Personality Cafe banner

1 - 20 of 148 Posts

1,849 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Understanding the Archetypes involving the eight functions of type (Beebe model)

The key to understanding exactly how functions play out in each type are the archetypes. Jung's larger theories included hundreds of archetypes, which are "character roles" of sorts, within the psyche. A handful of these began to be associated with the function positions in each type, most notably by Jungian analyst John Beebe.

First, we need to understand that functions (S, N, T, F) or "function attitudes" (Xe, Xi), are perspectives; not behaviors or skills-sets as they are often treated. Both Simulatedworld and I have been emphasizing this, as it is one of the keys to understanding how they work.
We also should know something about Jung's division of the psyche or "larger Self".

Archetypes are basically defined as "a way of organizing human experience that gives it collective meaning". The conglomeration of images, memories, and emotions surrounding an archetypal core, but unique to ourselves. So one such human experience involves "heroically" solving a problem. That is one archetype. Another experience is supporting others. Another one is looking up to others to support us. And another is finding completeness.

While our type preference lies in the ego, which is the conscious part of the psyche, the archetypes lie in the unconscious part, specifically in the area that is "collective", meaning shared by all people.
The easiest example of the unconscious is simply things we've forgotten. It's still buried in the memory somewhere; we just can no longer readily bring it up consciously. It may come up on its own through dreams, déja-vu's, sudden flashes of memory under stress, etc. Those are personal forms of unconsciousness. There are others that are collective, which are not based on our own memory, but nevertheless shape aspects of human existence such as our inherited images of male and female, good and evil, love and power, that are represented in all cultures.

When we have individual experiences that fit into these particular collective frames of organization we are discussing, and form a pattern in us, they then enter the personal part of the unconscious, and become complexes. The archetype is at the core of the complex. And then the archetype forms an encasement around the function. The function then becomes the operational perspective or "world-view" of that complex.

Thus we develop an inferiority complex around the inferior function, a superiority complex around the superior function, a "best auxiliary" complex (the caretaker) around the auxiliary function, and an "eternal child" complex around the tertiary function. (Beebe)

However, the ego can still access the function apart from the archetypal "shell". Hence, what many people need to realize is that the function is not fated to be equal to its archetypal carrier. This leaves room for the functions to step away from their carriers and operate independently of what brought them into the ego, and for the carriers to go on being their archetypal selves in the background.

As Lenore Thomson has put it, "the products of undifferentiated functions are capable of reaching consciousness, but only in so far as they're linked to the 'operating charter' of the network our differentiated function has set up. This diverts their potential energic investment to dominant goals."
When it's linked to the ego's "network" of the operating charter, it can be "scooped out" of the unconscious shell as needed, as Beebe has put it. This process is still enabled by insight into the original role through which the function attitude has been led to express itself before it becomes part of directed consciousness.

When a functional product is not linked to the network of the differentiated standpoint, then it remains conflated with one of the archetypal complexes, at the limbic level of emotional response.
The full name of these elements is function[-attitude] complexes, or "Archetypal Complexes Carrying the Eight Functions", rather than reducing the complexes to the archetypes or the archetypes to the complexes
Lenore Thomson (who has added discussion of Beebe's model to her theory since writing her book) emphasizes the archetypes being complexes.
To start to understand the archetypes, we first need to understand the process of how they differentiate. This will give an idea of why each particular archetype falls in each particular position. The purpose is to present the eight archetypal complexes in a way where they are not conflated with the eight "Xx" "processes" as if often done.

The ego starts with its preferred comfort zone of the inner or outer world. The ego chooses its dominant function, which it uses in its preferred realm.

If Thinking (for instance) is chosen as the dominant, and in the internal world, then everything else is rejected by the ego: the external world and the other three functions; Feeling along with both perceiving, which remain undifferentiated. (They are engaged, but not as conscious ego functions, and not really distinguished in orientation, though Jung said they would be associated with the rejected orientation; this case being the outer world).

"Whatever we habitually put aside to make our willful conscious choices will inevitably make its alliance with the unconscious -- emotions we don't want to feel, desires we don't recognize, etc. That is, the hero who has successfully established a sense of self and assimilated the good, supportive aspects of a Parental figurewill be compensated, in the unconscious, by everything s/he's rejected as not part of this self." (Lenore Thomson, Personality Pathways article)

In Jung's theory, the orientations are more attached to the ego itself, than to the functions themselves. So there are really four functions, which the ego engages in one of two different orientations, generating eight "function-attitudes".

Soon, an auxiliary will be chosen, which will be of the rejected perceiving mode of processing, as well as it being in the rejected outer orientation.

These two functions will become apart of heroic and parental complexes.

A "child" complex will take on the opposite process from the auxiliary, and align it with the dominant attitude. (Tertiary Temptation, where the tertiary is more a defense mode that provides justification for remaining in the dominant atitude when the person avoids the tempering influence of the auxiliary).

This is why the tertiary ends up as the same attitude as the dominant, where it was initially thought to be the opposite attitude, like the auxiliary and inferior. On one hand, the ego tends to reject everything else from its dominant orientation, but then you have one of these complexes bringing one of the other functions into the dominant realm, as a sort of backup.

The opposite function from the dominant, Feeling, will be inferior and most rejected, yet in the opposite outer orientation will be what the ego believes will complete it.

