• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Archetypes of the Functions

Eric B

ⒺⓉⒷ
Joined
Mar 29, 2008
Messages
3,621
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
548
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
i find that to be a misleading way of thinking about Si. introverted sensing can directly take in information from the environment as long as that information is relevant to the internal standard
But in that case, those internal standards would be the data "taken in through the senses", and internalized, and then brought up through memory. Yes, we can look at the whole process, as starting by taking in new information, but the internal standard the relevance the data is measured by is the gist of what Si is about. That's why it's "introverted" in the first place.
 

redacted

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
4,223
all i'm saying is you shouldn't think of Si as memory. Se has the same (edit: similar) memory capacities.

Se memory is still data that's taken in and processed, so it's "internal". but that's not what introversion means.
 

Domino

ENFJ In Chains
Joined
Nov 5, 2007
Messages
11,429
MBTI Type
eNFJ
Enneagram
4w3
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
Yeah, I think the ESTJ is supposedly Te.

Sorry, guys. Really dropped the ball on that one. *shakes head*

You got the gist anyway in spite of my idiocy! :D
 

EJCC

The Devil of TypoC
Joined
Aug 29, 2008
Messages
19,129
MBTI Type
ESTJ
Enneagram
1w9
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
i find that to be a misleading way of thinking about Si. introverted sensing can directly take in information from the environment as long as that information is relevant to the internal standard (current thought processes/unconscious tendencies).

and extroverted sensing can remember past sensory data as long as that data is relevant to the current external standard (current external situation).

sensing is just sensing. introversion and extroversion just refer to the weighting. Se goes along with the environment, essentially clearing the cache each time a new piece comes in -- each new piece of sensory data is given equal weight. Si pays more or less attention to new data depending on the internal relevance of that data.

Okay... so Si people connect their sensory input to their memories? Maybe... while Se people would connect their experiences to a potential future, or at least to the present, Si people tend to connect what they sense to the past? That might make sense, because events always remind me of things, and often in order to complete something successfully I need to see an example of it (so I can connect my present day project to something in the past, perhaps?).
 

EJCC

The Devil of TypoC
Joined
Aug 29, 2008
Messages
19,129
MBTI Type
ESTJ
Enneagram
1w9
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
Sorry, guys. Really dropped the ball on that one. *shakes head*

You got the gist anyway in spite of my idiocy! :D

No, that's not idiocy! If it makes you feel any better, I couldn't tell you what your functions are if my life depended on it! (except that I think you're Se... but only because you mentioned it earlier.)
 

redacted

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
4,223
Okay... so Si people connect their sensory input to their memories? Maybe... while Se people would connect their experiences to a potential future, or at least to the present, Si people tend to connect what they sense to the past? That might make sense, because events always remind me of things, and often in order to complete something successfully I need to see an example of it (so I can connect my present day project to something in the past, perhaps?).

no no it has nothing to do (directly at least) with past or present or future.

Se memory is inspired directly by environmental factors, Si memory is inspired by environmental factors FILTERED THROUGH the internal standard. Si takes one more step than Se -- it filters out data that isn't important to the user right then (and looks more deeply at sensory data that is important). but they both work in the present moment. and they both have memories of the past.
 

Apollanaut

Senior Mugwump
Joined
Aug 27, 2008
Messages
550
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
9w1
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
For some time now, I've been intrigued and fascinated (some might call it "obsessed") by John Beebe's ideas relating the eight function-attitudes to specific archetypes. Since Ni is supposed to be the function which is best suited to recognising archetypes in action, I set myself the task of looking for manifestations of the archetypes in myself, to see if my self-experience matches Beebe's theory.

Lately, I have had a number of significant dreams involving archetypal characters which seem to match those described by Beebe. I have always been a fan of Marvel comics and my dreams relect this as they are often populated by superheroes. Alternatively, a heroic fantasy setting is common. Here are my speculations on the identities of my personal archetypes (associated type functions in brackets):

Hero (Ni): A strong male figure with superpowers or magical abilities (including flight, invisibility, force fields and energy blasts) who steps in to save the day. Usually represented by myself in a dream, but sometimes can be a third party.

