Personality Cafe banner

1 - 20 of 43 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,124 Posts
yeah, he's talking about shadow functions. They will often clash with your dominants.
You probably should develop your top 4 to the extent that they aren't causing you trouble.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,220 Posts
Great video :laughing: Part of why he's objecting to the type development so much is probably because the examples that he gives are about dominant vs. shadow functions.... and who knows if we can really ever develop shadow functions. He does have a strong point though about developing what you have, but then you can gradually learn balance through the tertiary and the inferior. Not that you forget about the dominant and the auxiliary but that when you're already awesome with those then learning balance will be most beneficial.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VaLedina

·
Rebel without a cause
Joined
·
2,725 Posts
He got a good point there, if we assume MBTI to be true, then we also have to assume that your functions are unbalanced (the difference between ISFP and ENTJ despite having the exact same functions), and as such, learning to work with "what you got" will make you more well rounded as a person, because you'll get better at dealing with your strengths and weaknesses. Michael Jordan example is good in that regard, he will do what he do best to make up for his weak sides.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
657 Posts
I agree with him. I don't see the point in developing, say, Fe if you are a Te type. You already have an extroverted judging function, so you don't need a second one. Besides, any reasonably self-aware Te type can choose to behave like a Fe type if they want to. I suspect that a Te type trying to develop Fe would end up finding that their 'Fe' was really just Te in disguise.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,517 Posts
@The King Of Dreams
I have a book right in front of me atm by Dario Nardi that says for example for the ENFP to develop the Te, Si and Fe on top of the Ne and Fi. I've heard Nardi is one of the most credible sources for functions. Directly quoted from his book "8 Keys to Self Leadership":

You can realize your potential for self-leadership by understanding and practising the cognitive processes. But which cognitive processes are most practical or appropriate to explore and develop first?

First use the table (not included in this post)to locate which processes you prefer most. As you explore, consider this: noticing our own preferences is like noticing the air we breathe. Our preferences are ever present, perhaps taken for granted or unnoticed. Moreover, "preference" does not mean "can't use". Preference promotes use, and we need full mature use for peak performance.

Second, for each personality type pattern, the table (not included in post) suggests three processes to develop as good ways to unlock your potential. These three help balance and expand upon your existing gifts without competing with or undermining them. depending on your age and life experience, you may or may not have already developed these.

Finally, consider exploring and developing all eight to include them in your life in some way.
As you've asked for our opinions: I'll take Nardi's word over whomever this guy is.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,866 Posts
Yes, it's not really a matter of "developing all the functions", or "integrating the shadow" (The more technical term for that). Your tertiary and inferior develop, and that will give you the full S, N, T, F balance. —These functions will lean toward one attitude or the other, and those same functions with the reverse attitudes will be tied up with unconscious complexes. When you become more aware of these complexes and begin withdrawing their projections, then those suppressed functional orientations, known as "the other four" will be brought more under control (and thus, you'll have more of a handle of them). It's not about "developing" some "skills" that we "use".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,623 Posts
I was wondering if it is possible for you to strengthen your inferior function. I personally believe that I have pretty strong T in me even though I am sure that I am a Fi type.
 

·
MOTM August 2012
Joined
·
3,467 Posts
I was wondering if it is possible for you to strengthen your inferior function. I personally believe that I have pretty strong T in me even though I am sure that I am a Fi type.
Not easily.

Generally it happens over a long period of time as you just learn to see things another way, but you can't just jump into the inferior function (this is why we say you're 'in the grip' of your inferior function when you flip out on someone, because carrying the weight of the unconscious, the Inferior function is much more capable of capturing you than you are of capturing it). You could very well end up in bad shape, maybe even suicidal.