Of course, we often from here get the question of what about the "other four" processes for each type. This is where Beebe came in with his "eight-process model".

In the older theory, the inferior had been deemed what is known as the "shadow"; basically the least conscious part of the psyche. The type with the same four functions in reverse (inferior as hero, tertiary as aux., etc.; the type with all four letters opposite, or "inverse relationship" according to Beebe) was deemed the "shadow type", with a negative manifestation of it erupting under stress. (See

Beebe determined that the inferior was actually apart of the "ego-syntonic" (or primary) range, along with the first three, but that it did border on the true "shadow" or "ego-dystonic" range, which is an even less conscious realm where these supposed "other" four processes lied.
(So the true "shadow type" would actually end up as the one sharing only the two middle letters, or its inverse, sharing the first and last letter!)

Recall, there are really only four functions, which an ego receives stimulation through in an inner or outer orientation, rejecting the unchosen orientation into the unconscious.
So what Beebe's concept of the shadow really is, is a glimpse into these suppressed orientations of both the functions and the complexes that employ them.

The "hero" degrades into an "opposing personality" receiving stimulation from the dominant function in its suppressed opposite orientation. (This is one of two Beebe named himself. In Jung's conception, it was just a "negative hero"). Since we're now tapping [further] into what has been rejected from the consciousness by the ego, this, (along with the next three) will often come out in a negative fashion. Yet this one does also back up and fill in the blind spots of the hero. (It is also said to often be the opposite sex, like the anima).

The "parent" splits off a "critical" version of itself receiving stimulation from the auxiliary function in the opposite orientation. Beebe matched this to Jung's "witch" and "senex" (old man) archetypes (for females and males, respectively). Its good side is that it can provide profound wisdom.

The negative aspect of the "child" receives its stimulation from the opposite orientation of the tertiary and becomes a bratty "bad child", associated with Jung's "trickster" archetype. It creates double binds for self and especially others, and its good side is comedic relief.

The anima or "soul" is shadowed by a "demon" which receives its stimulation from the opposite orientation of the inferior. (This is the other one named by Beebe; a "negative anima", and it appears a "double negative" principle leads to it being the same gender as the person). Since that was already the most rejected area, then its shadow manifests in a particularly destructive fashion. It can also become an "angel" or "transformer" in bad situations.

The resulting order, it must be stressed, is not to be assumed to be strength. And even though we have used "shadow" as the group of bottom four, even that is not a hard division. According to Mark Hunziker and Leona Haas Building Blocks of Personality Type (Unite Business Press, a division of Telos, 2006):
Actually, the shadow encompasses all processes that are primarily unconscious in an individual. Which processes these are will depend on that person'a type development and can even include all eight in a very young child. Note also, that the normal hierarchy of preference for processes five through eight has not yet been empirically established, and in practice is likely to vary from person to person. Beebe cautions us not to assume too much on the basis of his numbering, which in many ways is simply for convenience in identifying the various positions. He simply puts it forth as a tool that he has found useful and informative and which at least for the first four functions seems to reflect the order of conscious cultivation of the functions that he has observed. The numbers for the shadow functions are identified merely to mirror the ordering of the first four.
(Glossary: "Shadow", p. 215, emphasis added)
Lenore points out to me, "The eight-function model is basically a diagram of the several complexes that are normally activated when an ego-identity is established. It isn't telling you how the functions are going to operate when they're 'used.' It's telling you how the complexes are going to operate when they're influencing one's behavior".
Beebe had also named the two tandems. The hero and anima are called the "spine" of consciousness. The parent and child are called the "arm". Since each tandem will consist of either judgment or perception functions, Beebe terms them "rational" or "irrational", being Jung's terms for judgment and perception.

Beebe has made diagrams of these tandems crossing each other, with the spine as vertical, and the arm horizontal, so that it actually looks like a sort of skeletal frame. (And the dominant function is called the "head" while the inferior is the "tail"). But it actually means more than just that. As you may have noticed, the arm deals specifically with our relations to others. The spine, encompassing our main ego function, and the "soul", deals with our relationship to our own selves.
These are set in place by the dominant and auxiliary functions. The dominant is our ego's operating charter, and the auxiliary is what we often use with others. So it's like the tertiary and inferior as a pair are a mirror image of the dominant and aux. as far as the kind of function, and whether it is associated with self, or with others.

As Beebe has expressed it; the spine, which in defining our identity concerns itself more with what we can be or do in and for ourselves. The arm is more focused on the ways in which we use our consciousnesses to reach out to others. Think; a child will look up to others (for help, approval, etc). Just like the parent will try to help children.

This will prove very helpful in understanding his model, and identifying where particular functions fit in determining a type.

The different tandems also carry over into the shadow. All four complexes tend to be very negative towards both self and others, but the opposing personality and demon, as the shadow of the spine, will be more connected with the self (ego). The witch/senex and trickster, as the arm will be more about "tying down" others to get them off our backs. Hence, you will see the "Oppositional" process described in Linda Berens' books as being "stubborn" about things, while the "critical parent" is more sharply "critical", and described elsewhere in terms of "low blows" and "looks that stop you dead in your tracks". One is primarily serving the ego it is shadowing, while the other is focused on dealing with the other person.

