Why is INFJ the rarest type?

[John K]

I appreciate your thoughts and input. I suppose this is where the disconnect is, as I utilize my own "system" in typology based in Jungian archetypes/totems, Freud's original works, Jung's psychological perspective (including those of the influence of chakras as one example), components of MBTI, 4 sides theory, and Cognitive Type. I suppose I should note this in my responses, so as not to confuse the concepts. As I've gotten older, I've refined my own internal framework of typological systems in order to arrive at a congruent and accurate representation of an individual as a whole. While, I am constantly refining this process as new information is introduced, dismantling what was once my framework and then rebuilding it to include that which is understood as logically correct, I arrive at an ideological idea that is similar, but not exact. Perhaps, this is the trouble with Ti, in that I don't much care about the systems themselves. I only care about that which works and is accurate according to experience and observation. If it fits my internal framework, then it is analyzed, dismantled, and that which is deemed 'accurate' is kept, and that which doesn't fit is discarded.

I find that conflict occurs when someone who prefers Te sees it as an inefficient process, or perhaps even a bastardization of the original systems which appeared 'fine' to begin with. I should be more clear moving forward. I am working from my own internal framework and understanding of Jungian theory, in conjunction with my own.

That sounds like an impressive way to appoach things psychological, Anomaly. Sorry if we are running off with your thinking in the wrong direction. The trouble is that there are lots of ways the same core terms and conceptualisations get used, and they can mean different things in different variants of typology. It's quite hard to deal with this without writing an explanatory essay in the posts, which then become top heavy . Just clarify if we infer something different to what you intended, or pick it up in the wrong context - there are several of us here who are fascinated with psychology in its different forms and have our own preferred models, and will post extensively when exploring them lol.

 

[Anomaly]

Probably meaningful coincidence lol.


Absolutely!! My parking is an inferior Se-fest, and God help any lamppost on the sidewalk that gets too close . Thank goodness for reversing cameras! I did get one that crept up in the camera's blind spot a couple of years ago though .....


Take care Anomaly, and good night - it's now just coming up to 9am here in the UK, so the day is just getting going for me.

Meaningful coincidence, indeed. Also, your parking story made me laugh.

 

[Anomaly]

That sounds like an impressive way to appoach things psychological, Anomaly. Sorry if we are running off with your thinking in the wrong direction. The trouble is that there are lots of ways the same core terms and conceptualisations get used, and they can mean different things in different variants of typology. It's quite hard to deal with this without writing an explanatory essay in the posts, which then become top heavy . Just clarify if we infer something different to what you intended, or pick it up in the wrong context - there are several of us here who are fascinated with psychology in its different forms and have our own preferred models, and will post extensively when exploring them lol.

I appreciate this. Thank you for your understanding.

 

[Anomaly]

The problem with too differentiated an interpretation of the shadow is that it ends up sounding not like a manifestation of the unconscious, but like an alternate conscious self which one might (with effort) be able to 'transition' into.

I think a simple argument can be offered to show that this is impossible. By definition, the unconscious is outside the grasp of the conscious. Sure, you can deliberately knock yourself unconscious, so to speak; or you can consciously put yourself in a situation that is so stressful that you will be likely to act without conscious intent part of the time. But this is more like deliberately manipulating your external environment, which, in turn, will cause the emergence of the unconscious mode. You cannot consciously make yourself act unconsciously. An Ni-dom who pretends to be able to consciously transition from Ni to Ne is just consciously using Ne, not transitioning from conscious Ni to unconscious Ne. In theory, they should not be able to sustain conscious Ne usage for extended periods of time. They will simply go back to conscious Ni, with its unconscious Ne correlate.

"Fi critical parent", "Si demon", etc... Are those concepts that Jung himself developed? My problem with it is that unconscious content is largely not individuated, whereas to create a precise hierarchy of relations between nemesis, critical parent, demon and so on, implies a fairly large degree of individuation, which again is paradoxical and points to an alternate conscious self rather than an unconscious self.

Unless these names are just designed to emphasise the negativity/pessimism inherent in the shadow mode, as a method to confirm that we are 'in the presence' of the shadow (as in Peterson). This raises an interesting question, though: are we okay with the idea that the unconscious is inherently negative/pessimistic, or are we willing to confront the legacy of psychoanalysis?

PS. I'm a bit of a philosopher, so I tend to see problems everywhere. Don't mind me.

