Archetypes of the Functions

[Eric B]

Here I have found a two part Beebe article that seems to be the best yet in terms of understanding his whole framework:

http://www.ccc-apt.org/system/files/...+The+Spine.pdf
http://www.ccc-apt.org/system/files/...+The+Arms+.pdf

It focuses on the spine and arms. Earlier I had mentioned the difficulty of distinguishing the pairs of archetypes in places 3/4, 5/6, and 7/8. It seems the spine and arm are the missing key to this. The spine is specifically described as dealing with our own selves, while the arms deal with our relation to others. The parental "right" arm deals with how we reach out to others, and the child-like left "arm" deals with how we want them to reach out to us.

the tertiary function... is like an eternal child, who needs the admiration, approval, strength and guidance of at least one other person to be able to operate well.
The auxiliary function parent and the tertiary function child are complements, not just within the psyche, where they share a common axis of personality, but between people. Within the individual psyche they operate like the arms of consciousness because they are used, more or less consciously, to support and be supported by others, and thus define the ways in which we use our consciousnesses to reach out to others. They provide a kind of balance to the spine of consciousness (superior and inferior function), which in defining our identity concerns itself more with what we can be or do in and for ourselves.

The two axes, the spine and the arms, can be considered, respectively, the axis of our relation to self, and the axis of our relations to others.

Some others mention the spine/arm concept, but I don't remember them being this specific. (The parent was the one said to be how we are helpful to others).

So I would still suggest this being filtered through the idea of the archetypes as complexes, and unpreferred functions otherwise remaining undifferentiated.

Lenore Thomson has also now put up her responses to me on Personality Pathways. I had been sparing in quoting her before as to not relay anything incorrectly, or reveal any info she may have not published herself yet. (The book may not have covered some of this stuff. At least the wiki on the book doesn't seem to reflect it). But now you can get the whole deal yourself:

Carl Jung Psychological Orientation | Lenore Thomson Bentz
Temperament Theory & Carl Jung Types | Lenore Thomson Bentz
John Beebe Archetypes | Lenore Thomson Bentz

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

Here I have found a two part Beebe article that seems to be the best yet in terms of understanding his whole framework:

http://www.ccc-apt.org/system/files/...+The+Spine.pdf
http://www.ccc-apt.org/system/files/...+The+Arms+.pdf

It focuses on the spine and arms. Earlier I had mentioned the difficulty of distinguishing the pairs of archetypes in places 3/4, 5/6, and 7/8. It seems the spine and arm are the missing key to this. The spine is specifically described as dealing with our own selves, while the arms deal with our relation to others. The parental "right" arm deals with how we reach out to others, and the child-like left "arm" deals with how we want them to reach out to us.


Some others mention the spine/arm concept, but I don't remember them being this specific. (The parent was the one said to be how we are helpful to others).

So I would still suggest this being filtered through the idea of the archetypes as complexes, and unpreferred functions otherwise remaining undifferentiated.

Lenore Thomson has also now put up her responses to me on Personality Pathways. I had been sparing in quoting her before as to not relay anything incorrectly, or reveal any info she may have not published herself yet. (The book may not have covered some of this stuff. At least the wiki on the book doesn't seem to reflect it). But now you can get the whole deal yourself:

Carl Jung Psychological Orientation | Lenore Thomson Bentz
Temperament Theory & Carl Jung Types | Lenore Thomson Bentz
John Beebe Archetypes | Lenore Thomson Bentz

very interesting, eric b. you have spent a lot of time figuring this stuff out.

i followed much of what you said, but as i am applying it to myself i had a couple questions, and i thought i'd run them by you. if you have time, i'd love your feedback. if not, i understand.

so, i know i prefer intuition and feeling. that's easy.

i'm SURE i prefer Ni over Ne. that's pretty easy too.

but i'm not sure about Fi and Fe. lately, i've been thinking i prefer Fi. and thinking back to college, i think i was more Fi. how possible/probable is it that i could be: Ni, Fi, Fe, Ne (which is how i feel).?

if it is possible, i think i would have grown to prefer Fi in my childhood because i didn't have a lot of personal familial interest in me (i.e. i sort-of took care of myself and lived with my alchoholic, yet loving, father) and had few friends until around the age of 13. or maybe i really am more Fe because i had to keep an eye on my dad to see how things were going to go (sorta hypervigilant to moods). i don't mean to get personal, but this stuff IS personal, isn't it?

anyway. i will feel so relieved to figure this $*** out! i feel i am infj, but i have a different flavor to my relating and when others question my type (which i respect), i want to have a logical explanation, for myself and others.