You have to remember the Inferior represents everything you have tried not to be consciously. It's not just "oh I'm a Ni-dom so I'm gonna try to paint or ride a roller-coaster and develop my Se." That's still ego-centric. As Von Franz calls it "taking a quick bath in the inferior function" and then jumping out when it gets too hot. In order to really deal with your inferior you almost have to commit ego-cide in a way. To really be able to put away your dominant perspective on things. So you can imagine for the Feeling type who is used to evaluating things, to put that evaluation away and simply look at things from say a cold, technical Thinking perspective (not just for a minute or two, but to really embrace that as a legitimate way of operating) is not an easy thing to do. Any more than it is for the Sensation type, who is used to seeing things in the moment, as they are, to only pay attention to possibilities or notions, etc. It's not just uncomfortable it makes you uneasy, makes you feel naked, blind, like a fool sometimes. You often hear Feeling types just give up on Thinking ("oh screw it I can't figure this out!" or "I can't do this I don't get math," or "let the smart people figure this out," etc.) rather than really have to dig in and deal with their Thinking. The tendency for a Feeling type will be to make a value judgment ("this is stupid! I don't care about math anyway!") because that is their more comfortable way of operating. An Intuitive might have a really hard time just living in the moment as it is, and might actually feel panicked in such a circumstance (I know I do) like they can't think or function. They don't feel like 'themselves." The idea of not knowing what might be next, or what might be around the corner can be terrifying for someone who is always used to backing up and trying to see as much as possible, even the things that may not be visible. The Thinking type (Te or Ti-dom) learning to really deal with his Feeling is no ballpark either (some might be very well into older age before they get there if ever).

So dealing with the Inferior function is a life long and often painful process (and don't let anyone call you out on your inferior). Marie Von Franz talks about how Jung set up a get-together in Zurich where everyone could only address the other attendees by their inferior function. This of course amounts to insulting a person by only addressing them by their weakness and it was apparently such a melee that the whole thing quickly disbanded as fights would break out and arguments and nasty things would be said, etc.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,623 Posts
It's not just "oh I'm a Ni-dom so I'm gonna try to paint or ride a roller-coaster and develop my Se." That's still ego-centric.
What makes the ego-centricism not a violation of your core functions?

I don't think it is particularly hard for me to rationalize an argument and look at it from an objective view point, even though I think the argument would lose color very quickly because how can this argument be applied if we aren't thinking about the effects it would have for other beings? We can't just have logic in a vacuum.

I also do enjoy thinking in depth about conceptualized problems and dealing with important overreaching issues like politics, immigration, health care and other current event topics. I wonder if it is really that hard to look at things objectively just to see the other side of the issue. I don't feel like I am sacrificing myself by doing that. I just think that I am trying to learn more about the other side and why other feel the way they do. I am educating myself.

I personally don't think it is that difficult to do that, as long as my opinions are respected. I can certainly deal with opposite view points and in general have a thoughtful discussion with someone else, debate can be good and fun. I am attracted to NT's usually anyway just because I love the fact that they seem to have opinions about things and because they seem to have a very different thought process then I do and I find that to be endlessly stimulating. Is it impossible for an F type to enjoy discussing and having in depth logical conversations with others?

Ultimately I think we have all functions, they are just ordered differently. I don't think being a Feeling type means that people can't be logical objectively or find other ways to view things. Nor do I think being a Thinking type means that they can't feel. :/
 

·
MOTM August 2012
Joined
·
3,467 Posts
What makes the ego-centricism not a violation of your core functions?

I don't think it is particularly hard for me to rationalize an argument and look at it from an objective view point, even though I think the argument would lose color very quickly because how can this argument be applied if we aren't thinking about the effects it would have for other beings? We can't just have logic in a vacuum.

I also do enjoy thinking in depth about conceptualized problems and dealing with important overreaching issues like politics, immigration, health care and other current event topics. I wonder if it is really that hard to look at things objectively just to see the other side of the issue. I don't feel like I am sacrificing myself by doing that. I just think that I am trying to learn more about the other side and why other feel the way they do. I am educating myself.

