# Is this legitimate Si usage? Or just my shadow functions popping out?



## Elinor Dashwood (Mar 3, 2011)

Hello, cog function buffs! I most frequently test as an INFJ, with a slim margin between N and S. And I find that I relate to the ISFJ description quite a bit, though on the whole, I feel like an N and I relate well to the INFJs on this site's dedicated forum.

The one thing that really makes me question my type is the description of Si. I can definitely relive certain moments in my head. In stressful times, I often relive depressing, embarrassing, or anger-inducing experiences in my head, such that I feel the corresponding embarrassment, anger, or sadness all over again (my dad, who has also dealt with depression, calls these "the tapes." He talks to me about playing the tapes over and over again and how sad they can make one feel). The thing is, this never happens with happy moments, and it only happens when I'm in an emotionally weakened state. So my question is, does this indicate that I am an Si user and am in fact, an ISFJ? Or is it just that Si is a shadow function for me, and it therefore pops out when I'm not at my best? Is my understanding of the way shadow functions work correct?


----------



## teddy564339 (Jun 23, 2010)

I don't really understand how shadow functions work, but if I had to guess, that would be it...that you're INFJ and this is just some sort of spin-off of Si that either is the shadow function, or not related to Si at all.


For an ISJ, I think Si usage is pretty constant. We're constantly making attachments to things and trying to stabilize our environment around them. We use past information to understand our current world and to predict future outcomes. 

I think a lot of people of a lot of different types feel the sort of nostalgic feeling you're describing here. I don't think it points to be being an ISFJ.


----------



## 480 (Jan 22, 2009)

Dwelling on something in a vulnerable state is not Si usage. The idea of shadow doesn't apply. It's just dwelling. Nostalgia could be considered a more happy form of dwelling... but in times when people are happy it's normal not to get stuck in your head going over things again and again, happy or sad. This doesn't depend on type or function. 

Simply accessing your memories for review is also not Si usage. Si does something that is an important distinction. It compares. It compares what your memories supply against what is in front of you now.

For instance, if a significant other is currently, at this very moment raising his voice... Si might tell you how his voice now, is different from from when he was yelling yesterday. The information you glean from that comparison might give you subtle clues about nuances in his moods, both then and now.

You might also revisit a restaurant a month later, and order the same sandwich. Noticing that the last time you ordered the sandwich it had less mustard on it is Si.


----------



## Elinor Dashwood (Mar 3, 2011)

Grim said:


> Dwelling on something in a vulnerable state is not Si usage. The idea of shadow doesn't apply. It's just dwelling. Nostalgia could be considered a more happy form of dwelling... but in times when people are happy it's normal not to get stuck in your head going over things again and again, happy or sad. This doesn't depend on type or function.
> 
> Simply accessing your memories for review is also not Si usage. Si does something that is an important distinction. It compares. It compares what your memories supply against what is in front of you now.
> 
> ...


This is a very helpful clarification, and has given me not only a better understanding of Si, but of how functions in general operate. Thank you. This, along with @teddy564339's note that Si is something that is constantly occurring in its users (not just sometimes), I suspect will help me greatly in typing my friends and family more accurately.


----------



## Rhee (Aug 15, 2010)

I'm a Si-dom but I've never really played any 'tapes.' I don't like to dwell on my past mistakes.


----------



## Naama (Dec 5, 2010)

maybe you find this useful

personalitycafe.com/cognitive-functions/48755-about-si.html


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

> It compares what your memories supply against what is in front of you now.
> For instance, if a significant other is currently, at this very moment raising his voice... Si might tell you how his voice now, is different from from when he was yelling yesterday. The information you glean from that comparison might give you subtle clues about nuances in his moods, both then and now.


 The OP's description might fit this, if those "depressing, embarrassing, or anger-inducing experiences" are the internal storehouse of tangible data that current experience is being weighed against. In other words, current situations are triggering this negative "reliving". 
Then yes, that sounds like it could be Demonic Si. And it would make perfect sense. As I'm explaining elsewhere, the feeling of threat to the ego would reach consciousness through the inferior. In this case, Se, dealing with the current senses or emergent experience. This might then trigger its shadow, "demonic" Si, which would be really negative references to the internal storehouse.


----------



## 480 (Jan 22, 2009)

Eric B said:


> The OP's description might fit this, if those "depressing, embarrassing, or anger-inducing experiences" are the internal storehouse of tangible data that current experience is being weighed against. In other words, current situations are triggering this negative "reliving".
> Then yes, that sounds like it could be Demonic Si. And it would make perfect sense. As I'm explaining elsewhere, the feeling of threat to the ego would reach consciousness through the inferior. In this case, Se, dealing with the current senses or emergent experience. This might then trigger its shadow, "demonic" Si, which would be really negative references to the internal storehouse.


Sort of like: This is what it was like when I skinned my knee when I was 12, and now that I'm thinking about it I'm sad and I'm going to keep on thinking about it?

Makes sense as a trigger... "I saw something that reminded me of you." I think is a good expression for Se handling data to Si.

Something about the idea of "Demonic" functions seems a bit overly fancy to me. I'm still kicking it around. Do you think Si is always triggered by Se capturing some external event. How do you see other functions interacting with one another?


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

The Demonic complex I refer to would probably be about something more serious than skinning your knee or seeing something that reminds you of a person. More like the kinds of experiences the OP mentioned. I guess if skinning your knee was apart of those; like because some bullies used to push you (or something reminded you of the bullies), or something.

Si triggered by Se in this case would be simply because Si as Demon would be the shadow of inferior Se. For an ENP, it would actually be opposite. (Si, inferior; threats perceived via storehouse of data trigger potentially "destructive" current sensory reaction, like impulsive action).

So this is talking about how functions relate to each other through the archetypal complexes. Or how the complexes relate to each other, actually. The functions themselves are really just perspectives, and not separate entities "doing" anything on their own.


----------



## Naama (Dec 5, 2010)

imo this 8 function theory(with 4 normal and 4 shadow functions) is just bullshit. dom Ni communicating with inferior(unconscious) Se might look like Si, since its S('what is') living through/controlling introverted perception function. having memories doesent have anything to do with any of the functions, 99.999% of human mind doesent..

Si is perceiving "what is" from inside(sort of frame work of factual things, or factual to self, not necessarily factual to others)
Ni is perceiving "where did it come from and where is it going" from inside(hypothetical/assuming patterns). also N is perception via unconscious, so you might not be aware of the question "where did it come from?", you just perceive that this is where it came from, which might make it look like Si.


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

Naama said:


> imo this 8 function theory(with 4 normal and 4 shadow functions) is just bullshit. dom Ni communicating with inferior(unconscious) Se might look like Si, since its S('what is') living through/controlling introverted perception function. having memories doesent have anything to do with any of the functions, 99.999% of human mind doesent..
> 
> Si is perceiving "what is" from inside(factual things)
> Ni is perceiving "where did it come from and where is it going" from inside(hypothetical/assuming patterns). also N is perception via unconscious, so you might not be aware of the question "where did it come from?", you just perceive that this is where it came from, which might make it look like Si.


What do you think about this guy's take on your theory of synthesized function-attitudes: http://personalitycafe.com/myers-br...-between-mbti-math-i-sho-did.html#post1537633
He aims to explain why Ni+Se would "look like" Si rather than Ne (it's based on which one is stronger), which you never explained.

Again, the 8 function-attitudes themselves are synthesized constructs from the four functions and two orientations. When we speak of 8 function-attitudes, it is more shorthand for combinations of the functions and orientations.


----------



## Naama (Dec 5, 2010)

Eric B said:


> What do you think about this guy's take on your theory of synthesized function-attitudes: http://personalitycafe.com/myers-br...-between-mbti-math-i-sho-did.html#post1537633
> He aims to explain why Ni+Se would "look like" Si rather than Ne (it's based on which one is stronger), which you never explained.
> 
> Again, the 8 function-attitudes themselves are synthesized constructs from the four functions and two orientations. When we speak of 8 function-attitudes, it is more shorthand for combinations of the functions and orientations.


if the ego is introverted, unconscious (extraverted)function restricted by ego will naturally come out introverted. introverted functions are abstractive, basically meaning that it cuts out irrelevant info, taking in whats necessary.

if the ego is extraverted, unconscious (introverted) function restricted by ego will naturally come out as extraverted. extraverted function is empathizing, placing meaning to external objects, animating the lifeless object, bit like projection, but not quite.

with introverted ego, whats coming out from extraverted shadow(jungian, not that 8 function theory shadow) is abstracted(or rejected completely, but not in this case ofc since it does come out to some extend) by the ego. -> the extraverted inferior function comes out by the rules of introverted shadow. it doesent mean that the inferior function has changed its attitude to introverted, its just that what comes out of it is restricted by introverted function.

with extraverted ego, whats coming out from introverted shadow is empathized by the extraverted dominant function in ego.

the deal with unconscious inferior is that it sort of leads the ego to certain direction with instincts rising from it without you noticing it, since what leads is unconscious.

naturally you can become aware of these instincts that come from you inferior and therefore be able to follow their lead(when they are wanted) or control your reactions to them(when they are unwanted), to some extend. but thats whole different story..


----------



## WickedQueen (Jun 1, 2009)

Naama said:


> imo this 8 function theory (with 4 normal and 4 shadow functions) is just bullshit.


Yeah, I don't get the shadow functions theory as well.


----------



## Naama (Dec 5, 2010)

WickedQueen said:


> Yeah, I don't get the shadow functions theory as well.


too bad it spreads around forums like plague


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

Naama said:


> if the ego is introverted, unconscious (extraverted)function restricted by ego will naturally come out introverted. introverted functions are abstractive, basically meaning that it cuts out irrelevant info, taking in whats necessary.
> 
> if the ego is extraverted, unconscious (introverted) function restricted by ego will naturally come out as extraverted. extraverted function is empathizing, placing meaning to external objects, animating the lifeless object, bit like projection, but not quite.
> 
> ...


So then in these "syntheses", it's the inferior that takes the attitude of the dominant. (In that other person't theory, it was similar, but he based it on "strongest" function between dom and aux).
That makes sense.

Still, the key word you used there was "introverted/ extraverted *ego*". That's the basis of my understanding of eight functions. They're really four functions, S, N, T, F; and it's the _ego_ that is introverted or extraverted. The ego _orients_ its dominant function to the dominant attitude. The others are initially in the opposite attitude; that's _all three of them_! 
It's an archetypal complex, called the Puer (These are from Jung as well), that takes up the tertiary function, and orients it to the dominant attitude.

So likewise, other complexes align with the other possible combinations of the functions with inner or outer orientations.
So it's not one _function_ "mixing with" another _*function*_. It's _the ego_ mixing functions with attitudes (orientation). Like in your case, supplying its dominant attitude to the inferior in certain situations.









So with that, in your description, 
if the ego is introverted, unconscious (*opposite from dominant*) function restricted by ego will be placed in opposite attitude (extraverted), and naturally likely when feelings of inferiority through the associated complex surface through it, it will _then_ come out introverted. 

