The Shadow - Seeds Of Our Downfall

[highlander]

From time to time, I've read about the "shadow", more commonly referred to our dark side. It is said that for many a successful person, their downfall can be traced to their shadow. The purpose of this thread is to explore the topic of the Shadow. First - what is it and why we care?

Jung said the shadow "personifies everything that [one] refuses to acknowledge about himself and yet is always thrusting itself upon him." I have seen the shadow described in several ways including:

The Bag We Pull Behind Us - There are a number of things relating to our character or history that we try to repress because it is painful or makes us feel inadequate. In this case, the shadow is compared to the "bag we pull behind us" of all the things we don't want to acknowledge about ourselves. The longer life goes, the more full the bag gets, potentially to the point where we can't pull it anymore. This is related to the concept of "projection" where we quickly identify negative qualities in others that we ourselves possess but are not willing to admit.

The Shadow Functions - The four functions which oppose the functions in our type. For example, if an INTPs function order is: Ti, Ne, Si, and Fe. The shadow functions are correspondingly Te, Ni, Se, and Fi. How these functions manifest themselves in people is unclear or inconsistent in current literature. Lenore Thompson refers to them as "double agents" and "crows nest" functions.

Eruptions Of The Inferior - In Naomi Quenk's book, "Beside Ourselves," she describes the concept of the eruption of the inferior. During an eruption of the inferior, a person acts like an extremely poor version of their opposite type. During one of these episodes for example, a stressed INTJ behaves like a childish and horrific example of an ESFP. These episodes can be fleeting or in some cases go on for longer periods of time. It is a situation where we are "not ourselves", regress and become childish and after a time come back to equilibrium.

These are the descriptions I've seen but I'm not an expert. I'm hoping that with the collective knowledge and wisdom of the people on this forum that we can have a discussion that helps to provide some clarity on this confusing topic. What are your perspectives on this?

- What is the shadow?
- Why is important?
- Why do we care about this as individuals?

 

[highlander]

I just came across this in Wikipedia. It's a little confusing/convoluted.

Shadow (psychology) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[highlander]

This seems useful

Dr. Carl Gustav Jung's Concept of the Shadow

 

[miss fortune]

hmmm... some interesting ideas to process... I'll get back to this with some thinking...

 

[Kalach]

Re the shadow...

given a developmental model where as the years go by conscious processing is increasingly enriched by more and more content from the lower function levels, the shadow is something we slowly come to terms with. But in the meantime...

The concept of differentiation is interesting here. When normal cognitive processing consistently fails to provide adequate compromises for handling some ongoing stress, we apparently look further and further down the function order for answers. When dreaming and logic fails, INTJs start appealing to emo. And when emo fails, they try physical solutions. But to actually do this directly and overtly for more than a matter of few seconds requires some ongoing situation or condition that is uncomfortable and inimical enough that the person retreats from their normal mode of functioning. And that kind of retreat is deeply unsettling and is consciously avoided for most of your life! People don't do shadow lives unless under such consistent and inescapable pressure that they can't be what they understand as themselves anymore. But what do you turn to if the unconsciousness is undifferentiated? How does an INTJ "know" to resort to in-the-moment force rather than say, extroverting intuition? And how is it that other people routinely can see the shadow in you that you don't see in yourself?

(Well, that last question has an obvious answer: your identity is tied to your conscious processing, but what you actually do and display includes the unconscious processing... but what is unconscious processing? A question for another day perhaps.)

So anyway there's that, but there's another interesting thing associated with tertiary functions: how people react in the presence of the opposite of their tertiary function. For example, an INTJ in an Fe environment.

I think people can resort to tertiary and inferior functions and move into the grip of that shadow. And in normal times when they would prefer to have nothing to do with that side of themselves, they'll see signs of it in other people and either be fascinated or repelled, depending on how secure and satisfied they were with their upper level functioning.

But for opposite functions, particularly experience with functions that oppose their tertiary, I don't know what happens there. Probably people attempt to view those opposites as defective versions of their own functions--in word they have lots in common, but in form and function, they're opposed and unrecognisable.

Depends, I guess, on how flexible one takes functions to be. If it's easy to swap orientations, why should there be a concept of a shadow at all? And what is the unconscious?

