• 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.

The Shadow - Seeds Of Our Downfall

Tiltyred

New member
Joined
Dec 1, 2008
Messages
4,322
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
468
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
.
I'm interested in why some people operate in a function that is opposite or nearly opposite for lengthy periods of time. I have done so, and I am extremely curious as to how it all happened.

It could be shadows, baggage etc. In my case it does seem like it was brought on my events in my life, but maybe I just have a really strong Mrs. Hyde inside.

I operated on my shadow side almost exclusively for years after a bad divorce. It will also come out when I am working 70 hour weeks and put in charge of things, being forced to extrovert and involve other people because I need them to do what needs to be done. I think as you get older and as you have more experience with using different functions because they become necessary to express for your survival, you gain facility, but it's like learning to write with your right hand if you're a lefty. Eventually you may be able to do it but it may never feel natural, and if left to your own devices, you would do things differently.

As far as projecting the shadow, I have my doubts about some of that.
 

Synarch

Once Was
Joined
Oct 14, 2008
Messages
8,445
MBTI Type
ENTP
I think any lack of self awareness and lack of inner scrutiny, objectivity, honesty, and personal accountability can over time lead to the 'seeds of our downfall'. Whether that be holding onto un-truths about ourselves, not acknowledging our personal failings/weaknesses, blaming outside entities or individuals for our own misfortunes, trying to control for the uncontrollable, not controlling enough for what IS controllable, etc etc... I think the 'shadow' could EITHER be an over-reliance on our primary instincts, where over time we become too single-minded and blot out other input/possibilities/behaviors, therefore with a tendency for self-fulfilling prophecies and repeat scenarios over and over again, OR going the opposite extreme of trying to reject all primary/root aspects of self to try to be someone we aren't, thus creating a dichotomy between inner self and outer self, and loss of self in the process, possibly. Balance, balance, balance. hehe. Perhaps my notion of 'Shadow' is more one who is out of balance, unhealthy, either in a holding pattern or enacting behaviors that result in less than optimal self. Opposite of self-actualization, I suppose.

:yes:

On a related note, I like the concept of balance but it feels to me more stable than what I experience, so I generally like using "homeostasis" because I notice that I oscillate back and forth between various tendencies. If I think of this as balance, I feel like I hold myself to too high a standard, but if I think of it as something that oscillates around a balanced point, it feels more comfortable as a concept. "Balance" brings out my perfectionism. I don't know if that just made sense.
 

cascadeco

New member
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
9,083
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
9w1
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
:yes:

On a related note, I like the concept of balance but it feels to me more stable than what I experience, so I generally like using "homeostasis" because I notice that I oscillate back and forth between various tendencies. If I think of this as balance, I feel like I hold myself to too high a standard, but if I think of it as something that oscillates around a balanced point, it feels more comfortable as a concept. "Balance" brings out my perfectionism. I don't know if that just made sense.

Oscillating around a balanced point makes sense to me. I too feel I have various sides to my personality, and to deny one side is to deny a part of my identity; however there's most definitely a 'balanced point' - perhaps it's learning how to effectively oscillate between the different elements so that all are met and you don't sit in any one element for too long. (not that one has to be militant about it, but, you know)
 

miss fortune

not to be trusted
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
20,589
Enneagram
827
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
that could bring up an interesting question about strengths of cognitive functions that are farther down on the list... I'm an ESTP who's had some definite tough times and problems in the past and my function STRENGTHS go 1,8,2,6,3,5,4,7... the question here is could the bizzare order of functions and strengths be a result of spending too much time lurking in the shadows by some strange chance? :huh:
 

Andy

Supreme High Commander
Joined
Nov 16, 2009
Messages
1,211
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w6
that could bring up an interesting question about strengths of cognitive functions that are farther down on the list... I'm an ESTP who's had some definite tough times and problems in the past and my function STRENGTHS go 1,8,2,6,3,5,4,7... the question here is could the bizzare order of functions and strengths be a result of spending too much time lurking in the shadows by some strange chance? :huh:

In terms of function preferance, that order looks fairly normal. Remember, the function order of a type only dictates how it is used, not how much. Given that numbers 1,2 and 7 and 8 are the strongest the only oddness is that 7 is so low. Even that's not really very surprising.
 

miss fortune

not to be trusted
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
20,589
Enneagram
827
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
very true... I'm good at pretending to be amoral :devil:

though nice :blush:
 

highlander

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 23, 2009
Messages
26,562
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
6w5
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
As it happens, I don't consider the shadow functions to be always bad, in the same way that I don't regard the conscious functions as always being good. It's a very alluring picture, the idea that we might be carrying around Mr. Hyde inside us all, some dark, shadowy figure we can blame all our wrong doing on, but I don't think the truth is that simple.

First of all, I think that the shadow and concious functions are linked to each other in terms of use and development. The 8th place function is the stongest of the most developed of the shadow functions and the 5th the least. That is to say, both introvered percieving functions develop together, as do both extroverted judging functions and so on.

This creates a U-shape in terms of development, with the weakest functions in the middle. Thus the functions we have the best use of are 1,2, 7 and 8. Functions 3 - 6 are the ones most likely to give us trouble when they opperate.

There is so much interesting perspective here. A link to the function ordering. I think you're referring to Beebe?

Jungian cognitive functions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Given that, with this working INTJ example, the ordering is:
1 Ni
2 Te
3 Fi
4 Se
5 Ne
6 Ti
7 Fe
8 Si

Is that right?

The shadow functions tend to have a somewhat "impersonal feel" to them, I think, especially number 7, the trickster function. When the shadow functions operate, they don't feel as intrinsic to who we are. An ITJ has trickster Fe for example, and many of us find ourselves projecting an image what we want other to see, or just allowing other people to see what they want in use, then agreeing with them afterwards because it makes then happy or less bothersome, while remaining detected from it all underneath.

Similarly, we will use Si, but only in the persuit of our Ni goals. It's a way of thinking we can utilise successfully, but it doesn't motivate us like Ni does.

Of the bothersome functions, 3 and 6 tend to have an inhibiting character about them, when they misfire. In an INTJ both Fi and Ti can undermine confidance. Misfiring Fi causes us to question our motivations and what we really want. Critical Ti sits there and punches holes in our idea, causing us to doubt our ideas. When they work correctly, Fi becomes a source of strength and Ti acts a double check on our ideas.

In an extrovert, the tertiary can provoke rash actions - it inhibits thinking about the problem too deeply. An extroverted critical functions keeps telling the person that things are being done wrong, becoming the voice of doom as it neighsays everything. An ETPs critical Te, for instance, will happily poke the user into telling everybody around them that they are weak and incompetant, the government isn't being run right and so on, while not lifting a finger to actually do something about these observations. When they are working correctly, the 3rd functions provides a new way or getting things done in the world, and the 6th remains the person that there are certain things that have to be done, even if they aren't much fun.

THe 5thand 6th functions tend to be distracting when they fail. THe opposing function will tend to lead us blind allies. For example, while an INTJ is trying to put some long term Ni plan together, 5th place Ne will be suggesting all the other things we could be doing. If followed, it creates a situation in which the INTJ has a half a dozen unfinished projects, which is something that they find unsatisfying.

These comments above really resonate. What a great description. :)


Y
Hmmm, and Jennifer :)hi:) said above that there's INTPs moving to Te out there too. Are you (both) talking about fundamental cognitive processing or learned behaviours? As in, do you get into states where the form of what occurs in your conscious processing is introverted thinking, or do you summon up some training and enough similar basic cognitive functioning to perform what in another person would have been performed by Ti? Do you force actual Ti usages inside your head or do you knuckle down and produce behaviors that correspond to a Ti user's?

My personal perception is that it is learned behavior... if that term applies within the "cognitive preference" framework.
At what point does a behavior and way of thinking become just a role you put on vs an actual part of the person in question?