If the ego is extraverted, unconscious (*opposite from dominant*) function restricted by ego will be placed in opposite attitude (introverted), and naturally likely when feelings of inferiority through the associated complex surface through it, it will _then_ come out as extraverted.


You were still missing a _reason_ for the "synthesis". (If the inferior is supposed to be the opposite attitude; why would it ever "mix with the dominant" and take on its attitude?), but the above gives the main reason.

The reason why this "spreads like the plague", is because the internet type community is already plagued with misunderstandings of what "functions" are. People think that eight Xe/i constructs are eight hard items, and yet, you only see four of them discussed for each type. This naturally raises questions about "the other four". But if we would stop binding X and e/i together inseparably (and thus go back to the way Jung _originally_ conceived it), then there wouldn't be so much skepticism about eight function-models. It's four functions in two orientations. (Though I know that many who do use Beebe's model also bind the functions together too hard, and that is probably what your criticism would more apply to).


----------



## Elinor Dashwood (Mar 3, 2011)

Just wanted to say how please I am that my silly little question spawned such an interesting discussion! I'm enjoying reading what everyone has to say and learning more about type in this way.


----------



## Elinor Dashwood (Mar 3, 2011)

Also: Reading the Beebe model, I find myself wondering whether my ideas about how the archetypes play out in real-life situations are accurate. There were a couple of examples in your description here, @Eric B, but I feel I need more to really check my understanding. Can you give hypothetical examples of how they might look in action? Or direct me to a source where I can find that information? For instance, if I were feeling "controlled or put upon," how might my Trickster manifest (understanding it would be different for different people). 

Sorry if I'm being obtuse! I just want to solidify my grasp on this stuff. Thanks for your explanations thus far.


----------



## Naama (Dec 5, 2010)

Eric B said:


> So then in these "syntheses", it's the inferior that takes the attitude of the dominant. (In that other person't theory, it was similar, but he based it on "strongest" function between dom and aux).
> That makes sense.
> 
> Still, the key word you used there was "introverted/ extraverted *ego*". That's the basis of my understanding of eight functions. They're really four functions, S, N, T, F; and it's the _ego_ that is introverted or extraverted. The ego _orients_ its dominant function to the dominant attitude. The others are initially in the opposite attitude; that's _all three of them_!
> ...


i didnt mean ego being only introverted, its just mainly introverted if dominant function is introverted, in case of INTP, ego is mainly Ti, not just introverted any function. ego is basically what you are conscious of yourself, so it can involve 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th functions, its just that the first function takes largest part of the ego, since you are most conscious of it and the results you get from it. more unconscious you use some function, less it is in the ego. so in the case of INTP and inferior Fe, its not Fe turned into Fi because ego is introverted, its Fe abstracted by Ti, because ego is mainly Ti, but also Fe is partly empathized by Ne, partly abstracted by Si and partly concrete or empathized by itself. this abstraction of Fe by Ti is what creates the illusion of Fi in INTP, i spent like a year doing this thinking it was Fi i was using, so i kinda know what im talking about. what i was doing with Fe + Ti matches all aspects of this:



> *The Devilish Role (sometimes referred to as the 8th function)*
> The devilish role can be quite negative. Using the process that plays this role, we might become destructive of ourselves or others. Actions (or inactions) taken when we engage in the process that plays this role are often regretted later. Usually, we are unaware of how to use the process that fills this role and feel like it just erupts and imposes itself rather unconsciously. Yet when we are open to the process that plays the devilish role, it becomes transformative. It gives us the impetus to create something new—to make lemonade out of lemons, rather than lament their sourness.


but guess what?

it was actually this i was doing:










in my case, realization of the subjectivity of my Si was what emerged out of this and this is what got me out of it. naturally third and fourth are used even before this sort of thing happening, but its unconscious(in the shadow, jungian shadow, not 8 function theory bullcrap shadow). using Si unconsciously would be you not realizing the subjectivity of it, you just think that this is how things are just because you perceive them that way. now you might think, "hey, you are doing exactly the same thing there", but figuring out how this really worked on me, and reading after i figured it out what jung said about it, really gives me the confidence for this and its not just my own subjective perception about this as it is supported by the man who invented this whole typology thing. the 8 function theory you are using is just an attempt to take jungs theory further, or maybe just to make it more easily understandable.

and what comes to fourth function(from jungian point of view):

1) it destroys the certainties and definitions, in that way showing us our limits, especially the limits of our perceptions. that is, when its taken into awareness, instead of just used unconsciously.

2) it gives the purpose that what earlier seemed as having no purpose. but in order for it to take a specific form and gain the sense of purpose, response to the fourth it required. this is where too large ego can get in the way, since ego is the opposite of the shadow, which contains the fourth. therefore ego tries to repress the contents of the shadow -> you need to go against the wishes of your ego in order to find a purpose out of the fourth and you wont be able to channel the fourth properly and take it into the concrete life.


and what comes to those archetypes of function, jung never said that archetypes had anything to do with functions, if you look at the archetypes how jung wrote about them(and how people use the archetypes in psychology still today, even outside of analytical psychology) you will get it. for example this anima/animus archetype that the 8 function theory thing relates to 4th function.

i see nothing in common with these:




http://www.nyaap.org/jung-lexicon/a/#anima said:


> *Anima*
> The inner feminine side of a man.
> 
> The anima is both a personal complex and an archetypal image of woman in the male psyche. It is an unconscious factor incarnated anew in every male child, and is responsible for the mechanism of projection. Initially identified with the personal mother, the anima is later experienced not only in other women but as a pervasive influence in a man’s life.
> ...















and this:


> The Aspirational Role/Anima/Animus (Inferior) (sometimes referred to as the 4th function)
> The aspirational role usually doesn’t develop until around midlife. We often experience it first in its negative aspect of projecting our “shoulds,” fears, and negativities onto others. The qualities of these fears reflect the process that plays this role, and we are more likely to look immature when we engage in the process that plays this role. There is often a fairly high energy cost for using it—even when we acquire the skill to do so. As we learn to trust it and develop it, the aspirational role process provides a bridge to balance in our lives. Often our sense of purpose, inspiration, and ideals have the qualities of the process that plays this role.


and what comes to "ego chooses auxiliary (parent complex)"



> [A complex] is the image of a certain psychic situation which is strongly accentuated emotionally and is, moreover, incompatible with the habitual attitude of consciousness.["A Review of the Complex Theory," CW 8, par. 201.]
> 
> Complexes interfere with the intentions of the will and disturb the conscious performance; they produce disturbances of memory and blockages in the flow of associations; they appear and disappear according to their own laws; they can temporarily obsess consciousness, or influence speech and action in an unconscious way. In a word, complexes behave like independent beings.["Psychological Factors in Human Behaviour," ibid., par. 253.]
> 
> ...





http://www.nyaap.org/jung-lexicon/a/ said:


> *Auxiliary function*
> A helpful second or third function, according to Jung’s model of typology, that has a co-determining influence on consciousness.


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

Much of what you're explaining I can go with. I think it's just a matter of looking at the same things in different ways. You're looking at it as four out of eight distinct function-attitude (Xy) packages "abstracting" from one another, and I'm saying that it's an ego, who has both a dominant orientation AND function, which then generates those function-attitudes. (I didn't say the ego was ONLY introverted, or that it was "just any function"). Of course the ego has access to the opposite orientation. That's the whole point. It relegates the other functions to that orientation and suppresses them, but still has access to them when needed.

So you can look at it as the ego pairing Thinking with an internal focus, and Feeling with and external focus. (And auxiliary iNtuition with an external focus, and tertiary Sensing defaulting to an external orientation, but a strongly manifesting complex reorienting it to an internal focus). So this ego can swap the function and attitude pairings when situations call for it.

The "abstracting" you mention I believe would be what I've been trying to describe by saying that the opposite functional perspective is always implicit in a situation, because when we look at it through a function and orientation, we are in essence *dividing* the situation that in complete form consists of both tangible and conceptual, and technical and humane aspects, which both emerge and vary, and can be stored or set in our memory.
Hence, I can pick the technical and variable elements out of a situation, and I'm ignoring the humane and set elements. It sort of "collects" in an unconscious space. When the humane elements are forced into consciousness, then they might enter that dominant internal realm that handles variable situations, and that will generate a variable humane perspective, or a reaction around a humane variable situation. Hence, [T]i+F[e] yielding Fi, as you put it.

The eight function theorists all teach that the inferior is the "boundary of the unconscious", which touches upon what you cited. (And in a younger person, it still is totally unconscious. And Beebe said all eight functions can be "shadow" meaning unconscious, when they are not developed. Like in a newborn).
So when situations involve that "transcendent" function in a particular, negative way, then in this theory, that's when the ego will run back to its dominant orientation, and pair it with the function, and it will likely come out in a very negative, reactive way, fitting that "devilish role" description.

And Jung seemed to describe functions and attitudes separately; at least initially. It is said that he later focused on "function-attitudes". Those who I believe misuse eight function theory (as we were recently discussion on that ISFP thread) take this point as their basis.
So it seems right there that even Jung was trying to refine or rethink his theory, so naturally, others would try to expand upon it, and none of it is absolute anyway.

As for those complexes, no one here is conflating them with the functions. I had even asked Beebe himself about that, and he said they are not to be conflated. So I'm sorry if you thought that was what was being done. 
They way it works according to this theory, is that when they are constellated, the *feelings described will reach us by way of the associated function*. (Berens' and others' descriptions don't really give you enough of a precise sense of this connection, which was one reason it was so hard to learn this stuff from those books. It was Lenore Thomson who really spelled that last point out for me).

I've been describing this for myself all over the place, for months. I've identified this deep seated feminine complex, perfectly matching those above descriptions, that is very vulnerable to the things of Fe. It explained a lot! When this is really attacked, then it will switch to Fi and the Demonic complex (which was described by Jung and others as a "negative anima", "antilibidinal ego", etc). When feeling like I'm helping others out like a parent, as you can often see here, it is usually with the things of Ne.


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

Elinor Dashwood said:


> Also: Reading the Beebe model, I find myself wondering whether my ideas about how the archetypes play out in real-life situations are accurate. There were a couple of examples in your description here, @Eric B, but I feel I need more to really check my understanding. Can you give hypothetical examples of how they might look in action? Or direct me to a source where I can find that information? For instance, if I were feeling "controlled or put upon," how might my Trickster manifest (understanding it would be different for different people).
> 
> Sorry if I'm being obtuse! I just want to solidify my grasp on this stuff. Thanks for your explanations thus far.


The way it would work, is if you are INFJ, then Fe is parent, and what you confidently help others out with (external interpersonal humane considerations). Ti is Child (puella), and less confident. You would tend to look up to others' logical analysis, yet can also be easily intimidated in that areas. I find this is how INFJ's who have commented on my theories are. They show an interest, but as I can tell, still need to grasp it at their own pace. I didn't know this before when I first entered type discussion, and used to bombard people (figuring it was OK since they showed some interest), and they would apparently shut down and just ignore it.