There also are simply the consecutive pairs, which in Socionics, are called "blocks".
The dominant and auxiliary, will be more developed and mature, and the tertiary and inferior (when they develop, in coming years) will be less developed and immature, from being initially rejected and thus lower on the acceptance order from the first two. This will set the stage for the archetypal roles or complexes mapped to the functions.

Also, from what I have seen, the blocks will also parallel. The opposing and witch will reflect the confidence of the hero and parent in a very aggressive way. The trickster and demon, while not really "vulnerable" themselves like the child and anima, nevertheless will compensate for the vulnerability of those complexes, and thus come out very reactively. We are still vulnerable in situations that call for the 7th and 8th functions (like for me, certain physical acts such as walking elevated tracks).
The Trickster and Demon function influenced decisions particularly are said to end up being regretted because they usually erupt in such a rash manner from being the most suppressed, and in the more vulnerable areas.

So now, we can make generic terms for the eight archetypes. They can be reduced down to three variables which should give a more concise idea of what they are about:
positive (primary) vs negative (shadow)
confident (top two of four functions) vs vulnerable (bottom two)
ego-focused (spine) vs others-focused (arm)
hero: positive, confident, ego-focused
parent: positive, confident, others-focused
child: positive, vulnerable, others-focused
anima: positive, vulnerable, ego-focused
opposing: negative, confident, ego-focused
witch/senex: negative, confident, others-focused
trickster: negative, vulnerable (compensatory), others-focused
demon: negative, vulnerable (compensatory), ego-focused

1,849 Posts
Discussion Starter #2
Understanding the Archetypes involving the eight functions of type (Beebe model)​

What these archetypes are all about is projection. The archetypes (especially the shadows) are what we project onto others, and the goal of ego-development is to "own" them, and see them as apart of ourselves.
Hence, the larger self, which encompasses both the ego consciousness, and the personal and collective unconscious is said to constantly be trying to "get our attention" through means such as conflicts and reactions, as well as dreams.
This is because the ego thinks it's the center of the psyche, when the larger Self really is.

When we project the encompassing complexes onto people, they seem to fit those roles, generally involving the function-attitude in that position in some way, and we react often antagonistically in kind with that function. Or, they might genuinely be fitting the role in their own behavior.
To own the complex instead of projecting it at others, we must see ourselves as playing those roles; our own worst enemies.
This is hard, because these parts of us are what we have shut out of our consciousness.

When we withdraw the complex, we then become more receptive to stimulation from the function that has become embedded in the complex's archetype. We can then experience the positive side of the perspective more.

This is what has somewhat misguidedly become shorthanded as "developing the functions". That again assumes the functions are "skills" we "use". But you're not really developing functions; you're expanding consciousness and recovering (integrating) suppressed perspectives, as that again is what the function attitudes are.
The ultimate goal is called "individuation". While this would yield a more balanced perspective in living, it is really not simply being "strong" in "all eight functions".

Really, self-growth is what all of this stuff is really, ultimately all about!

So here now are the most prominent complexes:

HERO (dominant)

Since this is the ego's "operating charter", we probably don't often project it at others. We "own" it right off the bat. It is "us", at least in our conscious self-image.
I imagine it's when we're really young, and we look up to those who manifest the perspective that will become dominant in our own consciousness.

GOOD PARENT (auxiliary)

You would think we likewise don't project this much, since we see it as just as integral to our type as the dominant. But according to Lenore, since we often jump straight to the tertiary defense, we apparently do not always completely own the complex.
She speaks of people withdrawing the parent projections, in which we then open ourselves to more information from the auxiliary function, gaining "a strong motivation to teach and mentor others", and sometimes going to the opposite extreme of "preaching the auxiliary". The person now rigorously "parents" others with their perspective, including their method of owning the complex.

I imagine projecting the parent would mean you would see others as parent figures you want to help you with the perspective of the function in that position. Running to the tertiary, we're playing a role of "child" (that function's archetypal shell) anyway.

But being in a heavy SJ environment, I have probably not had many people I could project this onto, so I believe I owned it pretty early, making my Ne very strong (as reflected by the cognitive process test), to the point of seeming to be possibly my dominant.

PUER ("eternal child", tertiary)

Since this would be the function our egos run to to maintain the dominant attitude, we probably don't project this associated complex onto others. The ego naturally owns it quickly.

Projection would be seeing others as "children".
The tertiary thus "inflates" itself, aiming to appear full of "wisdom and maturity" and be equal to the dominant or auxiliary of others. Yet then it deflates itself, and I become like a child wanting to be taken and led into the innocent past through nostalgic interests.

Actually, all conscious complexes tend to inflate themselves. It's actually the ego that is doing the inflating, as it seeks to be the center of the psyche (in place of the Self). So since the tertiary is the ego's first line of defense of the dominant perspective, it seems to be the one that is seen "inflating" the most.

Now, we enter the realm of the less conscious complexes; the ones that do get heavily projected onto others, and need to be owned.

When we project the encompassing complexes onto people, they seem to fit those roles, generally involving the function-attitude in that position in some way, and we react oppositionally in kind with that function. Or, they might genuinely be fitting the role in their own behavior.
To own the complex instead of projecting it at others, we must see ourselves as playing those roles; our own worst enemies.
This is hard, because these parts of us are what we have shut out of our consciousness.

