The Shadow - Seeds Of Our Downfall

[highlander]

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.

I'm still absorbing some of what's in your link. Really like the explanation in four items above and especially the last sentence after that.

 

[Andy]

There is so much interesting perspective here. A link to the function ordering. I think you're referring to Beebe?

Jungian cognitive functions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Given that, with this working INTJ example, the ordering is:
1 Ni
2 Te
3 Fi
4 Se
5 Ne
6 Ti
7 Fe
8 Si

Is that right?

Absolutely.

I think the important thing to remember here is that the function order is about the way the functions are used. Thus it doesn't actually matter what order you list them in, as long as you know what that order means! Lenore Thomsons ordering looks very strange at first glance. However, once you realise how the strength in Beebes ordering changes, it possible to see that his and Thomsons lists are very similar. She has just rewritten hers to emphasise a different point. The most contentious point is trying to equate the strength of concious and shadow functions directly, something that Beebes orsering avoids.

These comments above really resonate. What a great description.

In my experience, it is a combination of learned behavior (emulated mode) and natural behavior (true self). My two examples were Ti and Ne which I said I was reasonably comfortable with.

Taking Ti as an example - "organizing information according to an internal framework, model, or blueprint and logically prioritizing these categories in terms of the decision to be made", "seeks precision in use of words and the selection of which data to consider...designs taxonomies for data and ideas" (Hartzler)

I probably learned these things doing consulting work. I realized the hard way that many people needed to understand things in this way in order to be persuaded that my recommendations made sense. Left to my own devices, my inclination is to do a fair bit of information gathering, thinking and contemplation and then jump to an answer. It makes sense for me but not others. So I've developed a way to emulate Ti for the sake of convincing/persuading others.

Ne might be different. That seems a bit more natural somehow. Maybe the flip side of your dominant is easier or more natural to develop. It seems contrary to Andy's theory though that I should be comfortable with it since it's #5.

Actually, I'd say that 6 is easier to use successfully than 5. 5 is roughly on a par with 4, and 6 with 3. I'm sure most of us would agree that the tertiary is easier to control than the inferior.

 

[Eric B]

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.

True. You can even see in Berens' books, that the primary functions can become "overdominant", "overprotective", "unsettling", and "projective"; while the shadows can become "backup of the dominant", "wisdom", "comedic" and "transformative". And I have a Hunziker quote of Beebe in there saying that all eight processes can start out as shadow (thoink someone really young), and all eight archetypes can be projected negatively.The dominant and tertiary are the ones we own fairly automatically, and then the parent probabaly follows quickly as well. (You can see right here where Beebe and Lenore begin to harmonize).

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.

That again is the harmony between Beebe and Lenore. 7 and 8. are Lenore's "Crow's Nest" ([same hemisphere] brain alternatives. Though I think it needs to be noted she does not necessarily always ascribes the Trickster/Demon arcetypes to them. She holds those as only coming up in special circumstances).

The Jungian concept of the shadow is pretty straightforward and seems sensible. Whatever unconscious desires and emotions are repressed by consciousness manifest in the shadow. This is how you get these situations where a man is so adamantly against something like homosexuality, for example, due to the suppression of homosexual urges. Then they sometimes find themselves operating under the thrall of the shadow. Consider Ted Haggard: Ted Haggard - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is why we have to be on guard against active repression of genuine emotion.

Also why many conservative Christians were so against psychology. Don't know where Haggard stood on that. He may have been more of a "new-evangelical", who are more moderate on subjects like psychology.
But they believe that "just giving Jesus your life" takes care of all their sin, but apparently, a lot of suppressed stuff still goes unconscious. (Note: this is because they have misunderstood concepts such as "sanctification" which they call "the life change" and think of in purely behavioral terms).
So they think just preachign harder and harder against the sin proves they are over it, but all many of them are doing is projecting their own shadow. And psychology exposes this, and it doesn't look good on them. (Swaggart is a good example of someone who condemned psychology. Called it "sorcery" once! Yet he fell, obviously having a problem he couldn't beat, and then the denomination sent him to a psychologist!