So I imagine, if a person keeps pressing the things of Ti, or you otherwise feel bound with technical variables, then you would feel a need to get yourself out of that bind, often by turning the tables and placing the other person in a bind. You would for one tend to see them as a bad child (that's part of what the Trickster is), and then respond in kind. 
For this, the Trickster complex would reorient the threatening Thinking perspective to an external set standard. You would thus use some sort of logical order (whether of physical things, or some other form of technical rationality. Berens even mentions "arranging other people's thinking" as a description of Te in general) to trap someone else.
It might not work. The complex is what you project onto the other person, and because you feel weak and vulnerable in both Thinking, and the external world, you assume the other person is as well, and that the external logical order would trip them up.

So it seems to be like I've been saying, regarding why the "Crow's Nests" might appear to come out stronger than the tertiary and inferior. The tertiary would in this case be the perspective the threatening feelings would reach consciousness through, and then its shadow would be what you react to it with.
To put it in terms of function-attitude "synthesis", Your ego is dominant i in orientation and N in function. F is the support function, and placed in an e orientation. T is tertiary, and taken up by the opposite of the supporting parent; the support-needing child complex, which orients it into the dominant i orientation. When this child is threatened, it turns "bad", so to speak (a suppressed "bad" side of it comes up from the unconscious), and reorients its T perspective to an e attitude and goes on the attack with it.

I know closely one likely ISFJ (and it will also be a similar dynamic with my wife's Demonic Te), and another way it manifests, is that Fe desires things to be nice for the sake of its external humane harmony. The logical aspect of order is less conscious, so when it becomes necessary to address logical order, it will be done in an erratic fashion. Like the ISFJ I mentioned is known to just start throwing stuff out, and then find that important stuff was thrown out. 
That's the Trickster putting the person themselves in a bind, and becoming "regretted", as the Beebe and Berens descriptions say.


----------



## Elinor Dashwood (Mar 3, 2011)

Eric B said:


> The way it would work, is if you are INFJ, then Fe is parent, and what you confidently help others out with (external interpersonal humane considerations).


Right. So, the fact that I feel most sure of myself when I am listening/advising/caretaking is my Fe parent in action? 



Eric B said:


> Ti is Child (puella), and less confident. You would tend to look up to others' logical analysis, yet can also be easily intimidated in that areas. I find this is how INFJ's who have commented on my theories are. They show an interest, but as I can tell, still need to grasp it at their own pace.


LOL. You mean like, how I did just now?



Eric B said:


> So I imagine, if a person keeps pressing the things of Ti, or you otherwise feel bound with technical variables, then you would feel a need to get yourself out of that bind, often by turning the tables and placing the other person in a bind. You would for one tend to see them as a bad child (that's part of what the Trickster is), and then respond in kind.
> For this, the Trickster complex would reorient the threatening Thinking perspective to an external set standard. You would thus use some sort of logical order (whether of physical things, or some other form of technical rationality. Berens even mentions "arranging other people's thinking" as a description of Te in general) to trap someone else.


So would an example of this be my feeling resistant to someone who is trying to use logic to convince me of something I may be emotionally averse to accepting? And trying to out-logic them (in a not very competent way, maybe using a logical fallacy or by being obtusely and stubbornly literal) instead of acknowledging that perhaps they have a point? I know I've definitely done this at times, when I felt I was right, or very badly wanted to be right, but didn't have the wherewithal to explain why. And it's not deliberate; the times I've done this it was because I legitimately felt I was being attacked and needed to defend my perspective however I could. It was only after the fact I realized I was being illogical. 



Eric B;1548094It might not work. The complex is what you project onto the other person said:


> Humor me for a sec. Would you say that, in a case where someone is being maliciously manipulative, a well-developed INFJ would protect himself not by projecting a complex and flawed Te, but by using one of their first four functions? Say, instead of viewing the situation through the perspective of Te and arguing with the person, a mature INFJ would shift perspective to Fe, realize they were in a socially unhealthy situation, and think, "I'm not going to argue with someone who clearly intends to be manipulative. I am picking up on his intentions and they are not kind." Or perhaps a healthy INFJ would use the comedic side of her trickster function and learn to laugh at the situation because she can see it for what it is? Or deflect using wit, sarcasm, etc.?
> 
> Or in situation in which someone is using logic in my best interest (but I'm being resistant), would a practical example of a comedic Te perspective be shifting my viewpoint so that I can laugh at my slowness to understand instead of vilifying and attempting to reconfigure the other person's logic?
> 
> It's entirely possible that as I ask questions, I'm only revealing more and more how very loose my grasp on this theory is. If it's just too exasperating to reply to, I won't be offended.


----------



## Naama (Dec 5, 2010)

Eric B said:


> Much of what you're explaining I can go with. I think it's just a matter of looking at the same things in different ways. You're looking at it as four out of eight distinct function-attitude (Xy) packages "abstracting" from one another, and I'm saying that it's an ego, who has both a dominant orientation AND function, which then generates those function-attitudes. (I didn't say the ego was ONLY introverted, or that it was "just any function"). Of course the ego has access to the opposite orientation. That's the whole point. It relegates the other functions to that orientation and suppresses them, but still has access to them when needed.
> 
> So you can look at it as the ego pairing Thinking with an internal focus, and Feeling with and external focus. (And auxiliary iNtuition with an external focus, and tertiary Sensing defaulting to an external orientation, but a strongly manifesting complex reorienting it to an internal focus). So this ego can swap the function and attitude pairings when situations call for it.
> 
> ...


but its reducing from Fe with principles of Ti, not F in introverted attitude by itself.



> The eight function theorists all teach that the inferior is the "boundary of the unconscious", which touches upon what you cited. (And in a younger person, it still is totally unconscious. And Beebe said all eight functions can be "shadow" meaning unconscious, when they are not developed. Like in a newborn).
> So when situations involve that "transcendent" function in a particular, negative way, then in this theory, that's when the ego will run back to its dominant orientation, and pair it with the function, and it will likely come out in a very negative, reactive way, fitting that "devilish role" description.


transcendent function isnt negative, its something we all do in daily basis, but its just so small, that it doesent raise the third into consciousness, because it doesent need its help. sometimes you might use the transcendent function for long periods of time, before anything usefulness comes out of it and it might not be negative even if you use it regularly. its just when there is a big conflict between first and fourth, then you need a helpful third to get you out of it, and it might not come unless you really try to solve the conflict. for example i have a friend who is struggling with his weight, he is an INFP. his ego thinks that its not all that important to try hard enough(Fi saying its not worth it), but he gets constant instincts from shadow telling him that he should lose weight(Te looking at the situation objectively(from E point of view) and logically). sometimes he starts to jog and not eat crap for some time and says that he feels better, but then he relapses and thinks again that its not all that important and the cycle goes on and on. this is a good example of transcendent function, its an dialect between the ego and shadow, but no matter what you say to him, it has no effect at all, he needs to realize the subjectivity of his Si in order to snap out of this(how tings are, and not just look at his condition from his point of view, but to question it from an objective point of view, which is what his inferior Te would offer).



> And Jung seemed to describe functions and attitudes separately; at least initially. It is said that he later focused on "function-attitudes". Those who I believe misuse eight function theory (as we were recently discussion on that ISFP thread) take this point as their basis.
> So it seems right there that even Jung was trying to refine or rethink his theory, so naturally, others would try to expand upon it, and none of it is absolute anyway.


jung uses different words, this is again good example of twisting his words around. with attitude jung meant habitual way of doing things, which could be Fi in my friends case, but MBTI(and whatevers) use attitude as I or E, habitual orientation..



> As for those complexes, no one here is conflating them with the functions. I had even asked Beebe himself about that, and he said they are not to be conflated. So I'm sorry if you thought that was what was being done.
> They way it works according to this theory, is that when they are constellated, the *feelings described will reach us by way of the associated function*. (Berens' and others' descriptions don't really give you enough of a precise sense of this connection, which was one reason it was so hard to learn this stuff from those books. It was Lenore Thomson who really spelled that last point out for me).


it doesent matter what beebe said to you, all that matters is that its not a complex. complex has totally different meaning than used with those archetypes with functions. its again the same sort of twisting jugs words with the archetype thing(which has nothing to do with functions and nothing to do with typology(i suggest studying analytical psychology from other angles than just listening to what people say about its typology part)), and same thing with the complex thing, again totally different meaning taken used in wrong situation.



> I've been describing this for myself all over the place, for months. I've identified this deep seated feminine complex, perfectly matching those above descriptions, that is very vulnerable to the things of Fe. It explained a lot! When this is really attacked, then it will switch to Fi and the Demonic complex (which was described by Jung and others as a "negative anima", "antilibidinal ego", etc). When feeling like I'm helping others out like a parent, as you can often see here, it is usually with the things of Ne.


*



The devil(demon)

Click to expand...

*


> Evil incarnate, this character offers earthly goods, fame, or knowledge to the protagonist in exchange of his soul. Usually this character demonstrates many of the same characteristics as the outcast and creature of nightmare archetypes. Frequently dark and gloomy imagery is associated with this character.(e.g. lucifer, mephistoteles, satan, faust legend)


yes i know anima comes from the latin word for soul, but this isnt giving up the fourth(that beebe says is the anima(soul in latin)), this is about doing something totally evil that will haunt you forever for example for money, someone telling you to kill someone to get some cash. again twisting jungs words.

i saw this archetype in a dream once, or actually had a sleep paralysis where i had hallucinations about it, long before i learned about jung. i woke up in the middle of the night(felt like someone was in my apartment), was going to stand up, but froze in the mid way. i looked to the door of my bedroom and saw an old guy there, i sensed he was pure evil, he just stared me in the eyes and i couldnt move. even tho im an atheist to the core at that time i started to question my believes(or lack of them). i couldnt do anything but stare his eyes, it felt like he was the one keeping me paralyzed. then i gave up, i mean totally gave up, i thought if he was going to take me in hell, so be it etc. if he wants my soul, theres nothing i can do about it. and just when i had these thoughts, it dissapeared and i could move again. i think its obvious without saying that i couldnt sleep after that, especially since i didnt know about sleep paralysis at the moment..

anyways, how do you feel about the fact that this demon function thing doesent give any help to people who actually need this stuff?


