# Is it possible to test for shadow functions



## finesthour (Jun 12, 2014)

I was just asking myself it it's possible to test for shadow functions and my mind drew a blank. This could a really involved issue, the "dreaded projective" modality might have to be used. So if it's possible, how could it be done.


----------



## Peter (Feb 27, 2010)

by testing the first 4 functions you also have found the shadow functions.


----------



## finesthour (Jun 12, 2014)

Peter said:


> by testing the first 4 functions you also have found the shadow functions.



Sure but there is more than one explanation for how they work


----------



## Bassmasterzac (Jun 6, 2014)

A better question is how do you stop using shadow functions and inferior functions. :frustrating:


----------



## Teddy_Kuma (Feb 6, 2015)

to finesthour:

Yes and no. I find that figuring out someone's type is QUITE easy if you can get them to think about the times they've been stressed or just in the grip of their shadow. That however requires a bit of extensive knowledge about most of the functions, as well as a suspicion of what the person's type is. 

for Bassmasterzac, 

It's a matter of reframing. The "inferior" function, depending on who you talk to, isn't actually a bad thing. I'm of the camp that states the "inferior" as "aspirant", which basically says it's what you wish you could do more of, and with practice, what you unconsciously already do. 

In your case, you're my reverse - INFJ is Ni Fe Ti Se, ESTP is Se Ti Fe Ni. Unfortunately, given that most of the time Ni is unconscious for everyone, you have it a bit worse since it's your aspirant. You will never actually stop using any of the functions, so it's probably best to learn how to integrate your shadow and develop yourself to be comfortable with your aspirant. 

Easiest way to integrate shadow functions, after you study the functions in-depth, is to do it in a relaxed setting, and don't see them as negative. Dr. Linda Berens came up with a really nice way of looking at them, and you can find a decent write-up of it on INFJ.com by Vicky Jo. 

Hope that helps!


----------



## finesthour (Jun 12, 2014)

Ithink we have to reconcile with our inferior somehow, or else it won't to anything nice to us.


----------



## Parrot (Feb 22, 2015)

I love that I kind find a forum and assume everybody actually knows how cognitive functions work. If somebody is still stuck on MBTI, they are not ready to type, yet. Shadow functions are the final key to being able to type others and understand yourself.

As far as school of thought goes, I prefer the socionics order of functions. As an ENTP my functional order, at birth, we Ne-Ti-Se-Fi. I cannot say I was born ENTP, without evidence, but I do recall prefering these the first two functions over the latter two. All P types have these 4 functions and all J types have Te-Ni-Fe-Si in choosing what they prefer. So as an ENTP, my Ne naturally developed, I've worked on Ti, occasionally used Se, and pushed down my Fi. As I got older, I started learning my aspiration functions. My Fe is developed to where people no longer think I'm annoying. My Ne with Fe make me charming and funny, which my Ti sees as necessary for survival. Si is frustrating when I use it, but it is a necessity rather than an enjoyment, unlike Fe. For example, taking time to clean my room, look up student loans, and run errands is the most frustrating thing that I can think of. I occasionally use Ni and Te, but I find those to be mostly annoying as they are the 7th and 8th function, respectively.

So knowing all 8 functions is important when you type. Also, be cognizant of somebody's age. A mature person is the hardest to type, because they represent the ideal. My typing method is to go from 16-8-4-2-1. If you're final two for an introverted feeler come down to ISFJ, or ISFP, then you're doing it wrong. Anyone can say "Yeah she's quiet and full of emotions." I want to know her type and then from there, see how mature she is or isn't. 

Example: My brother is an ISFP, but it took me awhile to place it as he seems to use Ti, thus ISTP. As a kid, he had to learn to fix things around the house and is good with computers, but his ultimate passion is too be happy. But there are other factors to consider. Our dad is a narcissist. That and a couple of break-ups have led him to quell most of his actual emotions. But everything he does is designed to keep him on a happy mood. He plays a game like League of Legends and loves it because he feels good while playing it. He uses his shadow Ti and auxiliary Se to play, though. But those two supply his dominant Fi, which is most important to him. Contrast that with ISTPs I know. They are happy, at times, but they consider their objective thoughts to be most important. My ISTP roommate discusses sports and learns statistics not for happiness, but because they must be know and he must win. He can handle direct criticism, but his shadow Fi shows when he gets drunk, gets offended, and starts ranting/breaking shit.

Thoughts?