ANIMA (inferior, aspirational)
What it is about, and which function it encases:

Shaped largely by the parent of the opposite sex, projected onto those we fall in love with, and encases the inferior function.

ISxJ's might feel inferior in new possibilities.
INxJ's might feel inferior with current sensory experience.
IxTP's might feel inferior in social settings.
IxFP's might feel inferior regarding logical organization.
ESxP's might feel inferior (spaced out) by abstract frameworks such as archetypes and symbolism.
ENxP's might feel inferior when it comes to learned order
ExTJ's might feel inferior in personal ethics.
ExFJ's might feel inferior regarding logical understanding.

How we project it onto others:

ISxJ's Cling to dominant perspective. Criticize NP's as irresponsible
INxJ's Cling to dominant perspective. Probably see SP's as inferior
IxTP's Put on a cool, aloof mask (associated with dominant perspective), and openly complain about FJ types.
IxFP's Criticize other's organization
ESxP's Criticize this stuff as irrelevent.
ENxP's Dismissed learned methods as irrelevant
ExTJ's Become defensive and develop a martyrdom complex where it's everyone else's ethics are bad.
ExFJ's Criticize others as illogical.

In each case, there's a deep down inside longing for what they are brushing off, that they might realize if they look for it. Espsecially in mid-life, when "individuation takes us inward" (Lenore)

Since in the typical Beebe order where the eight are evenly divided four and four, the inferior usually falls on the "ego-syntonic" side, where the next four are "ego-dystonic" and negative. So Berens includes it with the first three as generally positive, having a negative side, rather than generally negative, having positive side.
So the "negative" side of this "aspirational" function she calls "projective"; and often the first aspect of it experienced. We "project our fears, shoulds and negativities onto others". In reality, it is all the shadows or unconscious complexes that get projected onto others. Of course, this harmonized with standard four-process theory, where the inferior IS considered to be the whole "shadow".

So that is another aspect of the inferior projection besides just the opposite gender stuff. (Though that does seem to be connected with some sort of female feeling).

How to own it:
we see others as completing us (i.e. we're inferior), but we need to see this completeness in ourselves. (Not sure how this works for the "contrasexual" aspect of it).

1,849 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
Now, to "the shadow", proper.
"The Shadow" was originally (to Jung) a single archetype that gets projected onto our enemies. In this model, it is of course divided into four distinct roles, shadowing the primary archetypes. (In the older model, it is just the inferior itself. So in this model, the inferior or anima/animus is often called "the bridge" to the unconscious).

What it is about, and which function it encases:

Stubborn about things in the associated perspective. It's defending the dominant perspective in its opposite orientation.
Also usually contrasexual, like the anima/animus; it seems to be what we "lust" after in the opposite sex. While the anima is "madonna" or the "nice guy" we "love" in the opposite sex, this complex is the "whore" or "bad boy". (My own observation).

ISxJ's Stubborn about going with the flow of a single impulse or having an accurate read on the current situation.
INxJ's Stubborn about responding to emerging information
IxTP's Stubborn about the way things are organized
IxFP's stubborn about how others affect them
ESxP's stubborn about their perceptions of how things once were
ENxP's stubborn about their perceptions of how the future will be
ExTJ's stubborn about models and principles and robotically following them
ExFJ's stubborn about personal values

How we project it onto others:

ISxJ's Think that living in the moment is irresponsible. (However, some who do it are sexy).
INxJ's Probably think that multiple possibilities are absurd. The patterns point to one right conclusion.
IxTP's Think that agreed upon logical rules are stupid and a waste of time. Spunky Te types might be sexy
IxFP's Think that agreed upon ethics do not get to the real needs of people; affect them negatively, etc.
ESxP's Memorized rules and such are stupid and limiting of freedom.
ENxP's Taking only one possibility is stupid and limiting.
ExTJ's Breaking things down into trivial detail is stupid, inefficient and a waste of time
ExFJ's Tailoring everything to individual personal needs is too much trouble

How to own it:

We're making others into "opposing personalities" ("negative heroes" or "villains"), but we're really our own villain.

Ji/Pe types have chosen P and suppressed J. And Je/Pi types have chosen J and suppressed P. Hence, P's might not really make many decisions externally, but instead just try to get by under other people's order, with which we can easily find fault, but not offer much of a better solution ourselves.

If we were to exercise (own) more of a J attitude (as represented by our dominant function's opposite orientation), we would be more proactive in the outer world and thus able to attain better positions of control and not feel so at the mercy of others. We would then be able to withdraw some of the villification or criticism we direct at those in power.
Likewise, if J's would likewise take on more of a [suppressed] P attitude, they would withdraw a lot of their blame on others for not being organized enough.

WITCH/SENEX ("critical parent")
What it is about, and which function it encases:

"critical and disgruntled" (Berens) about the associated perception or judgment perspective. "Parent" others negatively in a limiting, authoritarian fashion.

ISxP's Past rememberances.
INxP's perceived significance of life events (and what they appear to lead to).
IxTJ's logical principles
IxFJ's Personal ethics
ESxJ's Current sensory experience.
ENxJ's Multiple possibilities.
ExFP's Group values
ExTP's Logical order

How we project it onto others.

