# What the hell are shadow functions?



## Arieh Max Sacke (Oct 17, 2013)

Hi. I am an ENTJ. Apparently my devilish role is Fe. What the hell does this mean. How can Fe come out when I am stressed. Please help.


----------



## Psychopomp (Oct 3, 2012)

If you ask me personally, shadow functions are a way to explain any behavior that appears anomalous to someone's functions - or that might otherwise prove that they aren't what type they think they are. Aka, they don't exist. You can shove a triangle into a circular hole by calling it's three corners 'shadows'.

At least for myself, I have never once used any function but the four that I possess. Your 'devil' function would presumably be your inferior: Fi - assuming you are an ENTJ.


----------



## OldManRivers (Mar 22, 2012)

arkigos said:


> If you ask me personally, shadow functions are a way to explain any behavior that appears anomalous to someone's functions - or that might otherwise prove that they aren't what type they think they are. Aka, they don't exist. You can shove a triangle into a circular hole by calling it's three corners 'shadows'.
> 
> At least for myself, I have never once used any function but the four that I possess. Your 'devil' function would presumably be your inferior: Fi - assuming you are an ENTJ.


That is a very good analogy - a circle with shadow vertices. 
I also want to tell you I find your Avatar profound - the symbolically equating the toppling of Hussein's statue with Shelley's "Ozymandias."


----------



## Polythene Pam (Oct 30, 2013)

I'm newly interested in shadow functions too. I was reading about them at wordpress.com (apparently I don't have enough posts to include a link) this weekend, and found it kind of mysterious lol.

I've recently connected to an INFJ though who I've felt that kind of shadow support from I think. Like there's a little bit of us in each other, and we help balance it out or something.

Interested to read what y'all have to say on the topic.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

Seems as though you are referring to Beebe's model. 

The Demon is thought to manifest in a particularly destructive manner. 



> ExTJ's Social harmony might be manipulated for personal goals, rather than shaping one's own behavior.





> ExTJ's Others are socially destructive, and are out to get me; I'm doing SO much for others, and not appreciated.





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


Taken from this thread 

http://personalitycafe.com/cognitiv...volving-eight-functions-type-beebe-model.html

Alternatively, inferior Fi is more likely to affect your behaviour when under stress. Quenk wrote of the manifestations of inferior functions in her book, 'Was That Really Me?'. A discussion on her views of ENTJ's and Fi can be found here

http://personalitycafe.com/entj-articles/95932-form-inferior-function-fi.html


----------



## S33K3RZ (Oct 18, 2014)

See: The 16 Type Patterns


----------



## KraChZiMan (Mar 23, 2013)

Arieh Max Sacke said:


> Hi. I am an ENTJ. Apparently my devilish role is Fe. What the hell does this mean. How can Fe come out when I am stressed. Please help.


According to socionics, shadow functions are the kind of functions that you ignore as much as possible, and describe the weaknesses of your personality. This is different from dual functions (for the case of ENTJ, it's Se and Fi), which are the functions that describe the kind of weaknesses that you actually benefit from if you put conscious effort in developing yourself. If not, natural response is to lash out and heavily criticise anyone representing the dual functions, claiming they are weak or imperfect in some way.

Shadow functions are different, in a way that you can not benefit from developing yourself in accordance to (for your example, Fe/Si) shadow function approach. It helps you only to understand these functions enough so you can grow to become more tolerant towards people who are strong in functions that are your shadow functions, though.

Shadow functions are interesting to check out, since they describe the absolute weakest aspects of your personality. For example, as an INFP, my place of least resistance is Extroverted Sensing, which describes why I the idea of taking the initiative in uncomfortable situations makes me very insecure, which describes why I often feel physically sick in intense environments (loud music, bright strobelights, many people in small room dancing or speaking at the same time etc.), which describes why I find it easier to ignore than to confront etc. 

It doesn't mean that I am absolutely unable to participate in Se-environments and Se-related situations, it just means it ellicts a strong response in me to label it as hostile, and is rather exhausting to participate in. 