 

[highlander]

Re the shadow...

given a developmental model where as the years go by conscious processing is increasingly enriched by more and more content from the lower function levels, the shadow is something we slowly come to terms with. But in the meantime...

Paraphrasing - so you are saying that over time, we gradually develop greater visibility and exposure to the lower level functions and because of that, we gradually come to terms with this "dark side" of our personality. Is that right?

The concept of differentiation is interesting here. When normal cognitive processing consistently fails to provide adequate compromises for handling some ongoing stress, we apparently look further and further down the function order for answers. When dreaming (Ni) and logic (Te) fails, INTJs start appealing to emo (Fi). And when emo fails, they try physical solutions (Se).

Are the items I bolded what you mean?

But to actually do this directly and overtly for more than a matter of few seconds requires some ongoing situation or condition that is uncomfortable and inimical enough that the person retreats from their normal mode of functioning. And that kind of retreat is deeply unsettling and is consciously avoided for most of your life! People don't do shadow lives unless under such consistent and inescapable pressure that they can't be what they understand as themselves anymore. But what do you turn to if the unconsciousness is undifferentiated? How does an INTJ "know" to resort to in-the-moment force rather than say, extroverting intuition? And how is it that other people routinely can see the shadow in you that you don't see in yourself?

Can you say more? This is pretty interesting. For example, what do you mean "resort to an in-the-moment force rather than say, extraverting intuition"?

I must admit that some of this baffles me when it comes down to functions. For example, as an INTJ, I'm somewhat comfortable with Ne and Ti which are shadow functions though I may never have as much natural ability as someone who leads with those. Se feels much more "shadowy" to me (my inferior).

(Well, that last question has an obvious answer: your identity is tied to your conscious processing, but what you actually do and display includes the unconscious processing... but what is unconscious processing? A question for another day perhaps.)

So anyway there's that, but there's another interesting thing associated with tertiary functions: how people react in the presence of the opposite of their tertiary function. For example, an INTJ in an Fe environment.

I think people can resort to tertiary and inferior functions and move into the grip of that shadow. And in normal times when they would prefer to have nothing to do with that side of themselves, they'll see signs of it in other people and either be fascinated or repelled, depending on how secure and satisfied they were with their upper level functioning.

But for opposite functions, particularly experience with functions that oppose their tertiary, I don't know what happens there. Probably people attempt to view those opposites as defective versions of their own functions--in word they have lots in common, but in form and function, they're opposed and unrecognisable.

Depends, I guess, on how flexible one takes functions to be. If it's easy to swap orientations, why should there be a concept of a shadow at all? And what is the unconscious?

These are pretty interesting points. I have definitely observed the things in the first bolded paragraph. For example - some serious relationship problems between ISTJs and ENFPs (repelled). I also think the attraction of opposites is quite prevalent in romantic relationships, especially when people are younger (fascinated).

 

[InsatiableCuriosity]

This is a very interesting discussion in which I would very much like to participate. At the moment however I am brain dead, and expect to continue to be so until I have submitted all student results mid next week and completed the course I am undertaking at the same time.

I will in the meantime however be following the thread with great interest and hopefully it won't be derailed to triviality beforehand.

 

[gromit]

Actually I also had an off topic question.

My INTJ kid looked up at me today and said: "Is this a sign?" referring to the grill on his toy truck.

I said "No, that is the grill. It is used to..."
"IT'S A SIGN!!!" he yelled.
I looked at him oddly recalling he does this fairly often.

He will ask a question in which he already knows what he thinks the answer is.
When you answer the question he argues and tells you why that isnt really true.

Now, I have great amounts of respect and adore both highlander and Z, but I recognized this same pattern in both of them. You guys will start threads as questions, but really already have a pretty concrete answer. Then when others give you input, it feels as though they get dismissed a touch.

I am not being critical, just confused by the best way to provide data. If an INTJ already knows the answer and cant be swayed, why do they ask the question? If I understand this, it helps me understand how much new information to provide, or if my time is better spent doing other stuff.

Well some of the time I have a fairly good idea of the answer in my mind before I even ask the question, but I ask anyway because other people's reasoning can highlight weaknesses or holes in my understanding of the situation (or reinforce my understanding of the situation). Perhaps more of a subtle tweaking than anything I could necessarily articulate.