Somehow I forgot to reply to this altogether, I apologize Ren. I can see what you mean by your first statement; however, I wasn't meaning that one might transition and stay in that state indefinitely, but shift back and forth in access to it unconsciously without effort, so yes, going from conscious Ni to unconscious Ne subsequently (or vice versa).

Jung held to archetypical totems. I believe Man and His symbols notes these totems and his approach. In it he discusses the archetypes which have been prevalent in human nature/history since the dawn of human kind (hero, anti-hero, etc). I could be mistaken, on the particular text I read it in as I've studied a few.

So, if I am to understand your viewpoint, are you of the mind that the ego is merely comprised of a grouping of functions wherein preference is not of consequence? Thus, the same ideal could be applied to the unconscious in that the alternate functions are merely accessible in a grouping as well? I have seen clear indication that this isn't the case in human behavior, as preferences seem to be prevalent, and putting an archetypical 'role' for each function due to preference fits as well. Maybe you have another line of thinking, and have observed it to be accurate, and if so, I'd love to hear your own thoughts on it. Yes, the names are also to signify the negative attribution towards those functions while in the shadow. Also, many teachings apart from Jung's speak about confronting the unconscious, staring into the shadow and doing 'shadow work'. All of which Jung studied, and all of which influenced Jung's works.

Jung demonstrated that there was indeed an unconscious, and he spoke often of the shadow (especially later in his works). As far as I know his inclination was towards the negative attributes of those functions when speaking towards the shadow (in the same vein of similar ideological beliefs of the Eastern belief systems which speak on negative energies/affiliations of the psyche). He ascribed to many of those ideologies, researching them, and they influenced his works. Freud was another influence, in conjunction with those ideologies he confronted in Eastern culture. He brought them over to the West after his studies.

 

[Anomaly]

I too think these concepts are over-differentiated in a lot of the ways that people have developed MBTI, and they simply don't exist as distinct functions but more as colourations on our behaviour. Something that does confuse though is that people often manifest their less preferred functions without realising it and others can pick up on this and assume we are conscious of them when we are not. I think this is a particular issue for sensitive intuitives who often see into others' shadows and react to the hidden drives and motives that they perceive there - but which, unacknowledged by the intuitive, the poor victim is actually unaware of, or only partially aware of. A problem is that it seems to be much easier for an intuitive to see what's in there than it is for them to see the boundary between ego and shadow. We seem to be much better at seeing the boundary between persona and ego, but less so between ego and shadow, probably because it gets clouded with our own value judgements and shadow attitudes.

I guess this could be explored by avoiding the usual judgmental attitude towards the shadow, and consider it to contain whatever we have rejected about our personality. This is much more neutral in terms of value judgement, and can encompass good, bad or indifferent attitudes. An extreme example - it could well be that the shadow of an evil tyrant is akin to a saint.

This is fair, and I think you are correct that the boundaries are less evident to intuitives as we see past the surface to what is hidden. Perhaps, also, because the negative attitudes of those shadow functions seem more recognizable than the more positive aspects of them being used in conjunction with the ego (as in your example of driving). Again, I am merely extrapolating that which I've already deemed accurate by observing people, so I am open to being wrong, but somehow I don't think that I am (haha Ti stubbornness ;p).

 

[Anomaly]

That is, the 'inferior' functions of types are supposed to be understood as the binary polar 'shadow functions' of one's dominant function. If a function is dominant, its polar opposite is necessarily suppressed, and thus becomes the key to unlocking the 'shadow'. In the case of INxJs, this polarity lies on the Ni-Se axis - Ni is embraced, Se suppressed and typically regarded as something loathesome. The 'shadow personality' of a typical INFJ, therefore, would be a dominant Se user if we're attempting to translate Jung's usage rather than, say, create something different.

You should be able to recognise the 'truth' here by reflecting on the fact that 'Ne' is not regarded with the same level of distaste as is 'Se'; that is, 'Ne' is simply not part of the 'shadow' of INFJs; it is not an insecurity, it is not typically powering projections. In fact Ne users are most often viewed as allies by INxJs. 'Se', on the other hand, generates feelings of revulsion and otherness, as it would, being suppressed by Ni.

I missed an entire set of replies that I meant to respond to, so I suppose an apology is warranted here as well. I've written back a bit and clarified that I'm not only speaking about Jungian theory, but also my own internal framework and understanding of the functions and my interpretations of the shadow. I arrived at this framework, not only in observing human behavior, but also in drawing knowledge from the parts of systems and theories which I deem accurate (after much dismantling and analysis prior). All this to say, I apologize again if I wasn't clear on that point.

