Personality Cafe banner

1 - 11 of 11 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
176 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I've been analyzing my own behavior and I noticed that whenever I encounter a technical problem, instead of doing the obvious and asking for help or discussing it with someone who knows the technical aspects much better than me, I drop everything and intensely focus on all the little details of the system until I fully understand it and am able to solve the problem. I observed this tendency through noticing that I find it far better and easier to use someone else's analysis of the system, than it is for me to analyze the system on my own and develop understand that way.

I first thought it originated, because I tend to be fiercely independent. However, I've noticed that I only tend to slip into this mode of thinking when I perceive (real or imagined) that the person I want to ask will say or imply that the solution should be obvious, and that I should know how to solve it on my own. This tends to cause me to withdraw and fully invest myself in understanding how the system works and why the problem manifests, and I end up being more willing to expend the significant amounts of energy and mental power on the problem, than to actually talk to the person and find out that they would actually be excited to talk to me about it. This was when I finally recognized the behavior was stemming from my shadow functions, and that the common cause was a combination of inferior projection and my Ne not engaging.

I've been looking at the Demon/Daimon function, and it definitely would fit my behavior, especially when considered in conjunction with my strong tendency to be avoidant. Using Ti mentally wipes me out and before I even start using Ti, I dread the thought of going through the process (traditional demon). However, after I use it to develop the understanding needed to solve the problem it suddenly becomes worth all the mental pain incurred (angelic/daimon). This weird relationship I have seems to have especially tripped me up when trying to figure out my own type, because I kept using Ti to try understand/learn the cognitive functions for myself, and because I find it a very strong and forceful function, both in my ability to wield it and the seduction to use it.

So my question is this: If you get yourself in a dominant-tertiary loop, are you likely to try to use your shadow functions (in the same orientation) as your dominant to avoid changing worlds?

Have I just completely and utterly failed to understand function archetypes and dominant-tertiary loops, and the license to learn cognitive functions should be immediately rescinded, pending further sanctions by tribunal? Or maybe just marginally failed/succeeded?
 
  • Like
Reactions: JungyesMBTIno

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,382 Posts
So my question is this: If you get yourself in a dominant-tertiary loop, are you likely to try to use your shadow functions (in the same orientation) as your dominant to avoid changing worlds?
I think so. Great post, btw! I recently came up with a cognitive functions model that resembles a staircase where the demonic function shadows the tertiary function, since according to Beebe's model, the tertiary function is the "fight and flight" function, so it technically needs something that's stimulating this reaction, which most certainly wouldn't come from the dominant function (since it's what a person is most comfortable with) or any ego syntonic function for that matter, so the only function that could threaten it into a life-or-death self-preservation mode that can directly interact with it negatively (like two negative charges occupying the same space) would be the demonic function (not the 6th function, since the 6th function lies above the tert function under my staircase as I created it (if I can just figure out how to post an image of it now, that would be a dandy!) - I also am of the belief that the demonic function can be somewhat accessed safely only through the tert. function (but it can never ever become a conscious perspective in a person). So, as you can deduce, the top of the staircase is where the dominant is, the bottom the inferior, and underneath, the shadow functions in descending order in respective shadow positions where they can occupy various "spaces" of energy transmission - I should be making a thread on this shortly!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vivid Sunset

·
MOTM August 2012
Joined
·
3,467 Posts
I've been looking at the Demon/Daimon function, and it definitely would fit my behavior, especially when considered in conjunction with my strong tendency to be avoidant. Using Ti mentally wipes me out and before I even start using Ti, I dread the thought of going through the process (traditional demon). However, after I use it to develop the understanding needed to solve the problem it suddenly becomes worth all the mental pain incurred (angelic/daimon). This weird relationship I have seems to have especially tripped me up when trying to figure out my own type, because I kept using Ti to try understand/learn the cognitive functions for myself, and because I find it a very strong and forceful function, both in my ability to wield it and the seduction to use it.
Actually I think this is probably still all Inferior Extraverted Thinking. It would, in reality, be really hard to tell Ti from Te in an inferior function (because 'daimon' Ti would be so unconscious that any conscious manifestation of it would only be cognizant through Te anyway). Dread is a common aspect of the inferior function (so is aspiration) and I think this is, in general what you are describing in less complicated terms than dom-tert loops, shadow functions and all that. The reality is shadow functions (assuming they exist at all -- because we still haven't identified what purpose they would actually serve in the psyche other than to confound people on type forums), being unconscious, would only be able to be perceived well after the fact, and therein lies the rub. How can one ever be sure that the motivation was from the unconscious and not the semi-conscious inferior function.

