• 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
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/Type+and+Archetype+-+Part+One+-+The+Spine.pdf
http://www.ccc-apt.org/system/files/Type+and+Archetype+-+Part+Two+-+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
 
Last edited:

AphroditeGoneAwry

failure to thrive
Joined
Feb 20, 2009
Messages
5,585
MBTI Type
INfj
Enneagram
451
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
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/Type+and+Archetype+-+Part+One+-+The+Spine.pdf
http://www.ccc-apt.org/system/files/Type+and+Archetype+-+Part+Two+-+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. :cry:
 

Eric B

ⒺⓉⒷ
Joined
Mar 29, 2008
Messages
3,621
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
548
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
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:
differentiation.gif

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

failure to thrive
Joined
Feb 20, 2009
Messages
5,585
MBTI Type
INfj
Enneagram
451
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
. 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:
differentiation.gif

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

ⒺⓉⒷ
Joined
Mar 29, 2008
Messages
3,621
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
548
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
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

failure to thrive
Joined
Feb 20, 2009
Messages
5,585
MBTI Type
INfj
Enneagram
451
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
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. :blush: 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

ⒺⓉⒷ
Joined
Mar 29, 2008
Messages
3,621
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
548
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
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: www.centerpointec.com/files/typology_Development.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

ⒺⓉⒷ
Joined
Mar 29, 2008
Messages
3,621
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
548
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
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.
 
Last edited:

wildcat

New member
Joined
Jun 8, 2007
Messages
3,622
MBTI Type
INTP
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

ⒺⓉⒷ
Joined
Mar 29, 2008
Messages
3,621
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
548
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
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
 
Last edited:

Tamske

Writing...
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
1,764
MBTI Type
ENTP
The PersonalityPathways description Copula3 gave is almost the thing I searched on this forum.
Most tests regard the traits as additional (ISFP as I+S+F+P) and I also understood them like this. Correction: I didn't understand them at all - and I wanted to. This has helped me a lot! Those functions are really interesting.
I still have some questions about them, though...

What is this energy thing? Please be gentle on a physicist who thinks kinetic or potential energy when she hears 'energy'. What does 'energy' mean in psychological context? What exactly is the difference between, let's say, the Ne and Ni functions? (Since I read about them on the MBTI tutorial, I can't stop thinking Neon and Nickel...)
 

Little Linguist

Striving for balance
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
6,880
MBTI Type
xNFP
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
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.

Interesting. This was very helpful.
 

Eric B

ⒺⓉⒷ
Joined
Mar 29, 2008
Messages
3,621
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
548
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Thank you.

Here's a useful quote from the theorists I just found that points out something I have been stressing regarding the function/archetype order:
Mark Hunziker and Leona Haas said:
Actually, the shadow encompasses all processes that are primarily unconscious in an individual. Which processes these are will depend on that person'a type development and can even include all eight in a very young child. Not also, that the normal hierarchy of preference for processes five through eight has not yet been empirically established, and in practice is likely to vary from person to person. Beebe cautions us not to assume too much on the basis of his numbering, which in many ways is simply for convenience in identifying the various positions. He simply puts it forth as a tool that he has found useful and informative and which at least for the first four functions seems to refleact the order of conscious cultivation of the functions that he has observed. The numbers for the shadow functions are identified merely to mirror the ordering of the first four.
(Building Blocks of Personality Type; Glossary: "Shadow", p. 215: "Shadow", p. 215)

Also, here's a good analogy I thought of for the four "blocks" consisting of pairs of functions in Beebe's order:

1/2: diamonds: the ego's most cherished goals
3/4: hearts: the vulnerable, innocent area
5/6: spades (sharp weapon)
7/8: clubs (blunt weapon)
 

Eric B

ⒺⓉⒷ
Joined
Mar 29, 2008
Messages
3,621
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
548
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
The last installment focused on the how the four shadows parallel their primary counterparts. This one now wll look at all eight in terms of "projection", which is what they awere originally concerned with in their pure Jungian form; and sheds thre most light on how exactly they work. (Edited down from here: http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/nt-blogs/23969-etb-blogs-2.html#post1193936 Now I'm seeing that even that blog section can only e seen by logged in viewers).