Parent (Fe): Usually, my actual parents. Alternatively, a wise male mentor figure, such as Professor X of the X-Men or Gandalf from LOTR. Can be somewhat stern and aloof, but at other times will save me from disaster.

Child (Ti): A young boy, cocky and streetwise, may look like an urchin. He will initiate some type of bantering dialogue with me. He is charming and witty, but I get the sense that he is not to be fully trusted, or may attempt to steal something from me. However, if I decide to trust him, he may lead me along a secret path to treasure.

Anima (Se) A beautiful female with flowing hair. She also tends to appear as a superhero with the power to control the elements, often assisting me in the dream. On a number of occasions, she has manifested as the Marvel superhero "Scarlet Witch".

Opposing personality (Ne) Can be male or female, usually charismatic and powerful. Will publicly denounce me in a very nasty way. May rouse an army of supporters to rise up against me; this can lead to open warfare on a grand scale.

Witch (Fi) A woman who used to be my best friend, but who became increasingly unstable and manipulative. Escaping her clutches was one of the hardest things I've ever done; now she haunts my dreams!

Trickster (Te) No idea as yet.

Demon (Si) A dark male figure, only seen in silhouette. He lurks on the edge of a scene and is both sinister and seductive at the same time. He clearly is linked to my own Shadow side. At other times a monster of some kind, actively trying to destroy me. If I am in Hero mode, we may engage in an epic, superhero-type battle which commonly ends in a stalemate.
 

Eric B

ⒺⓉⒷ
Joined
Mar 29, 2008
Messages
3,621
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
548
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
no no it has nothing to do (directly at least) with past or present or future.

Se memory is inspired directly by environmental factors, Si memory is inspired by environmental factors FILTERED THROUGH the internal standard. Si takes one more step than Se -- it filters out data that isn't important to the user right then (and looks more deeply at sensory data that is important). but they both work in the present moment. and they both have memories of the past.

Still, common descriptions, from the theorists themselves, do associate Si with the past. Again, that internal standard was based on input from the past. Here's a good description list of the functions:

My MBTI Personality Type - Understanding MBTI Type Dynamics - The Eight Function-Attitudes (myersbriggs.org)
 

redacted

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
4,223
Still, common descriptions, from the theorists themselves, do associate Si with the past. Again, that internal standard was based on input from the past. Here's a good description list of the functions:

My MBTI Personality Type - Understanding MBTI Type Dynamics - The Eight Function-Attitudes (myersbriggs.org)

i dunno, i guess i reject most of what these theorists say.

Si vs. Se can be thought of as depth of sensing vs. breadth of sensing. past only indirectly comes into play, although it is a factor.

(same thing with Ni and Ne -- depth of ideas vs breadth of ideas)
 

copula3

Permabanned
Joined
Sep 22, 2008
Messages
4
The Faces Model

PersonalityPathways has a very insightful description of the Types: Type Faces and Archetypes.

Robert Louis Stevenson helped nudge the duality of our nature in the Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde. The dramatic portrayal of Joanne Woodward of the Three Faces of Eve is another example as is the pejorative declaration that "so and so" is "two-faced." The penchant of conventional psychology to identify personality traits has helped to "abnormalize" our dual nature. Having more than one "personality" is considered a disorder: Multiple Personality Disorder. At the sub-clinical level, while not considered clinically significant, showing "two different faces" is not healthy. Being "two-faced" is considered not a good thing to be!

