• 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.

What's the consensus on the use of shadow functions?

G

garbage

Guest
So, yeah. We've got dominant and auxiliary functions, which types are known for. Some folks like to drag in tertiary and inferior functions as well (often as an 'argument by my type knowing better than yours because you have inferior Fe, haw haw haw'; but I digress).

What about those poor, poor shadow functions? Our perceptions of how those are supposed to play out are all over the place.

Some regard, say, INTJs as not 'having' or 'using' Ti because they use Te instead--that they synthesize Ti with a combination of Te and Se (or something). Some claim that Ti for them would be in some 6th position that means something-or-other; I forget exactly.

Others, like me, believe differently and invoke time-proven principles such as Occam's Razor and 'if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then we may as well call it a flippin' duck' and that, screw it, INTJs can and do 'use' Ti.

So, when we talk orientations to different functions or treat functions as axes (e.g. SeNi axis versus SiNe axis), we may as well get a bunch of ideas out there and see which ones stick.

Personally, I regard most of the function position talk as unnecessary and counterproductive. I'm of the belief that the fluff consists of any discussion past the dominant function, a smidgeon of auxiliary, and a mental note that we innately repress the opposite of the dominant. Defining function positions more rigidly lead us to describe complex mental phenomena with a structure composed largely of toothpicks and chewing gum--it might hold up as adequate for a 3rd grade science fair, but not for a proposal to a panel of keen psychologists.

If we're to assign roles for all of the functions, I like the way Socionics does it. It actually acknowledges that all types 'access' all functions, even those that are counter to the types' egos.

What say you?
 

miss fortune

not to be trusted
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
20,589
Enneagram
827
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
I'm still sticking to the idea that types are just people's ways of trying to corral people who use similar functions into definable groups because people feel more comfortable with people who they can label... the problem is that there's 8 different functions and nobody wants to deal with as many different types as it would take to describe the different combinations (like 40,000 or something), so it's narrowed down to 16 and fails to take into account that people most frequently DON'T use their functions in the same orders as the different types prescribe... in other words, saying that types use their functions in a specific ordering is just oversimplifying the complexity of human brains and processing manners :)

I should quit trying to condense ideas into something that can be typed quickly for fear that the forum will die because that was probably ununderstandable :thumbdown:
 

Mal12345

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 19, 2011
Messages
14,532
MBTI Type
IxTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
So, yeah. We've got dominant and auxiliary functions, which types are known for. Some folks like to drag in tertiary and inferior functions as well (often as an 'argument by my type knowing better than yours because you have inferior Fe, haw haw haw'; but I digress).

What about those poor, poor shadow functions? Our perceptions of how those are supposed to play out are all over the place.

Some regard, say, INTJs as not 'having' or 'using' Ti because they use Te instead--that they synthesize Ti with a combination of Te and Se (or something). Some claim that Ti for them would be in some 6th position that means something-or-other; I forget exactly.

Others, like me, believe differently and invoke time-proven principles such as Occam's Razor and 'if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then we may as well call it a flippin' duck' and that, screw it, INTJs can and do 'use' Ti.

So, when we talk orientations to different functions or treat functions as axes (e.g. SeNi axis versus SiNe axis), we may as well get a bunch of ideas out there and see which ones stick.

Personally, I regard most of the function position talk as unnecessary and counterproductive. I'm of the belief that the fluff consists of any discussion past the dominant function, a smidgeon of auxiliary, and a mental note that we innately repress the opposite of the dominant. Defining function positions more rigidly lead us to describe complex mental phenomena with a structure composed largely of toothpicks and chewing gum--it might hold up as adequate for a 3rd grade science fair, but not for a proposal to a panel of keen psychologists.

If we're to assign roles for all of the functions, I like the way Socionics does it. It actually acknowledges that all types 'access' all functions, even those that are counter to the types' egos.

What say you?