ISxP's Avoid past rememberances, except to blame, and will make them critical if others dwell too much
INxP's Interpret everything in terms of a "big picture" in which the worst will happen
IxTJ's Will often angrily hit others with logical principles.
IxFJ's Can angrily hit others with personal or universal ethics.
ESxJ's Very critical about the way things look, which they easily spot to find fault with (I call them "hawks")
ENxJ's Might attack people for bombarding them with multiple possibilities.
ExTP's Will fight, compete and one-up others over the way things are ordered.
ExFP's will authoritatively chastize those perceived as disrupting social harmony (and end up disrupting it themselves), and will reference standards imposed upon themselves.

How to own it:

We see others as shaming, blaming "critical parents", setting limits on us in an authoritarian (Hunziker) fashion (and then react in kind), but we're really our own critical parent, and blaming others for this.

TRICKSTER (bad child, clown)
What it is about, and which function it encases:

Deceiving, double-binding, trapping others

ISxP's Might feel 'double-bound' by multiple possibilities
INxP's Might feel 'double-bound' by current reality (physical things or facts), and then it seems to become the perfect vehicle to try to turn the tables on others with, or to be silly with.
IxTJ's Might feel 'double-bound' by social values, and use them to trap others
IxFJ's Might feel 'double-bound' by logical order, and make mistakes trying to implement it themselves
ESxJ's Might feel 'double-bound' by abstract frameworks, and use them to trap others into confirming their worst fears
ENxJ's Might feel 'double-bound' by past memorances, and use them to trap others
ExTP's Might feel 'double-bound' by personal values, and use them to trap others
ExFP's Might feel 'double-bound' by logical principles and use them to trap others

How we project it onto others:

ISxP's See people tossing out multiple possibilities as bad children or clowns.
INxP's People performing rigorous stunts are clowns; people telling "the facts" seem like "bullies"
IxTJ's might criticize others' social behavior to scare them by saying they are bringing rejection on themselves
IxFJ's see people organizing things logically as "bad children"
ESxJ's see abstract frameworks as silly, yet unconsciously use them themselves under stress
ENxJ's People who dwell on the past (instead of moving on) are "puerile", and yet they might distort it to get them off their back
ExTP's see opponent's passion in a dispute and try to outdo it themselves in a childish fashion.
ExFP's All this archetype stuff ("puers trigger witches", etc. logical frameworks) is just excuses for bad behavior (I actually had someone say this to me!)

How to own it:

We see others as a bad child, but we're being a bad child.

What it is about, and which function it encases:

The most rejected area of consciousness. The opposite function of the dominant perspective orientation.

ISxJ's deep abstract meaning is an area of the unknown and runs totally counter to the concrete structure needed
INxJ's The past is highly irrelevent, and likely haunting
IxTP's Ethical congruence and conscience might be a nagging, guilt-provoking issue we wish could go away.
IxFP's Logical analysis totally depersonalizes life
ESxP's Interpretations of current reality are highly irrelevent
ENxP's "may get caught up in a binge of being in the physical moment; excessively seeking stimulation or following the urge to sleep or do nothing" (Berens)
ExTJ's Social harmony might be manipulated for personal goals, rather than shaping one's own behavior
ExFJ's Logical order is a necessary evil done in a huff to accomplish goal of social harmony

How we project it onto others:

ISxJ's see abstract frameworks as crazy, yet use them under stress in an overblown fashion ("dire predictions with detailed certainty")
INxJ's "When really stressed, they may waste time reviewing the impact of the past."(Berens) (Likely aimed at someone else in a conflict)
IxTP's Might become very envious and resentful at people seen as morally self-contented, and want nothing more than to upseat and expose them. They come across as evil hypocrites wearing a "good guy" mask.
then end up coming off as self-righteous themselves in trying to outdo these others.
Also, self-destructive in expending time and energy passionately engaging in all-so-"important" personal causes against them.
IxFP's Logical analysis is cold and evil, and they'll use it to demolish someone else's analysis
ESxP's "over-read 'between the lines', often misinterpreting the meaning of someone's actions and attributing negative intentions where there are none" (Berens)
ENxP's "zero in on isolated details, hastily acting on them in a chaotic disjointed way" (Berens) Likely in conflict against someone else.
ExTJ's Others are socially destructive, and are out to get me; I'm doing SO much for others, and not appreciated
ExFJ's Others' disorder is making me crazy; frenzied rush to clean and fix everything or order the other person

How to own it:

we see others as "devils" in these areas, but we really are

1,849 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
Here's another perspective for understanding the shadows in terms of the primary functions they are shadowing.

When Se is in Opposing Personality role, the ego function is Si, which internalizes concrete experience as memory. When this is challenged, the focus is shifted to current reality to backup past knowledge. (after all, the past once was present, and is to be learned from in order to know what to expect in the present).

In a similar fashion, when Se is in witch/senex role, Si is the function the ego uses to parent others. When the parental advice based on past knowledge is rejected, then the parent becomes critical and uses current reality to place blame and find fault.

When Se is trickster, then Si is puer, and internalized concrete experience is what the ego childishly falls back on to maintain its introverted attitude. If this is challenged, the ego will use current concrete reality to get others off his back by pointing at others ("you do it too" defense {triggered when the ego is intimidated through the puer by memory-based fear of punishment}). "wanting to have its own way": wanting to see things for myself, and having concrete evidence for things such as spirituality.

