The Shadow Functions

Hi @Joshua Robison

Try reading this, it has some great info and links to the Beebe Model
http://www.erictb.info/archetypes.html

PERSONALITY MATRIX
Part 2 addendum: archetypes

Understanding the Archetypes involving the eight functions of type (Beebe model)

 

@Sandie33, thank you for linking that document on the eight functions. I've read about these in a different context and it really helps to see them mapped to MBTI functions. Though will probably need to read this a few times to really pick up how they're connecting everything together.

 

You're welcome @jkxx
Another good one is http://www.personalitypathways.com/thomson/index.html
By Lenore Thompson
@motorjax authored a thread with reference to her work, and a few of the chapters relevant to your question regarding shadow functions can be found there. I'll see if I can find that link for you.

Wishing you sucess in what you seek, have a beautiful day!

 

The history is this. Jung thought the shadow was basically your unconscious back-side that you find hard to see (contrast to the ego, your conscious personality).

The "shadow functions" is a concept invented by a recent Jungian analyst John Beebe. It's not necessarily accepted by all Jungians or anything. Nor is the function stack commonly assumed -- Jung did *not* subscribe to the NiTeFiSe, NiFeTiSe etc order (his was closer to NiTi FeSe if anything). And he'd only speak of 4 function-attitudes. This is because he didn't treat attitudes traditionally as inhering in functions so much as part of the psyche which interplays with the functions. That is, he really thought of 4 functions interplaying with 2 attitudes, not 8 function-attitudes, at least when he wrote Psychological Types certainly (never seen evidence that he modified that.)

I do personally subscribe to something 8-functions-y, though I like the socionics structure best (despite diverging from socionics orthodoxy in most other regards).

 

MBTI theory is about preferences (I really should make that my signature. But, I'm an INTP and thus too lazy to do so). The stack is meant to represent the aspects of each prime function type (Thinking, Feeling, Sensing, iNtuition) that you're much more likely to use consciously.

So for instance, as an INTP, I'm vastly more likely to default to Introverted Thinking (i.e., trusting the validity of my own logical reasoning to draw conclusions, organizing and systematizing my inner thoughts) than Extroverted Thinking (relying on the collection of empirical evidence to draw conclusions, organizing and systematizing my external environment). Does that mean I never use Te? Of course not. But I don't really trust it as a primary decision tool, and typically only use it as a supplement to my thought process. Further, I rarely ever make it a requirement when dealing with others. For instance, a xxTJ will tend to be more dismissive of unresearched arguments ("can you provide a link?"). In my view, if someone uses sound logic, they don't necessarily need external facts to make their argument valid. It helps, but it's not required.

(Fun fact, any xxTJ reading this is itching to ask "Where did you get all of that? Link?" )

The important thing about functions in a "stack" (even if said stack is a loose association, not a rigid hierarchy) is understanding how each function's position affects the magnitude and manner of its usage. So for an INFJ, Ni serves a different cognitive purpose than it does for, say an ISTP, and so forth. And while it's true that an INFJ's Ne usage may be "stronger" or more effective than their Se usage, it's less comfortable because it runs contrary to their cognitive preference for intuition.

I find when dealing with Ni-doms that this can sometimes be a source of frustration:

- Ne user: "Wow, think about all these avenues to explore. Life is an unpredictable adventure, any way we go could be a lot of fun!"
- Ni user: "Why dally in all these random directions when there's obviously one best way to go. We should spend all our energy on that one path!"

This is just one example. The same is true of all the function dichotomies. Can you use the ones that aren't defined in your stack? Sure, everyone does. But using the "shadow functions" frequently creates dissonance, even when utilized in a useful or effective manner.

 

I have trouble with the term “shadow” because I’ve seen it described as both the top four functions in reverse, so an ESTP for us INFJs, the middle two reversed, so an ISTJ, or the first and last reversed, so an ENFP. I feel like this is another occasion where MBTI breaks down.