You are free to report such typism with the "report post" button. I believe that the admin here have been trying to get this under control lately and that your complaint will be taken seriously. It is the height of douchebaggery for anybody to do this to someone. But you can't get rid of function analysis as there are too many here who take it seriously.
 

miss fortune

not to be trusted
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
20,589
Enneagram
827
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
furthermore, would it be that types are functions instead of that they use them... and are there really types anyways? :thinking:

:sadbanana:

... wait... that idea could piss a lot of people off! I LIKE it! :holy: :devil:
 
G

garbage

Guest
I'm still sticking to the idea that types are just people's ways of trying to corral people who use similar functions into definable groups because people feel more comfortable with people who they can label... the problem is that there's 8 different functions and nobody wants to deal with as many different types as it would take to describe the different combinations (like 40,000 or something), so it's narrowed down to 16 and fails to take into account that people most frequently DON'T use their functions in the same orders as the different types prescribe... in other words, saying that types use their functions in a specific ordering is just oversimplifying the complexity of human brains and processing manners :)
We love to come up with explanations for things. Sometimes, those explanations are universal and generalizable. Often, they're not. Less often, but still frequently, they're flat out silly when we share them with the real world and treat them as absolutes; they're more useful as nebulous constructs in our heads.

I should quit trying to condense ideas into something that can be typed quickly for fear that the forum will die because that was probably ununderstandable :thumbdown:
I have a potential solution to this.

You are free to report such typism with the "report post" button. I believe that the admin here have been trying to get this under control lately and that your complaint will be taken seriously. It is the height of douchebaggery for anybody to do this to someone.
Hahaha, I'm totally just going to start doing this.

But you can't get rid of function analysis as there are too many here who take it seriously.
Yeah. There's some merit to the theory. For me, it's a matter of exploring how much merit there actually is.

At least, I think classifying into thinking and feeling, sensing and feeling, and each of those into introverted and extraverted components is a neat way of looking at cognitive processing--and, for many purposes, it can even be said to be comprehensive.

That idea has merit. Many extensions of that idea (though not all), possibly including tertiary and inferior functions, do not. Notions of what to do about 'shadow functions' are all over the place and lack merit the most, in my view, and the fact that they are contentious raises questions about the tertiary and inferior.

furthermore, would it be that types are functions instead of that they use them... and are there really types anyways? :thinking:

:sadbanana:

... wait... that idea could piss a lot of people off! I LIKE it! :holy: :devil:
I made the argument in another thread that Jung himself describes e.g. "The Extraverted Intuitive" rather than "The Extraverted Intuition function" and we may want to look at people rather than functions, but then it turned into like a three page argument about a single word so I gave up.

I like ideas that 'piss people off' regarding type. It shakes up our complacency and keeps us fresh. :devil:
 

Rasofy

royal member
Joined
Mar 7, 2011
Messages
5,881
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
I've been thinking about that lately. I reject the shadow functions theory. I don't think people need to be stressed to access their shadow functions. I believe they are there all the time, but one usually stands out - and the other tends to be overshadowed.


I have this theory:


Roughly,
what we call ''Si'' is actually something like 75% Si 25% Se
what we call ''Ti'' is actually something like 75% Ti 25% Te
etc.
This way, it is not unlikely that an INTP(Ti-dom) could use more Te than an ENFP(Tert-Te).
An INTJ could use more Ti than an ENFJ.
 

miss fortune

not to be trusted
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
20,589
Enneagram
827
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
We love to come up with explanations for things. Sometimes, those explanations are universal and generalizable. Often, they're not. Less often, but still frequently, they're flat out dumb.

like lies to children... only the problem is that everyone stops on the bottom rung and refuses to explore any further :doh:



yes... I do know how to save them, but it still pisses me off to get that stupid "not found" screen nonetheless :sorry:

I made the argument in another thread that Jung himself describes e.g. "The Extraverted Intuitive" rather than "The Extraverted Intuition function" and we may want to look at people rather than functions, but then it turned into like a three page argument about a single word so I gave up.

people enjoy arguing over single words WAY too much... watching this forum is like watching religious sects form :thelook:

I like ideas that 'piss people off' regarding type. It shakes up our complacency and keeps us fresh. :devil:

I will have to check that out... new ideas are like new toys... possibly toy dinosaurs :holy: or pterodragons :ninja:
 
G

Ginkgo

Guest
I cannot deny the "use" of shadow functions because their presence is just as evident in the expression of their dominant function as their dominant is. I see it, even in the descriptions of the functions themselves. The whole "preference" term severely detracts from the actual essence of what the functions are, and suggests that any single one "likes" being in the position it's in.
 

INTP

Active member
Joined
Jul 31, 2009
Messages
7,803
MBTI Type
intp
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx
Introverted functions start from subjective aspect, can wander around on objective aspects also, but lead back to subjective one.

Extraverted functions start from objective aspect, can wander around on subjective aspects also, but lead back to objective one.

When functions are working together, for example Fe leading Ti. It starts from objective factor of F, but does so unconsciously, lead to subjective factor of T, go back to objective factor of F and back to subjective factor of T.
So its Fe(external world) -> Ti/Fe(internal world) -> Fe/Ti(external world) -> Ti(internal world).

So even tho Fe goes to internal world, its not Fi, because it starts and leads back to objective world.
 

SilkRoad

Lay the coin on my tongue
Joined
May 26, 2009
Messages
3,932
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
6w5
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
The idea that we're actually accessing all the functions will certainly be a problem for the "I hate, loathe and despise Fe - it is a vile piece of slime on the face of the universe" squad!
 

Snow Turtle

New member
Joined
May 28, 2007
Messages
1,335
Usually I just view functioning order like this,

Dominant, Auxillary, Tertiary, 'Shadows', Inferior in terms of preference. I don't really pay too much attention to the idea that certain functions in certain positions must activate in this manner. I just hold the general opinion that the functions support the overall mindset of an individual (which is usually categorised by their dominant-auxillary).

Even then, I'm not sure if it's just reporting bias/coincidence that my tertiary just happens to be my third preference given that there are many ISFJs who would choose another function over Ti. But overall I've found the idea of tertiary temptation appealing as a theory in explaining my upbringing. I do like the idea of what Rasofy had suggested and I could see it holding true quite a fair bit.

It'd be interesting to examine whether most people actually have a preference for their tertiary over the other equivalent counterpart. IFJs - Ti over Te, IFPs - Ni over Ne and so forth. Otherwise we're just entering really sketchy grounds that can't be really examined at all.

Edit: Just looking at previous threads (Function orders), it just seems all over the place. I probably now hold the opinions that it might just be a very descriptive evaluation of an individual. You can see how they all intermingle together to form an individual.

For example I just did my own test again... and well... I still identify with Fe but it's definitely manifested differently in comparison to other ISFJs.

extraverted Sensing (Se) ******************** (20.7)
limited use
introverted Sensing (Si) ************************************** (38)
excellent use
extraverted Intuiting (Ne) *********************** (23)
limited use
introverted Intuiting (Ni) ************************ (24.5)
average use
extraverted Thinking (Te) **************************** (28.6)
average use
introverted Thinking (Ti) ********************************** (34.7)
good use
extraverted Feeling (Fe) **************************** (28.9)
average use
introverted Feeling (Fi) ***************************************** (41)
excellent use

Overall I do think it weakens MBTI as a theory, but I think I still identify enough with other ISFJs as an overall entity for it to exist. It just means there's a lot more subtypes of a particular type than the initial idea of 16 categories...
 

Nales

New member
Joined
Feb 8, 2012
Messages
74
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
This specific test has badly written questions about Fi. Pretty much everyone gets high results on it.