When I first began seeing discussions of the archetypes and intertype cognitive dynamics around them I outlined four questions I sought to answer in coming to a full understanding of the whole theory:

1) What exactly triggers them in us
2) How others "use" of them affects us
3) how they affect ourselves, inside
4) when the "good" or "bad" sides of them surface

Understanding the functions as perspectives, and the roles of the "spines" and "arms" and the "shadow" being that aspect of four primary archetypes and perspectives that is suppressed into unconsciousness, was the first step to understanding.
Later discussing this directly with both Lenore Thomson and Beebe, and then researching the concept of the shadow more, it is really sinking in that the way the answers to those questions is summed up, is that the archetypes (especially the shadows) are what we project onto others, and the goal of ego-development is to "own" them, and see them as apart of ourselves.
Hence, the larger self, which encompasses both the ego consciousness, and the personal and collective unconscious is said to constantly be trying to "get our attention" through means such as conflicts and reactions, as well as dreams.
This is because the ego thinks it's the center of the psyche, when the larger Self really is.

When we withdraw a complex, instead of projecting it at others, we then become more receptive to stimulation from the function that has become embedded in the complex's archetype. We can then experience the positive side of the perspective more.

This is what has somewhat misguidedly become shorthanded as "developing the functions". That again assumes the functions are "skills" we "use". But you're not really developing functions; you're expanding consciousness and recovering (integrating) suppressed perspectives, as that again is what the function attitudes are.
The ultimate goal is called "individuation". While this would yield a more balanced perspective in living, it is really not simply being "strong" in "all eight functions".

Really, self-growth is what all of this stuff is really, ultimately all about!

So to start, here are some points to remember to help understand the concepts:

Functions (S, N, T, F) or "function attitudes" (Xe, Xi), are perspectives; not behaviors or skills-sets.

In order to understand the archetypes, we first should know something about Jung's division of the psyche or "larger Self".

The ego is the conscious part, where our type preference lies.
The personal unconscious is the individual (personal) parts of our life experience which have fallen into unconsciousness. The easiest exmple of this is simply things we've forgotten. It's still buried in the memory somewhere; we just can no longer bring it up consciously. It may come up on its own through dreams, déja-vu's, sudden flashes of memory under stress, etc.
The collective unconscious is the unconscious stuff programmed into all of us; reflecting human experience as a whole. It comes through in our inherited images of male and female, good and evil, love and power, that are represented in all cultures. This likely stems from the limbic area of the brain.

So with that now; archetypes lie in the collective unconscious. Each one is "a way of organizing human experience that gives it collective meaning". (Beebe).
When we have experiences that fit into and "fill" them, they then enter the personal unconscious, and become complexes. The archetype is at the core of the complex.

So one such human experience involves heroically solving a problem. That is one archetype, and the one that becomes associated with our ego's dominant operation. Another experience is supporting others. Another one is looking up to others to support us. And another is finfing completeness. Each other these in turn have negative sides that are further suppressed into unconsciousness, and altogether form the eight "roles" discussed by those of us following John Beebe's model.

Undifferentiated functions remain in the unconscious, and the eight specific ego-development archetypes form "shells" so to speak, around them.

The ego can still "reach into the shell" and access these functions apart from the archetype. Their products are capable of reaching consciousness, as long as it is linked to the perspective of the dominant standpoint.
So if I'm enthusiastic and emotional about some logical framework I've figured out, I'm not "using Fi", and therefore might actually "prefer" it. The perspective is Ti, and the positive, emotive valuation that has become associated with "Fi" is a natural (or "limbic") reaction to the ego's goals being realized. An Fi perspective would basically be valuation for its own sake; which usually ends up aimed at more personal issues such as ethics or arts.
(A lof of "NxP Seekers" here (and those trying to "help" them with their type) would be greatly helped by realizing this).

So we have these eight complexes; at the core of each is an archetype, inside of which is a function attitude that becomes the main perspective of that complex.

Together, these are called "function-attitude complexes", or "Archetypal Complexes Carrying the Eight Functions".
"Thus we develop an inferiority complex around the inferior function, a superiority complex around the superior function, a 'best auxiliary' complex (the caretaker) around the auxiliary function, and an 'eternal child' complex around the tertiary function." (Beebe)

The eight-function model is basically a diagram of the several complexes that are normally activated when an ego-identity is established. It isn't telling you how the functions are going to operate when they're "used." It's telling you how the complexes are going to operate when they're influencing one's behavior. (Lenore)
 

Eric B

ⒺⓉⒷ
Joined
Mar 29, 2008
Messages
3,621
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
548
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
So here now are the most prominent complexes:

HERO (dominant)

Since this is the ego's "operating charter", we probably don't often project it at others. We "own" it right off the bat. It is "us", at least in our conscious self-image.
I imagine it's when we're really young, and we look up to those who manifest the perspective that will become dominant in our own consciousness.