Se as demon: The person aspires to being more attentive to internal sensations. External sensations may undermine this.

Si as Opposing Personality: The person is focused primarily on the present. The past is used as a reference to how it links to the present, which they will stubbornly cling to.

Si as witch/senex: the person parents others by noticing current concrete data. If this is ignored, they will turn to past concrete data to criticize things by.

Si as trickster: Sensory pleasure is a source of childlike relief. If this is threatened, they will reference past esperiences to get the person off their back.

Si as demon: the person, immersed in the world of Ni, ultimately wants some connection to the concrete world, usually the present. Under stress, they may turn from present to past reality.

Ne as Opposing Personality: The person usually has "knowings" based on internal abstract perceptions. If this is challenged, they will turn towards external stimuli to back up their perception.

Ne as witch/senex: The person parents with foresight and following their visions. If this is spurned, they will turn to an external sense of possibilities to criticize with.

Ne as trickster: The person finds relief in using their imagination to perceive the future. If this is intimidated, they would try to tie others down with multiple external interpretations.

Ne as demon: They aspire to having a sense of the future. When stressed, it can turn into messed up interpretations.

Ni as Opposing backs up Ne as hero. The ego cherishes multiple opportunities of external obects being open. If they are shut out, then the person will "lock on" to an internal negative perception of what will happen.

Ni as senex/witch uses its perceptions to criticize or cast blame, with a cynical outlook on the future. They normally "parent" others with external-based multiple possibilities, but when these seem to be shut out by circumstances (or if they cannot obtain the meaning behind something), they will generate a specific perception internally, and 'parent' others in a negative fashion with this.

Ni as trickster shadows Ne as child. Imaginativeness using multiple possibilities is a playful, childlike endeavor. If this is intimidated, the person will then try to bind the other person with negative premonitions of what will happen (such as a fight occurring).

Ni as demon: shadows Ne as anima. The person really has a typical aversion to too much abstraction (favoring internal concrete remembrance), but does aspire to seeing the meanings behind things. Under stress, this will become very negative forecasting "with detailed certainty" (Berens).

Te as Opposing Personality will back up the ego's internal model of how things should be, and thus when the principles are violated, it will be "stubborn" about how things are organized.

Te as witch/Senex will back up parental Ti which seeks to instruct others with its models. So when people do not follow the principles, it will turn to the external order of things to criticize and find fault.

Te as trickster will shadow the Child, which delights in models and frameworks. If someone intimidates this, it will turn to external principles to strip down the offender.

Te as demon: Very Feeling driven person, and while they have an aspiration to Ti, when things are out of order, they will overcompensate with a focus on efficient order of things.

Ti as Opposing Personality: The person's hero is extraverted Thinking, which orders the world for efficiency. When this is challenged, they will turn inward to universal principles to stubbornly support their external focus.

Ti as witch/senex: The person parents others with rules of external efficiency. When this is not adhered to, then they begin parenting critically with the universal frameworks and principles of the world that support the external rules.

Ti as trickster: External efficiency is looked up to with childlike innocence. The person will turn to the underlying principles behind it as a last resort if intimidated.

Ti as demon: The person has a deep down desire to be organized and systematic. If this is intimidated with too much logic, they then seek to rip to shreds the models and frameworks, proving them inconsistent.

Fe as Opposing Personality: The person is driven by personal and universal values. If these are challenged, they will appeal to external values to defend the ego.

Fe as critical parent is supporting Fi as good parent. ExFP's parent others with personal or universal values. If a group or people in a group are violating these, then the person will begin using external values to parent the people in a critical fashion (including blaming).

Fe as trickster: The person finds relief through universal/personal values. External values are appealed to (often in an overgeneralized fashion) when motivating someone to do what's important, particularly if the person's bahavior is affecting them in some way.

Fe as demon: The person's directive heroic external logic is ultimately driven by a deep sense of what's personally important. If this is violated, then they will use external values to put others down, or claim to be unfairly treated.

Fi as Opposing Personality: The person is driven to accommodate others, but since this can easily be taken advantage of, when stressed, (or more frequently; from coming from a background of abuse), they will turn the value system inward and erect a hard stiff wall of what is important and desired to themselves personally.

Fi as critical parent: The person parents others with external values. If this is ignored, a negative internal judgment system will erupt to sharply put down the offender.

Fi as trickster: Social acceptance will be a vulnerable spot for them. If this is intimidated, they will use universal values to get others off their backs.

Fi as demon: Fe as anima will be very dependent on others for acceptance. If others constantly reject the person, this will trigger a very negative, destructive "universal" sense of being no good as a person, which may also cause backlashes against others. Values will be used as a "club" to condemn offenders or their systems. The person will also vehemently resist any charge of violation of Fe or Fi values. They may be put off by any self-righteous moralizing in others (which pricks their conscience in a provocative way), and try to outo or take them down.

In the above, I attempted to show the characteristics of how the four primary functions degrade into their shadows. What should also not be left out is the similar transformation of the first two into their brain lateral counterparts (which are actually the last two), according to Lenore Thomson's theory.

Basically, all this is, is holding the same orientation and switching the function (within the j/p category). Under certain instances of stress, when your dominant or auxiliary functions cannot solve the problem, instead of simply swapping i/e orientation for those same functions, which is engaging their "shadow" counterparts, the ego "tries" the reverse: holding the same orientation with the opposite function.

