Eric B
ⒺⓉⒷ
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2008
- Messages
- 3,621
- MBTI Type
- INTP
- Enneagram
- 548
- Instinctual Variant
- sp/sx
If those parallel and reflections are direct related to the cognitive functions, they are testable then.
Actually, this principle "The more you pay attention to one thing, the less you are paying attention to its opposite" is used to build the function stack, isnt it? Thats how the "4th" function (for INTP its Fe) is determinated in function of the 1st function, Ti, isnt it? The cognitive function opposite table, mirror table, reflection table, is like this:
Fi<--->Te
Fe<--->Ti
Ni<--->Se
Ne<--->Si
Problem is on the 2nd and 3rd function on the stack. If they are opposites, why they are so close? If the function stack was only 4 that was ok, but it has 8 positions besides our 4th cut version. There is this inconsistency in the parallel. If we apply this principle to all positions, cognitive functions should have a this symmetry:
Ti-Ne-__-__-__-__-Si-Fe
With Si and Fe at last positions, because "The more you pay attention to one thing, the less you are paying attention to its opposite".
as I said, the correlation analysis shows there are some truths but instead of chained rules I get repulses/attractions through correlations.
Again, the functions aren't eight "things"; it starts with S, N, T, F (the middle two dichotomies, basically), and then four complexes take them and assign the position and attitudes to them. The order is basically set by the complexes, and the complexes are what get less conscious the further down you go, and start with the first two (the ego itself, and the auxiliary "caretaker", which is what sets the function "whose nature is different from, though not antagonistic to, the leading function".
So the "other four" are just the same four functions with the attitudes reversed, which perspectives are paid to even less than the first four, and picked up by four more negative versions of the first four complexes. Because it starts with the initial attitudes of the four functions, that's why the diametric opposites of #1 and 2 aren't 7 and 8, though in Lenore's model, it is set up like that, because 7 and 8 are the same hemisphere brain alternatives which come up first when the dominant can't solve a problem (until we learn to turn to the tertiary more). And then 5 and 6, the direct "shadows" of the dominant and auxiliary, are also stronger than the tertiary and inferior.
But this is still ordering by strength; 1-4 likely will fall into that order, but it's 5-8 (the Shadows) that really don't follow any particular order (again, the numbering is just to show the parallel to 1-4), so you can still see it the way you have it.
Here you can see the reflecting and shadowing dynamic: http://www.erictb.info/shadowreflections.png