I think the important thing to remember here is that the function order is about the way the functions are used. Thus it doesn't actually matter what order you list them in, as long as you know what that order means! Lenore Thomsons ordering looks very strange at first glance. However, once you realise how the strength in Beebes ordering changes, it possible to see that his and Thomsons lists are very similar. She has just rewritten hers to emphasise a different point. The most contentious point is trying to equate the strength of concious and shadow functions directly, something that Beebes orsering avoids.

Actually, I'd say that 6 is easier to use successfully than 5. 5 is roughly on a par with 4, and 6 with 3. I'm sure most of us would agree that the tertiary is easier to control than the inferior.

According to Beebe, the functions usually "develop" in the order of 1,2,3,7,4,5,8,6. Of course, that won't be a hard rule either. It does seem that for me, the 6th is yet the weakest, though with a better understanding of what Ni really is, now, it might be different.

The order does make sense, especially in Light of Lenore's teaching, because looking at it as four functions, both 3 and 7 are realy "the tertiary function". It initially was deemed to be the opposite attitude from the dominant, like the aux. and inferior. That would actually amount to what we are now calling "#7". Yet the Puer complex orients it to the dominant attitude, creating "#3".

This development is supposed to occure in early adulthood, while the inferior is supposed to develop midlife. The others then are sometimes after that.

But what Lenore taught me was that it is really not about "developing functions" (as if they were skills), but rather withdrawing the complexes, which then brings the associated functions under more conscious control.

So I'm not sure how the two versions of the theory square on that point. I know Lenore is trying to be more purely Jungian, and I think sees some of the other theorists as diverging on some of these points. Especially those who hail from the world of temperament, which the whole notion of functions as skills sets is obviously influenced by.

Another point I forgot to mentiom in the above post, is that "the Shadow" was originally to Jung a single archetype, that gets projected on our enemies.

I'm still absorbing some of what's in your link. Really like the explanation in four items above and especially the last sentence after that.

There is also a fifth point, when the good and bad sides surface, and that ties into #4, the good sides come more when we own the unconscious. Also, to Lenore, again, the brain switch when the prefered functions cannot solve a problem.

 

[tcda]

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.

I agree with most of your post but I can't say I agree with this bit. The "senex" shadow function is the one where I think John Beebe made most sense (though I agree with most of the other criticisms people have raised of him).

Or at least, in my relations with Ni-types, I've definitely experiences Ni as a "critic", which sweeps aside attempts of Ti to intricately define things, with a simple compact and, to me, seemingly rash, definition of the "essence" of a person or thing.

Likewise I know INTJ's will often find Ti to be like an unconstructive critic or "senex".

On the issue of Si vs Te for an INTP, I think it takes external pressure to make an INTP move into using Te, and it can't last for a sustained period of time, more likely will just be used for a particular situation like an argument or a role at work. Left to their own devices the INTP will fall into the Ti-Si loop long before any Ti-Te loop kicks in.

 

[Totenkindly]

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.

Well, just because I can operate within the confines of viewing Shadow as the functional Inferior doesn't mean I can't/don't approach it in a broader sense and/or see value in doing so. I was responding to what was already in place as a framework. So go for it.

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.

I don't disagree with any of this. IOW, very insightful. Balance is also a great way to approach the human psyche, since disturbed/off-kilter mentalities are typically off-balance -- things are not kept within relative proportion, certain tendencies are allowed to dominate and run wild while others are ignored or supplanted. A healthy psyche has internal checks and balances to maintain stability, just like a gyroscope.

 

[Totenkindly]

I agree with most of your post but I can't say I agree with this bit. The "senex" shadow function is the one where I think John Beebe made most sense (though I agree with most of the other criticisms people have raised of him).

I'm not sure why all these things have to be exclusive. I tend to think it is a number of factors like this, maybe in different proportions in different individuals, combining together to create shifts in coping mechanisms.

Or at least, in my relations with Ni-types, I've definitely experiences Ni as a "critic", which sweeps aside attempts of Ti to intricately define things, with a simple compact and, to me, seemingly rash, definition of the "essence" of a person or thing.

I still feel like all the secondary personality functions are rather forced... even while I do experience Ni Senex functionality as described. (Ni derails Ti, since Ti has to operate within established boundaries in order to construct a case, and Ni says, "Well, that's just ONE framework, what about all the others?" i.e., it limits Ti's ability to create universal reasoning, delegating it to just one particular frame among countless possibilities.)