----------



## UnicornRainbowLove (May 8, 2014)

Well, there are cognitive functions tests out there that display how much you use each of the eight functions. They are often not very good though and I find that my answers may change on a daily bases to some of the questions. 
One thing you may be able to do instead of simply testing your functions is to try to get into a "state" of some function, like perhaps by trying to be totally aware of your surroundings and ready for immediate action, which can somewhat adequately be descriped as an Se-state. Just see how easy it is for you to get there compared to other states and in the end you can try to compare them. Who knows, it may provide some insight.


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

A prevalent mistake is to look at "the functions" as these eight gears that act. like definite solid objects.
What they really are is the artificial division of reality (that is otherwise really undivided in its own right). So you prefer one means of taking in information (basically, a focus on physical items, or mental constructs), and one means of making assessments (more impersonal or personal), and also a dominant inner or outer orientation, which becomes associated with whichever of those processes are dominant. The other two functions are reflections of the ones chosen, and the two different orientations assigned to them (which generate the "eight") become associated with different complexes that arise (which are related to the archetypes that get discussed in the eight-process models of Berens/Beebe, etc).
Four complexes will be "ego-syntonic", and as such, the associated functions and one or the other attitude will be the "first four" usually discussed, and the "shadows" of these complexes will reverse the orientations of the same functions.

So, you wouldn't be looking for "shadow _functions_", but rather the complexes. Becoming aware of them can help you get a handle on whatever behaviors by which they might be being "acted out" (via the associated functional perspectives).


----------



## Parrot (Feb 22, 2015)

Eric B said:


> So, you wouldn't be looking for "shadow _functions_", but rather the complexes. Becoming aware of them can help you get a handle on whatever behaviors by which they might be being "acted out" (via the associated functional perspectives).


That just sounds like semantics, though. I might not have named them that, if I was asked, but I accept it as the term. Your analysis of our functions is spot on, however.


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

sah6635 said:


> That just sounds like semantics, though. I might not have named them that, if I was asked, but I accept it as the term. Your analysis of our functions is spot on, however.


Well again, I think thinking in terms of complexes makes it easier to understand, than putting everything on eight "functions". Complexes are all senses of "I"; the ego being the main one, and it's easier to think of these things in terms of different senses of "I" within the psyche, instead of the functions, which always end up being treated as conscious entities in themselves, that "do" things. This is what causes a lot of this confusion about them.


----------



## Parrot (Feb 22, 2015)

Eric B said:


> Well again, I think thinking in terms of complexes makes it easier to understand, than putting everything on eight "functions". Complexes are all senses of "I"; the ego being the main one, and it's easier to think of these things in terms of different senses of "I" within the psyche, instead of the functions, which always end up being treated as conscious entities in themselves, that "do" things. This is what causes a lot of this confusion about them.


In that regard, I agree. Whenever I play an RPG game, for example, two magic characters could combine their powers to attack with an infusion of both like fire and ice. Anyway, the manifestation of our functions is that we never use one exclusively, but rather our judgments and perceptions are a complex of our favored functions. But I think we categorize them into distinct skills.

For example: one ESTJ rants about a news story: "This is another example of pussification of America. I wish we could go back to a time when men are men." An ESTJ responds: "I agree that the pussification exists, but there are plenty of men today that know how a man should act. And if [the accused in this hypothetical story] broke the law, then he should punished."

In my opinion, the 2nd one uses more Ne, while both contain Te and Si. The 2nd one even uses a little shadow Fe to relate to the 1st. But the first is full on Te and Si and does not want to consider outside Ne; a sign of immaturity. Of course, many will find offensive elements in both statements, and another ESTJ might disagree with them completely. Btw, I say ESTJ because they will argue just as much as we do haha.

I recognize these functions as a complex, but I can distinctly draw out the individual elements that allow me to hone down their type. Of course, one statement doesn't allow me to guess a type, but knowing what types are more likely to use which functions helps the process.

So perhaps, the idea is to understand how a person's shadow functions can be incorporated into their words and thoughts as a way to subsidize their primary functions?


----------



## Zamyatin (Jun 10, 2014)

No such thing as "shadow functions". Everybody uses all of their functions, they're just better at some of them and prefer some over others.

The whole MBTI "shadow function" nonsense doesn't make sense when you look at the actual behaviors of individuals. It's absurd, for example, to claim that an INFJ is unaware of his or her own emotional states simply because they have an Fe preference -- in fact, if you know any INFJs, it's quite obvious that they're in tune with their own emotional states and capable of making value judgments based on personal feelings about things. They just don't prefer to use that Fi over their Fe.