GOOD PARENT (auxiliary)

You would think we likewise don't project this much, since we see it as just as integral to our type as the dominant. But according to Lenore, since we often jump straight to the tertiary defense, we apparently do not always completely own the complex.
She speaks of people withdrawing the parent projections, in which we then open ourselves to more information from the auxiliary function, gaining "a strong motivation to teach and mentor others", and sometimes going to the opposite extreme of "preaching the auxiliary". The person now rigorously "parents" others with their perspective, including their method of owning the complex.

I imagine projecting the parent would mean you would see others as parent figures you want to help you with the perspective of the function in that position. Running to the tertiary, we're playing a role of "child" (that function's archetypal shell) anyway.

But being in a heavy SJ environment, I have probably not had many people I could project this onto, so I believe I owned it pretty early, making my Ne very strong (as reflected by the cognitive process test), to the point of seeming to be possibly my dominant.

PUER ("eternal child", tertiary)

Since this would be the function our egos run to to maintain the dominant attitude, we probably don't project this associated complex onto others. The ego naturally owns it quickly.

Projection would be seeing others as "children".
The tertiary thus "inflates" itself, aiming to appear full of "wisdom and maturity" and be equal to the dominant or auxiliary of others. Yet then it deflates itself, and I become like a child wanting to be taken and led into the innocent past through nostalgic interests.

Actually, all conscious complexes tend to inflate themselves. It's actually the ego that is doing the inflating, as it seeks to be the center of the psyche (in place of the Self). So since the tertiary is the ego's first line of defense of the dominant perspective, it seems to be the one that is seen "inflating" the most.


Now, we enter the realm of the less conscious complexes; the ones that do get heavily projected onto others, and need to be owned.

When we project the encompassing complexes onto people, they seem to fit those roles, generally involving the function-attitude in that position in some way, and we react oppositionally in kind with that function. Or, they might genuinely be fitting the role in their own behavior.
To own the complex instead of projecting it at others, we must see ourselves as playing those roles; our own worst enemies.
This is hard, because these parts of us are what we have shut out of our consciousness.


ANIMA (inferior, aspirational)
What it is about, and which function it encases:

Shaped largely by the parent of the opposite sex, projected onto those we fall in love with, and encases the inferior function.

ISxJ's might feel inferior in new possibilities.
INxJ's might feel inferior with current sensory experience.
IxTP's might feel inferior in social settings.
IxFP's might feel inferior regarding logical organization.
ESxP's might feel inferior (spaced out) by abstract frameworks such as archetypes and symbolism.
ENxP's might feel inferior when it comes to learned order
ExTJ's might feel inferior in personal ethics.
ExFJ's might feel inferior regarding logical understanding.

How we project it onto others:

ISxJ's Cling to dominant perspective. Criticize NP's as irresponsible
INxJ's Cling to dominant perspective. Probably see SP's as inferior
IxTP's Put on a cool, aloof mask (associated with dominant perspective), and openly complain about FJ types.
IxFP's Criticize other's organization
ESxP's Criticize this stuff as irrelevent.
ENxP's Dismissed learned methods as irrelevant
ExTJ's Become defensive and develop a martyrdom complex where it's everyone else's ethics are bad.
ExFJ's Criticize others as illogical.

In each case, there's a deep down inside longing for what they are brushing off, that they might realize if they look for it. Espsecially in mid-life, when "individuation takes us inward" (Lenore)

Since in the typical Beebe order where the eight are evenly divided four and four, the inferior usually falls on the "ego-syntonic" side, where the next four are "ego-dystonic" and negative. So Berens includes it with the first three as generally positive, having a negative side, rather than generally negative, having positive side.
So the "negative" side of this "aspirational" function she calls "projective"; and often the first aspect of it experienced. We "project our fears, shoulds and negativities onto others". In reality, it is all the shadows or unconscious complexes that get projected onto others. Of course, this harmonized with standard four-process theory, where the inferior IS considered to be the whole "shadow".