I am not an INTJ though...

 

[Andy]

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.

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.

 

[Totenkindly]

How does an INTJ "know" to resort to in-the-moment force rather than say, extroverting intuition?

My guess is that Ne is too close to Ni and maybe they are not even as clearly separate as the theory tries to make them. So the mind instinctively feels that NEITHER is working and thus goes for something completely different to change it up, out of desperation.

Why do INTPs drop into Si instead of Te, for example? Well, some INTPs DO move into Te -- if they were raised in environments that taught them Te strategies. But typically (and maybe here's another answer to your question), we move toward a function that is aimed in the same direction as our primary because that's the sort of thing that is comfortable to us in a situation that is becoming uncomfortable. So an INTP might normally use Ne to engage the world while thinking strategically about the options Ne instigates... but if it's not working, the inclination is to withdraw, conserve energy, retreat to a position of certainty (Si). It's a bunker position. An extrovert's tertiary would be extroverted, which is fine to the extrovert because s/he instictively extroverts anyway -- it's the most comfortable flow of energy.

The tertiary thus shares (1) energy flow and (2) creates a new J/P pairing with the primary, so it's still a more stable position if the Primary + secondary pairing does not work.

Retreat to the inferior is less a retreat and more like a blowout. It doesn't pair with the primary, it supplants it as the same J/P style of function. And the size of the blowout does hinge a great deal of how much the inferior has been repressed/avoided over the years. Someone who is comfortable with their inferior doesn't really have a blowout; if they're stressed and the primary isn't working, they can switch consciously to the inferior and use its approach to ungum things.

 

[proteanmix]

Is this going to turn into yet another INTJ/ENFP cuddle puddle or are people interested in exploring more than just those two types?

I would really like to hear/read other voices and hopefully give others the opportunity to remark without their comments and observations being drowned out and ignored.

 

[Eric B]

Just put this up last night, and it was made an "article":
Understanding the Archetypes involving the eight functions of type (Beebe model) - PersonalityCafe

It's a compilation of the key stuff I had been relaying from my studies on the archetypes and shadows. In the "Archetypes of the Functions" thread here, I was still in the process of learning it, and adding stuff as I went on. In this new posting, it's all put together as a one-stop building-up-from-scratch tutorial.

Some of the key elements that should be understood are that archetypes are basically defined as "a way of organizing human experience that gives it collective meaning". The conglomeration of images, memories, and emotions surrounding an archetypal core, but unique to ourselves.

When we have individual experiences that fit into these particular collective frames of organization we are discussing, they then enter the personal part of the unconscious, and become complexes. The archetype is at the core of the complex. And then the archetype forms an encasement around the function. The function then becomes the operational perspective or "world-view" of that complex.

Another thing that should be pointed out is, Lenore Thomson has put it, "the products of undifferentiated functions are capable of reaching consciousness, but only in so far as they're linked to the 'operating charter' of the network our differentiated function has set up. This diverts their potential energic investment to dominant goals."
When it's linked to the ego's "network" of the operating charter, it can be "scooped out" of the unconscious shell as needed, as Beebe has put it.

Hence, to answer the question about an INTJ in an Fe environment. It won't necessarily trigger his shadow. It depends on the contex of the Fe, in light of his personal experiences.


Since the complexes; especially the shadows, are part of the personal unconscious (involving memory/experience), then that gives us a clue as to when they surface, and notably, which one in particular might surface. So I was finally able to put together these basic points on how this stuff works. For one, the shadows are mainly about projection. That was the final key for me for the whole thing of how and when they surface to fall together.

1) The [archetypal] complexes (personal unconscious) are triggered when a situation invokes a memory of an experience associated with the corresponding archetype. Like something that makes us feel inferior, adversarial or cranky; or makes us feel trapped, or feels like evil. We then view this through the perspective of the associated function-attitude.

2)Others' manifestations of these functions may trigger these memories, and affect us in kind. (i.e. according to the archetype, and it's functional perspective). Otherwise, they will be subject to how they fit the ego's goals (positively, no effect, etc).