I personally don't think it is that difficult to do that, as long as my opinions are respected. I can certainly deal with opposite view points and in general have a thoughtful discussion with someone else, debate can be good and fun. I am attracted to NT's usually anyway just because I love the fact that they seem to have opinions about things and because they seem to have a very different thought process then I do and I find that to be endlessly stimulating. Is it impossible for an F type to enjoy discussing and having in depth logical conversations with others?

Ultimately I think we have all functions, they are just ordered differently. I don't think being a Feeling type means that people can't be logical objectively or find other ways to view things. Nor do I think being a Thinking type means that they can't feel. :/
Well your conception of this I think is a bit narrow. When I say ego-centric, we have to understand that the ego and the functions only represent one small part of a person's psyche. It isn't as MBTI proposes that the entirety of the psyche revolves around the functions. Let me explain.

This is a rough of how Jung proposes the psyche operates. Notice that the conscious sphere (who we think we are) is comprised of the ego and the persona (the mask we wear in public, how we want people to think of us). The ego is the driving force behind our conscious selves and the functions are just the taskmasters or (literally) functions that help carry out the ego's goals. Like mechanisms or cogs in a wheel, they simply filter and process information that into either ego-syntonic (advances ego's goals) or ego-dystonic (ego doesn't like) categories.



Now this is how MBTI re-interprets the psyche to fit their theoretical ideas. Notice how the functions are now the center of the self. They are the fulcrum upon which the psyche exists. That is MBTI's theory and not Jung's (and as such its hard to find much support for their ideas beyond them). But even here, you can see that the inferior function is about only half-conscious.


So in Jung's model we can clearly see delineation between the conscious sphere and the shadow (everything about us that we are not consciously aware of). The inferior function then, being the least conscious aspect of our conscious-selves (it sort of straddles consciousness) becomes the gateway of the influences of the shadow. Because the shadow is unconscious anything that comes from the shadow will be perceived consciously as "not me" or "other." That's why when people deal with the inferior function they often say "I wasn't being myself," or "I don't know what came over me." Because of the nature of the shadow this is literally true. They are being influenced by processes that they have no conscious awareness of, and the more ego-centric someone is the bigger this problem becomes. A person who over-identifies with their ego (or even worse persona) runs the risk of being heavily influenced by their unconscious without being able to adequately deal with it. This can cause pathologies, or at very least someone who, not recognizing these tendencies in themselves, projects them onto other people. (Adolf Hitler famously said that "Churchill is going to take over Europe and ruin all of it's countries!" but who was the one really doing it? Hitler. He just was unable to see those tendencies in himself, clearly due to his pathological egocentricity and thus projected his own issues onto Churchill, the Jews, etc).

In short the more conscious a function is, the more "me" it feels like. Because the ego and persona work to repress the shadow. To try and stamp it out of conscious existence. The ego is a splitting or dissociation of the larger psyche ever wanting to expand its influence. The ego wants to be the center of the self, but the ego not being aware of the breadth of the shadow can never be the center of the self (this is why we are compelled to grow, to adapt, to try things that we would not otherwise try, to try and be more whole). This also becomes the substratum of many religious ideas of wholeness of centeredness (like being Christ-like) where the ego-centric tendencies are moderated in favor of a larger idea of wholeness.


So this all gets at something bigger than "do I think or feel?" It deals with "what is me" and "what isn't me." And realizing that what you consciously think of yourself, may not be all there is. Jung's theories revolve around enantiodromia (essentially Newton's third law of motion). A fancy of way of talking about counterbalance. Ying/Yang. That everything strives to become its opposite and that everything becomes its opposite. Young becomes old. Life turns to death. This is why the functions are arranged as such, Thinking opposing Feeling, Sensing opposing Intuition. By saying someone is, say a Feeling type, what we are saying is, in the grand scheme of who they are, their conscious sphere is dominant by the Introverted Feeling process (meaning the ego chiefly uses Introverted Feeling to accomplish its goals) but note this is a very minor role in the overall psychology of a person. As you can see the psyche is so much larger than just one, or even all four functions. The functions just deal with the ego and who you are consciously.