Basically, (to use Beebe's concepts) the hero becomes the demon, and the parent becomes the trickster.
These are called the "Crow's Nests" in Lenore's ship analogy, while the preferred functions with the attitudes reversed are the "Double Agents" (who as the opposite side brain alternatives act as the "maintenance crew", but may attempt mutiny. And the tertiary and inferior basically cause trouble from outside the ship).

SP's: Se-->Ne
SJ's: Si-->Ni
NP's: Ne-->Se
NJ's: Ni-->Si
TJ's: Te-->Fe
TP's: Ti-->Fi
FJ's: Fe-->Te
FP's: Fi-->Ti

This can be understood in conjunction with the above descriptions of the triggering of the shadows through the primary counterparts. For the hero works in tandem with the inferior or anima, which is shadowed by the demon, and the parent works in tandem with the child, which is shadowed by the trickster. So under some stress, the shadow of a function will be engaged, and under more stress, the full shadow tandem will be engaged.
(Shoule be noted Lenore herself is a little more reservied in applying the archetypes to the last four functions all the time).

1,849 Posts
Discussion Starter #5 (Edited)
Here is a working answer to five questions I had compiled as to understand the whole eight archetype concept in a nutshell:

1) What exactly triggers them in us
2) How others' "use" (manifestation) of them affects us
3) how they affect ourselves, inside
4) how we use them on others
5) when the "good" or "bad" sides of them surface

It seems:

1) The [archetypal] complexes (personal unconscious) are triggered when a situation invokes a memory of an experience associated with the corresponding archetype. Like something that makes us feel inferior, adversarial or cranky; or makes us feel trapped, or feels like evil. We then view this through the perspective of the associated function-attitude.

2)Others' manifestations of these functions may trigger these memories, and affect us in kind. (i.e. according to the archetype, and it's functional perspective). Otherwise, they will be subject to how they fit the ego's goals (positively, no effect, etc).

3)We normally see the functional perspectives as "irrelevent" (or sometimes even have an aversion to them or situations calling for them), and under stress, engage them in a rash, haphazard way. Again, the products of the undifferentiated functions do not have this effect on us when not in conflict with the ego.

4)We project them onto others, in which we see the other person as the archetype. (This can be either from them truly acting in a way that matches (resonates with) the archetypal complex, or likely more often, just our manufacturing the illusion of such when a situation somehow evokes it). We then react to them in the same way. (adversarial, critical, etc). The goal is to see these archetypes in ourselves rather than project them.

5)The positive effects surface more either in certain instances of stress when the primary counterparts cannot solve the problem. Otherwise, it is when we "own" the associated complexes and withdraw them, that we gain more conscious access to the functional perspectives. (And of course, there is also the "undifferentiated" normal everyday use of the function).

I have found a great parallel between the blocks and the four playing card suits:

1/2: diamonds: the ego's most cherished goals
3/4: hearts: the vulnerable, innocent area
5/6: ♠ spades (sharp weapon)
7/8: ♣ clubs (blunt weapon)

It has also been outlined in Socionics, by:
Valued (i.e. primary):
1, 2 Strong
3, 4 Weak
Subdued (i.e. shadow):
5, 6 Strong
7, 8 Weak
[Numbers changed to Beebe's stacking order, with which they line up in this case]

1,849 Posts
Discussion Starter #6

John Beebe articles​

An exhaustive print of Beebe's model does not seem to be available, and much of it has been communicated mainly through lectures. You can get parts of it from various places.

The basics, and how he evolved the model:

Some other informative articles:
"TYPOLOGY IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF INTEGRITY: An Interview with Dr. John Beebe", In Touch August, 2000

"A Jungian Analyst Talks About Psychological Types: A Visit with John Beebe" - DVD (transcript online at A Jungian Analyst Talks about Psychological Types)

Type templates you can use to see which ones fit you best:
Wellness Resources of Vermont

Some more information on them can be gotten from Telos Publications, which publishes the works of Linda Berens, Haas & Hunziker and others: Telos Publications
He introduced his model in "A new model of psychological types" (1988), C.G. Jung Institute of Chicago.

One extensive printed article by Beebe is "An Archetypal Model of the Self in Dialogue" in the Theory & Psychology journal, offered for a price or subscription, at: An Archetypal Model of the Self in Dialogue -- Beebe 12 (2): 267 -- Theory & Psychology. He even analyzes Woody Allen's movie Husbands and Wives in light of the archetypes.

"UNDERSTANDING CONSCIOUSNESS THROUGH THE THEORY OF PSYCHOLOGICAL TYPES", Chapter 4, Analytical Psychology: Contemporary Perspectives in Jungian Analysis, Joseph Cambray and Linda Carter (Editors), Hove and New York: Brunner Routledge, 2004, pp. 83-115. is like a more detailed and in depth version of "Evolving the 8 Function Model"

This blog lists each process in each position using examples and lines from movies:
Mapping Jungian Archetypes on Cognitive Processes (Symbol Thinking)

Basis of concepts of anima and demon: Donald Kalsched's The Inner World of Trauma: Archetypal Defenses of the Personal Spirit Donald Kalsched - Specializing in Early Childhood Trauma
While Socionics is admired for having a more developed "intertype dynamics" system, one has been created for regular MBTI type (and using Beebe's concepts) by Type Logic: Relationship pairs: Definitions. From their main page, you can select each type, and at the bottom of the type page, will be listed each of it's relations (as links to that type's page). On my longer page on MBTI, I give the letter code "formula" and eight process function order comparison for each relation, with the INTP's relations as an example: Intertype Dynamics.

