The Shadow - Seeds Of Our Downfall

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

Hahahahah.

No I'm not agreeing with you. I'm more saying, "There is no such thing as a tert." I'll use the language as a means of describing, but when I do so, I describe PEOPLE, and use language like tert, aux, or dom, to help classify those people.

For me, as an INTJ, I identify more with Fi than Fe, as I see it play out in my life and elsewhere. However, I do agree with your observations that INTJs often seem to have really good Fe, especially older, more polite ones. I think this is a learned "faux Fe" if you will, playing a game that we know exists but really don't like to play.

Or young ones who have been raised with an Fe aux mother.

 

[KDude]

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.

That's a great way of putting it.

 

[Seymour]

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.

I like the Jungian idea of the shadow a great deal. I think it's helpful functionally, but also in a more general sense. In order for significant integration of the shadow to happen, one's existing coping strategies (and conception of self) must fall short. It's likely that nothing else than some failures will change your coworker and force him to confront what he's missing. None of use like to confront the Other within, and we tend to resist internal change when possible.

I think understanding of functional development is deepened by seeing it in terms of the shadow, although I don't necessarily buy a fixed ranking and role/archetype for each function for each of the 16 types. It makes sense that during the late teens to early twenties we are deepest into our primary two functions, and tend to project the shadow outward onto the rest of the world (and there's a lot of shadow to project at that point). That period is both a time of high idealism and an intolerance for compromise.

I also see elements of shadow projection in both American conservatives' demonizing of gays and "the elite," and liberals' demonizing of fundamentalists and Southerners. In both cases, people are projecting the rejected parts of themselves onto Others who are far away... not good people like you and me.

One hopes that as we mature we claim those rejected parts of ourselves, since there is both power and tolerance in doing so.

 

[Eric B]

In the case of the INTJ, whose functional preferences are NiTe, it isn't possible to describe "how they feel," except empirically. There was for a long while a debate about whether Fe or Fi is really the tertiary (it's a larger debate about whether the tertiary has an orientation the same or opposite the dominant function, and it still goes on today on this forum).

I think what I said earlier explains this.
Again, looking at it as they're being four functions (separate from the orientations), F is "the tertiary function". It naturally would be placed in the suppressed external realm, like the aux. and inferior. (thus, Fe). Yet the Puer complex orients it to the dominant internal attitude, thus yielding "Fi".

All that's really going on is that we say, for example, Ni and Te. Then everything else are "other functions" that seem to come into play in odd ways. This cuts to the core of one's understanding of MBTI. Does one's type simply indicate preferences, so one actually has and uses all functions to some degree or another, or does one really only use a couple of function, which wiggle around and try and act like the others, except badly (hence shadows)? There is no way to decide the question. The mind is too flexible, too adaptable, to describe this way, I think. We're simply putting labels on what we think we see, but we have no concept of what it essentially is. Jung eventually abandoned his typology material: it was not a focus of his attention for long.

As for the rest iof the functions, since they are not preferred like Ni and Te, they all can be considered "shadow". The inferior is on the border between a less unconscious and more unconscious area.
People are making too much of the numerical ordering by saying "we don't really know what's after the first two". Just as much so as those who think it is actual strength or something.
That just shows the roles they play in the unconscious, which mirror and shadow the first two.

 

[highlander]

I'm sorry, but all of this reads like astrology to me.

To the extent that I like and understand MBTI and Jungian functions, I have always disliked the arbitrary "orderings" and "shadows" and similar extensions of the theory. I think it's all complete nonsense, attempting to describe something that simply is not describable in terms of the top two functional preferences.

All that's really going on is that we say, for example, Ni and Te. Then everything else are "other functions" that seem to come into play in odd ways. This cuts to the core of one's understanding of MBTI. Does one's type simply indicate preferences, so one actually has and uses all functions to some degree or another, or does one really only use a couple of function, which wiggle around and try and act like the others, except badly (hence shadows)? There is no way to decide the question. The mind is too flexible, too adaptable, to describe this way, I think. We're simply putting labels on what we think we see, but we have no concept of what it essentially is. Jung eventually abandoned his typology material: it was not a focus of his attention for long.