Yet, Having Two Faces is Normal! This assertion stems from C.G.Jung's discovery that all people have both an extraverted and introverted nature. Yet, again, the influence of trait psychology has clouded this distinction by converting the preferences into a scale, with I at one extreme and E at the other, and a midpoint in between. So it has been seductively easy to fall into the trap of classifying people along this scale depending on which side of the midpoint a person fell. Even serious students of psychological type and admirers of Isabel Myers are guilty of talking about Introverts and Extroverts -- as if Introverts have no extraverted nature and Extraverts have no introverted nature. In commenting on this modern day distortion of his mother's work at a conference in the Spring of 2000, Peter Myers was quoted as saying: "There are no extraverts. There are 8 functions." He further explained that his mother was forced to linearize MBTI type preferences in scale form because all the stats at that time applied to traits. The 8 functions Peter Myers' referenced are: the i (introverted) and e (extraverted) expressions of the 4 Jungian mental functions of S (sensing), N (intuition), T (thinking), and F (feeling). Thus Se is extraverted sensing and Si is introverted sensing.

The Type Letters Are Not Additive. The 4 MBTI type letters are too often misconstrued as the component parts of a whole as in INTJ=I+N+T+J. Wherein in reality INTJ is the code designation for a distinct pattern of how 8 functions interact and result in a "whole type." The longhand version of this code would write out the order of the 8 functions from most dominant and conscious to most inferior and unconscious. Thus INTJ refers to the following pattern of mental functions: Ni, Te, Fi, Se, Ne, Ti, Fe, and Si. Expressed in this way, the wholeness of type, in encompassing all the functions and attitudes is more evident.

True Type is Hidden. Because of the influence of "trait" psychology on how we think about personality, it is easy for the type practitioner to lose sight of the fact that Jung's theory of types is not based on observable traits of behavior. When we talk about Type, we are actually talking about something that is hidden beneath the collection of traits and behaviors we think about when using the term personality. A person's "Type" may be something we can infer from traits and behaviors, yet we cannot directly observe it. If we examine the root of the word personality ("persona") we discover it means "mask." So the origin of the term suggests the early philosopher-psychologists believed the real self was hidden beneath the mask of personality. When we observe in others consistent patterns of behavior, we are seeing, not type itself, but the influence of what can be called the Faces of Type. The Faces are pair patterns of Judging and Perceiving mental functions (ST, SF, NT, NF). There is a unique combination associated with each type. Each of the 16 types has 2 primary Type Faces (derived from the fact that each of us responds to both E and I energy sources): a more public outer-energized face and a more private inner-energized one. While these faces hide the true type, they are not masks in the sense of being false because they are part of the overall Gelstalt of type. They are extrapolations of our type. While our Myers-Briggs Type is a lifelong constant, the Type Faces are the building blocks of a maturing and developing personality.

Type Faces and Archetypes. Jungian analyst John Giannini believes the 4 primary pairings of judging and perceiving mental functions represent the fundamental Jungian archetypes of the Briggs & Myers' model. These 4 basic archetypes can be expanded to 16 by having them be expressed in either the 'e' or 'i' attitude and by which of the 2 functions in the pair takes the lead (i.e. is the principal function). For example, when ST is introverted it plays out somewhat differently than when it is extraverted; likewise when the coupling is reversed in order with Thinking predominant (TS) we get 2 more variations on the general theme of the pairing of Sensing-Thinking. Our 2 primary faces are anchored by our 2 most preferred mental functions, indicated by the middle 2 type letters. One anchors the extraverted face, the other the introverted face. The remaining 2 mental functions are aligned in a complimentary and supporting role to more fully define the 2 primary faces. So each Face has both a judging and a perceiving function. Here it is a diagram illustrating this pattern for ENFP.

njri6.jpg


This same pattern could be depicted in table. The right column represents the "E" energized face (NeTe); while the left column identifies the "I" energized face (FiSi). The subscripts "i" and "e" appended to the mental function letters signify the "introverted" or "extraverted" expression of the mental function. Thus Fe is extraverted Feeling; Fi is introverted Feeling.