[Eric B]

Well I guess it's sure that you're an introvert. so according to what I had said before, the next thing to do would be to figure out what your dominant is. Whatever it is would automatically be introverted. The the two you've mentioned are both introverted. So then you have to determine whether the dominant is iNtuition or Feeling. If N, then auxiliary Feeling is extraverted, and whatever you are reading as Fi and Ne could either be a misunderstanding, or a shadow, or as I've been saying; just undifferentiated functions unconsciously engaged. That's why I have been pushing "undifferentiation" so much. Because it's another variable that can explain such "out of preference" anomalies as this instead of forcing the function into one position or another.

So if your dominant if F, then it is introverted, and iNtuition is extraverted, and Ni and Fe are shadow or undifferentiated.

I would say you seem like you could be INFP, but then I don't know you that much, and you've always had "infj" for as long as I remember, and I never had any reason to question it. From what you're describing above, it sounds more like INFJ, and the Fi is something you're really not sure of. That would make some sense in this new way of looking at it. The ego would really be Ni, and everythign else is rejected into the unconscious at first. Then, the ego will chose Feeling (notice, no "e/i" yet), but it will be aligned with the rejected "external" orientation. So what happens is that we end up making too much of "function attitude". But there are really only four functions, and the "attitude" or orientation is held by the ego, with one accepted, and the other rejected, and the four functions being placed into those realms, differentiating the eight "processes" as they come up under eight corresponding complexes.
Here's the diagram where I tried to illustrate this:

So what you're describing as "Fi" might just be apart of "Feeling" in general, and it was affected by the situations. Or the other explanations: shadow triggered by a complex ("critical parent" or "witch" for an INFJ), or just undifferentiated and unconscious.

So do "quick flashes" of insight play a "heroic" role for you? That would indicate Ni as dominant ego function. Or is it personal evaluation of things as good or bad. Not what comes up under circumstances years ago, or whatever, but it would have to be the "ego achiever", it is described as.

Also, I see you have RCOAI there, and that corresponds to INFJ.

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

. If N, then auxiliary Feeling is extraverted,

i guess i just don't get why this has to be so. why does the aux have to be in the different attitude of the dom?

and whatever you are reading as Fi and Ne could either be a misunderstanding, or a shadow, or as I've been saying; just undifferentiated functions unconsciously engaged. That's why I have been pushing "undifferentiation" so much. Because it's another variable that can explain such "out of preference" anomalies as this instead of forcing the function into one position or another.

i distinctely remember telling someone when i was 18 that i liked looking for symmetry and patterns in my environment. i didn't know then that was Ne. how can something i've been using for 20+ years be undifferentiated?

So if your dominant if F, then it is introverted, and iNtuition is extraverted, and Ni and Fe are shadow or undifferentiated.

I would say you seem like you could be INFP, but then I don't know you that much, and you've always had "infj" for as long as I remember, and I never had any reason to question it. From what you're describing above, it sounds more like INFJ, and the Fi is something you're really not sure of. That would make some sense in this new way of looking at it. The ego would really be Ni, and everythign else is rejected into the unconscious at first. Then, the ego will chose Feeling (notice, no "e/i" yet), but it will be aligned with the rejected "external" orientation. So what happens is that we end up making too much of "function attitude". But there are really only four functions, and the "attitude" or orientation is held by the ego, with one accepted, and the other rejected, and the four functions being placed into those realms, differentiating the eight "processes" as they come up under eight corresponding complexes.
Here's the diagram where I tried to illustrate this:

So what you're describing as "Fi" might just be apart of "Feeling" in general, and it was affected by the situations. Or the other explanations: shadow triggered by a complex ("critical parent" or "witch" for an INFJ), or just undifferentiated and unconscious.

nice diagram!

i just don't remember using Fe when i was a teenager. i'm sure i did, but since i've come to mbti later in life (vs as a kid), i wasn't conscious of it so much. i def am conscious of Fi and have memories of using Fi--having strong beliefs about animal acitivism when i was young, for example. but since i didn't interact too much with people, i don't have as many extraverted attitude experiences to remember. if i was a forced introvert (natural introvert ++), i'm not sure how i would have had opportunity to develop an extraverted 'parent' function.

also, perhaps since i have consciousness of Ne and Fi, that is reflective of using them more consciously, i.e. as more complimentary and not primary.