Same analogy applies on ENTJ's, and Fe, as being this type's place of least resistance. Check out more on Fe and find out yourself what applies on you


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

KraChZiMan said:


> Same analogy applies on ENTJ's, and Fe, as being this type's place of least resistance. Check out more on Fe and find out yourself what applies on you


ENTJs' POLR is Si, not Fe. Fe is their role.

Your view appears to be that we can't consciously or deliberately grow or develop our shadow functions, only become more aware of them to achieve a better understanding of them in others and in ourselves. Was this Jung's view, too? What did he mean by personal growth wrt shadow functions?


----------



## KraChZiMan (Mar 23, 2013)

ae1905 said:


> ENTJs' POLR is Si, not Fe. Fe is their role.
> 
> Your view appears to be that we can't consciously or deliberately grow or develop our shadow functions, only become more aware of them to achieve a better understanding of them in others and in ourselves. Was this Jung's view, too? What did he mean by personal growth wrt shadow functions?


Yup, it's Si, my mistake.

This is the official view of Socionics, very widely accepted in the community. Socionics is the theory that has same basis as MBTI, the works of Jung, so it is natural to assume that this is a correct statement.

When I've read about the topic, everything has confirmed the idea that dual functions are meant to recognize and strive for, and shadow functions, on the other hand, are meant to recognize and tolerate. Failure to accept and tolerate your shadow functions means failure to achieve any meaningful success in society. For example, I remember that I became so much more aware when I first realized that Se does not have hostile intentions, it's just that Se is different way to achieve goals and solve problems.


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

KraChZiMan said:


> Yup, it's Si, my mistake.
> 
> This is the official view of Socionics, very widely accepted in the community. Socionics is the theory that has same basis as MBTI, the works of Jung, so it is natural to assume that this is a correct statement.
> 
> When I've read about the topic, everything has confirmed the idea that dual functions are meant to recognize and strive for, and shadow functions, on the other hand, are meant to recognize and tolerate. Failure to accept and tolerate your shadow functions means failure to achieve any meaningful success in society. For example, I remember that I became so much more aware when I first realized that Se does not have hostile intentions, it's just that Se is different way to achieve goals and solve problems.


What did Jung say about confronting your shadow by engaging people of that type or who have those functions? Is that the way he believed we become aware and more tolerant of our shadow functions?


----------



## KraChZiMan (Mar 23, 2013)

ae1905 said:


> What did Jung say about confronting your shadow by engaging people of that type or who have those functions? Is that the way he believed we become aware and more tolerant of our shadow functions?


I don't actually believe Jung has said much about shadow functions at all, that was an idea that Aušra Augustinavičiūtė, the founder of Socionics developed further and borrowed from Sigmund Freud. That's because Freud created the idea that people have Id, Super-Id, Ego and Super-Ego blocks governing their psyche. This is explained further in here: Id, ego and super-ego - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

KraChZiMan said:


> I don't actually believe Jung has said much about shadow functions at all, that was an idea that Aušra Augustinavičiūtė, the founder of Socionics developed further and borrowed from Sigmund Freud. That's because Freud created the idea that people have Id, Super-Id, Ego and Super-Ego blocks governing their psyche. This is explained further in here: Id, ego and super-ego - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


You mean he didn't speak of shadow functions, per se? But I thought Jung talked about the shadow and identified it with the subconscious and explained it partly in terms of his idea of archetypes or the collective unconscious? Wasn't the "shadow" his idea?


----------



## KraChZiMan (Mar 23, 2013)

ae1905 said:


> You mean he didn't speak of shadow functions, per se? But I thought Jung talked about the shadow and identified it with the subconscious and explained it partly in terms of his idea of archetypes or the collective unconscious? Wasn't the "shadow" his idea?


I don't know, can you quote on me with this? I haven't done any extensive research on Jung besides reading up few publications directly written by Jung, so I can only assume that Jung implied something about shadow functions, but the main idea of blocks was indeed Freud's. 