tblkb2.jpg



Type Paradoxes -- An I/ENFP example -- These natural changes and growth in adults account for the apparent paradoxes we sometimes observe in people of all types. Development of the NeTe face of INFPs accounts for the "coolness" and "detachment" we sometimes observe in them. INFP mid-life changes, such as an increasing desire to organize and take charge of one's life or to stop being used as a doormat by others, are consistent with this developing outer NT. Some INFPs have become quite proficient in masking their "true feelings" with their NT face. This same facility in their ENFP cousins has them able to mimic ENTJ stereotypical behavior. They can assume control, take charge of a situation, make the hard decisions, and move on with their job. They can have masterly control over lawyer-speak, slicing careful nuances in meaning and logic. Even though they prefer Feeling over Thinking, they can become and are competent attorneys. While NFPs are people-oriented folks, many are drawn to latest technology and technological gadgetry of all sorts -- ascribable to their extraverted NT face. Let's look at the other primary I/ENFP face (SF). The SF pattern suggests a persona more consistent with the "traits" frequently ascribed to ENFPs -- the warm, fun and people loving side of their personality who can very much live in and enjoy the moment. INFPs more typically keep the SF face hidden, yet it provides the energy for their participation in helping professions, all kinds of nurturing activities, and their interest in performing arts and arts and crafts work in general.

The Mirror Image Faces (Shadow functions). By middle or later age, additional psychological growth may have produced new patterns that are the mirror image of the two primary faces. The "I" face has an "E" reflection and the "E" face has an "I" reflection -- as illustrated in the INTJ Chart below.

pntgs2.jpg


An INTJ is not only developing an inner NiFi, but also an outer NeFe. Thus, she begins to actually talk the walk and walk the talk. The 4th face, though largely hidden from the outer world, has risen to be more within the conscious awareness and thereby affecting more of the INTJs' conscious behavior. As this 4th face (SiTi) garners more influence, the INTJ may crave a higher degree of inner simplicity and rational order; i.e. a simpler, more orderly, less complex life. Perhaps these changes, overlaying additional faces or new archetypes arising, accounts for the mellowness that seems to frequently come with moving into our senior years.
 

gotbeef

Permabanned
Joined
Sep 23, 2008
Messages
6
Hierarchy of Mental Functions

Hierarchy of Mental Functions. Each of the 16 personality types has a characteristic pattern in the alignment of the four mental functions. This pattern is referred to as a "hierarchy" because they typically differ in the degree of influence on the personality and the degree they are consciously experienced. As indicated above, the most important or influential function is termed the "Dominant" function (#1) and the second most important is termed the "Auxiliary" (#2). The third in the hierarchy is called the "Tertiary" (#3) and is the polar opposite of whatever function is the Auxiliary. The 4th in order Jung termed the "Inferior" function (#4). It is the mental process with the least conscious awareness and typically the least developed of the four functions. It is the polar opposite of whatever is the Dominant.

sfsmn2.jpg


So if INtuition is Dominant, its opposite - Sensing - is the Inferior or 4th. If Feeling is Dominant, then its opposite - Thinking - is Inferior or 4th.

70123937mx2.jpg


The rationale for the opposite relationship of the Dominant and the Inferior (fourth function) has to do with energy and the natural polarity of the mental functions. For example, a person with dominant Intuition will direct his/her primary energy to this function - which happens to be in the exact opposite direction of Sensing. It is like trying to go North and South at the same time. It is much easier to couple that dominant with either the Auxiliary or Tertiary because these are not polar opposites to the main direction. They are like East and West on the compass. So navigating NW or NE is a natural direction of movement -- but North-South is not.

83955606ri3.jpg


You may be uncomfortable with using Jung's term for the 4th function: "Inferior." Bear in mind Jung was writing in the 1920's and his works had to be translated from German to English. Caution against jumping to conclusions on this Dominant-Inferior pairing. To wit, although a person's dominant function might be Feeling and therefore their inferior function is Thinking, do not presume that their "thinking" is inferior, i.e. defective!! There is often a built-in growth dynamic to consciously develop whatever is opposite one's dominant mental function.