So when we look at someone typologically we are really just creating a maxim for who they appear to be consciously. What their conscious cognitive processes are (but this says nothing as to memories, affects, emotions, upbringing, socialization, the influences of the other complexes like the anima/animus, repression, imbalances, etc). All it tells us is that your ego tries to do what it wants via X-function. The inferior function then becomes the stop gap from total ego-domination. Without the Inferior function representing the rest of your psychology your ego would sort of float off and you'd become very ungrounded and pathological. We call this being a very unconscious person, someone who is so caught up in who they think they are that they have no real clue as to who they really are. We meet people like this all the time, who might get too caught up being Pastor So-and-So or President So-and-So, but those are personas, or roles, not who they are. But you'd be amazed how much people can identify the role, or the persona as the entirety of themselves, never realizing the depth of psyche beneath the surface. Egocentricity robs a person of their potential because it asserts that the sum-total of who I am, is only what I know of myself.

Thus we are compelled to deal with our inferior function on more than just a superficial or behavioral level. It's not just "Yea I'm a preacher and I have a sex problem" but rather really understanding that the sex problem, probably reveals something about your inner personality (or maybe an unconscious process) that might need to be dealt with. Because, as the diagram points out, the ego is not big enough to hold back the entire unconscious on its own, anything that gets repressed has the potential to roar up and overwhelm you. And depending on how ego-centric you were, you might not even know what was going on. As a Ni-dom I don't have much conscious control over my Inferior Se, there's no way I can make myself operate in Se the way a Se-dom does, no matter how hard I try, it doesn't come naturally for me, but I am at least able to understand some of the issues that I have and not 1) project them onto other people or try to compensate for those things in a mate, and 2) understand that even though dealing with that inferior function (and really the unconscious and all the 'not me' that it represents) head-on is a harrowing task it at least gives me something to maybe chip away at over time. But this doesn't mean that taking things in the moment as they come will be all the comfortable for me. My ego has habituated Intuition as its leading process and it will continue to do so for the rest of my life. What I can do, however, is learn that that intuitive perspective is not all there is (and more importantly that the Sensation perspective is just as valid and not to project negativity onto people who don't think as I do) and also to understand that when I begin to have problems many of those problems will manifest, for me through Sensation as opposed to say Thinking.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,402 Posts
Any more than it is for the Sensation type, who is used to seeing things in the moment, as they are, to only pay attention to possibilities or notions, etc. It's not just uncomfortable it makes you uneasy, makes you feel naked, blind, like a fool sometimes.
First Reaction:

:shocked: You want me to... assume things?

Second Reaction:

Just in case I needed more proof to show that I'm N inferior...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,866 Posts

It's not just "Yea I'm a preacher and I have a sex problem" but rather really understanding that the sex problem, probably reveals something about your inner personality (or maybe an unconscious process) that might need to be dealt with. Because, as the diagram points out, the ego is not big enough to hold back the entire unconscious on its own, anything that gets repressed has the potential to roar up and overwhelm you. And depending on how ego-centric you were, you might not even know what was going on.
And then you have those more "conservative" type preachers who put down all psychology, (encouraging the exaltation of the ego or self", which they misinterpret as synonymous with ego; and also encouraging the indulgence of "sin"; i.e removing "responsibility" for it), and take a "Bible alone" approach, which says "just repent, pray, read the Bible, try harder, think less about 'self', and God will change you". But much of this (read into select scriptures) is actually just suppressing/repressing the sin further into the unconscious, thinking that alone will make it go away, or "God will then take it away"! :frustrating: But usually, it doesn't go away!
A perfect example of this (Even down to the condemnation of psychology; he used to call it "sorcery"), is Jimmy Swaggart. As far as I know, he never did get over his sexual addiction. Yet he kept on getting back up and preaching as if nothing happened (deflecting blame back at "attackers", of course); even disobeying the Church organization when it told him to step down.

So a lot of good information! Where did you find that Johari Window illustration?
 