3)We normally see the functional perspectives as "irrelevent" (or sometimes even have an aversion to them or situations calling for them), and under stress, engage them in a rash, haphazard way. Again, the products of the undifferentiated functions do not have this effect on us when not in conflict with the ego.

4)We project them onto others, in which we see the other person as the archetype. (This can be either from them truly acting in a way that matches (resonates with) the archetypal complex, or likely more often, just our manufacturing the illusion of such when a situation somehow evokes it). We then react to them in the same way. (adversarial, critical, etc).

The goal is to see these archetypes in ourselves rather than project them. If we "own" them, then, we may withdraw the complex, and gain more conscious control over the shadow.

 

[Kalach]

Paraphrasing - so you are saying that over time, given that we gradually develop greater visibility and exposure to the lower level functions and because of that, we gradually come to terms with this "dark side" of our personality. Is that right?

Yeah, one of the possible dark sides, anyway. The tertiary and inferior are (probably) present when we're young, but not especially accessible to consciousness since consciousness is busy coming to working grips with basic identity first. So we start out knowing ourselves as our dominant function (and maybe auxiliary too), and then... expand.

Can you say more? This is pretty interesting. For example, what do you mean "resort to an in-the-moment force rather than say, extraverting intuition"?

Ah well, it was rhetorical. Assuming orientation of functions and function orders are both mostly fixed, then we don't "know", we just have no other choice. This is a question of orthodoxy, I guess, but currently I don't see how any functions theory of consciousness holds together if orientations and orders aren't reliable. It just seems like it would be that a personality with weak function orientations or blurry function orders is a weak and/or blurry personality, so in general, faced as we are with people seemingly actually functioning, that it seems dumb to assert that kind of weakness. If functions are flip-flopping all over the place and orders ares shifting sands, how does a personality even exist?

I must admit that some of this baffles me when it comes down to functions. For example, as an INTJ, I'm somewhat comfortable with Ne and Ti which are shadow functions though I may never has as much natural ability as someone who leads with those. Se feels much more "shadowy" to me (my inferior).

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?


Again, that last is probably an orthodoxy question and relates back to theories of how consciousness is both constituted and structured. But I think there's reason to suggest that function order and orientation are not just stipulations. And that Beebe shadows are more or less wholly inaccessible if they exist at all. There's room in the head for some kind of relationship to opposite functions, but if that relationship is supposed to be conscious use, then I'd have to wonder if function-based personality theory doesn't blow apart at the seams and become actually useless as an explanatory device.

 

[Totenkindly]

Is this going to turn into yet another INTJ/ENFP cuddle puddle or are people interested in exploring more than just those two types?

I would really like to hear/read other voices and hopefully give others the opportunity to remark without their comments and observations being drowned out and ignored.

People tend to know best what they've actually experienced.

Yes, it's good to explore various types; and I'm cool with various types coming here and sharing their relevant experiences, rather than just a few prominent types carrying the writing load for everyone and talking about things they might not have experienced deeply.

 

[cascadeco]

From time to time, I've read about the "shadow", more commonly referred to our dark side. It is said that for many a successful person, their downfall can be traced to their shadow. The purpose of this thread is to explore the topic of the Shadow. First - what is it and why we care?

Jung said the shadow "personifies everything that [one] refuses to acknowledge about himself and yet is always thrusting itself upon him." I have seen the shadow described in several ways including:

The Bag We Pull Behind Us - There are a number of things relating to our character or history that we try to repress because it it painful or makes us feel inadequate. In this case, the shadow is compared to the "bag we pull behind us" of all the things we don't want to acknowledge about ourselves. The longer life goes, the more full the bag gets, potentially to the point where we can't pull it anymore. This is related to the concept of "projection" where we quickly identify negative qualities in others that we ourselves possess but are not willing to admit.

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.

 

[proteanmix]

People tend to know best what they've actually experienced.

Yes, it's good to explore various types; and I'm cool with various types coming here and sharing their relevant experiences, rather than just a few prominent types carrying the writing load for everyone and talking about things they might not have experienced deeply.

I agree people know what's familiar to them, but then again, I find the processes of other types interesting too even if they're not my own. There are certain types and typological perspectives that have been explored ad nauseum. To not recognize this almost seems like willful blindness on par with just liking to hear yourself talk. I hate to see a promising thread turn into the same old.