Shadow functions of all varieties, therefore (I conclude, not that I've proved anything, since it's all unfalsifiable), really can't be used except as post facto explanations of why someone doesn't appear to be behaving/perceiving/reacting according to type, but one hasn't enough justification to say that the person is a different type.

Hmmm - this is an interesting perspective and one that I did not think you would have. I apologize in advance for the novel here...

The first time I heard about the shadow, I was in an AMA management development program. The instructor asked us to list the top 10 characteristics of people we can't stand. He then asked us to list the top 10 characteristics of people we greatly admire. We each then read out the lists.

He then explained this concept of the shadow and how we should carefully consider how many of those top 10 negative characteristics were attributes that we ourselves actually had but did not want to admit. He then suggested that the top 10 positive characteristics were the "gold" in the shadow - qualities we may not realize in ourselves that we had or could have. He then went onto explain the connection with MBTI - look at your opposite type and that your reaction would likely be "who is that!? yuk!".

Having considered this concept over the years, my belief is that the way Cascadeco describes the shadow is absolutely dead on. It is real. There is absolutely no question in my mind that this thing exists.

When it comes to MBTI/Functions and this shadow concept, I guess I had no opinion until I read Beside Ourselves. It made more impact on me than any book I'd read on MBTI. At first, I saw how what was being described resonated with me personally. Then I sought evidence as to how other types behaved when "in the grip of the inferior". I found numerous examples supporting the theory/concepts.

Let's look at one example - what an eruption of the inferior looks like for an Introverted Intuitive type (e.g. INTJ and INFJ). From "Beside Ourselves":

Typical provocations or triggers - "dealing with details, especially in an unfamiliar environment. " It is described, how at times, we feel "overwhelmed with details". Another trigger is "too much extraverting."

What happens to the Introverted Intuitive? A few examples:
"Obsessive Focus on External Data" - "experienced as a state of intensity and drivenness", "obsessing about facts and details", "i stew about what is going on...am mentally fatigued and find myself putting things in order and trying to control everything around me", "i nitpick about things in the environment. i bombard people verbally and obsess out loud", "i get hung up on some false fact and distort it"
"Overindulgence in Sensual Pleasures" - "takes the form of sensual excess rather than sensual pleasure"
"Aversarial attitude towards the outer world" - "I feel anxious, exposed and childish", "I become dogmatic and blast people with facts", "I am angry, unreasonable, totally irrational, close minded, and impatient"

You get the idea. Horrible stuff to be sure. When we are at our absolute worst though - what do we act like? Understanding what the triggers are, how we respond to them, etc. - is extraordinary self knowledge to have.

So, Uumlau, Aphrodite or anyone else for that matter - if you doubt there is validity to this concept of the "shadow", I would encourage you to read that book. I'd encourage you to list the top 10 negative qualities and top 10 positive ones, and think about it.

As far as the specific ordering of the functions go, I can't say for sure, but I'm quite intrigued by what Andy and others have provided in this thread.

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

Let's look at one example - what an eruption of the inferior looks like for an Introverted Intuitive type (e.g. INTJ and INFJ). From "Beside Ourselves":

Typical provocations or triggers - "dealing with details, especially in an unfamiliar environment. " It is described, how at times, we feel "overwhelmed with details". Another trigger is "too much extraverting."

I've read this stuff somewhere on here before, and I guess I didn't have time/take the time to respond then......I do not feel overwhelmed with details or extravert too much when I'm stressed, necessarily. I might, but I'd do lots of other things too.