Even Jung noted that there is a darkness in each of us that exists, and in later works refers to it as 'the shadow'.
Here is a quote about facing the shadow from Jung himself: “Knowing your darkness is the best method for dealing with the darkness of other people.”
Another quote of his, “The shadow is a moral problem that challenge the whole ego-personality, for no one can become conscious of the shadow without considerable moral effort. To become conscious of it involves recognizing the dark aspects of the personality as present and real. This act is the essential condition for any kind of self-knowledge."

To address the above that were in your statements, while yes, INFJs use Ne in an unconscious way, and while you have a point in that they respect it and are intrigued by it, it is also a part of our nature that comes out in immense frustration, anger or stress. Ne is often negative for INFJs, not only Se as you've mentioned. I keep saying, 'the INFJ, an INFJ' merely because to say we or I is strange in this context.

I will outline a few scenarios where this is the case: If someone challenges or violates the Ni of an INFJ, they may become paranoid about other's intentions towards them, imagining that others are conspiring against them, are working against their plans/goals/vision, are 'out to get them'. INFJs can also become annoyed when someone refuses to listen to their Ni vision, choosing instead to pursue alternate possibilities (even though the INFJ has predicted similar outcomes again and again and watched the other person continue to choose an alternate path than the Ni path the INFJ has pointed them towards). Due to Ne nemesis (the anti-hero if you will), the INFJ can become overwhelmed with too many possibilities making them doubt their Ni vision. This can also lead to frustration with those who present far too many ideas (and the INFJ says something like, "Will you just get to the point? Can you just please be more concise? Please stick to the topic instead of going off on tangents"). This frustration is Ne nemesis coming out. Ironically, INFJs can become equally frustrated when others are unwilling to be flexible to understanding or accepting multiple viewpoints/perspectives/possibilities. They can get annoyed by those who are unwilling to change or modify their beliefs in light of being shown new or alternate possibilities, so in this they can become a bit hypocritical.

I don't mean to say that Ne ('nemesis' or 'anti-hero') is always coming to the surface during stress or anger, but this is more often the case than not. In those cases when it isn't, it is when the INFJ is thoroughly enjoying the many possibilities and notions of an Ne hero, or brainstorming with them. The anger comes out when that same Ne hero refuses to settle on one path.

I truly hope this makes more sense now that I've outlined my viewpoints on the subject. Again, these aren't completely Jungian, but only stem from Jungian theory moving towards my own internal framework. This is my sad attempt at trying to explain what I've come to utilize as my own system of recognizing these behaviors in others.

 

[Deleted member 16771]

I missed an entire set of replies that I meant to respond to, so I suppose an apology is warranted here as well. I've written back a bit and clarified that I'm not only speaking about Jungian theory, but also my own internal framework and understanding of the functions and my interpretations of the shadow. I arrived at this framework, not only in observing human behavior, but also in drawing knowledge from the parts of systems and theories which I deem accurate (after much dismantling and analysis prior). All this to say, I apologize again if I wasn't clear on that point.

Even Jung noted that there is a darkness in each of us that exists, and in later works refers to it as 'the shadow'.
Here is a quote about facing the shadow from Jung himself: “Knowing your darkness is the best method for dealing with the darkness of other people.”
Another quote of his, “The shadow is a moral problem that challenge the whole ego-personality, for no one can become conscious of the shadow without considerable moral effort. To become conscious of it involves recognizing the dark aspects of the personality as present and real. This act is the essential condition for any kind of self-knowledge."

To address the above that were in your statements, while yes, INFJs use Ne in an unconscious way, and while you have a point in that they respect it and are intrigued by it, it is also a part of our nature that comes out in immense frustration, anger or stress. Ne is often negative for INFJs, not only Se as you've mentioned. I keep saying, 'the INFJ, an INFJ' merely because to say we or I is strange in this context.