I just have stepped away from myself and seen that I respond to a lot of things in my life out of a sense of Fe values and interrelationship. What does this make me? I don't know. Confused, maybe. But that experience coupled with my focus on my Secondary (Ne), it leads me to believe that it's possible to think smoothly and unconsciously in terms of other things besides the orignially preferred function.

In my experience, it is a combination of learned behavior (emulated mode) and natural behavior (true self). My two examples were Ti and Ne which I said I was reasonably comfortable with.

Taking Ti as an example - "organizing information according to an internal framework, model, or blueprint and logically prioritizing these categories in terms of the decision to be made", "seeks precision in use of words and the selection of which data to consider...designs taxonomies for data and ideas" (Hartzler)

I probably learned these things doing consulting work. I realized the hard way that many people needed to understand things in this way in order to be persuaded that my recommendations made sense. Left to my own devices, my inclination is to do a fair bit of information gathering, thinking and contemplation and then jump to an answer. It makes sense for me but not others. So I've developed a way to emulate Ti for the sake of convincing/persuading others.

Ne might be different. That seems a bit more natural somehow. Maybe the flip side of your dominant is easier or more natural to develop. It seems contrary to Andy's theory though that I should be comfortable with it since it's #5.
 

highlander

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 23, 2009
Messages
26,562
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
6w5
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
I guess I'll be the only one so far who doesn't really give a rip about the cognitive function definition of shadow. I think trying to stick to it can needlessly complicate things as well as be inapplicable to some or several individuals based on other elements of their psychae, life experiences, and whatnot. I like a broader perspective, more psychological in scope. I think the first definition of 'Shadow' that you posted is more along those lines.

I think any lack of self awareness and lack of inner scrutiny, objectivity, honesty, and personal accountability can over time lead to the 'seeds of our downfall'. Whether that be holding onto un-truths about ourselves, not acknowledging our personal failings/weaknesses, blaming outside entities or individuals for our own misfortunes, trying to control for the uncontrollable, not controlling enough for what IS controllable, etc etc... I think the 'shadow' could EITHER be an over-reliance on our primary instincts, where over time we become too single-minded and blot out other input/possibilities/behaviors, therefore with a tendency for self-fulfilling prophecies and repeat scenarios over and over again, OR going the opposite extreme of trying to reject all primary/root aspects of self to try to be someone we aren't, thus creating a dichotomy between inner self and outer self, and loss of self in the process, possibly. Balance, balance, balance. hehe. Perhaps my notion of 'Shadow' is more one who is out of balance, unhealthy, either in a holding pattern or enacting behaviors that result in less than optimal self. Opposite of self-actualization, I suppose.

Well, functions are really interesting and play a part in it all but this is probably the best practical view of one's shadow.

As an example. I know one INTP who is quite successful in his career. He is someone I very much like and respect. Unfortunately, he does have a tendency to operate out of excessive self interest/greed. Everybody else sees this. He can't see it. It has gotten him into some trouble over the years in spots but has not yet resulted in a crisis. I predict that it will if he is not able to address it. This has nothing to do with typology or the fact that he is an INTP.
 

cascadeco

New member
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
9,083
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
9w1
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
.... It seems contrary to Andy's theory though that I should be comfortable with it since it's #5.

highlander said:
Well, functions are really interesting and play a part in it all but this is probably the best practical view of one's shadow.

The reason I find function theory - no matter what the theory - in the end kind of silly is kind of illustrated by your first statement I quoted above. X number of people might relate very well to Andy's theory, but Andy's theory will break apart or be inapplicable to another set of individuals who won't identify one bit. Whereas a different cognitive function theory might resonate strongly with the experiences of Y number of people, and the original X plus another category of Z people won't identify with it.

So, yes, I do in the end scrap function theory (to the depth of labeling each of the 8 and dilineating a set order by type) because I know no matter what the theory, at the very least a minority of people will not relate, thus the 20% (or whatever) of INFJ's who don't relate to the other 80% of INFJ's in terms of 'shadow' responses, or inferior, or 'trickster' functions (lol:shock:), or whatever theory is being discussed, will be left scratching their heads saying.. I don't do that at all, I do this instead.