·
MOTM August 2012
Joined
·
3,467 Posts
And then you have those more "conservative" type preachers who put down all psychology, (encouraging the exaltation of the ego or self", which they misinterpret as synonymous with ego; and also encouraging the indulgence of "sin"; i.e removing "responsibility" for it), and take a "Bible alone" approach, which says "just repent, pray, read the Bible, try harder, think less about 'self', and God will change you". But much of this (read into select scriptures) is actually just suppressing/repressing the sin further into the unconscious, thinking that alone will make it go away, or "God will then take it away"! :frustrating: But usually, it doesn't go away!
A perfect example of this (Even down to the condemnation of psychology; he used to call it "sorcery"), is Jimmy Swaggart. As far as I know, he never did get over his sexual addiction. Yet he kept on getting back up and preaching as if nothing happened (deflecting blame back at "attackers", of course); even disobeying the Church organization when it told him to step down.

So a lot of good information! Where did you find that Johari Window illustration?
Google search.

Yea the whole Swaggart thing is a perfect example of what happens to someone who is incapable of seeing their own shadow. Everything becomes projections of what 'everyone else' is doing. Rush Limbaugh is another good example (except worse because he is expert at appealing to the Inferior functions of his listeners rather than engaging them in their strengths).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,803 Posts
I'm not referring to the MBTI here,

In general the idea of being "well rounded" is so that in different circumstances you won't be left clueless, and you'll have a way to relate or understand what's going on. However, for practical use in society, being well rounded hinders success because only the specialists are awarded. School emphasizes to become well rounded. It's really the people who are extremely focused on one ability who succeed. If you're naturally good at art for instance, but you try to become well rounded by spending time learning math and science and everything else, instead of focusing all of your energy on honing your true skill, you will never become the best artist. In society it's the specialists who succeed. They have one skill that they've put all their energy into in order to best serve where that skill is needed and wanted. Being a jack of all trades means being somewhat skilled in many areas, but not enough in one area to be very useful. That's just what makes sense to me. Being well rounded is sort of ideal in a way, but impractical.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,220 Posts
SMH what did I start...... I don't think I'm going to be able to read all of this without feeling drained... Ugh.... My Ne+Fi.... SMH
I wouldn't let anything get in your way..... but basically the message** here is that you don't develop by throwing away one skillset and developing another, that's not what functions are about. The functions are in order of consciousness, not ability, and when a function is more conscious, it will feel more like "you," so type development is pretty much the acceptance of your inferior and tertiary (and particularly your inferior) as you, but since the inferior is and is the gateway of the stuff you repress, development is not a quick walk in the park.

**Or something like that. Experts clarify if I'm already off...
 

·
MOTM August 2012
Joined
·
3,467 Posts
I wouldn't let anything get in your way..... but basically the message** here is that you don't develop by throwing away one skillset and developing another, that's not what functions are about. The functions are in order of consciousness, not ability, and when a function is more conscious, it will feel more like "you," so type development is pretty much the acceptance of your inferior and tertiary (and particularly your inferior) as you, but since the inferior is and is the gateway of the stuff you repress, development is not a quick walk in the park.

**Or something like that. Experts clarify if I'm already off...
I think you nailed it.
 

·
His Majesty
Joined
·
12,625 Posts
Discussion Starter #20
I wouldn't let anything get in your way..... but basically the message** here is that you don't develop by throwing away one skillset and developing another, that's not what functions are about. The functions are in order of consciousness, not ability, and when a function is more conscious, it will feel more like "you," so type development is pretty much the acceptance of your inferior and tertiary (and particularly your inferior) as you, but since the inferior is and is the gateway of the stuff you repress, development is not a quick walk in the park.

**Or something like that. Experts clarify if I'm already off...
Oh okay..... So am I correct to assume that there's a major consensus among all parties involved within this thread in regards to the audiovisual presentation that was displayed in the original post? (I love NT language!)
 
1 - 20 of 43 Posts
Top