I will outline a few scenarios where this is the case: If someone challenges or violates the Ni of an INFJ, they may become paranoid about other's intentions towards them, imagining that others are conspiring against them, are working against their plans/goals/vision, are 'out to get them'. INFJs can also become annoyed when someone refuses to listen to their Ni vision, choosing instead to pursue alternate possibilities (even though the INFJ has predicted similar outcomes again and again and watched the other person continue to choose an alternate path than the Ni path the INFJ has pointed them towards). Due to Ne nemesis (the anti-hero if you will), the INFJ can become overwhelmed with too many possibilities making them doubt their Ni vision. This can also lead to frustration with those who present far too many ideas (and the INFJ says something like, "Will you just get to the point? Can you just please be more concise? Please stick to the topic instead of going off on tangents"). This frustration is Ne nemesis coming out. Ironically, INFJs can become equally frustrated when others are unwilling to be flexible to understanding or accepting multiple viewpoints/perspectives/possibilities. They can get annoyed by those who are unwilling to change or modify their beliefs in light of being shown new or alternate possibilities, so in this they can become a bit hypocritical.

I don't mean to say that Ne ('nemesis' or 'anti-hero') is always coming to the surface during stress or anger, but this is more often the case than not. In those cases when it isn't, it is when the INFJ is thoroughly enjoying the many possibilities and notions of an Ne hero, or brainstorming with them. The anger comes out when that same Ne hero refuses to settle on one path.

I truly hope this makes more sense now that I've outlined my viewpoints on the subject. Again, these aren't completely Jungian, but only stem from Jungian theory moving towards my own internal framework. This is my sad attempt at trying to explain what I've come to utilize as my own system of recognizing these behaviors in others.

I see, thank you for explaining.

 

[Anomaly]

I see, thank you for explaining.

Thank you for reading through all of it.

 

[Ren]

So, if I am to understand your viewpoint, are you of the mind that the ego is merely comprised of a grouping of functions wherein preference is not of consequence? Thus, the same ideal could be applied to the unconscious in that the alternate functions are merely accessible in a grouping as well? I have seen clear indication that this isn't the case in human behavior, as preferences seem to be prevalent, and putting an archetypical 'role' for each function due to preference fits as well.

I have to confess that I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Could you explain again, maybe using an example?

Yes, the names are also to signify the negative attribution towards those functions while in the shadow. Also, many teachings apart from Jung's speak about confronting the unconscious, staring into the shadow and doing 'shadow work'. All of which Jung studied, and all of which influenced Jung's works.

I of course accept that there is an unconscious. Let's say that I am a little cautious when it comes to characterising the nature of the unconscious, partly because there is no direct (i.e. conscious) access to raw unconscious states. So I'm not really disagreeing with you here, just being (respectfully) critical of Jung.

So usually when I discuss the unconscious, including in my videos, I tend to focus on the undifferentiation aspect. I also have some philosophical writings on the unconscious you may find interesting. I'll try to dig them up.

 

[Anomaly]

I have to confess that I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Could you explain again, maybe using an example?

Hm.. well, originally we had discussed that I was utilizing 'names' for functions in preferential usage depending on the individual and their "type". However, I took your question as being a negation of those archetypes existing at all. Jung was the originator of these theories in the Western world. He was the first to apply these 'archetypes' to cognitive processes (at the time merely noting differentiation between extraversion/introversion, judging/perceiving); however further developing his theories as he included what he studied in the East. Jung noted that people differ in the conscious use they make of the four functions. He also noted that in any individual, one of these functions is superior and is therefore more highly developed than other functions, since greater use is made of it, but each attitude operates in relation to the introversion or extraversion of the person, as well as in conjunction with other less dominant functions.

So, in this alone, there exists a hierarchy of functions within the theory, and in observation of human behavior, but not just in the ego, in the shadow or 'personal unconscious' as well. Jung called these 'functional archetypes' as 'complexes' in some of his works. Jung believed that the complexes have their roots in the collective unconscious and are colored with archetypal contents (as noted throughout human history/origin stories/mythology/literary themes, i.e.: the father, the mother, the child, the hero, the anti-hero). However, unlike Freud, Jung saw the personal unconscious (as well as these 'complexes'/archetypes), as having potential for future development. While, the archetypes were thought to be biological and innate as a part of a collective conscious, Jung also noted that they were a part of the personal conscious and unconscious. So, with this in mind, how then can one develop the unconscious? Jung stated that the only way is through the experience of and facing of conflict and life's problems. When unconscious contents/complexes/functions break through into consciousness it can lead to increased development in the individual, thus 'shadow-work' is made possible. This is what Jung meant about staring into the darkness of the self.