So that is another aspect of the inferior projection besides just the opposite gender stuff. (Though that does seem to be connected with some sort of female feeling).

How to own it:
we see others as completing us (i.e. we're inferior), but we need to see this completeness in ourselves. (Not sure how this works for the "contrasexual" aspect of it).
 

Eric B

ⒺⓉⒷ
Joined
Mar 29, 2008
Messages
3,621
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
548
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Now, to "the shadow", proper.
"The Shadow" was originally (to Jung) a single archetype that gets projected onto our enemies. In this model, it is of course divided into four distinct roles, shadowing the primary archetypes. (In the older model, it is just the inferior itself. So in this model, the inferior or anima/animus is often called "the bridge" to the unconscious).

OPPOSING PERSONALITY COMPLEX
What it is about, and which function it encases:

Stubborn about things in the associated perspective. It's defending the dominant perspective in its opposite orientation.
Also usually contrasexual, like the anima/animus; it seems to be what we "lust" after in the opposite sex. While the anima is "madonna" or the "nice guy" we "love" in the opposite sex, this complex is the "whore" or "bad boy". (My own observation).

ISxJ's Stubborn about going with the flow of a single impulse or having an accurate read on the current situation.
INxJ's Stubborn about responding to emerging information
IxTP's Stubborn about the way things are organized
IxFP's stubborn about how others affect them
ESxP's stubborn about their perceptions of how things once were
ENxP's stubborn about their perceptions of how the future will be
ExTJ's stubborn about models and principles and robotically following them
ExFJ's stubborn about personal values

How we project it onto others:

ISxJ's Think that living in the moment is irresponsible. (However, some who do it are sexy).
INxJ's Probably think that multiple possibilities are absurd. The patterns point to one right conclusion.
IxTP's Think that agreed upon logical rules are stupid and a waste of time. Spunky Te types might be sexy
IxFP's Think that agreed upon ethics do not get to the real needs of people; affect them negatively, etc.
ESxP's Memorized rules and such are stupid and limiting of freedom.
ENxP's Taking only one possibility is stupid and limiting.
ExTJ's Breaking things down into trivial detail is stupid, inefficient and a waste of time
ExFJ's Tailoring everything to individual personal needs is too much trouble

How to own it:

We're making others into "opposing personalities" ("negative heroes" or "villains"), but we're really our own villain.

Ji/Pe types have chosen P and suppressed J. And Je/Pi types have chosen J and suppressed P. Hence, P's might not really make many decisions externally, but instead just try to get by under other people's order, with which we can easily find fault, but not offer much of a better solution ourselves.

If we were to exercise (own) more of a J attitude (as represented by our dominant function's opposite orientation), we would be more proactive in the outer world and thus able to attain better positions of control and not feel so at the mercy of others. We would then be able to withdraw some of the villification or criticism we direct at those in power.
Likewise, if J's would likewise take on more of a [suppressed] P attitude, they would withdraw a lot of their blame on others for not being organized enough.


SENEX ("critical parent, witch")
What it is about, and which function it encases:

"critical and disgruntled" (Berens) about the associated perception or judgment perspective. "Parent" others negatively in a limiting, authoritarian fashion.

ISxP's Past rememberances.
INxP's perceived significance of life events (and what they appear to lead to).
IxTJ's logical principles
IxFJ's Personal ethics
ESxJ's Current sensory experience.
ENxJ's Multiple possibilities.

How we project it onto others.

ISxP's Avoid past rememberances, except to blame, and will make them critical if others dwell too much
INxP's Interpret everything in terms of a "big picture" in which the worst will happen
IxTJ's Will often angrily hit others with logical principles.
IxFJ's Can angrily hit others with personal or universal ethics.
ESxJ's Very critical about the way things look, which they easily spot to find fault with (I call them "hawks")
ENxJ's Might attack people for exploring multiple possibilities.
ExTP's Will fight, compete and one-up others over the way things are ordered.
ExFP's will authoritatively chastize those perceived as disrupting social harmony (and end up disrupting it themselves), and will reference standards imposed upon themselves.

How to own it:

We see others as shaming, blaming "critical parents", setting limits on us in an authoritarian (Hunziker) fashion (and then react in kind), but we're really our own critical parent, and blaming others for this.