Your INTP example is interesting. It's another reason I prefer more general psychological things, rather than typology when it comes to personal growth or devolution (ha!), because there are a LOT of traits that are outside of cognitive theory which influence behavior, perception, and whatnot, to a significant degree and function theory simply doesn't account for them.

I'm sorry, I realize you're interested in discussing function theory so I promise I'll back out of this thread now; had you excluded bullet point 1, I would never have stepped in. :)
 

Z Buck McFate

Pepperidge Farm remembers.
Joined
Aug 25, 2009
Messages
6,048
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Well, functions are really interesting and play a part in it all but this is probably the best practical view of one's shadow.

As an example. I know one INTP who is quite successful in his career. He is someone I very much like and respect. Unfortunately, he does have a tendency to operate out of excessive self interest/greed. Everybody else sees this. He can't see it. It has gotten him into some trouble over the years in spots but has not yet resulted in a crisis. I predict that it will if he is not able to address it. This has nothing to do with typology or the fact that he is an INTP.

When I’ve actually perceived the shadow- in myself or someone else- it’s always related to my/their personal fears. Sometimes the cognitive function/shadow theories make sense on a theoretical level, but I don’t see a whole lot of direct relation de facto. How and why a shadow manifests really seems (to me) to be far more contingent on one’s upbringing (and all its surrounding unresolved issues) than one’s type. To be sure, several unresolved issues will likely be as result of a person’s type- but the issues are still going to vary greatly according to who incited the issues in the first place (i.e. an INFJ with ESTJ & ESFJ parents is going to have very different shadow manifestations than an INFJ with two INTJ parents).
 

Z Buck McFate

Pepperidge Farm remembers.
Joined
Aug 25, 2009
Messages
6,048
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
And I agree with cascadeo. When I read about the relationship between functions & the shadow- I can often find an example of how it's true in myself if I look hard enough. That makes the theories about it interesting. But the thing is- where someone's shadow is obvious to me, or when my own shadow actually interferes with my own life (when I don't have to look for an example of it)- it doesn't seem to be function related.
 

highlander

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 23, 2009
Messages
26,562
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
6w5
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
The reason I find function theory - no matter what the theory - in the end kind of silly is kind of illustrated by your first statement I quoted above. X number of people might relate very well to Andy's theory, but Andy's theory will break apart or be inapplicable to another set of individuals who won't identify one bit. Whereas a different cognitive function theory might resonate strongly with the experiences of Y number of people, and the original X plus another category of Z people won't identify with it.

So, yes, I do in the end scrap function theory (to the depth of labeling each of the 8 and dilineating a set order by type) because I know no matter what the theory, at the very least a minority of people will not relate, thus the 20% (or whatever) of INFJ's who don't relate to the other 80% of INFJ's in terms of 'shadow' responses, or inferior, or 'trickster' functions (lol:shock:), or whatever theory is being discussed, will be left scratching their heads saying.. I don't do that at all, I do this instead.

Your INTP example is interesting. It's another reason I prefer more general psychological things, rather than typology when it comes to personal growth or devolution (ha!), because there are a LOT of traits that are outside of cognitive theory which influence behavior, perception, and whatnot, to a significant degree and function theory simply doesn't account for them.

I'm sorry, I realize you're interested in discussing function theory so I promise I'll back out of this thread now; had you excluded bullet point 1, I would never have stepped in. :)

No - this is an important point. You can always prove it to be precisely wrong but on the whole some important data points or insights can be gained. If it's 80% right, I still think that's pretty good.

When I’ve actually perceived the shadow- in myself or someone else- it’s always related to my/their personal fears. Sometimes the cognitive function/shadow theories make sense on a theoretical level, but I don’t see a whole lot of direct relation de facto. How and why a shadow manifests really seems (to me) to be far more contingent on one’s upbringing (and all its surrounding unresolved issues) than one’s type. To be sure, several unresolved issues will likely be as result of a person’s type- but the issues are still going to vary greatly according to who incited the issues in the first place (i.e. an INFJ with ESTJ & ESFJ parents is going to have very different shadow manifestations than an INFJ with two INTJ parents).