I'm sure there's some shadow in there so have at it!

 

[Totenkindly]

Hmmm, and Jennifer () said above that there's INTPs moving to Te out there too. Are you (both) talking about fundamental cognitive processing or learned behaviours?

My personal perception is that it is learned behavior... if that term applies within the "cognitive preference" framework.

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?

IOW, is it a natural function in itself and you "think" in terms of it, or are you just running an emulator (such as how Windows emulates DOS rather than actually running it)?

That's a question I can't answer. I'm tempted to say it's an emulator, but that assumes that nothing changes and type actually exists as a structure and is immutable rather than just being a convenient notation for a particular collection of behaviors and perceptions.

To do some inductive thinking: Typically when someone learns a new language, they are translating back to their old language in their head. At some point, though, if one has enough practice, can't one start to think in terms of the new language? Without translating back first? One is functional in two languages at once, regardless of which was first.

If type preference is accurate and our primary is the function we preferred and thus got good at, theoretically we should be able to become skilled with other functions IF we put in enough time using them.

Again, that last is probably an orthodoxy question and relates back to theories of how consciousness is both constituted and structured.

Yes, I think that's my point too here.

I'm speaking from experience in that my personal experience has shifted a bit... namely in the dichotomy between traditional Ti and Fe for me. 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 know I started with traditional Ti, all the typical experiences and outlooks and frustrations. I also really was averse to Fe style people. But I was also raised to respect Fe values, then spent years in a marriage with an Fe strong spouse and in an environment that functioned under Fe rules, and I learned to see value in it and eventually not just applied it but began to think in terms of it.

I am wondering how much like language it is. Because I still have a Ti perspective, but I simultaneously think in terms of Fe and sometimes it gets confusing because the two can conflict. It's like listening to something and hearing and processing it in English and Spanish simultaneously. Perhaps one is still being processed more, but I can't quite tell; 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.

 

[angelhair45]

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.

This makes sense to me. I think I may have created dichotomy when I was younger. I lost myself for years and I am finally figuring things out. I had quite a few traumatic events at a young age with no one to talk to. Being and E it took me years to process things myself. I also was in a few situations with some brain washing tactics. So I embraced functions/types that were foreign and extremely uncomfortable.

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.

 

[highlander]

Actually I also had an off topic question.

My INTJ kid looked up at me today and said: "Is this a sign?" referring to the grill on his toy truck.

I said "No, that is the grill. It is used to..."
"IT'S A SIGN!!!" he yelled.
I looked at him oddly recalling he does this fairly often.

He will ask a question in which he already knows what he thinks the answer is.
When you answer the question he argues and tells you why that isnt really true.

Now, I have great amounts of respect and adore both highlander and Z, but I recognized this same pattern in both of them. You guys will start threads as questions, but really already have a pretty concrete answer. Then when others give you input, it feels as though they get dismissed a touch.

I am not being critical, just confused by the best way to provide data. If an INTJ already knows the answer and cant be swayed, why do they ask the question? If I understand this, it helps me understand how much new information to provide, or if my time is better spent doing other stuff.

Haha! Great observation. Thanks for educating us on how we come across! I think INTJs can ask questions when they are looking to further clarify, solidify their guesses/assumptions (or debunk them), etc.

Actually, in this case I fully admit to knowing some stuff but lacking clarity overall in this subject and how you apply this stuff in practicality. I've read a couple books on it and have ended up scratching my head - so what do I do now?

Your post is great - exactly the kind of dialogue I was hoping for anyway.

 

[highlander]

Is this going to turn into yet another INTJ/ENFP cuddle puddle or are people interested in exploring more than just those two types?

I would really like to hear/read other voices and hopefully give others the opportunity to remark without their comments and observations being drowned out and ignored.

People tend to know best what they've actually experienced.

Yes, it's good to explore various types; and I'm cool with various types coming here and sharing their relevant experiences, rather than just a few prominent types carrying the writing load for everyone and talking about things they might not have experienced deeply.

Yeah - I think the concepts are important and should not be limited to one or two types at all. Kalach and I initially used INTJ because it is one we're familiar with.

Please do fire away with your feedback. Proteanmix (and others) what do you think?