Personality Cafe banner
1 - 5 of 5 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
41 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I'm new to the MBTI system and long time researcher on the enneagram. It seems to me that when one finds their type in this system, the shadow is clearly the opposite type or they represent the parts of the shadow or something. It seems that this could be seen as just as important as learning one's conscious type.
 

·
MOTM August 2012
Joined
·
3,467 Posts
I would take the Jungian perspective and argue that understanding the shadow is more important than knowing type which is just the outer or conscious presentation of a person. To only pay attention to type is akin to only paying attention to the exterior of a house while not paying any attention to the inside.

Now obviously the shadow is so broad that one cannot ever truly know the extents of it (how can you ever figure out all the things about yourself for which you are unaware?), but having some sort of reconciliation with the shadow is fundamental to Jung's premise of typology in the first place. That the Introverted Feeling type has an Extraverted Thinking shadow, that the in-the-clouds intuitive type has a practical sensation type shadow and so forth. To get caught up in the outer presentation of type is largely to miss the point and I think one of the basic flaws of MBTI. Myers generally considered the lower two functions to be 'shadow' (not necessarily in Jung's way) but basically as troublemaking, her focus is basically on the dominant and auxiliary functions.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,382 Posts
Jung's shadow is most significant - most of type is largely irrelevant to anything that actually motivates a person. I mean, you may get so many archetypes of various types that it's laughable to really try to categorize them together beyond the basic characteristics. You may get Si doms who are stuck-in-their-ways, but once you look further, it might be the result of a complex (and you may certainly get any introvert who is naturally like this as well - extraversion would be more of an ignorance of self-interests and an obsession with change). Depends on how you contextualize the whole deal.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,743 Posts
@LiquidLight: question though, do you mean in the sense that the shadow contains not only rejected/hidden contents which correspond to rejected functional perspectives but also things with no clear relation to a (rejected) functional perspective?

I ask this with a view towards what I consider bankeinanin's hinted "question" in his last post ---- I'd assume even if knowing type is not the end of the story, part of the whole point of finding it is that, as they say in physics, you gotta work in 3D and see what you can say there if that's all you can say anything non-gibberish about directly, even if things are really 4D...i.e. work with what you have access to (the conscious outer, egoic aspect) ... and then see what you can extrapolate that it says about the hidden dimension, no?
Of course there are things which go somewhat beyond all this, e.g. dreams etc but I'd think still, that the unconscious is unconscious should in and of itself signify that we do not approach its study directly.
 
1 - 5 of 5 Posts
Top