What happens to the Introverted Intuitive? A few examples:
"Obsessive Focus on External Data" - "experienced as a state of intensity and drivenness", "obsessing about facts and details", "i stew about what is going on...am mentally fatigued and find myself putting things in order and trying to control everything around me", "i nitpick about things in the environment. i bombard people verbally and obsess out loud", "i get hung up on some false fact and distort it"
"Overindulgence in Sensual Pleasures" - "takes the form of sensual excess rather than sensual pleasure"
"Aversarial attitude towards the outer world" - "I feel anxious, exposed and childish", "I become dogmatic and blast people with facts", "I am angry, unreasonable, totally irrational, close minded, and impatient"

First of all, how can these behaviors be attributed to Se? The stewing could be construed as an Ni/Ti loop. Bombard people verbally could be over use of Fe. Second of all, yeah, okay, I know lots of people besides dominant irrationals who do these things when they are stressed. And third, I might do some of these, but I also do other things too, like withdraw or go on a healthy hike or go out to eat with a friend to talk. It's not necessarily ugly and it's not necessarily done via a recipe.

I have done the ESTP shadow thing, but mostly when I was much younger, like still in intermediate/high school. Still, it didn't necessarily reflect any definite pattern when I stressed.

Could you give an example of another type out of that same reference for study?

I think it has to be considered that this is another Forer effect at play; finding ways to fit in to a certain mold.

 

[highlander]

I've read this stuff somewhere on here before, and I guess I didn't have time/take the time to respond then......I do not feel overwhelmed with details or extravert too much when I'm stressed, necessarily. I might, but I'd do lots of other things too.

First of all, how can these behaviors be attributed to Se? The stewing could be construed as an Ni/Ti loop. Bombard people verbally could be over use of Fe. Second of all, yeah, okay, I know lots of people besides dominant irrationals who do these things when they are stressed. And third, I might do some of these, but I also do other things too, like withdraw or go on a healthy hike or go out to eat with a friend to talk. It's not necessarily ugly and it's not necessarily done via a recipe.

I have done the ESTP shadow thing, but mostly when I was much younger, like still in intermediate/high school. Still, it didn't necessarily reflect any definite pattern when I stressed.

Could you give an example of another type out of that same reference for study?

I think it has to be considered that this is another Forer effect at play; finding ways to fit in to a certain mold.

I don't care about fitting into any mold.

Just to be clear - the things that cause the response are the stressors - like too much detail for an introverted intuitive. A practical example for me personally is when I used to do my own taxes. I became an obnoxious person. Every time.

What I can only say is that as I read these things, they resonated for me personally and deeply (need to read the book). I picked a few quotes that resonated with INTJ and not necessarily INFJ.

 

[KDude]

Seriously man, being obnoxious is nothing. There's gotta be a better example. You're lucky if that's all the ESFP shadow does.

 

[highlander]

How about Introverted Thinkers?

I

Could you give an example of another type out of that same reference for study?

Again, encouraging people to read the book, but some key quotes from Naomi Quenk for Introverted Thinking Types,

"Introverted thinkers may frequently notice and comment on what they consider to be inappropriate, irrelevant, even histrionic communication styles and behaviors by others."

"Being around people who are expressing strong emotion can serve as a trigger for intuitive thinkers, especially if others are criticizing their personal characteristics."

Logic emphasized to an extreme - "Introverted thinking types in the grip of the inferior extraverted feeling may become passionately insistent on the application of logic, becoming quite emotional about their approach."

Hypersensitivity to Relationships - "In the grip of the inferior extraverted feeling, the introverted thinker experiences increasing hypersensitivity to feeling areas"

 

[Totenkindly]

However, I do agree with your observations that INTJs often seem to have really good Fe, especially older, more polite ones. I think this is a learned "faux Fe" if you will, playing a game that we know exists but really don't like to play.

ahhh......!!!

Nice, I had been puzzling over that for awhile but hadn't quite come to conclusions on it. I've noticed it, though, too. There's at least a social sensibility that mirrors Fe and they can play by the rules... the thing is I could tell realistically that it was all just in order to follow established protocol in order to keep everything functioning efficiently and things clarified, but not because the Fe stuff was the preferred style. If you get the same INTJs alone, I had found them as blunt and crass as any typical NT; the Fe thing was just a costume. That's different from the primary/secondary Fe'ers, who actually seem to think in terms of Fe first as far as what behavior should be followed in a social setting.