So do "quick flashes" of insight play a "heroic" role for you? That would indicate Ni as dominant ego function. Or is it personal evaluation of things as good or bad. Not what comes up under circumstances years ago, or whatever, but it would have to be the "ego achiever", it is described as.

yes. more Ni--a knowing what is right (for me) intrinsically than a conscious process of feeling (Fi) what is right, although i do that too.

Also, I see you have RCOAI there, and that corresponds to INFJ.

i just don't feel comfortable writing this: Ni, Fe, Te, Si, Ne, Fi, Ti, Se when i clearly prefer both attitudes of N and F over T and S. if anything is undifferentiated, it would be my T and S.

but i am probably missing a lot of your theory. again, i am a slow learner and need to really roll every facet of a theory around in my mind before i embrace it.

[Eric B]

i guess i just don't get why this has to be so. why does the aux have to be in the different attitude of the dom?

This is what the diagram was trying to portray.
I didn't really know much about the original Jungian conception until Lenore Thomson explained it to me recently. But the way it goes is that when the ego chooses a function and dominant orientation, everything else is rejected into the unconscious. So if you chose introversion and Feeling, then extraversion and T, S and N are initially rejected. Hence, in Jung's less developed model, the tertiary bore the same attitude as the auxiliary and inferior. For INFJ, it would be Ni-Fe-Te-Se. Now what about the "opposites" of those? Well, when you keep in mind that there originally were really only four functions, and "attitude" or "orientation" is held by the ego and not the functions, then you understand why the function lineup was like that. The main ego function is Ni, but the rest are rejected.

Yet, the ego will also choose an auxiliary, which will be the next in line, which would be Feeling, in that extraverted orientation.
What later theorists realized is that the tertiary will seem to be oriented with the dominant attitude. What Lenore suggests is that the archetypes Beebe uses (with tertiary as "eternal child") are complexes that employ the various functions according to the archetypal role.
So an INFJ will have a "child" complex that will align the Thinking with the domnant attitude, and thus differentiate it from the rejected extraverted unconsiousness. Lenore (or at least the Ben Kovitz wiki on her) calls this the "Tertiary Temptation". The Child represents vulnerability and when the dominant cannot handle a situation, and the auxiliary pulls you into the rejected opposite orientation, the tertiary will "provide an excuse to remain in the dominant attitude".

The way this played out for me is that I grew up in a very nice, peaceable atmosphere, but then the neighborhood changed, my family situation became more difficult, adapting with people became harder, etc. I had already developed a model of how the world worked (based largely on technical THINGS such as places, events, etc), but now this was being turned upside down. I could not figure it out, and had a very hard time adapting. The [extraverted] auxiliary function, in the "parent" role, says to accept change and explore all the possibilities outside my little world. However, the child complex then takes Sensing and orients it inward like the dominant. So now, I childishly find relief reliving the past through the nostalgia of various sights and sounds (places, music, TV, people) from the past. I constantly wish that all of this stuff would go back to the way it was when I was younger.

i distinctely remember telling someone when i was 18 that i liked looking for symmetry and patterns in my environment. i didn't know then that was Ne. how can something i've been using for 20+ years be undifferentiated?

Because undifferentiation is a state of a function when not engaged by a complex. So you were probably experiencing it as a complex. Patterns are associated with N, though I think of symmetry as more the domain of Ti. If you're looking for these things (and not simply taking them in as they come), that sounds really more like rational judgment (T) than irrational perception. So are you sure this was not an engagement of Ti by the Puella complex?

nice diagram!

Thanks!

i just don't remember using Fe when i was a teenager. i'm sure i did, but since i've come to mbti later in life (vs as a kid), i wasn't conscious of it so much. i def am conscious of Fi and have memories of using Fi--having strong beliefs about animal acitivism when i was young, for example. but since i didn't interact too much with people, i don't have as many extraverted attitude experiences to remember. if i was a forced introvert (natural introvert ++), i'm not sure how i would have had opportunity to develop an extraverted 'parent' function.

also, perhaps since i have consciousness of Ne and Fi, that is reflective of using them more consciously, i.e. as more complimentary and not primary.