I find Socionics does a much better job at describing the unfavored four functions and how they're used by the individual. Rather than arguing that an INFJ's Fi or an INTJ's Ti is an underdeveloped and useless function that they should avoid using at all times, Socionics argues that those two types are actually rather good at those functions, though they prefer Fe and Te respectively. If you're interested in learning more about those functions, I'd suggest looking into Model A in Socionics, as at least in this regard it seems to far more accurately model actual human cognition.


----------



## Parrot (Feb 22, 2015)

Zamyatin said:


> No such thing as "shadow functions". Everybody uses all of their functions, they're just better at some of them and prefer some over others.
> 
> The whole MBTI "shadow function" nonsense doesn't make sense when you look at the actual behaviors of individuals. It's absurd, for example, to claim that an INFJ is unaware of his or her own emotional states simply because they have an Fe preference -- in fact, if you know any INFJs, it's quite obvious that they're in tune with their own emotional states and capable of making value judgments based on personal feelings about things. They just don't prefer to use that Fi over their Fe.
> 
> I find Socionics does a much better job at describing the unfavored four functions and how they're used by the individual. Rather than arguing that an INFJ's Fi or an INTJ's Ti is an underdeveloped and useless function that they should avoid using at all times, Socionics argues that those two types are actually rather good at those functions, though they prefer Fe and Te respectively. If you're interested in learning more about those functions, I'd suggest looking into Model A in Socionics, as at least in this regard it seems to far more accurately model actual human cognition.


Spot on. But like I said to Eric B, I accept "shadow function" as the common term. I do agree with the socionics model. I can use Ni, but I mostly find it frustrating. Like when I proposed something to an INTJ, at work, and he just had a look on his face. I later asked him about it and he listed off a whole bunch of reasons he didn't agree. The reasons didn't frustrate me but it's the look that understands something but doesn't explain it.


----------



## Popinjay (Sep 19, 2011)

I don't believe in Shadow Functions. There's a point where theory goes from being applicable and useful to nonsensical and useless. For me to say I have a fifth function of Ne doesn't even make sense. To say that it happens under stress...where's the proof? And to go down the line even further and say I have Ti, Fe, and Si goes so far into speculation so as to be incomprehensible. There's far more likelihood of personality disorders or mood disorders than Shadow Functions.

It sounds like something a Game of Thrones geek would invent, "Haha, I will stab you with quintuple Ne and recharge my Fe" bla bla bla.


----------



## Purge the Mind (Feb 23, 2014)

I don't really think the shadow functions exist, or if they do, they aren't as clear-cut as they are made out to be (I've always avoided socionics because it seems to too speculatively give each function a specific role). However, for the inferior function, I've always thought that if you took a healthy person and tested them for _subclinical_ levels of personality disordered traits, it might give insight into their inferior function.


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

Zamyatin said:


> No such thing as "shadow functions". Everybody uses all of their functions, they're just better at some of them and prefer some over others.
> 
> The whole MBTI "shadow function" nonsense doesn't make sense when you look at the actual behaviors of individuals. It's absurd, for example, to claim that an INFJ is unaware of his or her own emotional states simply because they have an Fe preference -- in fact, if you know any INFJs, it's quite obvious that they're in tune with their own emotional states and capable of making value judgments based on personal feelings about things. They just don't prefer to use that Fi over their Fe.
> 
> I find Socionics does a much better job at describing the unfavored four functions and how they're used by the individual. Rather than arguing that an INFJ's Fi or an INTJ's Ti is an underdeveloped and useless function that they should avoid using at all times, Socionics argues that those two types are actually rather good at those functions, though they prefer Fe and Te respectively. If you're interested in learning more about those functions, I'd suggest looking into Model A in Socionics, as at least in this regard it seems to far more accurately model actual human cognition.





Popinjay said:


> I don't believe in Shadow Functions. There's a point where theory goes from being applicable and useful to nonsensical and useless. For me to say I have a fifth function of Ne doesn't even make sense. To say that it happens under stress...where's the proof? And to go down the line even further and say I have Ti, Fe, and Si goes so far into speculation so as to be incomprehensible. There's far more likelihood of personality disorders or mood disorders than Shadow Functions.
> 
> It sounds like something a Game of Thrones geek would invent, "Haha, I will stab you with quintuple Ne and recharge my Fe" bla bla bla.





Purge the Mind said:


> I don't really think the shadow functions exist, or if they do, they aren't as clear-cut as they are made out to be (I've always avoided socionics because it seems to too speculatively give each function a specific role). However, for the inferior function, I've always thought that if you took a healthy person and tested them for _subclinical_ levels of personality disordered traits, it might give insight into their inferior function.