----------



## Naama (Dec 5, 2010)

Eric B said:


> The way it would work, is if you are INFJ, then Fe is parent, and what you confidently help others out with (external interpersonal humane considerations). Ti is Child (puella), and less confident. You would tend to look up to others' logical analysis, yet can also be easily intimidated in that areas. I find this is how INFJ's who have commented on my theories are. They show an interest, but as I can tell, still need to grasp it at their own pace. I didn't know this before when I first entered type discussion, and used to bombard people (figuring it was OK since they showed some interest), and they would apparently shut down and just ignore it.
> 
> So I imagine, if a person keeps pressing the things of Ti, or you otherwise feel bound with technical variables, then you would feel a need to get yourself out of that bind, often by turning the tables and placing the other person in a bind. You would for one tend to see them as a bad child (that's part of what the Trickster is), and then respond in kind.
> For this, the Trickster complex would reorient the threatening Thinking perspective to an external set standard. You would thus use some sort of logical order (whether of physical things, or some other form of technical rationality. Berens even mentions "arranging other people's thinking" as a description of Te in general) to trap someone else.
> It might not work. The complex is what you project onto the other person, and because you feel weak and vulnerable in both Thinking, and the external world, you assume the other person is as well, and that the external logical order would trip them up.


how is it that if third is something that you arent confident about, i have been really confident about, and so is my INFP friend? *breaking this over confidence of the third is exactly what needs to be done..*




> I know closely one likely ISFJ (and it will also be a similar dynamic with my wife's Demonic Te), and another way it manifests, is that Fe desires things to be nice for the sake of its external humane harmony. The logical aspect of order is less conscious, so when it becomes necessary to address logical order, it will be done in an erratic fashion. Like the ISFJ I mentioned is known to just start throwing stuff out, and then find that important stuff was thrown out.
> That's the Trickster putting the person themselves in a bind, and becoming "regretted", as the Beebe and Berens descriptions say.


this is again Fe + Ti, just that there is Fe dominating Ti, instead of(like in my case and in INTP) Ti dominating Fe..



> So it seems to be like I've been saying, regarding why the "Crow's Nests" might appear to come out stronger than the tertiary and inferior. The tertiary would in this case be the perspective the threatening feelings would reach consciousness through, and then its shadow would be what you react to it with.
> To put it in terms of function-attitude "synthesis", Your ego is dominant i in orientation and N in function. F is the support function, and placed in an e orientation. T is tertiary, and taken up by the opposite of the supporting parent; the support-needing child complex, which orients it into the dominant i orientation. When this child is threatened, it turns "bad", so to speak (a suppressed "bad" side of it comes up from the unconscious), and reorients its T perspective to an e attitude and goes on the attack with it.





wiki said:


> rationalization in psychoanalysis: ...providing a false explanation that has a plausible ring of rationality'.


the whole point of all of this is to come conscious about the instincts coming from the unconscious, so that you wont just start throwing stuff when you get irritated and so that you can follow these instincts when needed(like in my INFPs case and in my case) using the reconciling third(that you also need to become more conscious of). explaining this with 8 function theory simply wont do it, but jungs theory does.. -> 8 function theory fails, jung wins


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

Naama said:


> but its reducing from Fe with principles of Ti, not F in introverted attitude by itself.


That presumes whole, indivisible function-attitudes (Fe) as fundamental units of cognition. If you would allow T/F and i/e in their own rights, then there would not be much of a contradiction there.



> transcendent function isnt negative, its something we all do in daily basis, but its just so small, that it doesent raise the third into consciousness, because it doesent need its help. sometimes you might use the transcendent function for long periods of time, before anything usefulness comes out of it and it might not be negative even if you use it regularly. its just when there is a big conflict between first and fourth, then you need a helpful third to get you out of it, and it might not come unless you really try to solve the conflict. for example i have a friend who is struggling with his weight, he is an INFP. his ego thinks that its not all that important to try hard enough(Fi saying its not worth it), but he gets constant instincts from shadow telling him that he should lose weight(Te looking at the situation objectively(from E point of view) and logically). sometimes he starts to jog and not eat crap for some time and says that he feels better, but then he relapses and thinks again that its not all that important and the cycle goes on and on. this is a good example of transcendent function, its an dialect between the ego and shadow, but no matter what you say to him, it has no effect at all, he needs to realize the subjectivity of his Si in order to snap out of this(how tings are, and not just look at his condition from his point of view, but to question it from an objective point of view, which is what his inferior Te would offer).


 Well, I didn't say the transcendent _function_ was negative; I said "...when situations involve that 'transcendent' function in a particular, negative way...", and that the resultant reactions (through the function with the attitude reversed) were "negative"


> it doesent matter what beebe said to you, all that matters is that its not a complex. complex has totally different meaning than used with those archetypes with functions. its again the same sort of twisting jugs words with the archetype thing(which has nothing to do with functions and nothing to do with typology(i suggest studying analytical psychology from other angles than just listening to what people say about its typology part)), and same thing with the complex thing, again totally different meaning taken used in wrong situation.


 The definition of "complex" I'm using is an archetype that moves from the collective unconscious to the personal unconscious. And from what I've seen, that is how Jung uses it. Analytical psychology might not agree with Jung's concept.



> yes i know anima comes from the latin word for soul, but this isnt giving up the fourth(that beebe says is the anima(soul in latin)), this is about doing something totally evil that will haunt you forever for example for money, someone telling you to kill someone to get some cash. again twisting jungs words.
> 
> i saw this archetype in a dream once, or actually had a sleep paralysis where i had hallucinations about it, long before i learned about jung. i woke up in the middle of the night(felt like someone was in my apartment), was going to stand up, but froze in the mid way. i looked to the door of my bedroom and saw an old guy there, i sensed he was pure evil, he just stared me in the eyes and i couldnt move. even tho im an atheist to the core at that time i started to question my believes(or lack of them). i couldnt do anything but stare his eyes, it felt like he was the one keeping me paralyzed. then i gave up, i mean totally gave up, i thought if he was going to take me in hell, so be it etc. if he wants my soul, theres nothing i can do about it. and just when i had these thoughts, it dissapeared and i could move again. i think its obvious without saying that i couldnt sleep after that, especially since i didnt know about sleep paralysis at the moment..
> 
> anyways, how do you feel about the fact that this demon function thing doesent give any help to people who actually need this stuff?


 Well, that was one particular kind of manifestation of it; one that not everyone else experiences.

And according to the theory; it would somehow involve Fi in there, somewhere. The fact that involved religion and the fear of hell, it might have to do with some sort of Fi values, universal moral beliefs, personal integrity, etc. (And since it is "_unconscious_" after all, you would really have to look for it to see the Fi).



Naama said:


> how is it that if third is something that you arent confident about, i have been really confident about, and so is my INFP friend? *breaking this over confidence of the third is exactly what needs to be done..*


 The tertiary "Puer" complex is decribed as often _*inflating*_ itself, so that it does appear to be a strong defender of the dominant standpoint. But this is really a mask for its vulnerability, and eventually, it usually "deflates". That person I've been mentioning elsewhere who used this stuff on me (introducing me to it) had cited someone, IIRC, that it takes on "the appearance of wisdom and maturity", or something like that. But then it has a glass chin, and its vulnerability resurfaces. She's proven herself untrustworthy with a lot of this stuff, but that part of it she described seemed to accurately capture the concept of the Puer complex, and that was a good way of putting it.



> this is again Fe + Ti, just that there is Fe dominating Ti, instead of(like in my case and in INTP) Ti dominating Fe..


 OK, so explain what's the _introversion_ of Thinking in that. I consider these things to all be reflections of the preferred functions, so it's obvious why Fe would be the ultimate source. But it in that case appears to be reflecting into Te, as it is an external use of Thinking to fill in for Feeling; whose domain is not logical order.


> the whole point of all of this is to come conscious about the instincts coming from the unconscious, so that you wont just start throwing stuff when you get irritated and so that you can follow these instincts when needed(like in my INFPs case and in my case) using the reconciling third(that you also need to become more conscious of). explaining this with 8 function theory simply wont do it, but jungs theory does.. -> 8 function theory fails, jung wins


 Uh, eight function theory has precisely that goal in mind, and it breaks it down in a more precise way than four function theory. So I don't see where the're any conflict there.


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

Elinor Dashwood said:


> Right. So, the fact that I feel most sure of myself when I am listening/advising/caretaking is my Fe parent in action?


Well, you'd feel _most_ sure of yourself with your dominant Ni. But when it comes to supporting others, then it would likely be Fe.


> LOL. You mean like, how I did just now?


 I would imagine so.



> So would an example of this be my feeling resistant to someone who is trying to use logic to convince me of something I may be emotionally averse to accepting? And trying to out-logic them (in a not very competent way, maybe using a logical fallacy or by being obtusely and stubbornly literal) instead of acknowledging that perhaps they have a point? I know I've definitely done this at times, when I felt I was right, or very badly wanted to be right, but didn't have the wherewithal to explain why. And it's not deliberate; the times I've done this it was because I legitimately felt I was being attacked and needed to defend my perspective however I could. It was only after the fact I realized I was being illogical.


 Yes, that sounds like it would fit.



> Humor me for a sec. Would you say that, in a case where someone is being maliciously manipulative, a well-developed INFJ would protect himself not by projecting a complex and flawed Te, but by using one of their first four functions? Say, instead of viewing the situation through the perspective of Te and arguing with the person, a mature INFJ would shift perspective to Fe, realize they were in a socially unhealthy situation, and think, "I'm not going to argue with someone who clearly intends to be manipulative. I am picking up on his intentions and they are not kind."


 Well, the first four functions would always be there. It depends on how you feel threatened, that would determine whether you used the preferred functions, or the shadows. If you're not deeply threatened, then you will likely just use the preferred functions. The tertiary might back up the dominant standpoint. 
If you feel obstructed in your dominant perspective, then the Opposing Personality will constellate, around Ne. If you feel negated, particularly in your parenting with Fe, then the Senex will constellate, around Fi.

When the tertiary or inferior are what the threat is felt through; (such as the logic of what is being forced on you), then the Trickster or Demon will contellate. 



> Or perhaps a healthy INFJ would use the comedic side of her trickster function and learn to laugh at the situation because she can see it for what it is? Or deflect using wit, sarcasm, etc.?
> 
> Or in situation in which someone is using logic in my best interest (but I'm being resistant), would a practical example of a comedic Te perspective be shifting my viewpoint so that I can laugh at my slowness to understand instead of vilifying and attempting to reconfigure the other person's logic?


 That could happen, too.



> It's entirely possible that as I ask questions, I'm only revealing more and more how very loose my grasp on this theory is. *If it's just too exasperating to reply to*, I won't be offended.


 Now, you're projecting your nonpreference for logical analysis onto me.


----------



## Elinor Dashwood (Mar 3, 2011)

Eric B said:


> Now, you're projecting your nonpreference for logical analysis onto me.


Yeah... but I figured you'd say something like that!