For example: If someone is an INFJ, then they would have Ne, Fi, Te, Si in their shadow, for these contents of the personal unconscious/shadow are foreign to us, apart from the conscious/ego. These complexes are determined by experience, but also by our way of reacting to that experience. A complex is in the main unconscious and has a tendency to behave autonomously so that the individual may feel that his/her behavior is out of his control. Someone behaving out of the unconscious might say something like, "I have no idea why I acted that way. I don't know what came over me." The key is that the shadow is a source of an individual's shame.

So, the reason why I ascribe to hierarchies within these 'functional archetypes' is because if they are present in the ego, then they must be present in the shadow. Also, each function or complex displays in behavior in differing ways, hence why we have different types and not everyone reacts similarly to particular experiences, stress, or negative stimuli. The shame for an INFJ is not similar to the shame for an ENTP. Why? Because their source of shame does not stem from the same shadow.

I of course accept that there is an unconscious. Let's say that I am a little cautious when it comes to characterising the nature of the unconscious, partly because there is no direct (i.e. conscious) access to raw unconscious states. So I'm not really disagreeing with you here, just being (respectfully) critical of Jung.

So usually when I discuss the unconscious, including in my videos, I tend to focus on the undifferentiation aspect. I also have some philosophical writings on the unconscious you may find interesting. I'll try to dig them up.

I see. I will gladly accept whatever you care to share with me. Thank you.

 

[o2b]

The key is that the shadow is a source of an individual's shame.

Man, to me, this is bigtime profound.

I must investigate this.

 

[o2b]

Man, to me, this is bigtime profound.

I must investigate this.

Come to think of it, is it THE source or are there other sources?

 

[Y1gtfmd74i5u]

hmm. wow. I always found it unethical to type people, but it's nice to understand where your beliefs and feelings about it lie and where it came from.

I do think that it is more conscious than subconscious at times, but I wouldn't feel comfortable forcing it upon anyone again.
I really do love you @o2b. I'm sorry if I put you through anything emotionally painful. I didn't know what to think with what was going on at home and online. It's been rough.

 

[o2b]

hmm. wow. I always found it unethical to type people, but it's nice to understand where your beliefs and feelings about it lie and where it came from.

I do think that it is more conscious than subconscious at times, but I wouldn't feel comfortable forcing it upon anyone again.
I really do love you @o2b. I'm sorry if I put you through anything emotionally painful. I didn't know what to think with what was going on at home and online. It's been rough.

Heck, Exhumed, you have nothing to be sorry for!

{hugs}

 

[Anomaly]

Come to think of it, is it THE source or are there other sources?

Of course it is multi-faceted and individual. So, this is why it is a theory or ideation. I've only come to find that it is likely true given experience. For 'proof' there needs to be a balance of both anecdotal or empirical evidence as well as scientific and measurable evidence. The latter is sorely lacking, and I think part of that is because we don't yet fully understand the brain and its complexities, coupled with the unique perspective and individualized experience of each of these functions makes it nearly impossible due to the unpredictability of human nature. There are obvious possibilities or conclusions one could predict, but then, there are outliers which negate those very predictions or in the least, call them into question. Thus, there is only postulation based on an unbalanced empirical system. What can we do with what we have now? Only reassess as new information comes to light, which is what I do.

The better questions are: Where is your shame found? What can you do about it?

 

[Ren]

Hm.. well, originally we had discussed that I was utilizing 'names' for functions in preferential usage depending on the individual and their "type". However, I took your question as being a negation of those archetypes existing at all. Jung was the originator of these theories in the Western world. He was the first to apply these 'archetypes' to cognitive processes (at the time merely noting differentiation between extraversion/introversion, judging/perceiving); however further developing his theories as he included what he studied in the East. Jung noted that people differ in the conscious use they make of the four functions. He also noted that in any individual, one of these functions is superior and is therefore more highly developed than other functions, since greater use is made of it, but each attitude operates in relation to the introversion or extraversion of the person, as well as in conjunction with other less dominant functions.

So, in this alone, there exists a hierarchy of functions within the theory, and in observation of human behavior, but not just in the ego, in the shadow or 'personal unconscious' as well. Jung called these 'functional archetypes' as 'complexes' in some of his works. Jung believed that the complexes have their roots in the collective unconscious and are colored with archetypal contents (as noted throughout human history/origin stories/mythology/literary themes, i.e.: the father, the mother, the child, the hero, the anti-hero). However, unlike Freud, Jung saw the personal unconscious (as well as these 'complexes'/archetypes), as having potential for future development. While, the archetypes were thought to be biological and innate as a part of a collective conscious, Jung also noted that they were a part of the personal conscious and unconscious. So, with this in mind, how then can one develop the unconscious? Jung stated that the only way is through the experience of and facing of conflict and life's problems. When unconscious contents/complexes/functions break through into consciousness it can lead to increased development in the individual, thus 'shadow-work' is made possible. This is what Jung meant about staring into the darkness of the self.