TRICKSTER (bad child, clown)
What it is about, and which function it encases:

Deceiving, double-binding, trapping others

ISxP's Might feel 'double-bound' by multiple possibilities
INxP's Might feel 'double-bound' by current reality (physical things or facts), and then it seems to become the perfect vehicle to try to turn the tables on others with, or to be silly with.
IxTJ's Might feel 'double-bound' by social values, and use them to trap others
IxFJ's Might feel 'double-bound' by logical order, and make mistakes trying to implement it themselves
ESxJ's Might feel 'double-bound' by abstract frameworks, and use them to trap others into confirming their worst fears
ENxJ's Might feel 'double-bound' by past memorances, and use them to trap others
ExTP's Might feel 'double-bound' by personal values, and use them to trap others
ExFP's Might feel 'double-bound' by logical principles and use them to trap others

How we project it onto others:

ISxP's See people tossing out multiple possibilities as bad children or clowns.
INxP's People performing rigorous stunts are clowns; people telling "the facts" seem like "bullies"
IxTJ's might criticize others' social behavior to scare them by saying they are bringing rejection on themselves
IxFJ's see people organizing things logically as "bad children"
ESxJ's see abstract frameworks as silly, yet unconsciously use them themselves under stress
ENxJ's People who dwell on the past (instead of moving on) are "puerile", and yet they might distort it to get them off their back
ExTP's see opponent's passion in a dispute and try to outdo it themselves in a childish fashion.
ExFP's All this archetype stuff ("puers trigger witches", etc. logical frameworks) is just excuses for bad behavior (I actually had someone say this to me!)

How to own it:

We see others as a bad child, but we're being a bad child.


DEMONIC PERSONALITY COMPLEX
What it is about, and which function it encases:

The most rejected area of consciousness. The opposite function of the dominant perspective orientation.

ISxJ's deep abstract meaning is an area of the unknown and runs totally counter to the concrete structure needed
INxJ's The past is highly irrelevent, and likely haunting
IxTP's Ethical congruence and conscience might be a nagging, guilt-provoking issue we wish could go away.
IxFP's Logical analysis totally depersonalizes life
ESxP's Interpretations of current reality are highly irrelevent
ENxP's "may get caught up in a binge of being in the physical moment; excessively seeking stimulation or following the urge to sleep or do nothing" (Berens)
ExTJ's Social harmony might be manipulated for personal goals, rather than shaping one's own behavior
ExFJ's Logical order is a necessary evil done in a huff to accomplish goal of social harmony

How we project it onto others:

ISxJ's see abstract frameworks as crazy, yet use them under stress in an overblown fashion ("dire predictions with detailed certainty")
INxJ's "When really stressed, they may waste time reviewing the impact of the past."(Berens) (Likely aimed at someone else in a conflict)
IxTP's Might become very envious and resentful at people seen as morally self-contented, and want nothing more than to upseat and expose them. They come across as evil hypocrites wearing a "good guy" mask.
then end up coming off as self-righteous themselves in trying to outdo these others.
Also, self-destructive in expending time and energy passionately engaging in all-so-"important" personal causes against them.
IxFP's Logical analysis is cold and evil, and they'll use it to demolish someone else's analysis
ESxP's "over-read 'between the lines', often misinterpreting the meaning of someone's actions and attributing negative intentions where there are none" (Berens)
ENxP's "zero in on isolated details, hastily acting on them in a chaotic disjointed way" (Berens) Likely in conflict against someone else.
ExTJ's Others are socially destructive, and are out to get me; I'm doing SO much for others, and not appreciated
ExFJ's Others' disorder is making me crazy; frenzied rush to clean and fix everything or order the other person

How to own it:

we see others as "devils" in these areas, but we really are
 

Poki

New member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
10,436
MBTI Type
STP
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
This is what has somewhat misguidedly become shorthanded as "developing the functions". That again assumes the functions are "skills" we "use". But you're not really developing functions; you're expanding consciousness and recovering (integrating) suppressed perspectives, as that again is what the function attitudes are.
The ultimate goal is called "individuation". While this would yield a more balanced perspective in living, it is really not simply being "strong" in "all eight functions".

Really, self-growth is what all of this stuff is really, ultimately all about!

