The Crow's Nest (i.e. alternatives) are valued (i.e. primary) functions according to Lenore Thomson, right?
Personality Type, by Lenore Thomson, page 86-
"The four functions between our strongest (the captain and the petty officer) and our weakest (the water-skier and would-be captain) have their own roles on our typological ship. But the best way to see how they work is to introduce a specific example.
Grant, a fifty-nine-year-old ESTJ, had been an accountant for thirty years in a church-related lending institution. This is Grant's type lasagna - with the four additional functions sandwiched in the middle:
dominant: Te
secondary: Si
left-brain alternatives: Fe, Ni
right-brain double agents: Se, Ti
tertiary: Ne
inferior: Fi
[...] Extraverted Feeling offered Grant an alternative to his dominant function, Extraverted Thinking. As a Thinking type, Grant was most comfortable analyzing things logically, by way of general rules and principles. Extraverted Feeling encouraged him to assess others' reactions and to pay more attention to his relationships.
Although these functions compete with each other, they both activate areas in the left brain, encouraging adaption to others' standards. So Grant used his Feeling skills fairly well-when he recognized their logical utility. In his current situation, it was important to him to get along with the new board members and to be appreciated, so he socialized with them and tried to foster loyal personal connections.
In the same way, Introverted Intuition offered Grant an alternative to his secondary Introverted Sensate skills. This skill was barely developed for Grant."
Personality Type, by Lenore Thomson, page 78
"
Conscious awareness, however, is a top-down affair. [...]
At the very bottom are the two functions directly opposed to the top two: the
tertiary and
inferior functions. These are our least
conscious functions."
» Another interpretation of the processes
This has resulted in a different stacking order, called the “lasagna model“, where the shadows are placed inbetween the dom/aux and tertiary/inferior blocks. So the block that in Beebe’s model is placed last, she calls “Crow’s Nest” in a ship crew analogy she has made, and they are usually listed in 3rd and 4th place, followed by “the Double Agents” (the other two shadows; so called, because they are the dom. and aux. in the opposite attitudes, and thus the opposite brain hemisphere also).
The tertiary and inferior are listed last. That way, the “inferior” then really is “inferior”. This would make sense from it being the most consciously rejected function. Those “below” it are unconscious, remember!
A lot of people in discussions like this order, because it more closely matches their comparitive strengths, as measured by the cognitive process test. Of course, this can’t be made into a hard rule either, and it won’t always match in that order. The model is actually not intended to replace Beebe’s; it works beside it as another perspective on shadow degradation. The model also ends up as totally alternating in attitude, as ieieieie, with the order using Beebe’s numbers being as follows: 1,2,8,7,6,5,3,4.
It’s divided as the first four are the same brain hemisphere, and the others, the opposite brain hemisphere.
Wow; never knew about that blog, which is referencing my material!
But you have to keep in mind,
Lenore is not using Socionics terminology, so
when she says "strong/weak", it's not the same thing as what Model A calls strong/weak. That's why I translated between them. She's going by the old "four-process theory", which only dealt with dominant-inferior, and didn't really address "the other four" much. She was trying to extend it to an eight-process theory (and again, independently of the eight-process model Beebe was developing).
So [unlike Beebe, who simply ordered the other four "#5-8" paralleling "#1-4" as their "shadows"; i.e. same function, opposite attitude], she stuck the other four in between the 1/2 and 3/4 "blocks", hence the "lasagna". 1-4 are still the "primary" functions, while 5-8 are the "shadows" (though that terminology is still more Beebe than her), and "primary/shadow" is what really corresponds to "valued/subdued".
What you're calling "primary" in your question is really
"preferred" function. Like we both
prefer N and T (according to the four process model without attitudes). Yet for me, it's TiNe, and its shadows are the opposite, TeNi. This is what Socionics calls "strong". The other two functions (S and F) are "unpreferred" or "weak".
None of this changes in Lenore's model; she just isn't using the Socionics terms.
The illustration I posted above shows how Lenore's "Crow's Nests", Beebe's "#7/8" and Socionics' "subdued/weak" can in a way be right "next to" the preferred functions in their so-called "usage", where we'd think they were the furthest away. The tertiary and inferior end up as the furthest away.
This makes some sense, and the way I explain it, is that the tertiary and inferior are
the most consciously suppressed (where 5-8 are supposedly even
more unconscious, coming up only through the complexes, or when 1-4 fail).
In the ship model, #5-8 are at least still on the ship, while 3 and 4 have been "cast off"; #3 still heading in the same direction of the ship (i.e. dominant attitude), and #4 heading in the other direction (and trying to pull the ship back with it).
This at this point is not dealing with "strength", and I always say the function order is not about strength (Though we can assume the tertiary and inferior will be weaker). "Weak/strong" in Socionics are
operational definitions (that's in my glossary as well), and are likely not to be taken literally.