For example: If someone is an INFJ, then they would have Ne, Fi, Te, Si in their shadow, for these contents of the personal unconscious/shadow are foreign to us, apart from the conscious/ego. These complexes are determined by experience, but also by our way of reacting to that experience. A complex is in the main unconscious and has a tendency to behave autonomously so that the individual may feel that his/her behavior is out of his control. Someone behaving out of the unconscious might say something like, "I have no idea why I acted that way. I don't know what came over me." The key is that the shadow is a source of an individual's shame.

So, the reason why I ascribe to hierarchies within these 'functional archetypes' is because if they are present in the ego, then they must be present in the shadow. Also, each function or complex displays in behavior in differing ways, hence why we have different types and not everyone reacts similarly to particular experiences, stress, or negative stimuli. The shame for an INFJ is not similar to the shame for an ENTP. Why? Because their source of shame does not stem from the same shadow.

I see. I will gladly accept whatever you care to share with me. Thank you.

There is a lot I agree with here, and what I disagree with/am not sure about is more an echo of my disagreement with Jung.

So, first of all, I think utilising names for functions in preferential usage is very useful in the case of the regular function stack. I’m all in favour of it, and it fits squarely with my own typological meditations (in what I have tentatively called the ‘functionalist’ model in a few videos). The massive advantage of naming the different functions is that it highlights the qualitative differentiation of functional manifestation, depending on the function’s position in the stack. That is, Ti-tertiary manifests in a qualitatively different way than Ti-dom or Ti-auxiliary. It’s not just a matter of it manifesting less often (quantitatively). It also has a different colour, a different ‘feel’.

I think a lot of typing errors, such as we see on Personality Database for example, would be avoided if people kept in mind this notion of qualitative differentiation depending on stack position. It happens so often that people reason in terms of “well, that person displays Ne, Ti, Fe and Si, therefore they must be ENTP.” But of course it all depends on what kind of Ti is displayed, what kind of Fe is displayed, etc. From what I’ve read of your posts and analyses before, I think we’re in complete agreement here.

Now, of course there’s a difference between saying a function (e.g. Ti) manifests in qualitatively different ways depending on its stack position, which is undeniable in my opinion; and actually determining that qualitative difference with a proposition of specific content. The latter is bound to be, to a certain extent, arbitrary. What is referred to as ‘Ti child’ could be called something else. There might also be different interpretations as to how Ti-tertiary, which by definition is less conscious than Ti-dom, is concretely manifested. However, I think I’m pretty happy with the traditional Jungian categories, and I haven’t seen any that works better as a description.

That’s for the agreeing side Where I’m a little more skeptical, or at least more cautious, is when it comes to the concept of the shadow as the unconscious mirror of the regular stack. I understand where Jung is going with this, and I think that if we accept his initial postulate, then it makes sense to say that the shadow functions mirror the normal functions. What I’m reserved about is not the consistency of the approach but the postulate itself. I’m not so certain that the ‘shadow’ is a definite substance that we can determine as being composed of mirror functions of the regular ones. I’m not so certain about it, because it is very difficult to assess the nature and structure of the unconscious. Jung makes an attempt, I admire that attempt but I withhold final judgement, so to speak.

This is also why I try not to use the term ‘shadow’ too often in my videos and posts. The word is not connotation-free, as it already suggests this mirroring effect which I take as a postulate worthy of critique. I prefer to simply refer to ‘the unconscious’. I do think the unconscious is a space where a lot of the ‘weaker’ functions are going to manifest, but I’m still trying to work out its structure.

 

[Anomaly]

There is a lot I agree with here, and what I disagree with/am not sure about is more an echo of my disagreement with Jung.

So, first of all, I think utilising names for functions in preferential usage is very useful in the case of the regular function stack. I’m all in favour of it, and it fits squarely with my own typological meditations (in what I have tentatively called the ‘functionalist’ model in a few videos). The massive advantage of naming the different functions is that it highlights the qualitative differentiation of functional manifestation, depending on the function’s position in the stack. That is, Ti-tertiary manifests in a qualitatively different way than Ti-dom or Ti-auxiliary. It’s not just a matter of it manifesting less often (quantitatively). It also has a different colour, a different ‘feel’.

