This statement is out of scope for this discussion. I don't recall models of anything controlling reality as a topic in this discussion. Poorly defined models, or adhoc hybridization of similar models in diffetent ways over time will lead to poor understanding of the core material under study, and confusing discussions based on the prevalence of the widespread lack of common understanding noted above. That's really all I'm pointing out here, at least that was my intent.
We are very much on the same page
We do agree then more than not, yes?
I never doubted this
Yes, your three solutions above all work to various degrees in preventing ambiguity/confusion. There are limitations though. Rarely does one theory provide all necessary information to solve a complex problem.
In such cases it might be necessary to use 2 or more models (provided their scopes, relevant ranges, and interaction effects between them are understood) - but that's basically a SWAG (Scientific Wild Ass Guess) and it's actually a bit scary how many big decisions that have far reaching implecations are decided by a SWAG.
Yes, that's why I said it's good to understand the differences between the models because in terms of personality theory just one model clearly doesn't cut it. I know though that a lot of people just go for the simplest solution - sticking with one model and ignoring the rest.
Finally, debating about minutiae on the the Internet is fun, and so we likely tolerate the inaccuracies discussed above here on TypC than we would ever tolerate in our careers or studies.
Yeah
Agreed, I simply like Enneagram the best of them all, as I said above these are my preferences.
I actually like Enneagram a lot myself but I can see some issues even there and that's exactly because I made myself familiar with the other models.
However, there's more to it than just definition. The ISTJ shadow is not going to explain the only avenue in which the shadow of an ESTP's is revealed. The inferior and tertiary functions also live in the shadows of the dominant function. Even further...the aux (if not developed properly or enough) could be a route to revealing the shadow.
That is, if we are talking about the entirety of the shadow of one person.
And not just the shadow of the personality type called ESTP.
There's more to shadows than just typology.
I think this makes a lot of sense.
And one of the ways that a shadow manifests itself, is by projection.
When someone says "I hate when Jack always has to get his way." that is typically a sign of projection. And we project our shadow to protect ourselves. We don't want to have that quality of always having to get our way, cause that would make us unlovable. So we project it on to others as if it's their problem.
The degree of how much you hate Jack for doing this....determines if it's a shadow, or how deep seeded the shadow is.
We project shadows all day everyday. It's practically unavoidable. We are not perfect.
I will have to observe myself more to see if I'm doing this much. With my dad, I've always been acutely aware of this, but I would have to watch it happening with other people.
Oh and as for the concrete example you used; I'm the type who always wants to get their way, I think inside my family they accepted me this way (?), outside quite a few people have not. I still don't mind having this quality, I just don't like some consequences sometimes. I also don't mind it about other people. At best it'll make us fight hard
So, apparently, the influence from people that happened later outside my family, isn't enough to make one push something down into the shadow? It usually happens when still a small kid?
I actually don't like my dual most of the time.
I have a lot of shadows dealing with ISFj's (socionics, ISFP's MBTI) that I'm working through atm.
I like socionics, but I never have related to the relationships aspect.
What's your type in Socionics? ENTj? What's there to love about Socionics ISFj's lol
A shadow is something you've suppressed usually. For example as I child I repressed the side of me that was bored, and the side of me that wanted everything in the store. This is because my impression of what my parents had about those characteristics....was unlovable. That is shame.
And now as I'm working through this shadow, I am realizing that there is no gd shame in wanting a candy bar in the store ha ha....
I still have problems with the word bored. I still find it to be shameful to be bored...but this is my own shadow.
I know there is nothing wrong with other people being bored. Most people accept this. I have not. So when other ppl say their bored I roll my eyes. That's an example of how I was influenced to think it was shameful. Know what I mean
Ah, heh, I'm now thinking it's not as simple as just parents not accepting some of your traits. I mean, when I wanted stuff in the store, I either got it or not, often not because we had no money back then, and when I was nagging my parents I'm pretty sure they didn't like it, I didn't get praise for it for sure. Still it didn't affect me so I suppose in general I was accepted the way I was. In your case, did you get outright punishment for these things?
And yeah I can affirm, absolutely no shame in wanting that candy bar
(Just don't get fat
)
In terms of not wanting to accept that stuff as part of my identity? So this kind of shame isn't necessarily directly motivated by external influence?
Actually I don't recall anyone at home punishing me in any way for being slow moving - guess I was never slow anyway
or for being withdrawn in my thoughts etc.
Could be. Like I said, it's so hard to tell cause I don't know you that well, and can't see you face to face...stuff like that. Shadows are pretty personal and cannot always be seen via typing to one another.
When you integrate your shadow, what's supposedly the result? Would it have any negative side effects?
depends on what your shadow is. There are light and dark shadows.
sorryz)