It's kind of logical to assume that if any theories that use the idea of shadow functions do not want to quote Jung on these parts, it means that the main idea of shadow functions has probably come from some other source (like Freud).


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

John Beebe’s definition of the 8th function-attitude is


> Demon/Daemon: if the Spirit lifts us up into the best that we can be, the Demon is what drives us down into our very worst. The Spirit represents our positive motivation, what we are hoping to attain, then the Demon is our negative motivation, what we are ultimately running away from or fighting against. We tend to avoid this function like the plague, as it represents everything that haunts us about ourselves. At the same time though, the Demon is also the “Daemon,” a word in classical mythology to indicate certain spirit-guides, and so this archetype can also be seen as one’s “soul” (in a more archaic, non-Judeo-Christian sense). If we can utilize this last function positively instead of negatively, it can ultimately be our “salvation.


But that is not a function-attitude that we should ever really be worried about since in all tense-and-purposes as long as you are using your natural state of attitude (extraverson for an ENTJ type), the extraverted thinking will never allow the Fe to be used because you cannot extravert or introvert 2 functions simultaneously or at the same level. One must dominate. As Carl Jung says:


> The products of all the functions can be conscious, but we speak of the consciousness of a function only when not merely its application is at the disposal of the will, but when at the same time its principle is decisive for the orientation of consciousness. The latter event is true when, for instance, thinking is not a mere esprit de l'escalier, or rumination, but when its decisions possess an absolute validity, so that the logical conclusion in a given case holds good, whether as motive or as guarantee of practical action, without the backing of any further evidence. This absolute sovereignty always belongs, empirically, to one function alone, and can belong only to one function, since the equally independent intervention of another function would necessarily yield a different orientation, which would at least partially contradict the first. But, since it is a vital condition for the conscious adaptation-process that constantly clear and unambiguous aims should be in evidence, the presence of a second function of equivalent power is naturally forbidden' This other function, therefore, can have only a secondary importance, a fact which is also established empirically. Its secondary importance consists in the fact that, in a given case, it is not valid in its own right, as is the primary function, as an absolutely reliable and decisive factor, but comes into play more as an auxiliary or complementary function. Naturally only those functions can appear as auxiliary whose nature is not opposed to the leading function. For instance, feeling can never act as the second function by the side of thinking, because its nature stands in too strong a contrast to thinking. Thinking, if it is to be real thinking and true to its own principle, must scrupulously exclude feeling. This, of course, does not exclude the fact that individuals certainly exist in whom thinking and feeling stand upon the same level, whereby both have equal motive power in con~sdousness. But, in such a case, there is also no question of a differentiated type, but merely of a relatively undeveloped thinking and feeling. Uniform consciousness and unconsciousness of functions is, therefore, a distinguishing mark of a primitive mentality.


What an ENTJ type should always be concerned about is the misuse of Ti. As Jung states, we have the ability to use all 8 function-attitudes. The first 4 are what we use to assist our dominant function-attitude. In the case of an ENTJ type, that would be Te-Ni-Se-Fi. The other 4 function attitudes are all considered shadows. In this case it would be Ti-Ne-Si-Fe or what wold be considered the INTP type. John Beebe describes the 5th function-attitude as:


> Opposing Personality, or perhaps better called the “Enemy” or the “Villain”: if the Hero is the protagonist, promoter of the “Good, then the Enemy is the antagonist who directly fights against the Hero’s goal, but in a way that the Hero readily recognizes (otherwise it wouldn’t be direct). While we sometimes use this function to antagonize others, we often find we end up inadvertently working against ourselves, or else we project this role onto others who are consciously using the same function. We see them as directly working against us, whether or not they actually are.