These are precisely the kinds of tricks the inferior function plays on us (or more accurately the way the ego tries to rationalize the inferior function) because if you simply dismiss something as being 'shadow' then it also absolves you of having to really deal head-on with the inferior function, which in reality would be far more problematic and trying than a shadow function. It's sort of like people who rationalize their behavior by saying "I was born this way." The fact that you recognize these tendencies consciously, generally means they aren't really all that shadow (especially not to the depth of demon/daimon which is damn near collective unconscious) and are probably the just your ego's way, given your knowledge, of rationalizing the influences of the inferior function.

For me as a Ni-dom it would be very, very difficult to know whether or not some issue with Sensation was Si or Se in myself. The only thing I can do is to look at actual Si-doms and try to understand my own experience relative to theirs, but to be able to understand an inferior or shadow tendency of my own would be incredibly difficult, because these 'functions' by nature want to defy the auspices of the ego.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
176 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
Actually I think this is probably still all Inferior Extraverted Thinking. It would, in reality, be really hard to tell Ti from Te in an inferior function (because 'daimon' Ti would be so unconscious that any conscious manifestation of it would only be cognizant through Te anyway). Dread is a common aspect of the inferior function (so is aspiration) and I think this is, in general what you are describing in less complicated terms than dom-tert loops, shadow functions and all that. The reality is shadow functions (assuming they exist at all -- because we still haven't identified what purpose they would actually serve in the psyche other than to confound people on type forums), being unconscious, would only be able to be perceived well after the fact, and therein lies the rub. How can one ever be sure that the motivation was from the unconscious and not the semi-conscious inferior function.
You could be right, it could be me misinterpreting Te as Ti.

The way I recall using this thinking, is that it's primarily within my own mind. The rough process is I scan the structure of the system, then snap the pieces I've managed to pull out together. It ends up being a lot of back and forth iterations examining the structure then snapping pieces together, before my mind finally works everything out. It's a very time consuming and draining process. Though now that I've written it out, I think I'm beginning to see how this could really just be Te (Si is pulling out pieces, Te is fitting the pieces back together, or something along those lines).

For me as a Ni-dom it would be very, very difficult to know whether or not some issue with Sensation was Si or Se in myself. The only thing I can do is to look at actual Si-doms and try to understand my own experience relative to theirs, but to be able to understand an inferior or shadow tendency of my own would be incredibly difficult, because these 'functions' by nature want to defy the auspices of the ego.
Would repeated experiences of the inferior or shadow make it easier to recognize and understand?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,382 Posts
Yeah, I think @LiquidLight has the more practical point (mine was mainly experimental). In determining this, paying attention to the introversion/extraversion of your inferior function is paramount - if you're mainly having issues with structuring criterion of the outer world in order for something to make technical sense to you, then this would be inferior Te at play (inferior Ti would probably be something more along the lines of somewhat dark and pet-peeving thoughts - much more subjective, which doesn't sound like what you're describing - your inferior thinking sounds more objective like Te). No one can ever use their demonic function consciously, unless perhaps they're under an extreme amount of stress, but even then, I wouldn't be so sure of this, since, I mean, if it's unconscious, how can anyone really know what it is and what it isn't - it would most likely manifest in the form of a complex of sorts - exposing yourself to people with your demonic as their dominant can be revealing of this.
 

·
MOTM August 2012
Joined
·
3,467 Posts
(inferior Ti would probably be something more along the lines of somewhat dark and pet-peeving thoughts - much more subjective, which doesn't sound like what you're describing - your inferior thinking sounds more objective like Te).
That's a really good point. The nature of Thinking itself in inferior Ti is often very negative, especially about the self. Marie Von Franz laments that Extraverted Feeling types often have horrendous self-esteem or really downplay their own intellectual abilities because of their Inferior Ti. Inferior Te is much more like being obsessed with an idea - intellectual monomania as she calls it. She uses the example of Freud an INFP, who was obsessed with tying everything to sex.
 