 

[Seymour]

ahhh......!!!

Nice, I had been puzzling over that for awhile but hadn't quite come to conclusions on it. I've noticed it, though, too. There's at least a social sensibility that mirrors Fe and they can play by the rules... the thing is I could tell realistically that it was all just in order to follow established protocol in order to keep everything functioning efficiently and things clarified, but not because the Fe stuff was the preferred style. If you get the same INTJs alone, I had found them as blunt and crass as any typical NT; the Fe thing was just a costume. That's different from the primary/secondary Fe'ers, who actually seem to think in terms of Fe first as far as what behavior should be followed in a social setting.

I think of my dad (an unbalanced ESTJ) of having a kind of faux Fe. He's learned the social rules by rote and applies those rules to fairly good effect. He can be a little emotionally tone deaf in social situations, but unless you observed him closely you'd never realize how unaware he is of his own emotions and those of others (unless they explicitly spell them out). It's almost as though he has mechanically learned a social script that he knows when to invoke.

That's not to say he doesn't care about people and isn't deeply committed to his principles.

 

[highlander]

ahhh......!!!

Nice, I had been puzzling over that for awhile but hadn't quite come to conclusions on it. I've noticed it, though, too. There's at least a social sensibility that mirrors Fe and they can play by the rules... the thing is I could tell realistically that it was all just in order to follow established protocol in order to keep everything functioning efficiently and things clarified, but not because the Fe stuff was the preferred style. If you get the same INTJs alone, I had found them as blunt and crass as any typical NT; the Fe thing was just a costume. That's different from the primary/secondary Fe'ers, who actually seem to think in terms of Fe first as far as what behavior should be followed in a social setting.

As much as I completely agree with your post... It's not all about all about efficiency and clarity. It's not exactly an Fe costume. Social skills are relatively important to anybody's success, including INTP, ISTP, INTJ, ISTJ and others.

Also, remember Fi is at the very core of the INTJ. It represents the morals, principals, etc.

 

[Coriolis]

I think of my dad (an unbalanced ESTJ) of having a kind of faux Fe. He's learned the social rules by rote and applies those rules to fairly good effect. He can be a little emotionally tone deaf in social situations, but unless you observed him closely you'd never realize how unaware he is of his own emotions and those of others (unless they explicitly spell them out). It's almost as though he has mechanically learned a social script that he knows when to invoke.

That's not to say he doesn't care about people and isn't deeply committed to his principles.

This is almost exactly how I operate, thanks to my upbringing by an ESFJ mother. Faux Fe is a good way to describe it. It is just a simulation, however effective. As Highlander says, it isn't always just to help things run more efficiently. Sometimes my motivation really is putting someone at ease and making them feel comfortable, but in this case, it would have to be someone I respect or care about a great deal. Otherwise I would probably revert to the usual blunt and guarded behavior Jennifer mentioned.

 

[KDude]

I had written down some experience as an ISFP, but I'm not sure how to talk about it..so I deleted it. I'll try again without specifics.. I think some ISFPs go under the radar (like many girls probably), but for me, there has always been enough opportunity for stress in an aggressive "alpha" EST type of environment (Or maybe I just had a perfect storm of bullshit, I dunno. Some people grow up differently, I guess.). I've never developed a productive coping mechanism yet for dealing with certain types of environments - but at one point in time, I inhabited a part of myself that could deal with it pretty easily.. it just wasn't the right way to go about things. That's what my (more refined) values tell me now.

I'd rather find a way to fight off stress on an "ISFP's" terms. Not my "shadow's". But I don't exactly know what the ISFP's terms are either, tbh. I keep reading that we can be a little too harmonious for our own good, and passive-aggressive at worst - and I've tried that too.. But it's not good enough. There's gotta be some balance.