Attitude is Also Important. Here's another Jungian term that carries a somewhat different meaning in the English speaking world. We don't mean your world view or the rosyness of your outlook. It isn't like "Lose the attitude, Dude!"
 

m a r r o k

Permabanned
Joined
Sep 25, 2008
Messages
8
Awesome explanation of the archetypes of the functions on the part of PersonalityPathways! Already printing the thread out!
 

LostInNerSpace

New member
Joined
Jan 25, 2008
Messages
1,027
MBTI Type
INTP
Great post.

Attitude is Also Important. Here's another Jungian term that carries a somewhat different meaning in the English speaking world. We don't mean your world view or the rosyness of your outlook. It isn't like "Lose the attitude, Dude!"

So Jung talked about the duality of attitudes. One such duality being conscious and unconscious. Why would that not include the rosiness of a person's outlook? Where do attitudes originate? Are they consciously or unconsciously motivated? It's not too difficult to alter attitude temporarily in any given situation, but that's not the same as permenently altering attitude.
 

the.blanket.on.top

Permabanned
Joined
Sep 29, 2008
Messages
23
The main (but not only) attitude dualities that Jung defines are the following:

  • Consciousness and the unconscious. The "presence of two attitudes is extremely frequent, one conscious and the other unconscious. This means that consciousness has a constellation of contents different from that of the unconscious, a duality particularly evident in neurosis."
  • Extraversion and introversion. This pair is so elementary to Jung's theory of types that he labeled them the "attitude-types."
  • Rational and irrational attitudes. "I conceive reason as an attitude." The rational attitude subdivides into the thinking and feeling psychological functions, each with its attitude. The irrational attitude subdivides into the sensing and intuition psychological functions, each with its attitude. "There is thus a typical thinking, feeling, sensation, and intuitive attitude."
  • Individual and social attitudes. Many of the latter are "isms."

The MBTI write-ups limit the use of "attitude" to the extraversion-introversion (EI) and judging-perceiving (JP) indexes.

The JP index is sometimes referred to as an orientation to the outer world and sometimes JP is classified as an "attitude." In Jungian terminology the term attitude is restricted to EI. In MBTI terminology attitude can include EI and also JP.

The above MBTI Manual statement, "is restricted to EI," is directly contradicted by Jung's statement above that there is "a typical thinking, feeling, sensation, and intuitive attitude" and by his other uses of the term "attitude". Regardless of whether the MBTI simplification (or oversimplification) of Jung can be attributed to Myers, Gifts Differing refers only to the "EI preference", consistently avoiding the label "attitude." Regarding the JP index, in Gifts Differing Myers does use the terms "the perceptive attitude and the judging attitude." The JP index corresponds to the irrational and rational attitudes Jung describes, except that the MBTI focuses on the preferred orientation in the outer world in order to identify the function hierarchy. To be consistent with Jung, it can be noted that a rational extraverted preference is accompanied by an irrational introverted preference.
 

Valuable_Money

New member
Joined
Jun 19, 2009
Messages
679
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
5w6
(FE)Trickster: "Let me assist you to make us both feel uncomfortable"
Movie: Heath Ledger in "Brokeback Mountain"

o_O
 

Eric B

ⒺⓉⒷ
Joined
Mar 29, 2008
Messages
3,621
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
548
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
I have been modifying my views on the eight archtypes. I had begun looking into Lenore Thomson's model, and now have most recently gotten into an e-mail discussion with her. I have found that her full model is much more different from popular type theory than it first appeared. She is trying to be true to Jung's original theory, where type theory has deviated. Many I have heard complain that Myers' system strayed from Jung (leading many to prefer alternate type theories such as Socionics which they see as truer to Jung).
So she goes into concepts such as differentiation and individuation, which type theory has used to denote "developing" unused functions, but Jung originally used differently.