·
MOTM June 2010
Joined
·
2,507 Posts
So my question is this: If you get yourself in a dominant-tertiary loop, are you likely to try to use your shadow functions (in the same orientation) as your dominant to avoid changing worlds?
I don’t mean to derail the thread, but since the phrase pops up again, I will keep asking the obvious question… can you describe what Fi-Si is like when you use it? I know you just referred to the dominant-tertiary loop and I know how everyone proposes it works in theory (although it completely defies the principles of Jungian Typology), but I have yet to have anyone describe what it looks like when they actually alternate between Fi and Si, or Ni-Fi, etc? How are you actually alternating between them without the auxiliary being involved? Jung says the introverted auxiliary (or tertiary) function will side with the inferior function if the dominant function rules the extraverted auxiliary.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
176 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
This may just be me (mis?)using a similar concept (or rather, what I see as a similar concept) to explain what I'm observing and may not be what's really happening.

When I'm trying to solve a problem I usually know what the outcome should look like, and at a high level, what systems I'll need to connect together to reach the outcome. If I've used those systems previously then there's no problem, however, if I have to learn a complicated new system I usually quickly get overwhelmed and when I look at my options that's when the cycle starts.

The cycle typically includes looking at other systems that I'm familiar with to see if there's any way to use them instead, most often the answer ends up being no. I consider asking someone who is knows the system, and that almost immediately brings to mind a scenario where I do ask and they wonder why I wasn't able to figure it out on my own (I'm definitely projecting for this one, since the few times where I've actually gone and asked it's never gone as I imagined). I also consider going through the effort of learning the system myself, which I really try rejecting because of how much effort it will be. This cycle of thoughts continues until I finally go through the effort of learning the system myself.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Functianalyst

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,866 Posts
I've been analyzing my own behavior and I noticed that whenever I encounter a technical problem, instead of doing the obvious and asking for help or discussing it with someone who knows the technical aspects much better than me, I drop everything and intensely focus on all the little details of the system until I fully understand it and am able to solve the problem. I observed this tendency through noticing that I find it far better and easier to use someone else's analysis of the system, than it is for me to analyze the system on my own and develop understand that way.

I first thought it originated, because I tend to be fiercely independent. However, I've noticed that I only tend to slip into this mode of thinking when I perceive (real or imagined) that the person I want to ask will say or imply that the solution should be obvious, and that I should know how to solve it on my own. This tends to cause me to withdraw and fully invest myself in understanding how the system works and why the problem manifests, and I end up being more willing to expend the significant amounts of energy and mental power on the problem, than to actually talk to the person and find out that they would actually be excited to talk to me about it. This was when I finally recognized the behavior was stemming from my shadow functions, and that the common cause was a combination of inferior projection and my Ne not engaging.

I've been looking at the Demon/Daimon function, and it definitely would fit my behavior, especially when considered in conjunction with my strong tendency to be avoidant. Using Ti mentally wipes me out and before I even start using Ti, I dread the thought of going through the process (traditional demon). However, after I use it to develop the understanding needed to solve the problem it suddenly becomes worth all the mental pain incurred (angelic/daimon). This weird relationship I have seems to have especially tripped me up when trying to figure out my own type, because I kept using Ti to try understand/learn the cognitive functions for myself, and because I find it a very strong and forceful function, both in my ability to wield it and the seduction to use it.

So my question is this: If you get yourself in a dominant-tertiary loop, are you likely to try to use your shadow functions (in the same orientation) as your dominant to avoid changing worlds?

Have I just completely and utterly failed to understand function archetypes and dominant-tertiary loops, and the license to learn cognitive functions should be immediately rescinded, pending further sanctions by tribunal? Or maybe just marginally failed/succeeded?
I think so. Great post, btw! I recently came up with a cognitive functions model that resembles a staircase where the demonic function shadows the tertiary function, since according to Beebe's model, the tertiary function is the "fight and flight" function, so it technically needs something that's stimulating this reaction, which most certainly wouldn't come from the dominant function (since it's what a person is most comfortable with) or any ego syntonic function for that matter, so the only function that could threaten it into a life-or-death self-preservation mode that can directly interact with it negatively (like two negative charges occupying the same space) would be the demonic function (not the 6th function, since the 6th function lies above the tert function under my staircase as I created it (if I can just figure out how to post an image of it now, that would be a dandy!) - I also am of the belief that the demonic function can be somewhat accessed safely only through the tert. function (but it can never ever become a conscious perspective in a person). So, as you can deduce, the top of the staircase is where the dominant is, the bottom the inferior, and underneath, the shadow functions in descending order in respective shadow positions where they can occupy various "spaces" of energy transmission - I should be making a thread on this shortly!
One thing the tertiary and Beebe #8 function ("demon") have in common, is that in Lenore Thomson's older and current views, either one is the "first function the ego runs to when the dominant can't solve the problem". In her older model, reflected in the book, #8 (Ti for an INFP) was the "right brain alternative", or "Crow's Nest".
The book also mentions the Tertiary Temptation, where the dominant attitude is maintained. She basically has moved away from the ship model, but still discusses the tertiary defense (which is a more instinctual reaction, while the Opposing Personality, which is the dom. in the opposite attitude, is the one we should get more of a hold on to make stronger defenses). It is the Puer complex that orients it to the dominant attitude, to maintain the ego's position.