Likewise I know INTJ's will often find Ti to be like an unconstructive critic or "senex".

Yeah, I've noticed.
Maybe that actually explains why I can get into issues with them.

I skimmed back through the thread but I'm missing whatever your point was or why you felt my first explanation was not an acceptable possibility (emphasis on "possibility").

On the issue of Si vs Te for an INTP, I think it takes external pressure to make an INTP move into using Te, and it can't last for a sustained period of time, more likely will just be used for a particular situation like an argument or a role at work. Left to their own devices the INTP will fall into the Ti-Si loop long before any Ti-Te loop kicks in.

I've only met a few INTPs who claim adeptness at Te.

I've developed some Te perspective... but only because I had no choice, I had to accomplish certain goals in my life and there was no way through except to organize, plan, set goals, and push through item after item. It was very arduous, even though I was ultimately successful, and I still don't like approaching life that way.

My natural response is to drop back into the safe Ti-Si loop and hole up and surround myself with meaningful things.

Ne might be different. That seems a bit more natural somehow. Maybe the flip side of your dominant is easier or more natural to develop. It seems contrary to Andy's theory though that I should be comfortable with it since it's #5.

I dunno. I typically find Te offensive -- it masquerades as thinking but is too Procustean for me, violating the nuances of definition and the essence of things in order to make things fit or accomplish a task. It offends me primarily because it IS a form of thinking... but a bastardized one (from my natural instincts). Other functions are not vying with Ti in the same way, so I don't see them as a corruption/violation of essence.

(Note: I'm just describing my own internal reaction here. I don't actually *believe* Te is a corruption, rationally. It's just another perspective and way of doing things, with its own value, pro's, and con's, just like Ti. But it FEELS this way to me and I find myself responding to it negatively without even trying.)

 

[tcda]

^^^Maybe I just misunderstood what you meant by "similarity" between Ne and Ni.

 

[cascadeco]

The reason I wonder is because it seems obvious that people have deep seated cognitive priorities that undermine conscious attempts at rationalisation and accommodation. People do prefer to get information in given ways and make certain kinds of judgments, and these vary according to type. This, it seems to me, will always be prior to personal experience. Indeed, it will shape personal experience, and you will have partially predictable strengths and weaknesses, indeed preferences for how to handle that experience.

Sure, I would agree with that.

Personal detail will vary, of course. And if that's the most interesting part of the structure for you, then go for it. But how determining is it? And determinant of what?

Personal detail & nuance indeed becomes an important factor if it causes some of the extensions of the theory to crumble. It becomes important if it means that Person A of a type will in fact not lean on function 7 and instead latches onto function 5 when under extreme duress (whatever..I'm just giving an example, don't take these numbers literally), whereas Person B of the same type will always, in a shadow-state, subconsciously lean on function 7. When the theory begins spelling out precise and exact occurrences and behaviors by type, that's when I find it falls short because by that point the details might quite profoundly impact the turn of events, rather than the overriding psychae.

The 'detail' of someone being quite narcissistic would probably be much more impactful to their behaviors and actions than their actual mbti type (although I also realize cognitive functions aren't really supposed to be about behavior... but that's what the theory ends up becoming in practical applications as evident on this board). Just as the 'detail' of an INFJ enneagram type 4 vs. an INFJ enneagram type 1 or 5 or 7 could cause resultant 'shadow states' to diverge. An ESTP whose 'S' preference isn't as strong as that of another ESTP would likely have a different resultant 'shadow' complex. And so on.

Not that in the end I disagree with Casca's description of the shadow. In the end it sounds the same as the function description.

In the sense that I'm saying a 'Shadow' will often imply your less than idealized, self-actualized self, yes, it would tend to mean you are then grasping onto subconscious, lesser-used functions or functions that are not part of your 'natural,' preferred state. But in the sense that those functions will be exactly the same for all of the same type, no, I'm not saying that. So the resultant 'shadow state' could vary within type.

 

[Totenkindly]

^^^Maybe I just misunderstood what you meant by "similarity" between Ne and Ni.

They're similar functions but have opposite energy flow.
This changes the form of them.

I tend to see Ne as an explosion of ideas, each trail radiating out from the origin and flowering in every direction at once as idea springboards off idea. Ne thus follows each trail out and explores it, to see what is possible.