Sometimes the distinctions of the functions attitudes becomes very unclear regarding characteristic descriptions like those, and someone like Lenore understandably regards stuff like that (including for temperament and type as well) as largely stereotype. Animal activism is definitely F, and it is usually connected with universal values, which are associated with Fi, but I imagine an Fe type could have beliefs about it as well. Was this a universal value that you had a personal "gut feeling" about? Was it something you adopted from following others? (which might then be Fe). Was it something that may have developed under stress? Like if someone offended your "parental" Fe sensibilities, and then its "shadow", Fi, in a critical parent complex, then rose up to stop other people (like cruelty to animals). This stuff is complicated because there are all these variables and possible angles to consider.

yes. more Ni--a knowing what is right (for me) intrinsically than a conscious process of feeling (Fi) what is right, although i do that too.

I take it the emphasis is on "knowing", there. Ni is perception and Fi is judgment, so the way your using the word "feeling" sounds more like it is apart of perception. Fii would be more about making decisions based on your feelings, not just the "feeling" of what is right in itself.

i just don't feel comfortable writing this: Ni, Fe, Te, Si, Ne, Fi, Ti, Se when i clearly prefer both attitudes of N and F over T and S. if anything is undifferentiated, it would be my T and S.

Yes, as I have described above, the "function attitudes" are really not all that separate as many make them. So you're an introvert who chooses N and F, and yes, T and S will be undifferentiated. I believe part of "undifferentation" for Ne and Fi is that they shadow the preferred Ni and Fe. "Shadow" indicates that they're not really so different from what they are shadowing. It's the same basic shape of the same thing. They are just rejected orientations for the two functions. So yes, a lot of behavior you describe might fit into the "characterizations" of Fi and Ne. But your type is determined by being an introvert, whose dominant is iNtuition, and auxiliary is Feeling (notice, no "e/i"). This is what helped me settle on my type.

In fact, over on INTPc, Jack Flak (known over there as "Technical") has put together a system like this. Basically, what we call an "extraverted" function, he calls "dominant", and the type is only I/E, plus the dominant and auxiliary, with no "function attitudes" or other six functions at all! It is much simpler, though I don't like the idea of totally throwing out the eight-process model.
So INFJ would be simply "dominant Feeling with iNtuition". Now that sounds like what you are describing for yourself. So maybe that idea would be of help.

So that eight-process order you listed is really an order of complexes; not strengths!! Nobody's strength order ever comes out in exactly that order, apparently.

but i am probably missing a lot of your theory. again, i am a slow learner and need to really roll every facet of a theory around in my mind before i embrace it.

And that sounds just like an INFJ's tertiary Ti.

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

This is what the diagram was trying to portray.
I didn't really know much about the original Jungian conception until Lenore Thomson explained it to me recently. But the way it goes is that when the ego chooses a function and dominant orientation, everything else is rejected into the unconscious. So if you chose introversion and Feeling, then extraversion and T, S and N are initially rejected. Hence, in Jung's less developed model, the tertiary bore the same attitude as the auxiliary and inferior. For INFJ, it would be Ni-Fe-Te-Se. Now what about the "opposites" of those? Well, when you keep in mind that there originally were really only four functions, and "attitude" or "orientation" is held by the ego and not the functions, then you understand why the function lineup was like that. The main ego function is Ni, but the rest are rejected.

Yet, the ego will also choose an auxiliary, which will be the next in line, which would be Feeling, in that extraverted orientation.
What later theorists realized is that the tertiary will seem to be oriented with the dominant attitude. What Lenore suggests is that the archetypes Beebe uses (with tertiary as "eternal child") are complexes that employ the various functions according to the archetypal role.
So an INFJ will have a "child" complex that will align the Thinking with the domnant attitude, and thus differentiate it from the rejected extraverted unconsiousness. Lenore (or at least the Ben Kovitz wiki on her) calls this the "Tertiary Temptation". The Child represents vulnerability and when the dominant cannot handle a situation, and the auxiliary pulls you into the rejected opposite orientation, the tertiary will "provide an excuse to remain in the dominant attitude".