I remember reading that "shadow functions are only used reluctantly and with much difficulty". This seems to apply well to me. I don't tend to naturally use Te and I'm pretty bad when I have to organize things. Ni I still don't understand what it's really about, but I clearly don't have any "visionary / prediction" talent. As for Se... I don't believe I can accurately comment how pathetic I am with this function.
Fi appears to be an exception. But that's because in my opinion Ti and Fi and closely related.

"Shadow functions" make less sense when we venture into tertiary and inferior functions, because even the corresponding dominant functions aren't used much to begin with.

The idea that we're actually accessing all the functions will certainly be a problem for the "I hate, loathe and despise Fe - it is a vile piece of slime on the face of the universe" squad!
See, it takes a strong Fi to make such a powerful statement. Proof that both functions aren't used equally! ;)
However there are also other factors that can make you "seem" to use a function more than you should. Insecure and fearful people might appear to use Fe, but that could be only because they'd rather accomodate with other people than risk harm to themselves.
 

highlander

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 23, 2009
Messages
26,562
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
6w5
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
The shadow functions are something I've been wondering about for a long time. It seems like the top four all have a very clear influence. The rest are sort of just there - not particularly important. They represent something a bit foreign to me. I think they are present and we may use them from time to time but they just aren't that significant in our cognitive make-up.
 

Snow Turtle

New member
Joined
May 28, 2007
Messages
1,335
This specific test has badly written questions about Fi. Pretty much everyone gets high results on it.
Definitely. The Fe questions aren't that great either.

I remember reading that "shadow functions are only used reluctantly and with much difficulty". This seems to apply well to me. I don't tend to naturally use Te and I'm pretty bad when I have to organize things. Ni I still don't understand what it's really about, but I clearly don't have any "visionary / prediction" talent. As for Se... I don't believe I can accurately comment how pathetic I am with this function.
Fi appears to be an exception. But that's because in my opinion Ti and Fi and closely related.

"Shadow functions" make less sense when we venture into tertiary and inferior functions, because even the corresponding dominant functions aren't used much to begin with.

I'm starting to think this is applies mostly with the Judging functions but doesn't really matter with Perceiving functions. Reason being that we're constantly coming across individuals who score highly on Si and Se, or Ni and Ne. But less so for Te and Ti or Fe with Fi (Taking into consideration the test is flawed)... It wouldn't really conflict with the idea that as we are needing to actively engage in specific mindset that reflects judging functions, it's a lot more difficult than perceiving functions...

You think that the tertiary function has a major influence. Only to discover that while most ITJs have a strong preference for Fi over Fe. The reverse isn't actually true, there are countless of IFJs with a preference for Te over Ti and so fourth. It just weakens the idea that they are reluctant to engage and all that.

Honestly, I'm tempted to throw the whole system out nearly. It still serves as a nice descriptive element (each contain particular traits), but the whole interaction with each other effect can be interpreted so differently by many individuals.
 

KDude

New member
Joined
Jan 26, 2010
Messages
8,243
I think tertiary is a bit overrated around here. It seems like people like to ascribe more to that than the two dominant attitudes. In my case, I think I suppress a lot Ni related thoughts. If I read too much into things, I get kooky. Best not to act on it. As for shadow, I don't hate Fe. I just don't want to bother with it or participate in groups or activities that require that I bend that way or require that level of expression. I don't really know how anyways. I think there's a part of me though that values it, whether I like it or not. It's like the monkey from Family Guy, pointing at me from a corner, telling me I'm a social and moral fuckup. I used to think it was Fi, because there's a strong moral element in this finger wagging. But I don't think it's Fi now... I realized that I'm externalizing a lot of it. There's a pressure to live up to it, but I have a quick breaking point.
 