Ni, I perceive more as an infinite deck of cards/overlays I rifle through, each card signifying a possible perspective or configuration of truth, and I compare each card/picture to the current situation and potentially learn something from the insight. (I've had an INTJ compare Ni to a connect-the-dots, where you look at the data points and see the picture as a whole intuitively.)

Both involve intuition/the ability to see patterns and connections, it's just directed differently. Thus, there should be an affinity there.

But... maybe not. Just as I've had issues with Te.

 

[Kalach]

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.

It seems like if we're ever to get any practice at all, we'd have to be able to silence the preferred functions. The behavior associated with other people's functions could be studied and emulated, just like any skills acquisition effort, but since there's no instructor sitting inside your head rapping recalcitrant neurons over the knuckles, exactly how other people's function behaviour comes to be emulated is likely highly subject to existing preference. So, for example, the academic INTJ sighs and picks up the first draft of a thesis, marked up by the INTP prof with a thousand annotations, "More Logical Signposting!", and gets to rewriting, but is doing it as a discipline rather than a cognitive preference.

Could he ever rewire his cognitive abilities this way? The only reason I'd want to say "AHHHH! NOOOOOO!" is that kind of ability makes personality too malleable. If it weren't the case that all personalities had at least some rigidly inflexible substructure, then what does personality get built upon in the first place? For want of an actually adequate conceptual proof, it seems to me consciousness is too mercurial to be able to hold itself together merely by paying attention.

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.

For sure. I'm inclined to think that no one actually can function if they genuinely rely on just one function. In abstract, and as far as primary consciousness is concerned, it looks like one function, but the, um, vibrations in the ether, they tell me that one function literally cannot do anything alone. It has to be a package deal.


(But what package deal? Dunno. Differentiation and the unconscious need some summary first.)

 

[Poki]

One way that I have found to possibly bring a function into the concious is allow someone the ability to use it unprotected. Basically to find a safe haven to let it out. A haven that can be trusted to protect it and that also pulls it out and extracts it. The kicker is when its extracted it cannot be attacked. Worst case scenario is that one persons shadow pulls out anothes shadow and you end up basically with 2 people projecting their shadows onto each other. In essence they are fighting themselves while triggering each other.

 

[Andy]

I agree with most of your post but I can't say I agree with this bit. The "senex" shadow function is the one where I think John Beebe made most sense (though I agree with most of the other criticisms people have raised of him).

Or at least, in my relations with Ni-types, I've definitely experiences Ni as a "critic", which sweeps aside attempts of Ti to intricately define things, with a simple compact and, to me, seemingly rash, definition of the "essence" of a person or thing.

Likewise I know INTJ's will often find Ti to be like an unconstructive critic or "senex".

On the issue of Si vs Te for an INTP, I think it takes external pressure to make an INTP move into using Te, and it can't last for a sustained period of time, more likely will just be used for a particular situation like an argument or a role at work. Left to their own devices the INTP will fall into the Ti-Si loop long before any Ti-Te loop kicks in.

I think the emergance of function 5 is linked to the supression of the inferior. When pressure is applied to bring out the inferior, the tendancy to reject the inferior kicks in, and the person slips into the opposing function instead, as it is of the same type (Both Je, for an INTP).

Trouble is, as a shadow function it is less intimate, and it's use less satisfying. Eventually, the person slips back into the primaries way of thinking without having learned or gained a great deal from the experience.

For example, an ESTP put under pressure to "be more carefully and think things through better" may find themselves slipping into an Si mind temporarily. Eventually, they get bored of it and go back to living the Se life style. If they could overcome the inferior rejection and use their Ni, they might find the experience more rewarding as they get to grips with a deeply buried urge that's always been there.

 

[Eric B]

I still feel like all the secondary personality functions are rather forced... even while I do experience Ni Senex functionality as described. (Ni derails Ti, since Ti has to operate within established boundaries in order to construct a case, and Ni says, "Well, that's just ONE framework, what about all the others?" i.e., it limits Ti's ability to create universal reasoning, delegating it to just one particular frame among countless possibilities.)

That sounds more like Ne. And for us, as the "parent" function or "first mate" (Lenore), giving advice to the dominant.