She holds Beebe's archetype model as really referring to "complexes". And I think Beebe partly implied this by naming some of them that, such as "Opposing Personality Complex". What this means, is the way we have been using them treats the complexes, which we call the "archetypes" as synonymous with the process playing the role for each given type. Therefore, it ends up assumed that we only use the process according to this role (either the good side or the bad side), and this is where we have run into most of our problems trying on types; especially regarding "shadows", which we expect to be hardly ever used. (especially from descriptions such as Berens': "The other fouyr processes operate more on the boundaries of our awareness. It is as if they are in the shadows and only come forward under certain circumstances").
So if it doesn't "fit", we end up questioning our (or others') type. Or perhaps, trying to force it into a particular archetype role (which was pretty much my approach). We also become confused when Cognitive Process test results seem all out of place, with supposed "shadows" strongly used.

But to Jung, it seems (as is evidenced from the Psychological Types chapter, Classics in the History of Psychology -- Jung (1921/1923) Chapter 10) that we start out with our dominant function, and the "comfort zone" (as Lenore calls it) of the inner or outer world. I always noticed that Jung calls his types "introverts" or "extroverts" who use sensing, intuiting, thinking or feeling; rather than speaking of introverted or extraverted "sensors/intuiters/thinkers/feelers".

The ego is 'compensated' by whatever is rejected by the ego. That is, the unchosen functions and the opposite orientation.
They remain undifferentiated, like an egg cell that has not divided into different cells with distinct functions yet (You can see some ofher teaching on this here: Jung MBTI Theory | Lenore Thomson Bentz). Of course, we do choose an auxiliary function, which is the opposite kind of process (j or p) from the dominant, and takes on the opposite orientation. Everything else remains more fuzzy.

Of course, many here and elsewhere have all along said this. After all, the type is determined by the first two. Most will add on a tertiary and inferior function. But beyond that, it seemed up in the air.
Beebe seemed to find good places for the unused four with his system of parallel archetype roles. The hero is shadowed by an opposer, and good parent and child were shadowed by bad parent and child figures. What was "most rejected" by the ego lied at the very bottom, shadowing the inferior. These archetypes were actually chosen out of hundreds Jung had outlined.

So we treat the different "function attitudes" as totally separate animals, that totally clash with one another. But to Jung, there were really just the four, with the dominant used in the person's comfort zone, which would then make it take on the internal or external orientation we associate with Xe or Xi. So likewise, there are really four complexes, which consist of what the ego has accepted (the "good" roles") vs what it has rejected (the "bad" roles). This means that the line between one "attitude" and the other is not as sharp as we have been using it.

To Lenore, the two lowest complexes, the Trickster and Demon, come out when the ego is in danger of disintegration. So this is where her brain alternative theory comes in.
This however is not a usual occurrence. She used examples such as war. So at first, that seems to bring us right back to the problem of how to explain when these processes are strong. But that is making the mistake of conflating the processes with the complexes. The complexes simply take the shape of the processes falling into the role.

But outside of those situations, we are free to use the processes, in any context, and without worrying that they might be "ego-syntonic" or "preferred" and that thus we must be mistyped. They processes are not rejected by the ego; they simply are undifferentiated. This frees us from having to force all of the processes into archtypes every single use, or conclude that Ne preferring egos somewhow reject current senses.
What many of us have gotten caught up in is what I now call "HyperBeebeanism". (Beebe's theory itself is valid, but this interpretation of it is being taken beyond ["hyper-"] its practical use). I've had two observers describe it to me in terms of a "set of rules" on personality and functions. It sought to explain practically every move we make through the eight archetypes. When I saw this, it looked fascinating and elegant, so I grabbed it and tried to fit into it myself and use it with others. But now I see that it is just not working completely for anybody (I even framed an informal "test" on it, http://www.typologycentral.com/foru...tb-s-ultimate-lucky-eight-archetype-test.html with very poor results).
 