I think a lot of typing errors, such as we see on Personality Database for example, would be avoided if people kept in mind this notion of qualitative differentiation depending on stack position. It happens so often that people reason in terms of “well, that person displays Ne, Ti, Fe and Si, therefore they must be ENTP.” But of course it all depends on what kind of Ti is displayed, what kind of Fe is displayed, etc. From what I’ve read of your posts and analyses before, I think we’re in complete agreement here.

Now, of course there’s a difference between saying a function (e.g. Ti) manifests in qualitatively different ways depending on its stack position, which is undeniable in my opinion; and actually determining that qualitative difference with a proposition of specific content. The latter is bound to be, to a certain extent, arbitrary. What is referred to as ‘Ti child’ could be called something else. There might also be different interpretations as to how Ti-tertiary, which by definition is less conscious than Ti-dom, is concretely manifested. However, I think I’m pretty happy with the traditional Jungian categories, and I haven’t seen any that works better as a description.

Thank you for understanding. Everything here is what I've been meaning to convey, and perhaps have done so poorly, though I appreciate that you've analyzed it and summarized it. Aside from the European English spellings. lol. Only kidding.

That’s for the agreeing side Where I’m a little more skeptical, or at least more cautious, is when it comes to the concept of the shadow as the unconscious mirror of the regular stack. I understand where Jung is going with this, and I think that if we accept his initial postulate, then it makes sense to say that the shadow functions mirror the normal functions. What I’m reserved about is not the consistency of the approach but the postulate itself. I’m not so certain that the ‘shadow’ is a definite substance that we can determine as being composed of mirror functions of the regular ones. I’m not so certain about it, because it is very difficult to assess the nature and structure of the unconscious. Jung makes an attempt, I admire that attempt but I withhold final judgement, so to speak.

This is also why I try not to use the term ‘shadow’ too often in my videos and posts. The word is not connotation-free, as it already suggests this mirroring effect which I take as a postulate worthy of critique. I prefer to simply refer to ‘the unconscious’. I do think the unconscious is a space where a lot of the ‘weaker’ functions are going to manifest, but I’m still trying to work out its structure.

This is fair. I can see why you'd hesitate to make a judgement. I think we can agree on your latter paragraph, in that the unconscious is the 'vessel' for weaker functions; though I cannot help but apply similar structure to it as I do to the ego. I can see the manifestations of the 'weaker' functions as having relevant positions or frames of reference depending on the behaviors, motivations, fears, or the parameters that elicit the visceral reactions that seem so foreign to the individual. My reasoning is that if the same could be applied to the stronger more conscious functions, why couldn't it be applied to the lesser or weaker more unconscious functions? There isn't a clear answer, so I side with the one that makes the most sense given what we can observe.

 

[Wyote]

I’m not so certain about it, because it is very difficult to assess the nature and structure of the unconscious. Jung makes an attempt, I admire that attempt but I withhold final judgement, so to speak.

I think I share your hesitations here and maybe you can elaborate better idk, but I have seen several different models/descriptors of the shadow functions and they all seem to vaguely get the point across but for whatever reason I haven't found a model that feels fully comfortable/accurate. Maybe because our sources of shame are more individually nuanced, or harder to describe because they are hidden rather than what we are using to flex on the world around us.

 

[Ren]

I think I share your hesitations here and maybe you can elaborate better idk, but I have seen several different models/descriptors of the shadow functions and they all seem to vaguely get the point across but for whatever reason I haven't found a model that feels fully comfortable/accurate. Maybe because our sources of shame are more individually nuanced, or harder to describe because they are hidden rather than what we are using to flex on the world around us.

Sure, I can give elaborating a go.

Let's say Johnny is an ENTP programmer who one day decides that he wants to deal with the stuff that he's been repressing in his unconscious. He goes to see a psychoanalyst and they begin the process of analysis. As he's lounging in his plush divan, Johnny talks about himself while the psychoanalyst is listening and subtly guiding him with his questions. After a number of sessions, certain patterns begin to emerge about Johnny's unconscious. They manifest in certain slips of the tongue, seemingly nonsensical asides and detours, mood shifts at the mention of certain words or events, etc. Over time, Johnny gets to have a clearer grasp of the content he's been repressing. He can begin to 'face his shadow'.