The way this played out for me is that I grew up in a very nice, peaceable atmosphere, but then the neighborhood changed, my family situation became more difficult, adapting with people became harder, etc. I had already developed a model of how the world worked (based largely on technical THINGS such as places, events, etc), but now this was being turned upside down. I could not figure it out, and had a very hard time adapting. The [extraverted] auxiliary function, in the "parent" role, says to accept change and explore all the possibilities outside my little world. However, the child complex then takes Sensing and orients it inward like the dominant. So now, I childishly find relief reliving the past through the nostalgia of various sights and sounds (places, music, TV, people) from the past. I constantly wish that all of this stuff would go back to the way it was when I was younger.
Because undifferentiation is a state of a function when not engaged by a complex. So you were probably experiencing it as a complex. Patterns are associated with N, though I think of symmetry as more the domain of Ti. If you're looking for these things (and not simply taking them in as they come), that sounds really more like rational judgment (T) than irrational perception. So are you sure this was not an engagement of Ti by the Puella complex?

Thanks!


Sometimes the distinctions of the functions attitudes becomes very unclear regarding characteristic descriptions like those, and someone like Lenore understandably regards stuff like that (including for temperament and type as well) as largely stereotype. Animal activism is definitely F, and it is usually connected with universal values, which are associated with Fi, but I imagine an Fe type could have beliefs about it as well. Was this a universal value that you had a personal "gut feeling" about? Was it something you adopted from following others? (which might then be Fe). Was it something that may have developed under stress? Like if someone offended your "parental" Fe sensibilities, and then its "shadow", Fi, in a critical parent complex, then rose up to stop other people (like cruelty to animals). This stuff is complicated because there are all these variables and possible angles to consider.


I take it the emphasis is on "knowing", there. Ni is perception and Fi is judgment, so the way your using the word "feeling" sounds more like it is apart of perception. Fii would be more about making decisions based on your feelings, not just the "feeling" of what is right in itself.
Yes, as I have described above, the "function attitudes" are really not all that separate as many make them. So you're an introvert who chooses N and F, and yes, T and S will be undifferentiated. I believe part of "undifferentation" for Ne and Fi is that they shadow the preferred Ni and Fe. "Shadow" indicates that they're not really so different from what they are shadowing. It's the same basic shape of the same thing. They are just rejected orientations for the two functions. So yes, a lot of behavior you describe might fit into the "characterizations" of Fi and Ne. But your type is determined by being an introvert, whose dominant is iNtuition, and auxiliary is Feeling (notice, no "e/i"). This is what helped me settle on my type.

In fact, over on INTPc, Jack Flak (known over there as "Technical") has put together a system like this. Basically, what we call an "extraverted" function, he calls "dominant", and the type is only I/E, plus the dominant and auxiliary, with no "function attitudes" or other six functions at all! It is much simpler, though I don't like the idea of totally throwing out the eight-process model.
So INFJ would be simply "dominant Feeling with iNtuition". Now that sounds like what you are describing for yourself. So maybe that idea would be of help.

So that eight-process order you listed is really an order of complexes; not strengths!! Nobody's strength order ever comes out in exactly that order, apparently.
And that sounds just like an INFJ's tertiary Ti.

Thank You, Eric B. I got lots of insights while reading your explanation about my N and F. Pretty cool stuff. I think what I've been thinking is Fi-- my values regarding many things i have come to believe--are really a result of Fe becoming Fi, if that makes sense. I didn't set out to have X value by reflecting on N perceptions. I made decisions based on doing what my kids (for one example) needed most. Fe!!! Not Fi. But it sorta became Fi, I guess. Ahhh. Why does that feel so good? haha.

And i suppose i use Ne, but I'm not sure how much. I 'score' high in those little functions tests, but who knows about those. I totally agree about just using the 4 functions, in more of a fluid sense.

On another note, I know some have left here to go to INTPc. Is it really funner over there?

[Eric B]

Thanks.
It's not Fe becoming Fi, but just general Feeling, which you normally use in the external world, but sometimes it will be turned inward.
You could also look into the same for iNtuition. Normally used internally, but turned outward when the occasion arises.

