User Tag List

Results 1 to 7 of 7

  1. #1
    Senior Member Opal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    1,454

    Default Developing Shadow Functions: Pointless?



    Do you agree?

    (Apologies if this thread already exists--I did a shallow search for "shadow functions" and came up dry)

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    136

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by solipsists View Post


    Do you agree?

    (Apologies if this thread already exists--I did a shallow search for "shadow functions" and came up dry)
    I'm against it just because he's so confident about his convictions. What if it turns out in ten years that he changes his mind. Would he apologize for having mislead the youth? I doubt it. :-)

  3. #3
    Senior Member Opal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    1,454

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Geonat View Post
    I'm against it just because he's so confident about his convictions. What if it turns out in ten years that he changes his mind. Would he apologize for having mislead the youth? I doubt it. :-)
    Haha, I find conviction discouraging as well. My dilemma for much of my life has been whether to specialize or seek to round myself out intellectually. I've mostly gone with the latter, but at times the former is very appealing.

  4. #4
    Senior Member Alea_iacta_est's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Socionics
    ILI
    Posts
    1,838

    Default

    Developing shadow functions proves to be something that is ultimately useless to the self.

    Socionics, for instance, incorporates the Shadow Functions into the Super-Ego and the Id Block.

    The Super-Ego block is extremely loathed and thought of as one's characterizing flaws (mainly the PoLR, which is practically a blindspot for sociotypes)

    The Id block is deemed tedious and unnecessary, to the point where its existence nags the sociotype by forcing him/her to do work for those functions that they do not particularly find helpful.

    Therefore, assuming that the two models are equally translatable, developing the shadow functions will only lead to personal misery in the form of embarrassment and self-loathing (Super-Ego) or doing something that is tedious, boring, and vapid (Id).

    Also, the Beebe model shows how nasty shadow functions can be, such as the trickster function (Socionics equivalent = PoLR), which is seen as the evil that ensnares the individual into playing its little games and losing and even projecting one's complete failure to use the function onto others.

    Socionics specifically says that to be happy, one must stick to one's own guns in the Ego block, and find one's dual to satisfy the unconscious desires of the Super-Id block.

    JCF specifically says that to be happy, one must develop one's lower functions and learn from them, usually citing the inferior function as one of profound wisdom and transforming nature when expressed positively (juxtaposing the insidious evil of the Demonic Personality Complex when expressed negatively, corresponding to Socionics's Role Function, that which suppresses the Hero (Lead/Dominant)).

    The only shadow function that could be considered as relatively useful is the Demonstrative Function of Socionics or the Witch/Senex function of JCF, due to its unconscious affect on one's own worldview and, specifically in Socionics, provides the user with a way to protect one's dual's PoLR from others (as one dual's PoLR is the other's Demonstrative), meaning that the sociotype can defend its dual from harsh criticism with relatively strong force against Ego-valuing types of the Demonstrative function.

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    136

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alea_iacta_est View Post
    Developing shadow functions proves to be something that is ultimately useless to the self.
    Could it be useful to someone else than the self? (Trying to save what is possible of a 20 year career in engineering if it turns out than I'm an INFP :-) )

  6. #6
    Senior Member Alea_iacta_est's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Socionics
    ILI
    Posts
    1,838

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Geonat View Post
    Could it be useful to someone else than the self? (Trying to save what is possible of a 20 year career in engineering if it turns out than I'm an INFP :-) )
    Cognitive functions can't tell you what you'll be good at or what your career should be, they tell you how you function, psychologically. Each type can complete any task, but they do them in different ways. INTJs and ENTPs, for instance, almost always reach the same conclusions, but reach them in utterly different ways (Socionics calls the intertype relation between INTps and ENTps contrary, due to the backwardness perceived in the others' work).

    While I'm sure T would definitely favor over F in a technical field, its so slight it doesn't matter.

    Now, the people you will probably be working with will be a majority of INTPs, INTJs, ISTJs, and possibly some ENTJs, so you might seem to function differently from them in the workplace simply because your functional stack is different.

    As in regards to helping someone else, developing the Trickster and/or the Role function, though incredibly tedious and unappetizing, would please your supervisor type (in case of INFP/INFj, supervisor is ESFP/ESFp). The development of the demonstrative function is completely unconscious usually, but would be to the benefit of being able to protect your dual's (ESTj) PoLR. Developing the ignoring/anti-hero function would be tricky, due to its unconscious nature and conflict with the hero/lead.

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    136

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alea_iacta_est View Post
    Cognitive functions can't tell you what you'll be good at or what your career should be, they tell you how you function, psychologically. Each type can complete any task, but they do them in different ways. INTJs and ENTPs, for instance, almost always reach the same answers, but reach them in utterly different ways (Socionics calls the intertype relation between INTps and ENTps contrary, due to the backwardness perceived in the others' work).

    While I'm sure T would definitely favor over F in a technical field, its so slight it doesn't matter.

    Now, the people you will probably be working with will be a majority of INTPs, INTJs, ISTJs, and possibly some ENTJs, so you might seem to function differently from them in the workplace simply because your functional stack is different.
    Thank you for this quick and succinct reply. The 20 years mentioned above have already passed (5 yrs eng phys, 4 yrs eng consulting, 5 yrs phd, 6 yrs eng consulting - and yes a lot of xNTx but with very few exceptions always a very pleasant group of people to be with. This could be important for my future. Perhaps about time to look at HR in that case?

Similar Threads

  1. Are Tertiary/Inferior or Shadow Functions generally less developed?
    By RaptorWizard in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 03-13-2013, 12:19 PM
  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. Activities For Developing Shadow Functions
    By jackandthebeast in forum What's my Type?
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 07-21-2009, 02:24 AM
  4. Development of functions
    By raz in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 11-17-2008, 03:47 AM
  5. Shadow function prioritization: a model
    By narticus in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 03-11-2008, 01:23 PM

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