I still believe in the Crow's Nest concept, because one thing functions #1 and #8 have in common (long with #2/#7) is that they bear the same J/P attitude. So they actually have some things in common, and we might be a bit more comfortable with that perspective at times, though in a very unconscious way. This is one thing that I saw inadvertently supported the notion of J/P as a factor in its own right. (I've been pondering another example to give for the Demonic Fi in INTP's thread showing how the line between inferior Fe and Fi can be very blurry. The dominant is the most "differentiated" of the functions, and the further down you go, the less distinct the i/e orientations become).

Overall, in either case, what is being maintained by the ego's complexes is the dominant orientation. It will try the opposite rational/irrational, and opposite J/P brain hemisphere (tertiary), or it will stay in the same rationality and J/P hemisphere, but with the opposite function (#8). Still trying to figure when it does one or the other. Likely, the tertiary will be the first instinctual response, and then the Crow's Nest will be when the situation is more stressful, and the tertiary didn't solve it. Hence, that function becoming associated with a "demonic" complex that involves the ego's fear of destruction (real or imagined).
(Like I obviously go into Si mode more than Fi).

In your case, "trying to understand the cognitive functions" sounds like genuine Ti. Any type can "use" any function like this. It's not really so much about "using" a "skill", it's a perspective (inherent in the data being analyzed) that your type would not usually pay attention to, thinking it "cold and impersonal". (I had to learn this the hard way, when going into heavy FP groups thinking they liked the technical aspects of the theory, since they were discussing it; but they only discuss it just enough to take it to their real Fi agenda of personal growth and understanding!) It's the ego complexes determined by the type preference that set the "role" the function will tend to play.

So you try to engage the perspective, likely for one of those more Fi ultimate reasons, and it's like a "necessary evil", and it's difficult and taxing.
This, because tertiary Si is not going to help with something you don't already understand. Hence, you go to the right brain alternative. Ti and Fi are similar in being very "deep" rational analyses, so Ti will come in handy even before Te (which will more likely carry notions of inferiority: e.g. "i'll never get this stuff; I'll never be able to practically use it").

So I've never heard of this idea of associating the Tertiary and the Demon directly, but this is one way they have something in common, so it does seem to make some sense.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,382 Posts
In your case, "trying to understand the cognitive functions" sounds like genuine Ti.
Wait, so Te can't "understand" stuff (or cognitive functions for that matter)? I thought all of the functions were about "understanding" on some level (via interpretation)? I'm confused (I'm sure you don't mean it that way, but I'm not quite seeing what you're trying to say - are you trying to say that there's a certain lack of understanding that the inferior can't bypass???). The necessary evil stuff is interesting though - there might be something to that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,866 Posts
Wait, so Te can't "understand" stuff (or cognitive functions for that matter)? I thought all of the functions were about "understanding" on some level (via interpretation)? I'm confused (I'm sure you don't mean it that way, but I'm not quite seeing what you're trying to say - are you trying to say that there's a certain lack of understanding that the inferior can't bypass???). The necessary evil stuff is interesting though - there might be something to that.
In the context of what he was saying, that sounds like Ti. I guess "understand" is another one of those ambiguous terms, so yes, it can loosely refer to any of the functions, but trying to understand a logical framework is basically internalizing a logical/technical system of rationality (where Te is generally more about externalizing logical order).
I'm realizing more and more that the "boundaries" between these things (the attitudes), if you will, are really very fuzzy. Nothing is hard and fixed and set (i.e. "concrete"), but his explanation does fit an Fi preferrer's "use" (if we must) of Ti.
 
1 - 11 of 11 Posts
Top