It may seem funner over there because Jack had often livened up things, and since he's gone here, things did seem to cool down a bit, and a few others as well. Like right now over there, in addition to his function system, is where he's typing everyone based on it. Makes for lively conversation, though some think he's attention whoring and taking over all threads just like they thought here.
Then, there's some other thread about non-INTP's should go over to TypoC, and McGuff complaining about homophobic language.

BTW, for the thread, here is another good Beebe interview I have found which gives a lot of information on his system: http://www.centerpointec.com/files/t...evelopment.pdf
In this one, he goes through The Wizard of Oz with the archetypes, and is interviewd by someone he types as ENFP, with an INTP husband, and discusses the positive side of the Ti "trickster" dynamic between the two types.

[Eric B]

OK, here I have attempted to illustrate with each process how the primary attitudes are "shadowed" by their opposites in the shadow complexes, hence giving a better system of understanding and recognizing the shadow roles and their behaviors. The thinking is as discussed above, that there are really only four functions, in four main complexes (hero, parent, child, soul). Those orientations of the functions that are rejected will fall into more negative areas of the four complexes. So they're really just different sides of the same coins; unconscious sides of ego-consciousness, that is.

Also, helpful to remember in differentiation the different complexes are the distinctions between the "spine" and "arms":

Spine (Opposing Personality and Demon): Our relation to ourselves; backs up or challenges the hero/anima
Arm (Witch/Senex and Trickster): our relation to others; used mainly to "tie others down" in some way.

These are based on Berens and Beebe combined with personal experience as far as I can. (Hence, light on Ne and Si. Little idea of what what those are like as shadows, and don't know many NJ's or SP's!)


When Se is in Opposing Personality role, the ego function is Si, which internalizes concrete experience as memory. When this is challenged, the focus is shifted to current reality to backup past knowledge. (after all, the past once was present, and is to be learned from in order to know what to expect in the present).

In a similar fashion, when Se is in witch/senex role, Si is the function the ego uses to parent others. When the parental advice based on past knowledge is rejected, then the parent becomes critical and uses current reality to place blame and find fault.

When Se is trickster, then Si is puer, and internalized concrete experience is what the ego childishly falls back on to maintain its introverted attitude. If this is challenged, the ego will use current concrete reality to get others off his back by pointing at others ("you do it too" defense {triggered when the ego is intimidated through the puer by memory-based fear of punishment}). "wanting to have its own way": wanting to see things for myself, and having concrete evidence for things such as spirituality.

Se as demon: The person aspires to being more attentive to internal sensations. External sensations may undermine this.

Si as Opposing Personality: The person is focused primarily on the present. The past is used as a reference to how it links to the present, which they will stubbornly cling to.

Si as witch/senex: the person parents others by noticing current concrete data. If this is ignored, they will turn to past concrete data to criticize things by.

Si as trickster: Sensory pleasure is a source of childlike relief. If this is threatened, they will reference past esperiences to get the person off their back.

Si as demon: the person, immersed in the world of Ni, ultimately wants some connection to the concrete world, usually the present. Under stress, they may turn from present to past reality.

Ne as Opposing Personality: The person usually has "knowings" based on internal abstract perceptions. If this is challenged, they will turn towards external stimuli to back up their perception.

Ne as witch/senex: The person parents with foresight and following their visions. If this is spurned, they will turn to an external sense of possibilities to criticize with.

Ne as trickster: The person finds relief in using their imagination to perceive the future. If this is intimidated, they would try to tie others down with multiple external interpretations.

Ne as demon: They aspire to having a sense of the future. When stressed, it can turn into messed up interpretations.

Ni as Opposing backs up Ne as hero. The ego cherishes multiple opportunities of external obects being open. If they are shut out, then the person will "lock on" to an internal negative perception of what will happen.

Ni as senex/witch uses its perceptions to criticize or cast blame, with a cynical outlook on the future. They normally "parent" others with external-based multiple possibilities, but when these seem to be shut out by circumstances (or if they cannot obtain the meaning behind something), they will generate a specific perception internally, and 'parent' others in a negative fashion with this.

Ni as trickster shadows Ne as child. Imaginativeness using multiple possibilities is a playful, childlike endeavor. If this is intimidated, the person will then try to bind the other person with negative premonitions of what will happen (such as a fight occurring. Like because the person really prefers Si-- and "parents" with it, someone may see them as unimaginitive. This will be striking at a vulnerable area, resulting in a possible angry reaction).