They're similar functions but have opposite energy flow.
This changes the form of them.

I tend to see Ne as an explosion of ideas, each trail radiating out from the origin and flowering in every direction at once as idea springboards off idea. Ne thus follows each trail out and explores it, to see what is possible.

Ni, I perceive more as an infinite deck of cards/overlays I rifle through, each card signifying a possible perspective or configuration of truth, and I compare each card/picture to the current situation and potentially learn something from the insight. (I've had an INTJ compare Ni to a connect-the-dots, where you look at the data points and see the picture as a whole intuitively.)

Both involve intuition/the ability to see patterns and connections, it's just directed differently. Thus, there should be an affinity there.

But... maybe not. Just as I've had issues with Te.

I've heard Ni described as multitude of opportunities before, and I think this is what makes it confusing.
Ni is more about locking into one possibility. So the connection between Ne and Ni, is that both deal in the hypothetical, but Ne looks at an object and then sees multiple possibilities, where Ni looks within the subject and chooses the most likely one, based on a "template", as I have come to call it. It is what will consist of these "dots" that are connected internally. Ne connections, in contrast, are linking one object to multiple "dots" each representing a possibility.

Perhaps, what Ni references a multitude of, are these templates, or "archetypal" situations), and again, a likely best one is chosen.

For us, in the Critical position, it will likely be the most negative one that is chosen, and then we will "put a damper" on plans for the future. (Berens).

I've only met a few INTPs who claim adeptness at Te.

I've developed some Te perspective... but only because I had no choice, I had to accomplish certain goals in my life and there was no way through except to organize, plan, set goals, and push through item after item. It was very arduous, even though I was ultimately successful, and I still don't like approaching life that way.

My natural response is to drop back into the safe Ti-Si loop and hole up and surround myself with meaningful things.

I dunno. I typically find Te offensive -- it masquerades as thinking but is too Procustean for me, violating the nuances of definition and the essence of things in order to make things fit or accomplish a task. It offends me primarily because it IS a form of thinking... but a bastardized one (from my natural instincts). Other functions are not vying with Ti in the same way, so I don't see them as a corruption/violation of essence.

(Note: I'm just describing my own internal reaction here. I don't actually *believe* Te is a corruption, rationally. It's just another perspective and way of doing things, with its own value, pro's, and con's, just like Ti. But it FEELS this way to me and I find myself responding to it negatively without even trying.)

Te is also the "backup" function for the dominant. That might not necessarily fit the Opposing Personality Complex all the time. Again, the line between function attitudes is more fuzzy than we have often made it. So in that light, I would say you were probably right on what you said about Ne and Ni as well. So Te will come up a lot for us, when backing up our dominant, internally based logic.

I think the emergance of function 5 is linked to the supression of the inferior. When pressure is applied to bring out the inferior, the tendancy to reject the inferior kicks in, and the person slips into the opposing function instead, as it is of the same type (Both Je, for an INTP).

Trouble is, as a shadow function it is less intimate, and it's use less satisfying. Eventually, the person slips back into the primaries way of thinking without having learned or gained a great deal from the experience.

For example, an ESTP put under pressure to "be more carefully and think things through better" may find themselves slipping into an Si mind temporarily. Eventually, they get bored of it and go back to living the Se life style. If they could overcome the inferior rejection and use their Ni, they might find the experience more rewarding as they get to grips with a deeply buried urge that's always been there.

Yeah, these things are all mirrors of each other. So #5, as part of the "Double Agent" block may back up the dominant (opposite brain hemisphere), and at other times, degrade from the inferior (both the same hemisphere, opposite the dominant). When the archetypal complexes erupt, both are said to be usually the opposite gender. the inferior will be the innocent, vulnerable side, and the OP will be the less innocent, offensive side of it that can be triggered by the vulnerable side being threatened.

 

[highlander]

They're similar functions but have opposite energy flow.
This changes the form of them.

I tend to see Ne as an explosion of ideas, each trail radiating out from the origin and flowering in every direction at once as idea springboards off idea. Ne thus follows each trail out and explores it, to see what is possible.

Ni, I perceive more as an infinite deck of cards/overlays I rifle through, each card signifying a possible perspective or configuration of truth, and I compare each card/picture to the current situation and potentially learn something from the insight. (I've had an INTJ compare Ni to a connect-the-dots, where you look at the data points and see the picture as a whole intuitively.)