Missed all of this somehow, but the answer to that, again, is to pay attention to the associate "*complexes*" moreso than the functions directly. 
I had found that simply saying "we all use all of the functions, but just are better at/prefer some over others", still doesn't tell you much, and just raises more questions (like why can't the order be different, or can I "develop all of them", etc. Again, all of this is treating them as "gears", rather than as portions of divided reality (I've been comparing it to the compass directions, where we're looking one way, and the opposite direction is totally opposite, and thus unconscious, and the perpendicular directions are partially conscious, "out of the corner of your eyes"). We choose one means of perception, one means of judgment, and a dominant attitude, and the ego and its "caretaker" complexes set these as the preferred functions, and everything else (the remaining function-attitude combos, and associated complexes) are reflections of these, consisting of elements left out of consciousness when the first two were chosen.


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

Meant to also add, something like being “aware of his or her own emotional states” for a non-Fi type is what's called an *“undifferentiated“* function (as any non-Se preferring type seeing, hearing, etc.) The ego and its complexes are what differentiate the function into a discrete perspective that falls into a “preferred“, “unpreferred” or “shadow” position in a given type's psyche.


----------



## Tucker (Oct 6, 2013)

Zamyatin said:


> No such thing as "shadow functions". Everybody uses all of their functions, they're just better at some of them and prefer some over others.


I never understood shadow functions to be functions that you don’t use at all. I agree that everyone uses all of their functions.

That’s why I like C.S. Joseph’s 8-function model as a better explanation.

As an INTP, mine looks like this:


Ti Hero. I am heroic with what I think logically.
*Ne Parent*. I am responsible with the external future.
*Si Child*. I am childish with the internal past.
*Fe Inferior/Aspirational*. I am fearful with what others feel.
Te Nemesis. I worry with what others think rationally.
Ni Critic. I am critical (and hypocritical) with what I allow myself to want.
Se Trickster. I have a low awareness with *what others experience*.
Fi Demon. I am demonic with what I feel.
The model really resonates with the way I really function.


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

Each of these complexes carries an *agenda*


I've recently come to realize that my Trickster's general agenda is to prove I'm being “screwed” in certain immediate negative circumstances.
Si “wounded Child” (that's a variation of the Child archetype) keeps a storehouse of past (familiar) instances of perceived wrongs, and then Se Trickster watches the emergent immediate data to confirm it, and seek blame, turning the tables on whoever is deemed responsible.


Ni Senex's agenda is to pick out the negative pattern from the Child's storehouse and supply the blame to the Trickster's data
(Ne “Caretaker” envisions other possible outcomes that in these instances are “negated”, which constellates the Senex)


Then of course, the “Warrior/Amazon” (aka “Opposing Personality”) agenda is to try to buck the “system” through Te (“authority” focus), to validate the Ti “Hero”s internal sense of logical truth and expediency; and Fi Demon's agenda supplies the whole process with the “bad” judgment of discontentment. (Fe anima's agenda is “fellowship” in a positive (“good“) environment , which is frustrated in negative situations (and feeling alone in them) in a world where the “rugged individualism“ of an “every man for himself” premise reigns (including in much of “self-help” counsel, that often takes a cold, trite approach, even as it claims to be offering “help”).

(CS Joseph's model, as far as the basic eight functions and archetypes, is really John Beebe's model).


----------



## brightflashes (Oct 27, 2015)

Tucker said:


> That’s why I like C.S. Joseph’s 8-function model as a better explanation.


Like Eric said, I hope you realise that's John Beebe's model.


----------



## Tucker (Oct 6, 2013)

brightflashes said:


> Like Eric said, I hope you realise that's John Beebe's model.


Yeah, I realized that a week ago when I read his post.... :ball:


----------



## brightflashes (Oct 27, 2015)

Tucker said:


> Yeah, I realized that a week ago when I read his post.... :ball:


lol. Point taken. I was unable to spend time on PerC for the past 3 weeks while on Holiday. Still catching up. With the jetlag I'm still having trouble knowing which day I'm on (we crossed the International date line twice).


----------



## jetser (Jan 6, 2016)

I was just about to open a thread about this.

I don't know if these descriptions are accurate but if you've ran out of options to find your type this may be useful.

https://www.reddit.com/r/mbti/comments/a237zl/i_attempted_to_break_down_the_shadow_functions/

According to this I'm most likely to be INFJ-INFP-ISTP-ISFP or ENTP.

I'm not INTP, INTJ, ENFP or any other type.


----------