The point about fears seems very valid but I do think this does have some linkage to type though. I think there are other factors related to fear that have nothing to do with experience/upbringing or type. People have irrational fears for no obvious reasons.

For the example of the INTP I gave, I believe one of the issues he has is a fear of failure - that any moment things could come crashing down - which leads him to operate in self interest and grab/hold onto more than he should - to plan for the future, hedge his bets, keep his options open. I know this is part of it because I've talked to him about these issues. That might be potentially type related come to think of it but it would certainly not be limited to his type. He won't change his behavior until it results in direct negative consequences that become obvious enough to him.
 

edcoaching

New member
Joined
Jun 30, 2008
Messages
752
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
7
In my understanding, the shadow side is both a great gift and our nemesis. Using our less preferred perceiving and judging functions gives our dominant and auxiliary a rest. Further, there's a childlike quality, free from overcontrolling perfectionism, that comes when we purposely use them for rest and re-creation. We aren't so sure what will happen, so delights come our way.

But...no matter how far down the path to individuation one travels, one never arrives. When we fail to admit that there are functions we do not use as capably, they can rise up to haunt us.

Leave aside for a moment whether there are 4 functions in 2 attitudes or 8 separate functions (still a matter of great debate, actually) and think whether you truly know of anyone who is equally good at reality and conjecture, or at objectivity and subjectivity. Yes we gain skills, and we can turn them on and off. But when stress, or emotions, or exhaustion, or other factors ply at our control, the shadow can truly cause trouble. As someone old enough to carry an AARP card, I can say that my friends and I talk more about how we HAVEN'T mastered our shadow than incidences of where we have. We're still ourselves even if we understand the value of and find it easier to sometimes use the other side.

M Scott Peck (The Road Less Traveled) wrote about an incident in his last book, Glimpses of the Devil, where he ignored the major weakness inherent in the shadow of INTJs (his type). The person who did his feedback session made him feel pretty cool with all of the intellectual and leadership style factors that describe INTJs. Then the person said, "But all someone has to do to take you down is point out an incompetency and you can fall apart if the chips are already down." The book describes the dire consequences when this happened...an interesting account from someone I'd consider well down the road to individuation...
 

Z Buck McFate

Pepperidge Farm remembers.
Joined
Aug 25, 2009
Messages
6,048
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
The point about fears is seems very valid but I do think this does have some linkage to type though. I think there are other factors related to fear that have nothing to do with experience/upbringing or type. People have irrational fears for no obvious reasons.

I agree that type is probably a factor (I did mention that in the last sentence of my first post). Different people of the same mbti type are going to have certain strengths and weaknesses in common with each other- and those strengths and weaknesses play a key role in selecting which issues end up as unresolved baggage for us. I’m just also saying there are factors that aren’t related to one’s type which play a major role too (like the example of how an INFJ with two ESFP parents is going to have very different shadow manifestations than an INFJ with two INTJ parents; or how the shadow issues of an ISFP with two ESFP parents might resemble the shadow issues of an ENTJ with two ESFP parents). It just seems to me that the role functions actually play- in real life manifestations of the shadow- is really not as strong as the theories I’ve read make it out to be. But that, of course, is just my opinion.

Really, like cascadeo, I’m not trying interrupt this thread- I just wanted to throw another perspective into the pot.
 

Kalach

Filthy Apes!
Joined
Dec 3, 2008
Messages
4,310
MBTI Type
INTJ
Check out the INFJs emphasising the content of people's lives over the value of abstract theory--did not see that coming.

(And the INTJs emphasising seemingly inanimate processes. It's a mystery how that so often happens.)