Both involve intuition/the ability to see patterns and connections, it's just directed differently. Thus, there should be an affinity there.

But... maybe not. Just as I've had issues with Te.

That sounds more like Ne. And for us, as the "parent" function or "first mate" (Lenore), giving advice to the dominant.

I've heard Ni described as multitude of opportunities before, and I think this is what makes it confusing.

Ni is more about locking into one possibility. So the connection between Ne and Ni, is that both deal in the hypothetical, but Ne looks at an object and then sees multiple possibilities, where Ni looks within the subject and chooses the most likely one, based on a "template", as I have come to call it. It is what will consist of these "dots" that are connected internally. Ne connections, in contrast, are linking one object to multiple "dots" each representing a possibility.

Perhaps, what Ni references a multitude of, are these templates, or "archetypal" situations), and again, a likely best one is chosen.

Maybe Ni can look and feel like Ne if one feels very comfortable vocalizing the insights. While there is an orientation towards locking into one possibility, there is also an orientation towards looking at things from a different lens or perspective. That process can be repeated - sequentially, listing one locked in possibility after another - looking Ne'ish. Maybe those cognitive function tests don't really do a very good job of differentiating between these two .

 

[Eric B]

The cognitive process tests go largely by key words (behaviors), and while those aim to simplify the concepts, it also seems to create Forer effects (ambiguity), where almost anyone can indentify with it.

 

[Totenkindly]

The cognitive process tests go largely by key words (behaviors), and while those aim to simplify the concepts, it also seems to create Forer effects (ambiguity), where almost anyone can indentify with it.

That seems to be the biggest issue with personality tests, where people don't even know how to understand /perceive the item, so the answers you're getting aren't really specifying the trait you're trying to isolate...

 

[Poki]

That seems to be the biggest issue with personality tests, where people don't even know how to understand /perceive the item, so the answers you're getting aren't really specifying the trait you're trying to isolate...

Thats because people internalize things in a way they can relate to. We have words that define words and it all overlaps and intertwines into one huge mess. Could you imagine the layout if you were to take a single word and its definition and then map each word in that definition with that words definition and proceed. It would never end. Not to mention if you internalize or externalize something, that alone will change the meaning of the word while maintaining the same definition.

 

[uumlau]

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?

I'm sorry, but all of this reads like astrology to me.

Hmm, basic MBTI, an unfalsifiable set of classifications of personality appears to be incomplete. Let's add even more unfalsifiable rubbish to make a more complete and completely unfalsifiable description.

To the extent that I like and understand MBTI and Jungian functions, I have always disliked the arbitrary "orderings" and "shadows" and similar extensions of the theory. I think it's all complete nonsense, attempting to describe something that simply is not describable in terms of the top two functional preferences. (Remember, those top two preferences determine everything else that follows. Everything. I simply don't believe that to be true. There is too much legitimate variations within a type for that to be true.)

In the case of the INTJ, whose functional preferences are NiTe, it isn't possible to describe "how they feel," except empirically. There was for a long while a debate about whether Fe or Fi is really the tertiary (it's a larger debate about whether the tertiary has an orientation the same or opposite the dominant function, and it still goes on today on this forum).

All that's really going on is that we say, for example, Ni and Te. Then everything else are "other functions" that seem to come into play in odd ways. This cuts to the core of one's understanding of MBTI. Does one's type simply indicate preferences, so one actually has and uses all functions to some degree or another, or does one really only use a couple of function, which wiggle around and try and act like the others, except badly (hence shadows)? There is no way to decide the question. The mind is too flexible, too adaptable, to describe this way, I think. We're simply putting labels on what we think we see, but we have no concept of what it essentially is. Jung eventually abandoned his typology material: it was not a focus of his attention for long.