Lenore Thomson articles

Personality Pathways:
Jung MBTI Theory
Psychological Orientation vs. Cognitive Skills
Different Meanings of Temperament
John Beebe & Archetypes)

The Lenore Thomson Exegesis Wiki (by Ben Kovitz)

3,207 Posts
Facinating, dizzying, yet readable article. Thanks.

3,207 Posts
Facinating, comprehensive, readable article. Thanks.

1,849 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
You're welcome!
That was a lot to learn, gather and put together over the past two years!

713 Posts
Wow thanks. I've actually been a little torn between INFJ and ENFJ and I wanted to look at and imagine the functions in different roles and see which one fits me better. I wasn't able to read it all yet, but I skimmed and something like this is exactly what I'm looking for.

713 Posts
One of the reasons I'm questioning my type is that i seem to like Se a great deal. I don't relate looking down on SP types, in fact I tend to look up to them and admire them and get really excited about Se and want to try it for myself. I never said I was good at it, but exploring this side of myself is really energizing and something I want to get good at. I'm just not sure if it's my 3rd or 4th function so I would like to learn more about it in these roles. (I was wondering if you had any more information about them).

For the record, INFJ makes sense with the functions and the archtypes and I probably am that type but ENFJ fits well too and I just want to find the better fit.

Se is a thrilling courageous experience for me. It's something i really want to do and explore but for some reason or another I'm afraid or maybe not confident about my ability to do it well enough (and maybe this only happens with certain Se things). But when I do use Se despite my hesitation, I usually feel great and glad I did it and get a huge rush from it. I am very drawn to others who are good at Se and want to learn from them and see what makes them tick.

Ti is more tame for me.(even though my mind races when I use this function, I don't experience it as such.) I get great detailed understanding of situations through Ti and sometimes it helps me and others (if they can follow and stick with my detailed analysis and follow my train of thought), but it doesn't feel like a risk or a rush to me. It's usually pretty easy to do for me and I can get carried away and it gets to a point where it is draining. I'm almost confident with Ti, but not quite. On the negative side, I get frustrated when people don't follow my train of thought or aren't willing to appreciate the details or subtle nuances in thought that I do. I suppose this is kind of arrogant, but I sometimes secretly wish that people saw my insightful thoughts as brilliant. with Se this isn't such an issue.

I know these little descriptions are mainly based on my personal experiences, but I was wondering if anyone had any insight into them.

I will definitely be wrapping my mind around this whole thread and will be looking into my shadow functions.

1,849 Posts
Discussion Starter #14
Here are a couple of points I had forgotten:

Rather than the archetypes constraining the functions, the functions constrain the complexes. That is, when a complex is activated, the behaviors will reflect the function associated with it. When the complex is invoked, the feelings will reach us by way of the associated function; and especially the aspects of it that we don't usually allow into consciousness, or something that we associate with it that strikes us as fitting the archetype. (oppositional or adversarial, cranky or witchy, deceptive or mischievous, or evil and inhuman. It could also hold for the inferior and other primary ones as well).[omitted from article]

As an example of a more positive side of the shadows, Beebe mentions an INTP husband of an ENFP interviewer, whose dominant function is her Trickster. The "humorous" positive side of this archetype that gives us "a certain ability to cope" that "allows you to get through the jungle of human relations", is that the function conveyed "a sense of humor about introverted people and understood how to get along with them".

Another good article: Implications of Beebe's Model from a Neurological Standpoint (Thomson)

1,849 Posts
Discussion Starter #17

Been thinking of the best way to illustrate how the eight functions fan out and relate to each other.

This diagram shows how basically, type is really shaped by just the two preferred functions (and their associated archetypes), and the other six are generated through both reflection and shadowing. This creates a two way symmetry, where you have reverse images, and a double-reverse image, which then becomes congruent in shape to the original image. This ends up indicating certain similarities.

Of course, it was Beebe who split off #'s "5-8" as the "shadows" of 1-4. Also, as one can gather in some of his esays, there is also a mirror dynamic, where parent becomes child, and such. I also suspected a larger overall mirror dynamic in the fact that the Anima/Animus and Opposing Personality were both "usually opposite gender", yet the demon ended up same gender. (I would have thought the demon would be opposite gender like the anima it is shadowing).

So for a male, the hero is male, yet its initial reflection is female. It's direct shadow is also female. If you rotate the shadows to be right side up, you'll see that they are congruent to each other, and both reverse of the hero.
The demon is the reflection of the shadow, which is a double-negative, that ends up congruent with the original positive shape. Hence, it is also male. This apparently only works with the spine archetypes.

The arms are all presumed to be the same gender. This is probably because of the fact that the spines concern the ego's relation to self, and the arms are focused more on others.
It also ends up yet again harmonizing with Lenore Thomson's theory. The right/left brain alternatives are the same shape as the preferred functions.

59 Posts
according to my understanding of the archetypes, I must be unconscious at every given moment.
1 - 20 of 148 Posts