But still...

the content of a person's experiences... do the same experiences strike different people the same way? Obviously not, but what, say, if in some magical far off galaxy where human experimentation was not just mandated but actively enjoyed, there were two persons who had exactly the same upbringing and through a carefully controlled environment had exactly the same experiences... would they always arrive at the same point emotionally and intellectually?

Let's skip to the end and say, obviously, type plays a role in a person's character. But let's wonder some more and ask, can two persons of different type arrive ever at the same state?

The reason I wonder is because it seems obvious that people have deep seated cognitive priorities that undermine conscious attempts at rationalisation and accommodation. People do prefer to get information in given ways and make certain kinds of judgments, and these vary according to type. This, it seems to me, will always be prior to personal experience. Indeed, it will shape personal experience, and you will have partially predictable strengths and weaknesses, indeed preferences for how to handle that experience.

Personal detail will vary, of course. And if that's the most interesting part of the structure for you, then go for it. But how determining is it? And determinant of what?

Not that in the end I disagree with Casca's description of the shadow. In the end it sounds the same as the function description.





Hmmm.... but then the only usefully mechanistic stuff to add is to wonder about early development and how function orders arrive. After that it's all people, people, people. Yuck.
 

Synarch

Once Was
Joined
Oct 14, 2008
Messages
8,445
MBTI Type
ENTP
The Jungian concept of the shadow is pretty straightforward and seems sensible. Whatever unconscious desires and emotions are repressed by consciousness manifest in the shadow. This is how you get these situations where a man is so adamantly against something like homosexuality, for example, due to the suppression of homosexual urges. Then they sometimes find themselves operating under the thrall of the shadow. Consider Ted Haggard: Ted Haggard - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is why we have to be on guard against active repression of genuine emotion.
 

Synarch

Once Was
Joined
Oct 14, 2008
Messages
8,445
MBTI Type
ENTP
In my understanding, the shadow side is both a great gift and our nemesis. Using our less preferred perceiving and judging functions gives our dominant and auxiliary a rest. Further, there's a childlike quality, free from overcontrolling perfectionism, that comes when we purposely use them for rest and re-creation. We aren't so sure what will happen, so delights come our way.

That's a nice idea.
 

highlander

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 23, 2009
Messages
26,562
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
6w5
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
In my understanding, the shadow side is both a great gift and our nemesis. Using our less preferred perceiving and judging functions gives our dominant and auxiliary a rest. Further, there's a childlike quality, free from overcontrolling perfectionism, that comes when we purposely use them for rest and re-creation. We aren't so sure what will happen, so delights come our way.

But...no matter how far down the path to individuation one travels, one never arrives. When we fail to admit that there are functions we do not use as capably, they can rise up to haunt us.

Leave aside for a moment whether there are 4 functions in 2 attitudes or 8 separate functions (still a matter of great debate, actually) and think whether you truly know of anyone who is equally good at reality and conjecture, or at objectivity and subjectivity. Yes we gain skills, and we can turn them on and off. But when stress, or emotions, or exhaustion, or other factors ply at our control, the shadow can truly cause trouble. As someone old enough to carry an AARP card, I can say that my friends and I talk more about how we HAVEN'T mastered our shadow than incidences of where we have. We're still ourselves even if we understand the value of and find it easier to sometimes use the other side.

M Scott Peck (The Road Less Traveled) wrote about an incident in his last book, Glimpses of the Devil, where he ignored the major weakness inherent in the shadow of INTJs (his type). The person who did his feedback session made him feel pretty cool with all of the intellectual and leadership style factors that describe INTJs. Then the person said, "But all someone has to do to take you down is point out an incompetency and you can fall apart if the chips are already down." The book describes the dire consequences when this happened...an interesting account from someone I'd consider well down the road to individuation...

Moving down the practical side then, what does one do to accept, embrace, use for recreation, or do whatever with the shadow to "mine the gold" and minimize it "truly causing trouble"? How does one even know for that matter what one's shadow truly is?

On the second bolded point about the INTJ shadow - can you explain the quote a bit more about chips being down and incompetency? It seems like anybody would be sensitive to criticism at a point like that.
 
Top