S

Society

Guest
when we talk orientations to different functions or treat functions as axes (e.g. SeNi axis versus SiNe axis), we may as well get a bunch of ideas out there and see which ones stick.

just check the color-coded pattern from the cognitive function results, and i have noticed the same in the cognitive function results of other types...

basically, it seems we have many people with a very high usage of functions in both the function's directions - Ne & Ni, Te & Ti, etc..

i think this suggests that the direction (I-E) of a function is a gray area - that is, that Ne-Ni people (like myself) actually use their intuition a lot and that the intuition is somewhere between introverted and extraverted intuition.
 

KDude

New member
Joined
Jan 26, 2010
Messages
8,243
just check the color-coded pattern from the cognitive function results, and i have noticed the same in the cognitive function results of other types...

basically, it seems we have many people with a very high usage of functions in both the function's directions - Ne & Ni, Te & Ti, etc..

i think this suggests that the direction (I-E) of a function is a gray area - that is, that Ne-Ni people (like myself) actually use their intuition a lot and that the intuition is somewhere between introverted and extraverted intuition.

I don't see how you could be strong in both types of intuition. One explodes in multiple ways, one hones in on specifics. One is brainstorming, the other tinfoil hat visionary stuff.
 
S

Society

Guest
I don't see how you could be strong in both types of intuition. One explodes in multiple ways, one hones in on specifics. One is brainstorming, the other tinfoil hat visionary stuff.
that's redicules - it's like saying you don't know how i can be strong in both my capacity for sleep and my capacity for workouts because the opposite nature of the activities... my body is quite capable of both.

so is my intuition apearently... at least by the definitions of the test.
 
G

garbage

Guest
just check the color-coded pattern from the cognitive function results, and i have noticed the same in the cognitive function results of other types...

basically, it seems we have many people with a very high usage of functions in both the function's directions - Ne & Ni, Te & Ti, etc..

i think this suggests that the direction (I-E) of a function is a gray area - that is, that Ne-Ni people (like myself) actually use their intuition a lot and that the intuition is somewhere between introverted and extraverted intuition.
God, yes; thank you. I have always identified with descriptions for both Ne and Ni. Whether or not I am actually reaally attuned to Ni in the way that Ni users are said to be is a different matter, but I would just go back to my principle of 'walks like a duck.' It's true that Ne and Ni are conceptually different; one is divergent and the other is convergent, so on and so forth. But the truth is that many of us identify with both, and we may as well reconcile reality with our theory. (On the other hand, it should be noted that some Ne-dominants do not identify with Ni at all.)

I can say that I 'synthesize' Ni through Ne and Ti, or.. whatever, but why not just call it Ni? In general, why not call it being oriented to intuition? Why not call it something along the lines of openness? Socionics realizes that 'Ne users' can 'be attuned to Ni,' so why can't we as adherents of MBTI embrace that concept as well?

Ni may not be an Ne user's default, primary way of navigating the world, but to claim that the so-called shadow functions are completely out of reach is ridiculous. To claim that they're out of conscious reach is less ridiculous, but still kinda ridiculous.

This also indicates that the types ought to be defined by their default, primary ways of navigating the world, that they ought to strive for reaching beyond these primary ways, but that they should not be limited to these primary ways. For example, hardcore Ne-dominants may neglect thinking and feeling, and may very well repress sensing. (This means that, say, they may start enterprises without reaping their benefits or seeing them through.) Jung himself says as such. To me, they ought to recognize this and work on it.

Same applies for all of the functions and types, of course.
 

KDude

New member
Joined
Jan 26, 2010
Messages
8,243
that's redicules - it's like saying you don't know how i can be strong in both my capacity for sleep and my capacity for workouts...

My point is that they'd be working against each other. It's one thing to say the two types can follow and understand the other, but a different thing to prefer both at the same time. Ne doms don't seem to get tied down to a specific perception or meaning. They keep pursuing and indulge in possibilities. NJs are more focused.. and once they are focused, they'll take a dump on other possibilities. In their minds, they've already gone through them.
 
Top