Ni as demon: shadows Ne as anima. The person really has a typical aversion to too much abstraction (favoring internal concrete remembrance), but does aspire to seeing the meanings behind things. Under stress, this will become very negative forecasting "with detailed certainty" (Berens).

Te as Opposing Personality will back up the ego's internal model of how things should be, and thus when the principles are violated, it will be "stubborn" about how things are organized.

Te as witch/Senex will back up parental Ti which seeks to instruct others with its models. So when people do not follow the principles, it will turn to the external order of things to criticize and find fault.

Te as trickster will shadow the Child, which delights in models and frameworks. If someone intimidates this, it will turn to external principles to strip down the offender.

Te as demon: Very Feeling driven person, and while they have an aspiration to Ti, when things are out of order, they will overcompensate with a focus on efficient order of things.

Ti as Opposing Personality: The person's hero is extraverted Thinking, which orders the world for efficiency. When this is challenged, they will turn inward to universal principles to stubbornly support their external focus.

Ti as witch/senex: The person parents others with rules of external efficiency. When this is not adhered to, then they begin parenting critically with the universal frameworks and principles of the world that support the external rules.

Ti as trickster: External efficiency is looked up to with childlike innocense. The person will turn to the underlying principles behind it as a last resort if intimidated.

Ti as demon: The person has a deep down desire to be organized and systematic. If this is intimidated with too much logic, they then seek to rip to shreds the models and frameworks, proving them inconsistent.

Fe as Opposing Personality: The person is driven by personal and universal values. If these are challenged, they will appeal to external values to defend the ego.

Fe as critical parent is supporting Fi as good parent. ExFP's parent others with personal or universal values. If a group or people in a group are violating these, then the person will begin using external values to parent the people in a critical fashion (including blaming).

Fe as trickster: The person finds relief through universal/personal values. External values are appealed to (often in an overgeneralized fashion) when motivating someone to do what's important, particularly if the person's bahavior is affecting them in some way.

Fe as demon: The person's directive heroic external logic is ultimately driven by a deep sense of what's personally important. If this is violated, then they will use external values to put others down, or claim to be unfairly treated.

Fi as Opposing Personality: The person is driven to accommodate others, but since this can easily be taken advantage of, when stressed, (or more frequently; from coming from a background of abuse), they will turn the value system inward and erect a hard stiff wall of what is important and desired to themselves personally.

Fi as critical parent: The person parents others with external values. If this is ignored, a negative internal judgment system will erupt to sharply put down the offender.

Fi as trickster: Social acceptance will be a vulnerable spot for them. If this is intimidated, they will use universal values to get others off their backs.

Fi as demon: Fe as anima will be very dependent on others for acceptance. If others constantly reject the person, this will trigger a very negative, destructive "universal" sense of being no good as a person, which may also cause backlashes against others. Values will be used as a "club" to condemn offenders or their systems. The person will also vehemently resist any charge of violation of Fe or Fi values. They may be put off by any self-righteous moralizing in others (which pricks their conscience in a provocative way), and try to outo or take them down.

[wildcat]

From Type Insights

Archetypes are patterns of energy that are easily recognizable and resonant to human beings, and become the unconscious frameworks that determine how/why people think and react. The name comes from Greek archetypos, "original pattern." Archetypes are universally familiar characters or situations that transcend time, place, culture, gender, and age. They represent eternal truths.

We identify and relate to archetypes as primary characters or personalities of the human condition. They are the "givens" in our psychological makeup, the patterns that shape our perceptions of the world - an unlearned tendency to experience things in a certain way. Some archetypes include the Mother, the Father, and the Child. Many archetypes are story characters. Probably best known is the Hero, usually engaged in fighting the "shadow" in the form of dragons and other monsters. Then there is the Witch who controls, manipulates, and casts spells - destroying connection with other people and with oneself. Or there is the Trickster, often represented by a clown or a magician, whose role is to hamper progress and generally make trouble...

By exploring the archetypal figures you manifest, you can develop a more complete, whole sense of self. Archetypes are powerful for helping you notice what you are doing with your energy-or even to make your life a bit more exciting or relaxing, once you choose to manifest them consciously.


Primary Processes
We can consciously control these through development and use.