In this thought experiment, it's clear that Johnny is facing a certain quantity of repressed content. This content could include, for instance, resentment towards his father for humiliating him in front of his friends when he was 6. The unconscious content is allowed to come to the surface of consciousness. As he works towards facing what happened and acknowledging it, he works towards integrating his shadow. But so far this has nothing to do with learning to reckon with the use of the shadow functions. It has purely to do with content, not functions (in this regard, cf. the function/content fallacy). Johnny seeks to make the formerly repressed content a part of himself, so as to attain psychical quietude. This may, of course, require confronting his father about what happened. But whatever he undertakes to do to integrate the repressed content is undertaken in a conscious fashion. It is not undertaken by means of the shadow functions.

So how do the shadow functions hypothetically manifest themselves? We would have to assume that when the analyst asks Johnny questions and eventually succeeds (with the full involvement of Johnny himself) in laying bare the unconscious content he's been repressing, that unconscious content is expressed through the shadow functions. In other words, when Johnny uncovers the unconscious content by means of slips of the tongue, asides and meandering detours, mood shifts, etc., he does so in the register of a shadow INTJ. In other words, the unconscious content that Johnny has been repressing has a substance of its own, almost like an independent existence, and it is structured cognitively through the shadow stack: Ni-Te-Fi-Se.

So there are not one, but two kinds of 'uncovering' happening during the analysis: the uncovering of raw content (the repressed thoughts); and the uncovering of the personality articulating cognitively the raw content (the INTJ shadow).

I accept the first as more or less uncontroversial. People, including Johnny, do have unconscious repressed thoughts, and analysis can help to bring them to the surface of consciousness. It is notoriously difficult to make full sense of the complexity, structure and depth of those thoughts, sometimes to make sense of them full stop (which includes telling them apart from conscious thoughts). Hence why analysis, as a process, usually takes at least 5 years.

But if it is already very difficult to make sense of the content of the repressed thoughts, how much more difficult it must be to elucidate a full-blown personality, with associated cognitive function-stack, articulating those thoughts! Elucidating such a personality, like shadow INTJ, presupposes an already very well-structured constellation of thought-content. But we have already just seen that the said constellation of thought-content is elusive, messy, mushy... like all repressed content must be. It seems to me somewhat arbitrary to say, on the basis of uncertain premises, that the conclusion is "certainly INTJ". I struggle to see how an articulate shadow-personality could be inferred from inchoate, messy, loosely structured thought-content.

Which brings us back to this idea of differentiation: the more thought-content is undifferentiated, as in the unconscious domain, the more undifferentiated the personality articulating the thoughts must be. But the category: "INTJ shadow" is the opposite of undifferentiated. It is precise and cognitively well-structured. Now, perhaps the unconscious thought-content of an ENTP really is structured by means of an INTJ shadow personality. I am only claiming that I cannot see enough empirical evidence of this. And on this basis, I take the position with reserve and caution. Maybe Jung was such a spectacularly intuitive psychoanalyst that he was able to derive differentiated structure from undifferentiated thought-content. Maybe. I can't say for certain that he is right or wrong, because, as a non-spectacularly intuitive analyst, I lack the empirical basis to make an informed judgement on the matter.

 

[Wyote]

Maybe Jung was such a spectacularly intuitive psychoanalyst that he was able to derive differentiated structure from undifferentiated thought-content.

But if it is already very difficult to make sense of the content of the repressed thoughts, how much more difficult it must be to elucidate a full-blown personality, with associated cognitive function-stack, articulating those thoughts! Elucidating such a personality, like shadow INTJ, presupposes an already very well-structured constellation of thought-content. But we have already just seen that the said constellation of thought-content is elusive, messy, mushy... like all repressed content must be. It seems to me somewhat arbitrary to say, on the basis of uncertain premises, that the conclusion is "certainly INTJ". I struggle to see how an articulate shadow-personality could be inferred from inchoate, messy, loosely structured thought-content.

So there are not one, but two kinds of 'uncovering' happening during the analysis: the uncovering of raw content (the repressed thoughts); and the uncovering of the personality articulating cognitively the raw content (the INTJ shadow).

Thanks. I think I can follow the precise difficulty more accurately now. I am out of my depth in making any other comments beyond this, other than to again say I agree with you.
It's the trouble of observing repressed thoughts while also translating to the construction of the personality structure of a shadow.