Not pulling this out of the context of the whole, but that post was to long to quote all and just highlight a single portion. We have "skills" we "use". Our ego can see a purpose to this skill and can reach into our unconcious to utilize it, but it is still under control of our ego. It becomes a tool, but we havnt fully brought it into us(integrating),its not recovering supressed perspectives, but opening the door to supressed perspectives. The thing is that until we actually recognize it it will stay in this limbo state between integration and supression. We havnt really accepted it, but we use it and we learn to rationalize the use of this. We have even rationalized this process in the phrase "fake it till you make it". The hardest part is to not get stuck in this limbo and proceed through life faking it, the goal is to make it and to make it is an internal accomplishment, not an external goal.
 

Eric B

ⒺⓉⒷ
Joined
Mar 29, 2008
Messages
3,621
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
548
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
We have "skills" we "use". Our ego can see a purpose to this skill and can reach into our unconcious to utilize it, but it is still under control of our ego.
Well, I didn't say we didn't use skills; it's just that the functions themselves are not best understood as skills. Skills might be the result of functions, but the function itself is just the taking in of information or making a decision with it. How well you do that is determined by how well you are in tune with the perspective represented by the function.
It becomes a tool, but we havnt fully brought it into us(integrating),its not recovering supressed perspectives, but opening the door to supressed perspectives. The thing is that until we actually recognize it it will stay in this limbo state between integration and supression. We havnt really accepted it, but we use it and we learn to rationalize the use of this. We have even rationalized this process in the phrase "fake it till you make it". The hardest part is to not get stuck in this limbo and proceed through life faking it, the goal is to make it and to make it is an internal accomplishment, not an external goal.
But by "recovering", I'm speaking only hypothetically of once we have brought it into us.
 

Eric B

ⒺⓉⒷ
Joined
Mar 29, 2008
Messages
3,621
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
548
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
I saw this, I don't know why I didn't answer. Must have started thinking ian answer out, and kept forgetting or something.
The PersonalityPathways description Copula3 gave is almost the thing I searched on this forum.
Most tests regard the traits as additional (ISFP as I+S+F+P) and I also understood them like this. Correction: I didn't understand them at all - and I wanted to. This has helped me a lot! Those functions are really interesting.
I still have some questions about them, though...
And while adding I + S + F + P seems totally different than looking at it as Fi + Se; they do add up to the same thing.
The MBTI questions basically measure, first, I or E. Then, the two preferred functions, one perception, and one judgment. Then, it measures general "J" vs "P" behaviors, and from there is able to put together the type code.

If you score high on Judging, then it must be the judgment function you scored highest on that is "extraverted". The perceiving function must therefore also be introverted. The reverse for scoring high on "perception". The one whose orientation matches the first letter (I/E) must then be your dominant, and the other, the auxiliary.

Which ever one is extraverted will color the general "J" vs "P" behavior. Hence, that can be treated as a standalone dichotomy.

What is this energy thing? Please be gentle on a physicist who thinks kinetic or potential energy when she hears 'energy'. What does 'energy' mean in psychological context?
Energy is simply what we normally understand as emotional energy. Like when you feel worn out by paying attention to something you don't want to, and you say you don't have the "energy" for that.
What exactly is the difference between, let's say, the Ne and Ni functions? (Since I read about them on the MBTI tutorial, I can't stop thinking Neon and Nickel...)

I have discussed that in the "Ne vs Ni" thread, and another Ni thread.
 

Poki

New member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
10,436
MBTI Type
STP
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
Well, I didn't say we didn't use skills; it's just that the functions themselves are not best understood as skills. Skills might be the result of functions, but thwe function itself is just the taking in of information or making a decision with it. How well you do that is determined by how well you are in tune with the perspective represented by the function. But by "recovering", I'm speaking only hypothetically of once we have brought it into us.

I agree. I dont think that skills tie directly into functions. Its more about the use of functions which is a slightly different take on what you are saying. I can use the functions I have present to produce a result to a certain level. Therfore I am skilled at producing this result. How well you are in tune with the correct function can determine how much energy is exhausted performing certain skills or producing certain results. We are basically emulating as opposed to using a native method. To me this emulation would be more integration and less recovery.

If Si has enough concrete detail it can emulate an Ni event template.

This event is like the opposite of being born where we have no control of our bladder and have to wear a diaper yet we have full access to our functions. As we begin to control our bladder we also begin to supress our functions. As we age we lose control of our bladder and end up back in daipers as we gain back control of our functions. So if we stopped learning how to control our bladder we wouldnt have to worry about supressing our functions:D
 
Top