 

[Ginkgo]

I'm the voice inside your head
You refuse to hear
I'm the face that you have to face
Mirrored in your stare
I'm what's left, I'm what's right
I'm the enemy
I'm the hand that will take you down
Bring you to your knees

So who are you?

The Foo Fighters!

On a serious note - I think we often see our shadow evoke itself in the form of an external threat, or an oppositional force in our lives. It's something that most people battle with on a secondly basis, but it is only by embracing our shadows that we can be at peace. This isn't just in reference to MBTI, but also the Animas and Animus, the Mother, the Father, and every archetype that manifests itself in the mind of the individual.

On a larger scale, we have seen that society as a whole is coming closer to individuation, accepting the interchanging roles of father and mother, male and female, authoritative and anti-authoritative, at least in some ways in the Western World. The lack of self-awareness is disconcerting, though.
The Archetypes of Oz

I also think that functional analysis doesn't even address the half of what the shadow is and is besides the point. It forces you to look at yourself and others through a certain lense that is convoluted. It fails to consider other facets of the conscious, subconscious, and unconscious mind that are essential to the understanding of one's shadow and one's whole self.

 

[uumlau]

ahhh......!!!

Nice, I had been puzzling over that for awhile but hadn't quite come to conclusions on it. I've noticed it, though, too. There's at least a social sensibility that mirrors Fe and they can play by the rules... the thing is I could tell realistically that it was all just in order to follow established protocol in order to keep everything functioning efficiently and things clarified, but not because the Fe stuff was the preferred style. If you get the same INTJs alone, I had found them as blunt and crass as any typical NT; the Fe thing was just a costume. That's different from the primary/secondary Fe'ers, who actually seem to think in terms of Fe first as far as what behavior should be followed in a social setting.

As Highlander says, it's not a "costume". There's no "faking". Rather, it's how Te deals with "Fe matters". Fe has a similar means of dealing with "Te matters." At the extreme, the Fe user will note that the Te user, while quite polite, occasionally makes really obvious mistakes w/r to dealing with people. The Te user will note that the while the Fe user appears to be very reasonable and competent, occasionally makes serious errors in logical/logistical matters.

The key is that these are cognitive functions: the Te user looks at a people situation and analyzes it logistically, as objective factors that might be manipulated. In so doing, the Te user can trod over people's feelings, leaving them very upset, especially if their being upset doesn't get in the way of the Te user's objectives. The Fe user can make the reverse error, and manage a logistical situation as if it were a people problem, e.g., when told that the order cannot be filled because there aren't enough widgets, the Fe user, rather than figuring out how to get more widgets, will tell employees to not have such a negative attitude.

In both cases, the functions are managing very similar areas of life, often with similar results. The approach of each function is from rather different perspectives.

Hmmm - this is an interesting perspective and one that I did not think you would have. I apologize in advance for the novel here...

The first time I heard about the shadow, I was in an AMA management development program. The instructor asked us to list the top 10 characteristics of people we can't stand. He then asked us to list the top 10 characteristics of people we greatly admire. We each then read out the lists.

He then explained this concept of the shadow and how we should carefully consider how many of those top 10 negative characteristics were attributes that we ourselves actually had but did not want to admit. He then suggested that the top 10 positive characteristics were the "gold" in the shadow - qualities we may not realize in ourselves that we had or could have. He then went onto explain the connection with MBTI - look at your opposite type and that your reaction would likely be "who is that!? yuk!".

Having considered this concept over the years, my belief is that the way Cascadeco describes the shadow is absolutely dead on. It is real. There is absolutely no question in my mind that this thing exists.

I'm not exactly saying it doesn't exist. MBTI/Jung make two very different kinds of assertions. One assertion is that you can take your type as a self-description, and use it to identify your strengths and weaknesses and improve yourself. The other assertion is that there's this "internal wiring" of Jungian functions that work a particular way, with tertiaries and inferiors and shadows, and all that. It is typical on this forum for people to assert that thus and such a function is operating, and draw conclusions. I find that people tend to do this in such a way as to derive the conclusions that they want to derive, that they have already concluded.

