If I've perceived the motivation for this behavior incorrectly, it would be more helpful for you to explain why that is.
It's actually that you perceived the behavior incorrectly -- at least for myself.
I don't act that way...
I realized while driving for the last hour that it might be a dom vs. aux difference, though.
So, if you were referring only to Jag, then maybe you're accurate.
If you were referring to all NTJs or any group of which I am a member, it would not be accurate.
My point was that I had just defended you from Jag's criticism that you are always boxing people into their supposed typological boxes, and then you went and did just that...
I don't know, exactly. I guess I would expect the non-shadow function to get a lot more emphasis. What do you think Ni+Ti or Ne+Te together looks like when developed well? And can these two work well together without a comparably strong balancing influence from a function of opposite orientation?
Ni+Ti looks like hardcore spiritual and philosophical thinking. Very abstract. Very Ni. But, at the same time, very structured. Not practical in the commonly thought Te way.
Ne+Te, as I said, would be hard for me to distringuish from Se+Te. When I get going in one of these modes, I become super extraverted, very "on the ball", and, well, I generally get a lot of attention from the ladies. I get into a kinda wheelin-and-dealin mode that is not my normal personality, but that is definitely back their latent and ready to come out, when the right opportunity presents itself.
Oh, I see. I am not really sure how the strengths of shadow functions compare to the tertiary/inferior. I suspect that we tend to unconsciously vent negativity via the tertiary and inferior, but that we can build some sort of comparatively small competence in the shadow functions through deliberate training and repetition. Most people don't force themselves into this sort of situation though, because it's uncomfortable. I think use of the tert/inf is probably more comfortable than any shadow because that seems to be most people's preferred method of venting frustration--it comes out without any real effort, even if frequently in a negative way. The shadows seem to require a much deliberate shift of focus.
See, my theory is that the more balanced J and P are, the more adeptly someone will be able to use their shadow functions.
Furthermore, I believe one's dominant and auxiliary function types will determine which shadow functions are most readily accessible: hence, an INTJ will be able to access Ne and Ti more readily than Fe and Si.
The theory goes further into the effect of I/E balance on which shadow functions are most readily accessible, as well as S/N and T/F balance.
I doubt that we can sustain use of shadow functions for very long periods of time.
I would actually probably agree with you here. I think it is an energy drain.
However, I do think we can use them.
I think it's really hard to distinguish the use of the tert/inf shadows from the primary functions figuring out how to expand their skill sets, though.
In fact, my thesis is that it's impossible.
People on this forum are always talking about how it's so difficult to reflect on what functions one is actually using.
I call bullshit to that sentiment.
I'm not saying certain people don't have difficulty doing so, and I'm not saying there isn't inherent uncertainty in essentially all attempts to do so, but what I am saying is that people who are more apt at self-reflection, self-awareness, and, for whatever reason, are just more capable of doing this kind of stuff -- and I do think various levels of capability exist in this regard -- can actually come to a good enough understanding of themselves, and, in some circumstances, others, to accurately understand what functions are playing out in which ways in their own and other people's minds.
That being said, this question of "am I using my shadow functions or have my dominant and auxiliary function simply learned to 'mimic' my shadow functions?" is absolutely the single most difficult issue to get beyond when it comes to self-reflecting on one's own functional usage.
It's impossible to really know on this one.
So you basically just have to resign to the fact that there are two schools of thought...
Or, on the other hand, perhaps we just haven't fleshed out these ideas well enough, and thus haven't had the right conversations to be able to make these unconscious process conscious yet.
A la Jag's signature.
I don't have a complete answer for the dynamics of shadow functions at this time. You may be right.
This debate will continue.
Perhaps I will convert you yet...
Jaguar's advice is simple: Don't be an NTP.
Yeah. Seriously, Jag. You confuse me in this regard.
I mean, I find NTP thinking ridiculous a lot of the time, but you
really seem to hate it.
I actually find it useful in ways: particularly when it's properly weilded and/or and NTJ can hold the reins of the conversation and keep it focused.