----------



## Naama (Dec 5, 2010)

Eric B said:


> That presumes whole, indivisible function-attitudes (Fe) as fundamental units of cognition. If you would allow T/F and i/e in their own rights, then there would not be much of a contradiction there.
> 
> Well, I didn't say the transcendent _function_ was negative; I said "...when situations involve that 'transcendent' function in a particular, negative way...", and that the resultant reactions (through the function with the attitude reversed) were "negative"
> The definition of "complex" I'm using is an archetype that moves from the collective unconscious to the personal unconscious. And from what I've seen, that is how Jung uses it. Analytical psychology might not agree with Jung's concept.
> ...


this whole archetypes are function positions is just an attempt to explain jungs model, it twists jungs words because it wouldnt work without doing so. ofc this 8th function devilish thing resembles jungs transcendent function, because its describing the same phenomenon. but it makes assumptions like that INTPs 8th function is Fi, when infact its actually a dialogue between Ti and Fe, that just looks like Fi.

ill show you how it really went on me when i experienced this whole thing

*The Devilish Role (sometimes referred to as the 8th function)*(_italics_ added)
The devilish role can be quite negative_(ofc, instincts raising from the Fe which is in the shadow(in control of unconscious mind), positive instincts from unconscious doesent pass to conscious mind so easily, thats why shadow shows itself mainly in negative ways)_. Using the process that plays this role, we might become destructive of ourselves or others_(i did this to other person, tried to free myself from this crap by sabotaging what was the cause of this. the sabotage thing came from Ti, it felt logical in my subjective perspective that if i just fuck up the thing that is causing this, it wouldnt bother me anymore)_. Actions (or inactions) taken when we engage in the process that plays this role are often regretted later_(yea i regretted it later, after fucking up the thing and getting my mind off it for a while, i started to see the value of the person again, especially the value to my friends and realized how badly i fucked up the social harmony in our group of friends, also i started to see that i did something wrong by external standards, but still saw it as something that i had to do, as i couldnt handle the situation any longer)_. Usually, we are unaware of how to use the process that fills this role and feel like it just erupts and imposes itself rather unconsciously(yep, i had no control over the instincts coming from Fe which was hiding in the shadow, but constantly sending out instincts to my ego). Yet when we are open to the process that plays the devilish role, it becomes transformative(true again, but the transformative part was realization of the subjectivity of my Si, learning to use it consciously a bit to control my Fe and learning to distinguish the instincts coming from Fe, both good and bad -> learned to regulate the bad ones a bit and to act on the good ones without Ti interfering my decision making so much and taking Fe decision consciously into consideration when making an decision). It gives us the impetus to create something new(yep)—to make lemonade out of lemons, rather than lament their sourness.

but you see, even tho this description of it is really good and describes what happens, its too reductionistic when assuming that its just Fi, when it has nothing to do with Fi, but is Fe abstracted by Ti -> cutting out the irrelevant and making a decision on what parts of the Fe to act on, based on Ti deduction.

you know i used to believe in this devilish 8th function thing, i saw myself doing those things described when i was strugling with the thing, but it doesent do any good if someone tells you what you do. its the same thing if you say to an alcoholic "you are hurting yourself with drinking that much, its not a smart thing to do so and would be good if you stoppedetc", he would just reply with "yea i know", but still keep doing that. this whole archetypes of functions theory is just describing something happening on behavioristic point of view(and doing it wrong when it comes to functions), not actually looking at the processes that builds this. if someone would have told me that this whole thing is happening because of instincts raising to surface from Fe and me restricting/resisting them with Ti, it would have explained me hell lot more of what i was actually doing, than this 8th devilish thing, which was just directing me to wrong direction as it told me i was using Fi. the person involving this thing actually told me that not everything can be rationalized and analyzed on rational point of view, even this small of a hint was a BIG indicator towards the right direction..

ill send you something in sec, read it before replying.


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

I skimmed through it, and will have to go over it again to really grasp it. I see talk of "third" and "fourth", and in the context of this discussion, it would sound like talking about the tertiary and inferior. But while the "fourth" does seem to be referring to the inferior, the "third" is mentioned regarding some kind of healing.
so it will take some time to digest that.

In any case, I don't see anything there (so far), or even in what you wrote above that disproves what I've been saying. Remember, the premise is that we start with just four functions, S, N, T, F. The order for us is TNSF. The "attitude" is the orientation the ego places the function in, not something naturally inherent in the function.

Here is the Mental Muscle illustration of this for us:








Four functions; two orientations. For each function, there is a preferred orientation, but a little bit of the function "crosses over" into the other side. This yields the eight function-attitudes. 
The primary one is shadowed by the opposite attitude. So in your description above, some of that was Fe, but then some of it degraded into Fi as well. One shadows the other, and it's really two different orientations of the ONE Feeling function.
And Feeling is sort of a reflection of Thinking. If you choose Thinking, then Feeling is suppressed; so the Thinking will drive the ego's goals, such as the need to sabotage something (technical cause and effect judgment), but there's indoubtedly a humane (personal) element that you switched to, in protecting the ego, and a part of it remained *internal*.

"_also i started to see that i did something wrong *by external standards*_" is Fe, but then "_but still saw it as something that *i had to do*, as i couldnt handle the situation any longer_" clearly turns the humane focus _*inward*_. The *standard* is now what *you* feel *you* have to do because *you* can't handle the situation. And while it might have started out from "impersonal" Ti, it has now become _personal_, and hence, F, yet still internal.

One feeling function; but both orientations involved; just like the bottom bubble of the image. Both _intertwined_ and unconscious, so the line between both orientations will even be fuzzy. 
So most INTP's will just attribute _all_ their "Feeling" to "Fe", but that last senstence is not Fe. Internal standard, not external, but just as *personal* ("humane", and not "impersonal")-focused

You've actually provided another great illustration of what I've been trying to teach all along. 
Notice, the Fe part is very vulnerable, worrying abut the external standard of others. Yet, it is overridden by this internal_standard-based reactivity. So the Fi is actually more visible than Fe. 
(And yes, we're dealing with an interplay of functions in terms of both processes or "perspectives", as well as observable behavior "skills-sets").
If you take the Nardi test with that incident fresh in mind, its questions will pick up the "what's personally important to me" part, but not "considering others", because while technically, you can look at thinking about the external standard as "considering others", it is not consciously doing so, so you likely won't put that down. The test will then give you a higher Fi than Fe. Hence, Lenore's ship order, also.

So you may not agree with this way of looking at it, but that's how this version of the theory works, and it seems to make o much sense to me, even if Jung may not have taught it.


----------



## Naama (Dec 5, 2010)

Eric B said:


> I skimmed through it, and will have to go over it again to really grasp it. I see talk of "third" and "fourth", and in the context of this discussion, it would sound like talking about the tertiary and inferior. But while the "fourth" does seem to be referring to the inferior, the "third" is mentioned regarding some kind of healing.
> so it will take some time to digest that.


one thing you need to understand that this transcendent function isnt just about going back and forth between opposite functions in ego and shadow, its about going back and forth between any opposites in ego and shadow, not just functions. when it is about functions, then the (reconciling) third that emerges is the third function, which offers a point of view that doesent conflict with either dom or inferior. in INTPs case its becoming conscious of your subjectivity with Si, and it emerging doesent mean that it didnt exist before, but just that it emerges into the ego, so that you can consciously consider its point of view and challenge it, thus becoming aware of its subjectivity. in therapy for example the opposites (from patients point of view) would be what ever problems with his ego and the unconscious projection to analyst, and the third emerging would be transference.




> In any case, I don't see anything there (so far), or even in what you wrote above that disproves what I've been saying. Remember, the premise is that we start with just four functions, S, N, T, F. The order for us is TNSF. The "attitude" is the orientation the ego places the function in, not something naturally inherent in the function.


well its impossible to prove one theory right and one theory false. the 4 function theory i offered does how ever explain things better and from more fundamental level. also the example i used in that demonic Fi thing, showing how each part of the description are actually Fe and Ti, kinda shows that this "demonic Fi" isnt Fi(according to that 8 function theory, its only Fi), but an combination of Ti and Fe.




> Here is the Mental Muscle illustration of this for us:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


i think this is better illustration of how functions work:









inside goes to outside and outside goes inside. its not the function that crosses over, but what comes out of the function is what crosses over to other function with other orientation.

if we take INTP as an example in this model. its the Si that tells you what is(inside), its formed from Ti judgments(that has judged the perceptions from external world), and this "what is" from Si is empathized(one way of extraverting, placing a meaning to what would otherwise be meaningless) through Fe. Fe judgments(which has been affected by Si, which has been affected by Ti, which has been affected by Ne) guide Ne perception, which Ti judges again. in the case of ESFJ, ISFJ and ENTP, its the ego and unconscious that are placed differently in this circle which consists of same function orientations than INTP.

so its not just that T = impersonal and F = personal. T is analyzing from impersonal(detached) point of view yes, but it can analyze what comes out of F, and does it from detached point of view.

i think these function descriptions(by jung, italics added by me) shows the essence of the functions:

S tells you is there something there. _perceiving concrete things that exist in either internal world or external world.
in introverted orientation, you perceive from inside, conclusions/judgments you came up with that affect how you see things being. unconsciously abstracting from external perceptions, creating subjective view on what is <- this is what i was talking about when i was talking about learning to challenge your subjective view on Si(as an INTP) as an outcome of going back and forth between the opposites(transcendent function) and what this demonic "8th"(which imo is actually the dialogue between dom and inferior) is saying about creating a new perspective and something productive coming out of it.
in extraverted orientation, you perceive factual things(from eyes and ears) from external world directly to conscious mind.
i dont think mere perception about external world is Se, imo Se is perceiving what is directly to conscious mind. in the case of Si/Ne users, the perceptions go to unconscious processing first._

N tells you where did it come from and where it is(or might be) going._ its doing this by connecting the dots and evaluating where this stream might be going and doing it unconsciously. in extraverted attitude, its connecting the dots(concrete facts that are perceived unconsciously) from external world and looking at what this stream of dots might be leading to. in INTP this "where is it going" is affected by Fe and this connecting the dots is affected by Si and both of these eventually lead back to Si after processed by Ti.
in introverted orientation, these "dots" are what is perceived from Se, Je and Ji judgments._

T tells you what it is that is there. _analyzing from detached point of view, without letting value of things to affect the judgment(this doesent mean that it couldnt judge personal things, it just does this judgment from detached point of view). this way coming to conclusion of "what something is".
in introverted orientation, it does this by reducing the irrelevant from perceptions(via abstraction).
in extraverted attitude, it does this by trying to put meaning to external things(via empathizing), according to what fits to it logically. this can be guided(what the person is analyzing with Te) by Fi, but the analysis itself is done from detached point of view._


F tells you what is it worth/is it worth it or not.
in introverted attitude, it does this by comparing your emotional response to perceptions and to what is analyzed by Te.
in extraverted attitude, it does this by evaluating what other peoples emotional response is to things, this way looking at what things are worth to others, thus creating sort of standards of worth of things. you are reacting to other peoples emotional reactions(real or hypothetical), also reacting yourself to these(or some of these) standards created like this.

-> introversion and extraversion isnt just about internal or external, an introverted function does include aspects of external world, but it doesent mean that the function itself goes both ways. introverted function can be guided by external and extraverted function can have internal reaction.

introversion is internal movement of libido, when you introvert something, you are abstracting from external. extraversion is external movement of libido. abstracting again basically meaning reducing from external(reducing from outside to inside) and empathizing is sort of like projecting(placing from inside to outside). but there is also third kind of sensation, which is in concrete attitude, basically its just taking in "what is" perceived without reducing from it or adding to it by empathizing or abstracting(by S function), this is in my opinion something what everyone does and this is what is perceived unconsciously by Ne/Si types -> its not Se that is used by Ne/Si types. for example experience of S abstracted(introverted) would be aesthetic, while experience of S empathized(extraverted) would be sensuous.




