Developing Shadow Functions: Pointless?

[Opal]

Do you agree?

(Apologies if this thread already exists--I did a shallow search for "shadow functions" and came up dry)

[Geonat]

Do you agree?

(Apologies if this thread already exists--I did a shallow search for "shadow functions" and came up dry)

I'm against it just because he's so confident about his convictions. What if it turns out in ten years that he changes his mind. Would he apologize for having mislead the youth? I doubt it. :-)

[Opal]

I'm against it just because he's so confident about his convictions. What if it turns out in ten years that he changes his mind. Would he apologize for having mislead the youth? I doubt it. :-)

Haha, I find conviction discouraging as well. My dilemma for much of my life has been whether to specialize or seek to round myself out intellectually. I've mostly gone with the latter, but at times the former is very appealing.

[Alea_iacta_est]

Developing shadow functions proves to be something that is ultimately useless to the self.

Socionics, for instance, incorporates the Shadow Functions into the Super-Ego and the Id Block.

The Super-Ego block is extremely loathed and thought of as one's characterizing flaws (mainly the PoLR, which is practically a blindspot for sociotypes)

The Id block is deemed tedious and unnecessary, to the point where its existence nags the sociotype by forcing him/her to do work for those functions that they do not particularly find helpful.

Therefore, assuming that the two models are equally translatable, developing the shadow functions will only lead to personal misery in the form of embarrassment and self-loathing (Super-Ego) or doing something that is tedious, boring, and vapid (Id).

Also, the Beebe model shows how nasty shadow functions can be, such as the trickster function (Socionics equivalent = PoLR), which is seen as the evil that ensnares the individual into playing its little games and losing and even projecting one's complete failure to use the function onto others.

Socionics specifically says that to be happy, one must stick to one's own guns in the Ego block, and find one's dual to satisfy the unconscious desires of the Super-Id block.

JCF specifically says that to be happy, one must develop one's lower functions and learn from them, usually citing the inferior function as one of profound wisdom and transforming nature when expressed positively (juxtaposing the insidious evil of the Demonic Personality Complex when expressed negatively, corresponding to Socionics's Role Function, that which suppresses the Hero (Lead/Dominant)).

The only shadow function that could be considered as relatively useful is the Demonstrative Function of Socionics or the Witch/Senex function of JCF, due to its unconscious affect on one's own worldview and, specifically in Socionics, provides the user with a way to protect one's dual's PoLR from others (as one dual's PoLR is the other's Demonstrative), meaning that the sociotype can defend its dual from harsh criticism with relatively strong force against Ego-valuing types of the Demonstrative function.

[Geonat]

Developing shadow functions proves to be something that is ultimately useless to the self.

Could it be useful to someone else than the self? (Trying to save what is possible of a 20 year career in engineering if it turns out than I'm an INFP :-) )

[Alea_iacta_est]

Could it be useful to someone else than the self? (Trying to save what is possible of a 20 year career in engineering if it turns out than I'm an INFP :-) )

Cognitive functions can't tell you what you'll be good at or what your career should be, they tell you how you function, psychologically. Each type can complete any task, but they do them in different ways. INTJs and ENTPs, for instance, almost always reach the same conclusions, but reach them in utterly different ways (Socionics calls the intertype relation between INTps and ENTps contrary, due to the backwardness perceived in the others' work).

While I'm sure T would definitely favor over F in a technical field, its so slight it doesn't matter.

Now, the people you will probably be working with will be a majority of INTPs, INTJs, ISTJs, and possibly some ENTJs, so you might seem to function differently from them in the workplace simply because your functional stack is different.

As in regards to helping someone else, developing the Trickster and/or the Role function, though incredibly tedious and unappetizing, would please your supervisor type (in case of INFP/INFj, supervisor is ESFP/ESFp). The development of the demonstrative function is completely unconscious usually, but would be to the benefit of being able to protect your dual's (ESTj) PoLR. Developing the ignoring/anti-hero function would be tricky, due to its unconscious nature and conflict with the hero/lead.

[Geonat]

Cognitive functions can't tell you what you'll be good at or what your career should be, they tell you how you function, psychologically. Each type can complete any task, but they do them in different ways. INTJs and ENTPs, for instance, almost always reach the same answers, but reach them in utterly different ways (Socionics calls the intertype relation between INTps and ENTps contrary, due to the backwardness perceived in the others' work).

While I'm sure T would definitely favor over F in a technical field, its so slight it doesn't matter.

Now, the people you will probably be working with will be a majority of INTPs, INTJs, ISTJs, and possibly some ENTJs, so you might seem to function differently from them in the workplace simply because your functional stack is different.

Thank you for this quick and succinct reply. The 20 years mentioned above have already passed (5 yrs eng phys, 4 yrs eng consulting, 5 yrs phd, 6 yrs eng consulting - and yes a lot of xNTx but with very few exceptions always a very pleasant group of people to be with. This could be important for my future. Perhaps about time to look at HR in that case?