I think these shadows and functional orderings make for interesting hypotheses, but in the end, I find no use for them. I would rather be able to figure out how an individual behaves and understands one's environment. I find MBTI moderately useful for this purpose. It's useful to have a label for NeTi behavior, for example, and make some very general predictions about behavior and how that person receives and processes information. I can use that to communicate and interact more effectively than otherwise. But after that initial assessment, the task becomes far more about understanding the individual than about understanding the individual's type. E.g., I might start talking with someone, eventually figure out that their type is ENTP, and then use that to explore other conversations and learn more about the person, all the while being able to use their type to help myself prevent mistakes and miscommunications. I might even be wrong about the type, and it turns out they're "really" ESTP or ENFJ ... when all I've done is find that the ENTP model fails, but the new model works better with this person. It's all based on the person. The hypothesis CHANGES based on the person.

Shadow functions of all varieties, therefore (I conclude, not that I've proved anything, since it's all unfalsifiable), really can't be used except as post facto explanations of why someone doesn't appear to be behaving/perceiving/reacting according to type, but one hasn't enough justification to say that the person is a different type.

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

I'm sorry, but all of this reads like astrology to me.

Hmm, basic MBTI, an unfalsifiable set of classifications of personality appears to be incomplete. Let's add even more unfalsifiable rubbish to make a more complete and completely unfalsifiable description.

To the extent that I like and understand MBTI and Jungian functions, I have always disliked the arbitrary "orderings" and "shadows" and similar extensions of the theory. I think it's all complete nonsense, attempting to describe something that simply is not describable in terms of the top two functional preferences. (Remember, those top two preferences determine everything else that follows. Everything. I simply don't believe that to be true. There is too much legitimate variations within a type for that to be true.)

In the case of the INTJ, whose functional preferences are NiTe, it isn't possible to describe "how they feel," except empirically. There was for a long while a debate about whether Fe or Fi is really the tertiary (it's a larger debate about whether the tertiary has an orientation the same or opposite the dominant function, and it still goes on today on this forum).

All that's really going on is that we say, for example, Ni and Te. Then everything else are "other functions" that seem to come into play in odd ways. This cuts to the core of one's understanding of MBTI. Does one's type simply indicate preferences, so one actually has and uses all functions to some degree or another, or does one really only use a couple of function, which wiggle around and try and act like the others, except badly (hence shadows)? There is no way to decide the question. The mind is too flexible, too adaptable, to describe this way, I think. We're simply putting labels on what we think we see, but we have no concept of what it essentially is. Jung eventually abandoned his typology material: it was not a focus of his attention for long.

I think these shadows and functional orderings make for interesting hypotheses, but in the end, I find no use for them. I would rather be able to figure out how an individual behaves and understands one's environment. I find MBTI moderately useful for this purpose. It's useful to have a label for NeTi behavior, for example, and make some very general predictions about behavior and how that person receives and processes information. I can use that to communicate and interact more effectively than otherwise. But after that initial assessment, the task becomes far more about understanding the individual than about understanding the individual's type. E.g., I might start talking with someone, eventually figure out that their type is ENTP, and then use that to explore other conversations and learn more about the person, all the while being able to use their type to help myself prevent mistakes and miscommunications. I might even be wrong about the type, and it turns out they're "really" ESTP or ENFJ ... when all I've done is find that the ENTP model fails, but the new model works better with this person. It's all based on the person. The hypothesis CHANGES based on the person.

Shadow functions of all varieties, therefore (I conclude, not that I've proved anything, since it's all unfalsifiable), really can't be used except as post facto explanations of why someone doesn't appear to be behaving/perceiving/reacting according to type, but one hasn't enough justification to say that the person is a different type.

YES! I am so glad to hear you say this! I totally agree and have come to the same conclusions, for the most part.

Does this finally mean you'll quit asserting that INTJs have Fi as their tert function?

I think I need a cigarette now, Uumlau.

 

[uumlau]

YES! I am so glad to hear you say this! I totally agree and have come to the same conclusions, for the most part.

Does this finally mean you'll quit asserting that INTJs have Fi as their tert function?

I think I need a cigarette now, Uumlau.

Hahahahah.

No I'm not agreeing with you. I'm more saying, "There is no such thing as a tert." I'll use the language as a means of describing, but when I do so, I describe PEOPLE, and use language like tert, aux, or dom, to help classify those people.

For me, as an INTJ, I identify more with Fi than Fe, as I see it play out in my life and elsewhere. However, I do agree with your observations that INTJs often seem to have really good Fe, especially older, more polite ones. I think this is a learned "faux Fe" if you will, playing a game that we know exists but really don't like to play.