> "_also i started to see that i did something wrong *by external standards*_" is Fe, but then "_but still saw it as something that *i had to do*, as i couldnt handle the situation any longer_" clearly turns the humane focus _*inward*_. The *standard* is now what *you* feel *you* have to do because *you* can't handle the situation. And while it might have started out from "impersonal" Ti, it has now become _personal_, and hence, F, yet still internal.


yes it became internal, but introversion isnt just about things being in internal world, this is where the 8 function theory fails. yes the instincts came from F, but they came from Fe and yes they were internalized, but it doesent mean that F turned introverted, it was Fe processed by functions that were introverted. also it involved personal feelings, but feelings arent functions.

this 8 function theory claims that all what happened happened because of demonic Fi, this excludes Fe and Ti. also like MBTI, this 8 function theory looks at the surface of things, not digging deeper, if it would dig deeper, it would become obvious that its not Fi thats doing this. this 8 function theory only makes sense as long as you keep the focus on the surface of it and not dig deeper.

yes it turns what came out of Fe inward, but its doing that by Ti and Si abstraction. this doesent mean that Fe is turned to Fi, like i said, introverted functions can be affected by extraverted ones.

its a fact that i couldnt handle the situation much longer, this is exactly what S does in introverted attitude. its perceiving facts of what is, and this is this sort of subjective fact. it was Si in the first place trying to "save" me by telling what is, and the logical thing to do from my perspective(Ti) was to destroy what caused this. but this wasnt the right way to do it(it only worked as a quick fix), thats why i started to regret it, it was wrong according to Fe. this whole personal/impersonal thing on T/F is again looking at the surface, this isnt the function itself, this is what comes out of the function, because of how the functions judge. for example Fe isnt about personal the way Fi is. Fe looks at other peoples emotional responses to things, nothing personal about that. how ever, you are reacting to these yourself too, but what you are reacting to isnt personal, its impersonal.




> One feeling function; but both orientations involved; just like the bottom bubble of the image. Both _intertwined_ and unconscious, so the line between both orientations will even be fuzzy.
> So most INTP's will just attribute _all_ their "Feeling" to "Fe", but that last senstence is not Fe. Internal standard, not external, but just as *personal* ("humane", and not "impersonal")-focused


yes its both orientations involved, Ji is involved with external reality, but its involvement to it is to take irrelevant stuff out of it, it doesent mean that the function is in both orientations, its just reacting to orientation of other function. Je is also involved with internal reality, as it moves things from inside to outside, just like introverted functions move things from outside to inside.




> You've actually provided another great illustration of what I've been trying to teach all along.
> Notice, the Fe part is very vulnerable, worrying abut the external standard of others. Yet, it is overridden by this internal_standard-based reactivity. So the Fi is actually more visible than Fe.
> (And yes, we're dealing with an interplay of functions in terms of both processes or "perspectives", as well as observable behavior "skills-sets").
> If you take the Nardi test with that incident fresh in mind, its questions will pick up the "what's personally important to me" part, but not "considering others", because while technically, you can look at thinking about the external standard as "considering others", it is not consciously doing so, so you likely won't put that down. The test will then give you a higher Fi than Fe. Hence, Lenore's ship order, also.


Fe isnt external standards of others, its your judgment of what the external standards are. but yes i agree that its vulnerable about this, this is something that we agree on, but agreeing about this has nothing to do with 8 vs 4 function theory. its not Fi that is visible, its whats left of Fe after being abstracted by Ti and Si that is visible, so its Ti and Si that is visible, not Fi.

i dunno what this nardi test is, but when it comes to "what is personally important to me", Fe and Ti together can form this too, its not just Fi. Fi does this judgment by measuring your emotional response to it, this way looking at if its personally important to me. but Ti + Fe together would do it by looking at existing standards and Ti analyzing does it make sense to me, if it does, then its personally important. this is F moved to internal world, but its still not F in introverted attitude, its Fe processed by T in introverted attitude. this whole thinking Fi as "what is personally important to me" is looking at the surface of things again. it reminds me of MBTI type descriptions, which does this looking at the surface to extreme. those MBTI type descriptions look at the stereotypical people, making HUGE assumptions of what those people of particular type are, by looking at the outcome of things. just like this question "what is personally important to me" looks at the outcome of Fi, but also the outcome of Ti + Fe. with MBTI type descriptions many people who are INTP can relate to like half of the things in INTJ profile, exactly because of this looking at outcome(from extremely surface level) of things.




> So you may not agree with this way of looking at it, but that's how this version of the theory works, and it seems to make o much sense to me, even if Jung may not have taught it.


ofc it makes alot of sense, like i wrote earlier on the demonic Fi thing, i could relate to all of it, but looking at it closer reveals that its not Fi thats doing this, its Fe + Ti that is doing this.

also its not that jung didnt think about this, he did think about this and came to same conclusion that i came to before i read jung, when i was reading this 8 function theory thing and saw that things arent like it says, just by doing some in depth analysis about it.
because i came to this conclusion on my own and then saw the person who created this whole system saying essentially the same thing(he didnt say it looking like Fi tho, because its obvious), i think jungs view on this dialogue between dom and inferior(or opposites as he put it) is far more convincing.


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

Naama said:


> one thing you need to understand that this transcendent function isnt just about going back and forth between opposite functions in ego and shadow, its about going back and forth between any opposites in ego and shadow, not just functions. when it is about functions, then the (reconciling) third that emerges is the third function, which offers a point of view that doesent conflict with either dom or inferior.


Is that apart of what "coniunctio" is? Lenore mentioned that to me once in passing, and when I looked it up, it meant "joining of opposites"; and I believe it has to do with the archetypes and the dom./inferior tandem.



> ell its impossible to prove one theory right and one theory false. the 4 function theory i offered does how ever explain things better and from more fundamental level. also the example i used in that demonic Fi thing, showing how each part of the description are actually Fe and Ti, kinda shows that this "demonic Fi" isnt Fi(according to that 8 function theory, its only Fi), but an combination of Ti and Fe.


 But I never said it was "only" Fi; and I don't think Beebe and his followers ever did either. Last night I showed that it _*shadowed*_ Fe, and the lines between them can even be blurry, because the attitude stands alone and it not indelibly bound to the function..


> i think this is better illustration of how functions work:
> 
> inside goes to outside and outside goes inside. its not the function that crosses over, but what comes out of the function is what crosses over to other function with other orientation.
> 
> if we take INTP as an example in this model. its the Si that tells you what is(inside), its formed from Ti judgments(that has judged the perceptions from external world), and this "what is" from Si is empathized(one way of extraverting, placing a meaning to what would otherwise be meaningless) through Fe. Fe judgments(which has been affected by Si, which has been affected by Ti, which has been affected by Ne) guide Ne perception, which Ti judges again. in the case of ESFJ, ISFJ and ENTP, its the ego and unconscious that are placed differently in this circle which consists of same function orientations than INTP.


 OK, that's interesting. I still think shadow function theory would fit that, in that it still involves the same four points: Ji-Pi-Je-Pe; only the j/p functions are reversed. 


> so its not just that T = impersonal and F = personal. T is analyzing from impersonal(detached) point of view yes, but it can analyze what comes out of F, and does it from detached point of view.


 Well, of course; and "impersonal" is just another term for "detached".



> i think these function descriptions(by jung, italics added by me) shows the essence of the functions:
> 
> S tells you is there something there. _perceiving concrete things that exist in either internal world or external world.
> in introverted orientation, you perceive from inside, conclusions/judgments you came up with that affect how you see things being. unconsciously abstracting from external perceptions, creating subjective view on what is <- this is what i was talking about when i was talking about learning to challenge your subjective view on Si(as an INTP) as an outcome of going back and forth between the opposites(transcendent function) and what this demonic "8th"(which imo is actually the dialogue between dom and inferior) is saying about creating a new perspective and something productive coming out of it.
> ...


 But according to your theory, TP's and FJ's _*only*_ "evaluate what other people's emotional response to things is", and can NEVER "compare your emotional response to perceptions".

Remember, in Jung's theory, it is not all or nothing; whatever is preferred means the opposite is _*suppressed*_. That means it _exists_; it's _there_, albeit in the unconscious, and can be brought or erupt into conscuiousness in the right circumstances.


> -> introversion and extraversion isnt just about internal or external, an introverted function does include aspects of external world, but it doesent mean that the function itself goes both ways. introverted function can be guided by external and extraverted function can have internal reaction.


 This I don't deny, and I'm basically shorthanding when I speak of "internal/external". It's easier to give a basic description with those terms. That's why it is said that it is an internal or external *standard*. The standard can be applied to either orientation.


> introversion is internal movement of libido, when you introvert something, you are abstracting from external. extraversion is external movement of libido. abstracting again basically meaning reducing from external(reducing from outside to inside) and empathizing is sort of like projecting(placing from inside to outside). but there is also third kind of sensation, which is in concrete attitude, basically its just taking in "what is" perceived without reducing from it or adding to it by empathizing or abstracting(by S function), this is in my opinion something what everyone does and this is what is perceived unconsciously by Ne/Si types -> its not Se that is used by Ne/Si types. for example experience of S abstracted(introverted) would be aesthetic, while experience of S empathized(extraverted) would be sensuous.


 Interesting stuff; the more advanced level of Jung. Lenore had been explaining stuff like this definition of "abstraction" (as opposed to meaning "iNtuition" the way Myers and Keirsey popularized it and I was used to applying it), and it's a matter of integrating that into my understanding more.



> yes it became internal, but introversion isnt just about things being in internal world, this is where the 8 function theory fails. yes the instincts came from F, but they came from Fe and yes they were internalized, but it doesent mean that F turned introverted, it was Fe processed by functions that were introverted. also it involved personal feelings, but feelings arent functions.
> 
> this 8 function theory claims that all what happened happened because of demonic Fi, this excludes Fe and Ti.


 Again, it _*doesn't*_ exclude Fe and Ti. As I said, Fi is the shadow of Fe. Also, Fi is like a "grand reflection" of Ti. Hence (as I should have added yesterday), the right-brain "P" alternative. 
These things are all different aspects of each other. different sides of the same coin.



> also like MBTI, this 8 function theory looks at the surface of things, not digging deeper, if it would dig deeper, it would become obvious that its not Fi thats doing this. this 8 function theory only makes sense as long as you keep the focus on the surface of it and not dig deeper.


 I think it's 8 function theory that digs deeper, because we explain things with eight possible function-attitude combinations that you try to stretch four function+attitude compounds or bundles into explaining. those themselves need to be broken down back to their even more fundamental parts.