Eric B

ⒺⓉⒷ
Joined
Mar 29, 2008
Messages
3,621
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
548
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Using Jung's original definitions makes my type all the more obvious. My comfort zone has always been in the inner world. Regardless of how enthuiastic I may get, or how long my posts, how much I post, etc (all of which taken as "external focus" by some). And my focus is obviously logic. Even if it appears to be used in an "extraverted" manner at times, by definition, putting these two factors together, it still matches Jung's "thinking introvert".
The other method acknowledges that a lot of logic is being used, but declares it "extraverted" because of the working with existing concepts and the extensive rationale used to prove it all to people (where Ti analysis is presumed to always be kept internal, to be concise, and come up with new concepts), and "childish" because of the enthusiasm. So then, you have to prove a less apparent Fi is really the preferred judging function, in the "parent" position. This is done by searching for any form of emotion or valuing, including even expressing likes or dislikes. This seems to lend itself to a notion of INTP's as "Spocks", who apparently do not have many likes and dislikes, or do not "know what they want". Even valuing of and enthusiasm over logical things and theories is said to be Fi, even though it is traditionally characteristic of NTP's! :shock: (Ironically, Beebe himself said in his "An Archetype Model of the Self in Dialogue" (which I finally purchased), that all functions make valuation, and that F is simply the one that places the highest premium on assigning value!)
Continuing; Fe is forced into the Critical Parent, with any negative use of it as proof. But then, inferior can also be negative; the Anima archetype even described by Jung in a similar fashion as the witch/senex:

Jung's Archetypes
The Anima may appear as an exotic dancing girl or a weathered old hag--the form generally reflects either the condition or the needs of our soul presently. Remember the wicked witch encountered by Hanzel and Gretel. The Animus may appear as an exotic, sensual, young man or as an old grouch.)

So all of this creates ambiguity. Then, the struggle to figure all this out is used as proof Ti is "trickster". :doh: Also, the perception functions must be forced into the spines (as opposed to the arms), which involves the difference between Ne as hero or parent, Si as puer or anima, Ni as opposing or critical, and Se as trickster or demon. These also are very ambiguous, as those pairs of roles are very similar.

So this is what I had been sorting through since I've been here. There seemed to be great evidence for either side. Except that the type this latter method suggested simply did not fit! And the other type ended up seeming questionable, because of its characterization as unemotional! So I was really in a squeeze! And no further information or details from Beebe explaining how these things are resolved could be found.
This influential system was also the main method used here, earlier on in the Mistyped TYPOc Members thread, with Solitary Walker and Edahn the biggest targets. (SW because of his long posts interpreted as Te/Ni).

Others commenting on T/F questions would always affirm "T's can be emotional, everyone values things...", etc. and that seemed to be the general consensus based on experience or common sense. The problem for me was that I had seen an intricate, systematic model proving the "hyper" view, and did not see any solid theoretical proof of what these others were saying. So it often sounded like a cop-out, borne of admitted ignorance as to how these "exceptions" all fit. The most you would get would be INTP's attributing their emotion to "inferior Fe". But much of what we mean by "emotion", and especially liking things, involves personal values, which is defined as Fi. So how do we explain this with the theories? Is the INTP going into demon/transformative mode everytime he enjoys something or gets angry or sad? It just did not seem right. Or maybe we just go back to the old view, that nothing is certain beyond the first two or four functions.

But to undertand the eight archetypes as complexes removes all of this and makes it all simple. According to Lenore, a T does not have to "use" F when having emotions. It's just apart of being human. She says that our dominant function (whichever it may be, and I think in another place she says, any differentiated function) gives us emotional investment in what we're doing. I do not hold her view that the complexes only come out under such severe cases as ego-disintegration. I believe milder forms of the complexes do come out in lesser forms of stress. Which is basically what the standard Beebe view says. So I so still indentify with the Puer Si, Opposing Te, Critical Ni, Trickster Se, and potentially destructive Fi.
The difference is that they are "complexes", and that not every use of the functions has to fit the archetypes, and also, not every apparent instance of the archetype role ("critical", "double-binding", etc) indicates the function playing that role.