1. Dominant/Hero/Heroine/Leading - organizes adaptation; initiates individuation; has our complete trust. We have more conscious control over this function and energy costs for using this function are low.

2. Auxiliary/Father/Mother/Supporting - Supports and nurtures dominant function; sets standard of perfection; how we are helpful to ourselves and others. More energy costs than the dominant function, but still relatively low.

3. Tertiary/Puer/Puella/Relief - the playful and vulnerable child; moderates the purposefulness of the dominant and auxiliary functions allowing the person to lighten up and relax; how we express our creativity and improvisational skills; high energy costs.

4. Inferior/Anima/Animus/Aspirational - gateway to the unconscious; last function we have conscious control over; source of ideals that are difficult to live up to; sense of purpose, inspiration, and change; likely to look immature when using this function; high energy costs

Shadow Processes
These are usually experienced negatively and are beyond our conscious control. All have high energy costs.

5. Opposing - defends by offending, seducing, or avoiding, provides self-critiquing; refuses to play by the rules; serves as a passive or aggressive adversary to the Hero/Heroine of other people.

6. Critical Parent/Witch/Senex - finds weak spots in ourselves and others; appears under extreme duress; seeks to discourage, cast doubt, set limits, and belittles; is authoritarian and stern.

7. Deceiving/Trickster - mischievous, wreaks havoc, circumvents obstacles, petulant; is not trustworthy when seen in other people; fools us into thinking something is important to do or pay attention to; compensates for the trust of the puer/puella and insulates against the cruelties of the world.

8. Devilish/Demon/Daimon - destructive to ourselves and others, undermines, often erupts violently; distorts trust in relationships, promotes chaos

Positives and Negatives of Each function

Primary
1. Dominant: + Leading, - Domineering
2. Auxiliary: + Supportive, - Overprotective
3. Tertiary: + Relief, - Unsettling
4. Inferior: + Aspirational, - Projective

Shadows
5. + Backup, - Opposing
6. + Discovery, - Critical
7. + Comedic, - Deceiving
8. + Transformative, - Devilish

Links for more research:

What are Archetypes?
The Jung Lexicon by Jungian analyst, Daryl Sharp, Toronto
Great Lakes APT : Beebe's 8 Functions

The underdog does not dominate.

[Eric B]

In the above, I attempted to show the characteristics of how the four primary functions transform into their shadows. What should also not be left out is the similar transformation of the first two into their brain lateral counterparts (which are actually the laast two), according to Lenore Thomson's theory.

Basically, all this is, is holding the same orientation and switching the function (within the j/p category). Under certain instances of stress, when your dominant or auxiliary functions cannot solve the problem, instead of simply swapping i/e orientation for those same functions, which is engaging their "shadow" counterparts, the ego "tries" the reverse: holding the same orientation with the opposite function.

Basically, the hero becomes the demon, and the parent becomes the trickster.
These are called the "Crow's Nests" in Lenore's ship analogy, while the preferred functions with the attitudes reversed are the "Double Agents" (who as the opposite side brain alternatives act as the "maintenance crew", but may attempt mutiny. And the tertiary and inferior basically cause trouble from outside the ship).

So,
SP's: Se-->Ne
SJ's: Si-->Ni
NP's: Ne-->Se
NJ's: Ni-->Si
TJ's: Te-->Fe
TP's: Ti-->Fi
FJ's: Fe-->Te
FP's: Fi-->Ti

This can be understood in conjunction with the above descriptions of the triggering of the shadows through the primary counterparts. For the hero works in tandem with the inferior or anima, which is shadowed by the demon, and the parent works in tandem with the child, which is shadowed by the trickster. So under some stress, the shadow of a function will be engaged, and under more stress, the full shadow tandem will be engaged.

Here also; I might as well add the generic terms for the eight archetypes. They can be reduced down to three variables which should give a more concise idea of what they are about:

positive (primary) vs negative (shadow)
confident (top two of four functions) vs vulnerable (bottom two)
ego-focused (spine) vs others-focused (arm)

hero: positive, confident, ego-focused
parent: positive, confident, others-focused
child: positive, vulnerable, others-focused
anima: positive, vulnerable, ego-focused
opposing: negative, confident, ego-focused
witch/senex: negative, confident, others-focused
trickster: negative, vulnerable (compensatory), others-focused
demon: negative, vulnerable (compensatory), ego-focused