> yes it turns what came out of Fe inward, but its doing that by Ti and Si abstraction. this doesent mean that Fe is turned to Fi, like i said, introverted functions can be affected by extraverted ones.
> 
> its a fact that i couldnt handle the situation much longer, this is exactly what S does in introverted attitude. its perceiving facts of what is, and this is this sort of subjective fact. it was Si in the first place trying to "save" me by telling what is, and the logical thing to do from my perspective(Ti) was to destroy what caused this. but this wasnt the right way to do it(it only worked as a quick fix), thats why i started to regret it, it was wrong according to Fe. this whole personal/impersonal thing on T/F is again looking at the surface, this isnt the function itself, this is what comes out of the function, because of how the functions judge. for example Fe isnt about personal the way Fi is. Fe looks at other peoples emotional responses to things, nothing personal about that. how ever, you are reacting to these yourself too, but what you are reacting to isnt personal, its impersonal.


 The ambiguity of the term "personal" is precisely why I began using the term "humane". It's dealing with the "human" element, which is called "personal" meaning pertaining to "persons" _in general_ (humanity); not necessarily an _individual_ person. So Fe looking at other people's reaction to things _is_ "personal" in _that_ sense of the word, or better yet, "humane", as opposed to the "impersonal", "detached", or purely "technical".



> yes its both orientations involved, Ji is involved with external reality, but its involvement to it is to take irrelevant stuff out of it, it doesent mean that the function is in both orientations, its just reacting to orientation of other function. Je is also involved with internal reality, as it moves things from inside to outside, just like introverted functions move things from outside to inside.





> ofc it makes alot of sense, like i wrote earlier on the demonic Fi thing, i could relate to all of it, but looking at it closer reveals that its not Fi thats doing this, its Fe + Ti that is doing this.


 But again, all of this assumes that there are these eight fundamental units of cognition, when originally, there were four functions, with two orientations or attitudes.
As far as I'm concerned, what you're saying there is ultimately describing the same thing that I describe: there's *the same combination of S, N, T, F, e and i; only you're binding e and i permanently together with two particular functions each* for a particular type. 8 function theory simply looks at the situation in a way where e and i are combined with the other functions in certain respects; for why would those combinations be _impossible_ for some types? They are simply _unconscious_.

Ti+Ne+Si+Fe is the same stuff as i+T+N+S+F+e; only the latter is less redundant, and explains how all eight possible functional perspectives could come up in a type..



> Fe isnt external standards of others, its your judgment of what the external standards are. but yes i agree that its vulnerable about this, this is something that we agree on


 Well, yes. you were worried about those standards, and that worry implies a kind of judgment of them. (these are binding, and I'm afraid of the consequences of violating them). 



> , but agreeing about this has nothing to do with 8 vs 4 function theory. its not Fi that is visible, its whats left of Fe after being abstracted by Ti and Si that is visible, so its Ti and Si that is visible, not Fi.


 By "visible"; I meant coming out in the form of behavior. Of course, behavior is not really what the functions are, but the point was to show how the ship order and Nardi results were fitting in with the Beebe model.


> i dunno what this nardi test is,


 The cognitive processes test (Keys 2 Cognition) that everyone posts their results from all over the place. (Though now there is a new one made by the guy called timeless). 



> but when it comes to "what is personally important to me", Fe and Ti together can form this too, its not just Fi. Fi does this judgment by measuring your emotional response to it, this way looking at if its personally important to me. but Ti + Fe together would do it by looking at existing standards and Ti analyzing does it make sense to me, if it does, then its personally important. this is F moved to internal world, but its still not F in introverted attitude, its Fe processed by T in introverted attitude. this whole thinking Fi as "what is personally important to me" is looking at the surface of things again. it reminds me of MBTI type descriptions, which does this looking at the surface to extreme. those MBTI type descriptions look at the stereotypical people, making HUGE assumptions of what those people of particular type are, by looking at the outcome of things. just like this question "what is personally important to me" looks at the outcome of Fi, but also the outcome of Ti + Fe. with MBTI type descriptions many people who are INTP can relate to like half of the things in INTJ profile, exactly because of this looking at outcome(from extremely surface level) of things.


 Yes, that's the Berens/Nardi definition of Fi, which was designed to simplify the function. I do believe that definition is problematic when not understood in the context of better more elemental definitions such as "measuring your emotional response to it" ("Personally relating to an evolving situation" is another one that I find is really good). A web article called "FeFiFoFum" claims FP's know what they want from Santa Claus where FJ's don't, based on that. So I do tend to avoid it.

How I saw it as useful was as a possible _behavioral_ product of Fi, and thus, that these behaviors being more visible and conscious, is what causes people's 8th place function to come out strong on that test. But yes, the function itself is something more deeper than that behavioral product.


----------



## Naama (Dec 5, 2010)

if Ti+Fe is Fi to beebe, then his whole function definitions are different from jung. this would naturally take his whole typology to new direction where 8 functions is required. imo functions in this 8 function theory should be called beebean functions, not jungian functions..

i guess its useless to continue this since beebe seems to have totally different definitions to jung. i see these beebean functions fail since they describe the functions on so superficial level and you need to brake down the functions when you dig deeper. i mean if im able to see them not being what they claim to be, even before i read jung and beebe made some simplified model of jungs work, which says pretty much exactly what i had thought myself when being in this "demonic Fi" mode. also they cant both be true since both describe the same phenomenon, but beebe says its Fi, but jung says its Fe + Ti.

it seems that you cant see it, no matter how detailed explanations i give, so i dont see any reason trying anymore.


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

But Beebe didn't say Ti+Fe = Fi, that's what you're saying it is.
Again, the whole problem here as I have been saying again and again is the expression of eight function-attitudes, as opposed to four functions in two orientations. You're using Jung's "transcendent function", but the dispute is whether that "function" is really "Fe", or is it just "F". (Which would then be _normally_ extraverted; yet in which an introverted orientation is simply deeper in the unconscious, but still can nevertless erupt at times, especially in really negative situations). And I have read that Jung changed a bit to focus on complete function-attitude consists later on, so Beebe's theory is simply best understood through the older concept.


----------



## Naama (Dec 5, 2010)

Eric B said:


> But Beebe didn't say Ti+Fe = Fi, that's what you're saying it is.
> Again, the whole problem here as I have been saying again and again is the expression of eight function-attitudes, as opposed to four functions in two orientations. You're using Jung's "transcendent function", but the dispute is whether that "function" is really "Fe", or is it just "F". (Which would then be _normally_ extraverted; yet in which an introverted orientation is simply deeper in the unconscious, but still can nevertless erupt at times, especially in really negative situations). And I have read that Jung changed a bit to focus on complete function-attitude consists later on, so Beebe's theory is simply best understood through the older concept.


he described exactly what happens when dom and inferior interact and claimed its the fourth in different orientation. its same as saying for INTP Ti + Fe = Fi or for ENTP Ne + Si = Se or for ENTJ Te + Fi = Fe. end of story, nn beebean cognitive functions


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

And all that means, is, as I have said, it's just different ways of explaining the same thing. So if you don't like this way, there's still no need to go from thread to thread (and forum to forum) calling the 8-fold version "bs". It's just another perspective.

Also, can you show me again where Jung bound the functions and attitudes into indivisible whole units? (Fe, Ti, etc). He did speak of "introverted Thinking", etc, but they didn't seem to be indivisible; it was "_Thinking_ in an introverted attitude".


----------



## Naama (Dec 5, 2010)

i suggest reading this:
Classics in the History of Psychology -- Jung (1921/1923) Chapter 10

or better to get the book



introverted thinking type said:


> The relatively unconscious functions of feeling, intuition, and sensation, which counterbalance introverted thinking, are inferior in quality and have a primitive, extraverted character, to which all the troublesome objective influences this type is subject to must be ascribed.





appendix - psychological types (1923) said:


> Apart from the qualities i have mentioned, the undeveloped functions possess the further peculiarity than that, when the conscious attitude is introverted, they are extraverted and vice versa. One could therefore find extraverted feeling in an introverted intellectual.





http://www.nyaap.org/jung-lexicon/i/#inferiorFunction said:


> The inferior function is always of the same nature, rational or irrational, as the primary function: when thinking is most developed, the other rational function, feeling, is inferior; if sensation is dominant, then intuition, the other irrational function, is the fourth function, and so on.


-> dom function = Ti, inferior = Fe



extraverted type - attitude of the unconscious said:


> A habitus can be called extraverted only when the mechanism of extraversion predominates. In such a case the most highly differentiated function has a constantly extraverted application, while the inferior functions(meaning other 3 than the dominant) are found in the service of introversion, i.e. the more valued function, because the more conscious, is more completely subordinated to conscious control and purpose, whilst the less conscious, in other words, the partly unconscious inferior functions are subjected to conscious free choice in a much smaller degree.
> 
> In the extraverted attitude the inferior functions always reveal a highly subjective determination with pronounced egocentricity and personal bias, thus demonstrating their close connection with the unconscious.


(remember than jung didnt say that Ti and Te are different functions, but T is a function)

-> with extraverted types, inferior is introverted



appendix - psychological typology (1936) said:


> In practice these four types(T S N F) are always combined with attitude-type, that is, with extraversion or introversion, so that the functions appear in an extraverted or introverted variation.


-> functions are either extraverted or introverted. with Te types, T is extraverted and inferior is F in introverted attitude.


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

What you're citing/saying there is what I've been saying all along. Xe and Xi aren't really separate functions. X is the function.
And for the dominant introverted Thinker, all three other functions are extraverted.
Yet, we normally attribute the tertiary as Si, not Se.

This is because, again, Se and Si aren't really separate functions; S is the function. One thing or another in the ego is *orienting* it to either the introverted or extraverted attitude. So we don't say that the INTP has absolutely nothing to do with Se, but only uses Si. It actually defaults to Se, and the Puer Complex orients it into the dominant attitude of Si. It's not any "interplay" between Si with Ne either; it's one function with two possible orientations.

Hence if that is so for S, then it would also figure for F. (And T and N as well). That's where the eight-function model of archetypal complexes comes in.


----------



## Onericali (Jul 29, 2011)

Sorry, I thought this was about sausage, not si usage. Nevermind.


----------



## Naama (Dec 5, 2010)

Eric B said:


> What you're citing there is what I've been saying all along. Xe and Xi aren't really separate functions. X is the function.
> And for the dominant introverted Thinker, all three other functions are extraverted.


yep, but still according to jung, people who are T function type and also is I attitude type, use introverted T, not extraverted T, T = I, N/S/F = E.



> Yet, we normally attribute the tertiary as Si, not Se.


yep, thats how jung put it, in my opinion tert is in the same orientation as dom function.