I'm still not sure about the good uses of the shadows (backup, discovery, comedic, transformative). Berens briefly mentions them, and elfinchilde on the Spam Pudding mentions them when a shadow function comes up strong on the CP test. (The positive side of the shadows are said to manifest more when the processes are strong or "developed"). To Lenore (who sees "differentiation/individuation" differently than this), the Demon and Trickster manifest more constructive uses when the ego is ready to grow.

So for a couple of others here; Evan is also definitely a Thinking Introvert, with iNtuition. Just because he used Feeling a couple of times does not override the evident Thinking dominance. And since the "function attitudes" are more about the person's orientation, than something attached to "the functions", then with his obvious inner focus, and both Thinking and Intuition his preferred functions, it would be easy for him to appear to be introverting his intuition at times (especially if his genuine Ni is stronger. Mine is very weak, so I have no illusions of preferring it).
The same with SW--Thinking Introvert, who expresses his thinking in a way that seems extraverted at times, and his intuition seeming introverted because he's so focusing on his inner thoughts that he does not seem to be exploring external possibilities in his pronouncements.

Greed is an intuitive Extravert with Thinking (moreso than any Feeling). Little Linguist is an intuitive Extravert with Feeling.

So I'm not abandoning Beebe's model; just toning it down a bit. It cannot be used to describe our every perception and judgment.
Does anyone else find this method more helpful to them in finding a best fit type?
 
Last edited:

Llewellyn

New member
Joined
Oct 30, 2008
Messages
330
MBTI Type
INtj
Enneagram
9w1
I also think the different systems (Thomson's, Beebe's, ...) are different patterns, of which one can have several similarities in one's own situation.

The pattern I got from cognitive functions test suggests:

Dominant
Auxiliary
Shadows (8, 6, 5)
Tertiary
Inferior
Shadow (7)

Direct action is indeed not my strongest point, I have to do that very consciously. (I even noticed this before I knew about MBTI). And I've had impulse actions that didn't work out well. It does furnish me with the possibility of (positive) surprise acts in the moment (the good side).

At the same time my function order gives me a relief INTJ shadow (shifting to my less conscious left brain double agents).
 

Eric B

ⒺⓉⒷ
Joined
Mar 29, 2008
Messages
3,621
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
548
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Here is how I'm coming to understand a person develops with the functions. The purpose is to present the eight archetypes complexes in a way where they are not conflated with the eight "Xx" "processes".

The ego starts with its preferred comfort zone of the inner or outer world. The ego chooses its dominant function, which it uses in its preferred realm.
If Thinking (for instance) is chosen as the dominant, and in the internal world, then everything else is rejected by the ego: the external world and the other three functions; Feeling along with both perceiving, which remain undifferentiated. (They are engaged, but not as conscious ego functions, and not really distinguished in orientation, though Jung said they would be associated with the rejected orientation; this case being the outer world).

In Jung's theory, the orientations are more attached to the ego itself, than to the functions themselves.

Soon, an auxiliary will be chosen, which will be of the rejected perceiving mode of processing, as well as it being in the rejected outer orientation.

These two functions will become apart of heroic and parental complexes.

So the rejected outer orientation of the [otherwise internal] Thinking then becomes apart of an oppositional complex.
The perception rejected from the internal world by the auxiliary then takes on a negative parent role.

The opposite function from the dominant, Feeling, will be inferior and most rejected, yet in the opposite outer orientation will be what the ego believes will complete it.
Internally, it will remain the most rejected of all by the ego, and take on the most negative role.

A "child" complex will take on the opposite process from the auxiliary, and align it with the dominant attitude. (Tertiary Temptation, where the tertiary is more a defense mode that provides justification for remaining in the dominant atitude when the person avoids the tempering influence of the auxiliary).
The aspects of the perception function not internalized by the child remain external, and take on a negative childlike nature.
 
Top