Louise Von Franz indicated that although the Te is considered the compensatory opposite of Fi, the true opposite for Fi is Fe. The same principle stands for Te. Carl Jung described the shadow usage this way for Te and Ti:


> When the objective orientation receives a certain predominance, the thinking is extraverted. This circumstance changes nothing as regards the logic of thought -- it merely determines that difference between thinkers which James regards as a matter of temperament. The orientation towards the object makes no essential change in the thinking function; only its appearance is altered. Since it is governed by objective data, it has the appearance of being captivated by the object, as though without the external orientation it simply could not exist. Almost it seems as though it were a sequence of external facts, or as though it could reach its highest point only when chiming in with some generally valid idea. It seems constantly to be affected by objective data, drawing only those conclusions which substantially agree with these. Thus it gives one the impression of a certain lack of freedom, of occasional short-sightedness, in spite of every kind of adroitness within the objectively circumscribed area. What I am now describing is merely the impression this sort of thinking makes upon the observer, who must himself already have a different standpoint, or it would be quite impossible for him to observe the phenomenon of extraverted thinking. As a result of his different standpoint he merely sees its aspect, not its nature; whereas the man who himself possesses this type of thinking is able to seize its nature, while its aspect escapes him. judgment made upon appearance only cannot be fair to the essence of the thing-hence the result is depreciatory. But essentially this thinking is no less fruitful and creative than introverted thinking, only its powers are in the service of other ends. This difference is perceived most clearly when extraverted thinking is engaged upon material, which is specifically an object of the subjectively orientated thinking. This happens, for instance, when a subjective conviction is interpreted analytically from objective facts or is regarded as a product or derivative of objective ideas. But, for our 'scientifically' orientated consciousness, the difference between the two modes of thinking becomes still more obvious when the subjectively orientated thinking makes an attempt to bring objective data into connections not objectively given, i.e. to subordinate them to a subjective idea. Either senses the other as an encroachment, and hence a sort of shadow effect is produced, wherein either type reveals to the other its least favorable aspect, The subjectively orientated thinking then appears quite arbitrary, while the extraverted thinking seems to have an incommensurability that is altogether dull and banal. Thus the two standpoints are incessantly at war.


Sorry for the long post.


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

KraChZiMan said:


> I don't know, can you quote on me with this? I haven't done any extensive research on Jung besides reading up few publications directly written by Jung, so I can only assume that Jung implied something about shadow functions, but the main idea of blocks was indeed Freud's.
> 
> It's kind of logical to assume that if any theories that use the idea of shadow functions do not want to quote Jung on these parts, it means that the main idea of shadow functions has probably come from some other source (like Freud).


But then they would quote Freud and MBTI doesn't do that. Did Freud identify cognitive functions or was that Jung's idea? My understanding is that it was Jung's. He thought Freud didn't account for the different personalities of his patients when evaluating their progress in treatment and postulated his idea of cognitive functions and personality as a corrective to be used by analysts in their work. Jung also inherited Freud's idea of the unconscious but extended it beyond Freud's _personal _unconscious to his own idea of the _collective _unconscious. I'm pretty sure he also referred to the unconscious as the _shadow_. I don't know if he talked about shadow functions, per se. He did talk about each cogntive function--and he is often quoted here--but I got the impression he described them in their conscious forms.

Since you have an opinion about shadow functions and their importance in personal growth, do you think a good way to develop a tolerance of your shadow functions is to engage people who use them? If so, what kinds of relationships do you suggest? Do you, for example, think intimate relationships between shadow types is a good idea?


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

Arieh Max Sacke said:


> Hi. I am an ENTJ. Apparently my devilish role is Fe. What the hell does this mean. How can Fe come out when I am stressed. Please help.


You may be unconscious of how you are appearing to others, but observers may have an idea that you are having what Naomi Quenck calls an "In the Grip" moment. I had the misfortune of recently having to deal with someone who has typed themselves as ESTJ. An obvious clue that wreaks of a lack of integrity is when a dominant Te type starts seeking consensus to their arguments. 

ENTJ/ESTJs are judges, arbiters, and natural leaders. They usually feel comfortable having to make hard decisions that may not coincide with popular beliefs. But in the end their decisions are sound based on law, policy, etc. Fe types don't consider the law, but values and morals of the group. When you notice ETJ types gathering a consensus to back their decisions, you intuitively know there is something wrong which generally means there is a hidden agenda. At that point they are making an ill attempt to use Fe.


----------