If you want to say "negative aspects of personality", or "weaker aspects of personality that could bear improvement," and call that a "shadow," I really don't have any beef with that. If you want to say Ni-Te has a shadow of Ne-Ti or Se-Fi or Fi-Se, and therefore these are weak/dark/improvement-needing aspects of personality, I'll reply that you're putting the cart before the horse. In general, for an INTJ, all the aspects of personality that our outside of Ni-Te are "weak" or "shadows" or "bear improvement." Not just particular aspects in particular ways.

When it comes to MBTI/Functions and this shadow concept, I guess I had no opinion until I read Beside Ourselves. It made more impact on me than any book I'd read on MBTI. At first, I saw how what was being described resonated with me personally. Then I sought evidence as to how other types behaved when "in the grip of the inferior". I found numerous examples supporting the theory/concepts.

Let's look at one example - what an eruption of the inferior looks like for an Introverted Intuitive type (e.g. INTJ and INFJ). From "Beside Ourselves":

Typical provocations or triggers - "dealing with details, especially in an unfamiliar environment. " It is described, how at times, we feel "overwhelmed with details". Another trigger is "too much extraverting."

What happens to the Introverted Intuitive? A few examples:
"Obsessive Focus on External Data" - "experienced as a state of intensity and drivenness", "obsessing about facts and details", "i stew about what is going on...am mentally fatigued and find myself putting things in order and trying to control everything around me", "i nitpick about things in the environment. i bombard people verbally and obsess out loud", "i get hung up on some false fact and distort it"
"Overindulgence in Sensual Pleasures" - "takes the form of sensual excess rather than sensual pleasure"
"Aversarial attitude towards the outer world" - "I feel anxious, exposed and childish", "I become dogmatic and blast people with facts", "I am angry, unreasonable, totally irrational, close minded, and impatient"

And one can read a horoscope and say, "Yeah, that's really me." I'm not seeing the cause and effect here. A typical tactic of an astrological description is to assert both positive and negative things in an interpretation. The natural inclination of the reader/listener is to listen to both, and choose the one that seems to fit best.

My main point here is not that MBTI is false. I definitely see a lot of value in it. However, I see patterns of thinking here that look like patterns of thinking that lead to self-delusion. There are certainly truthful conclusions that one derives by so doing, but rather one is fooling oneself into thinking that the means of deriving those conclusions is valid.

There's a scam that has been used to sell stock brokerage services. The people doing the scam will start with a very large pool of people. It will then send out a simple market prediction to all of them, half of the people are told the market will go down this week, the other half are told it will go up. Then the next week, the half to which the correct prediction was sent are sent another prediction, half of those people being told it will go up, and the other half down. Repeat a few times, but stopping well before you run out of people. You have a much smaller pool of people, but ALL of them now think you're a wiz at predicting the stock market ... after all you were right 6 out of 6 times, for example, and thus you are very likely to do business with them. Astrology and other mystical investigations of personality are like this scam, with very good techniques to sound correct and predictive, even though they're nothing of the sort. I don't put MBTI into this category, but I do put the various extensions of MBTI there.

 

[KDude]

Again, like I was asking highlander if he could provide a better example than being "obnoxious" under the stress of doing taxes, I think acting "Fe" like when you're usually a Te is just... kind of underwhelming for a "shadow". It seems like it's only worth talking about if you're really not yourself (in more than just one "function".. and in very immature ways to boot). Having your shadow triggered by mundane changes in environment, like being around "Fe" people is silly. A person should count themselves lucky if that's all that's stressing them. If you don't have much stress, don't search for it, and stretch the defintion to the point of assigning these minor things as your shadow.

 

[Eric B]

ahhh......!!!