> This is because, again, Se and Si aren't really separate functions; S is the function. One thing or another in the ego is *orienting* it to either the introverted or extraverted attitude. We don't say that the INTP has absolutely nothing to do with Se, but only uses Si. It actually defaults to Se, and the Puer Comples orients it into the dominant attitude of Si.
> 
> Hence if that is so for S, then it would also figure for F. (And T and N as well). That's where the eight-function model of archetypal complexes comes in.


this all functions in both I and E orientation is beebean function model, not jungian. even tho they arent separate functions, that doesent mean that everyone has all function is both I and E attitude. for introverted type, first function is introverted, other functions are extraverted.

read this:
Lexicon of Jungian Terms | New York Association for Analytical Psychology

concrete functions are the ones that havent been differentiated, they work unconsciously and cannot work on their own, they need another function to work with. that doesent mean that when Ti is working with Fe, that F would turn into abstracting function(introverted movement of libido). thats something that beebe claims to happen with beebean functions.

now again read these:

Lexicon of Jungian Terms | New York Association for Analytical Psychology
(extraverted movement of libido)

Lexicon of Jungian Terms | New York Association for Analytical Psychology
(introverted movement of libido)

seriously theres no point in this, you try to apply beebean functions to this and try to tell me how it happens with beebean functions, i know how it goes in his model of functions and i think its bull shit. he just tries to simplify jungian function theory and it fails, it only seems to work on the surface level. when you dig deeper, either by experiencing it on your own and are capable of analyzing yourself properly or you read jung, you notice that it fails in the end.

you know in jungs model there is function type and attitude type. function type means which functions the type uses and attitude type means whether he is I or E. both EXTJ and IXTP types are T functions types, but EXTJ is T function type and E attitude type, IXTP is T function type, but I attitude type. both these types use T as first function and F as inferior. if the person is also E attitude type, he uses Te as first function and Fi as inferior, and if the person is I attitude type, he uses Ti as first and Fe as inferior function.

read the definitions i linked(and wrote directly from the book 'psychological types') and the link to the 'psychological types - chapter X general description of the types' i posted, i cba to write all of this to you several times. you got all the info right infront of you, if you fail to understand it because you look at this thing through beebean type classes and dont put your mind to it, its not my problem.


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

Naama said:


> yep, but still according to jung, people who are T function type and also is I attitude type, use introverted T, not extraverted T, T = I, N/S/F = E.
> 
> yep, thats how jung put it, in my opinion tert is in the same orientation as dom function.





> you know in jungs model there is function type and attitude type. function type means which functions the type uses and attitude type means whether he is I or E. both EXTJ and IXTP types are T functions types, but EXTJ is T function type and E attitude type, IXTP is T function type, but I attitude type. both these types use T as first function and F as inferior. if the person is also E attitude type, he uses Te as first function and Fi as inferior, and if the person is I attitude type, he uses Ti as first and Fe as inferior function.


But still, you acknowledge the tertiary could be either. The point I'm making with that, is that you can't bind the functions with the attitudes, and claim only ONE attitude of the function can be used by a type.



> this all functions in both I and E orientation is beebean function model, not jungian. even tho they arent separate functions, that doesent mean that everyone has all function is both I and E attitude. for introverted type, first function is introverted, other functions are extraverted.
> 
> read this:
> Lexicon of Jungian Terms | New York Association for Analytical Psychology
> ...


 But again, when Jung talks about functions "working with each other" or differentiating, he's not talking about "T_i_" and "F_e_"; he's talking about T, N, S and F. For the INTP, T is what differentiates, and is oriented inward. N, S and F are undifferentiated, until brought into consciousness by the ego, which places them into one orientation or another according to the structure it has set up.

And actually, this is not just Beebe. 


> now again read these:
> 
> Lexicon of Jungian Terms | New York Association for Analytical Psychology
> (extraverted movement of libido)
> ...


_Abstraction
A form of mental activity by which a conscious content is freed from its association with irrelevant elements

I visualize the process of abstraction as a withdrawal of libido from the object, as a backflow of value from the object into a subjective, abstract content. For me, therefore, abstraction amounts to an energic devaluation of the object. 

Empathy
An introjection of the object, based on the unconscious projection of subjective contents.
Empathy presupposes a subjective attitude of confidence, or trustfulness towards the object. 

The man with the empathetic attitude finds himself . . . in a world that needs his subjective feeling to give it life and soul. He animates it with himself. _

Why would an INTP _never_ withdraw feeling (humane, personal) value from an object? It may be rare (from being an unconscious arrangement), since he tends to withdraw thinking (technical) value from the object. But not impossible.

According to you, he can only withdraw thinking value from the object, and "replicate in his self behaviors, attributes or other fragments of the surrounding world" ("introjection"), and this somehow combines to look like withdrawing feeling value from the object, but it really isn't.

Again, if you separate the acts of abstracting or empathizing from the functions themselves, then it becomes obvious that the ego can switch up which functions are abstracted or empathized. There's no reason why the act of abstracting would have to be bound to thinking (and Sensing) only.



> seriously theres no point in this, you try to apply beebean functions to this and try to tell me how it happens with beebean functions, i know how it goes in his model of functions and i think its bull shit. he just tries to simplify jungian function theory and it fails, it only seems to work on the surface level. when you dig deeper, either by experiencing it on your own and are capable of analyzing yourself properly or you read jung, you notice that it fails in the end.
> 
> read the definitions i linked(and wrote directly from the book 'psychological types') and the link to the 'psychological types - chapter X general description of the types' i posted, i cba to write all of this to you several times. you got all the info right infront of you, if you fail to understand it because you look at this thing through beebean type classes and dont put your mind to it, its not my problem.


 Again, it's not just Beebe. Naomi Quenk mentions the dominant, auxiliary and tertiary in the opposite attitude, also, though very briefly. The older version of the theory didn't mention the other four function-attitudes for each type, not because they believed they didn't exist, but because they did not know much about how they manifested. That was simply part of the shadow, or unconscious.
All Beebe did was add archetypes to them, thus explaining the roles those other functions, as well as clarifying the roles of the first four.

So again; I see no contradiction with the Jung stuff you're linking to. It's just an expansion of his theory, just like MBTI is. It's not that I'm looking at this through Beebe glasses, you've just decided that you don't believe in his theory, and that I guess, it would be simpler to explain everything through four primary function-attitudes.


----------



## Naama (Dec 5, 2010)

Eric B said:


> But still, you acknowledge the tertiary could be either. The point I'm making with that, is that you can't bind the functions with the attitudes, and claim only ONE attitude of the function can be used by a type.


no im not saying that tert could be either, jung says its opposite from dom, but i think its the same.




Eric B said:


> But again, when Jung talks about functions "working with each other" or differentiating, he's not talking about "T_i_" and "F_e_"; he's talking about T, N, S and F. For the INTP, T is what differentiates, and is oriented inward. N, S and F are undifferentiated, until brought into consciousness by the ego, which places them into one orientation or another according to the structure it has set up.
> 
> And actually, this is not just Beebe.


jung says that IT(N)/INTP uses Ti Ne Se Fe. so if his F is working with T, its Fe and Ti.. you clearly misinterpreted the word differentiated since you are using it in totally wrong way, functions working with each other isnt differentiating, read it again.




Eric B said:


> _Abstraction
> A form of mental activity by which a conscious content is freed from its association with irrelevant elements
> 
> I visualize the process of abstraction as a withdrawal of libido from the object, as a backflow of value from the object into a subjective, abstract content. For me, therefore, abstraction amounts to an energic devaluation of the object. _


_




Jung related abstraction to introversion (analogous to empathy and extraversion).

Click to expand...




Eric B said:



Empathy
An introjection of the object, based on the unconscious projection of subjective contents.
Empathy presupposes a subjective attitude of confidence, or trustfulness towards the object. 

The man with the empathetic attitude finds himself . . . in a world that needs his subjective feeling to give it life and soul. He animates it with himself.

Click to expand...

_


> In contrast to abstraction, associated with introversion, empathy corresponds to the attitude of extraversion.


looks like you left the most important part out intentionally, or you didnt even read the whole thing.




Eric B said:


> Why would an INTP _never_ withdraw feeling (humane, personal) value from an object? It may be rare (from being an unconscious arrangement), since he tends to withdraw thinking (technical) value from the object. But not impossible.


ofc INTP can do that, but he does it with Ti. like i have been telling you all along, its Ti working with Fe, Fe sees the value, Ti abstracts the values away that doesent compute. but again this happens with INTPs who havent differentiated their Fe




Eric B said:


> According to you, he can only withdraw thinking value from the object, and "replicate in his self behaviors, attributes or other fragments of the surrounding world" ("introjection"), and this somehow combines to look like withdrawing feeling value from the object, but it really isn't.


you are looking at this with beebean function goggles. thinking = "what is it?", its not a value. and this abstractiong isnt about withdrawing thinking value of anything. its taking out what doesent make sense to this "what is it?" or is seen as irrelevant after asking that. 



> Introjection is a process of extraversion, since assimilation to the object requires empathy and an investment of the object with libido.


from your quote it seems that you think introjection = form of introversion.

this is exactly where the problem with this Ti + Fe problem. Fe tries to put in to the object unconsciously, Ti tries to take out of it. if the instinct from Fe is strong enough, Fe will try to put into the object again and again every time after Ti takes away from it. this creates tension between the opposites and going back and forth between them(transcendent function), and you need a reconciling third to sort this stuff out. in INTPs case its S(jung says Se, i say Si), INTP needs to consciously understand "what is", and not just follow instincts coming from S.




Eric B said:


> Again, if you separate the acts of abstracting or empathizing from the functions themselves, then it becomes obvious that the ego can switch up which functions are abstracted or empathized. There's no reason why the act of abstracting would have to be bound to thinking (and Sensing) only.


how did you come up with this? you just say that something is obvious and dont say why or how..




Eric B said:


> Again, it's not just Beebe. Naomi Quenk mentions the dominant, auxiliary and tertiary in the opposite attitude, also, though very briefly. The older version of the theory didn't mention the other four function-attitudes for each type, not because they believed they didn't exist, but because they did not know much about how they manifested. That was simply part of the shadow, or unconscious.
> All Beebe did was add archetypes to them, thus explaining the roles those other functions, as well as clarifying the roles of the first four.


so?




Eric B said:


> So again; I see no contradiction with the Jung stuff you're linking to. It's just an expansion of his theory, just like MBTI is. It's not that I'm looking at this through Beebe glasses, you've just decided that you don't believe in his theory, and that I guess, it would be simpler to explain everything through four primary function-attitudes.


no they arent expansions, they are simplifying jungs work. on beebes demon function thing, he is simplifying this whole differentiation/concrete function/transcendent function/etc by just saying that the orientation changes. MBTI does even worse job, it basically removes the core of jungs work and just offers type descriptions. like myer herself said, she wanted to make jungs work more easily understandable to regular people, because jungs work was too hard for majority of people to understand and needs alot of looking into.

seriously there no point of this, you just simply arent able to get this, because you dont put your mind to really understand jungs theory, you just look it through beebe goggles and see what fits to beebes theory. it should be obvious from Ti/Ne point of view that you are doing this wrong way around. beebes work comes from jungs work, so you need to look at beebes work from jungs point of view, not the other way around. its like trying to figure out where tennis ball came from by looking at where it ended and disregarding where the racket was..


----------