Nice, I had been puzzling over that for awhile but hadn't quite come to conclusions on it. I've noticed it, though, too. There's at least a social sensibility that mirrors Fe and they can play by the rules... the thing is I could tell realistically that it was all just in order to follow established protocol in order to keep everything functioning efficiently and things clarified, but not because the Fe stuff was the preferred style. If you get the same INTJs alone, I had found them as blunt and crass as any typical NT; the Fe thing was just a costume. That's different from the primary/secondary Fe'ers, who actually seem to think in terms of Fe first as far as what behavior should be followed in a social setting.

Then, with ISTJ's, you have the Si, which holds onto learned values and protocal. SJ also has as its "temperament need", the need to "belong" to "concrete structures" such as family unit. That in itself souds rather Fe-ish.
As I had been arguing elsehwere, ISTJ women can look like dead ringers for Feelers.
I wasn't sure how it worked for INTJ's.

 

[Kalach]

Just to noodle with the ideas a bit.... the sixth function, the critical parent... used to imobilise and demoralise others... but used sporadically and emerges more often in stressful situations when something important is at risk.... For me that would be introverted thinking.

Introverted thinking. And not, say, the habits of being "objective" plus a monster dose of Fi+Ni? -- sucking the extroverted thinking back inside to become introverted? Is it still extroverted thinking, but overwhelmed by an introverted focus.. Or is it actually introverted thinking? One can presumably witness the behaviour, but what of the actual processing?

Or, consider the trickster, the seventh--for me, Fe. Using this process I can fool myself into thinking something is important when it isn't. Like, say, by imagining that for the sake of efficiency and effectiveness as far as other people are concerned, it's important to be polite--or perhaps if something is important enough I can be polite and concerned about harmony? Nope, actually, that's too thoughtful. More like, someone looks at me and they have some concern or query in their eye and I get upset because I know I can't make them at ease so I try to be smiling and happy anyway for the sake of just not getting upset anymore even though, actually in practice, it never works well but I haven't got any other resources...

That last one in particular is either wrong as a presentation of when a shadow function is working for me or it's proof that Beebe shadows aren't that impressive because that "feeling" described above is easily conceived of as some combination of Ni/Te/Fi/Se all working together normally (or as normally as some combination of mature/growing/immature/basementdweller functions can.


On the other hand... if to have Xy function really means that you have X function just like anyone else with X function except you happen to have a heavy y focus just so that you actually have a functioning function (because without direction, consciousness doesn't, um, "conch", a made up verb to instantiate a claim that consciousness that is static isn't consciousness), then technically, given some consciousness shaking circumstances, you can access the opposite focus too if you like.

Which is to say, it needed be the case that the top four "functions" explain everything. As much as one would like them to, or as much as introspection seems to point that way, shadows aren't ruled out. Indeed, introspection could sort of be expected to hide the shadows. Introspection would be keyed to the familiar functions (or function orientations) as explanatory.

How about "Use it or lose it"? The function orientations that oppose the function orientations of your top four "functions" are rarely (if ever) consciously animated. Blink and you miss them. (Or blink and you disguise them as what they aren't, your normal functions.) So how do they contribute? To call the unconscious mind "archaic" seems a bit of an understatement.

 

[highlander]

Again, like I was asking highlander if he could provide a better example than being "obnoxious" under the stress of doing taxes, I think acting "Fe" like when you're usually a Te is just... kind of underwhelming for a "shadow". It seems like it's only worth talking about if you're really not yourself (in more than just one "function".. and in very immature ways to boot). Having your shadow triggered by mundane changes in environment, like being around "Fe" people is silly. A person should count themselves lucky if that's all that's stressing them. If you don't have much stress, don't search for it, and stretch the defintion to the point of assigning these minor things as your shadow.

Actually, the taxes thing is a trivial and dumb but perfect example. Normally, I'm a big picture person. I don't get worked up about unimportant details. I'm fairly rational. I'm not obnoxious. When I used to do these myself, I'd get awfully worked up - about documents that were missing, doing things in the right order/sequence, verbal/loud, etc. The point is that you act in a way that is very much not like yourself.

Are there times when you act in a way that's different than the way you normally are? Afterwards, you feel stupid. You don't know why you acted that way. That's what I'm talking about.