I appreciate your wisdom & reflection. It's a quality of Ni that we have to always update. "Being conscious of the Unconscious", "Conscious/Unconscious" is one of my favorite reflection. I like the place with trees too, I hope it's not too noisy & draining for you.
Good video. I wasn’t triggered by your last 2 videos. I like a robust exchange of ideas to get to the truth. I think you make very good points and are more aware of what Jung thought than I am. It makes sense that our perceiving and judging axes are fixed and thus if we were to access those in our shadow, we would be altering our brains function which seems impossible. As was discussed in your last video, the fact that we can, for eg. have some understanding of external structures (which could come under Te) does not mean we are actually using Te. We are simply obtains Te data via Se and Ti. We need to separate cognitive function use with manifestation of phenomena which fall under a cognitive function. If we were unable to operate outside our own cognitive functions in this way, we would not be able to make any sense of MBTI functions we don’t possess, or even the world. This could also be factor in MBTI scepticism. The fact we can understand a function we don’t use does seem counterintuitive. As mentioned previously, the 4 function model you and Jung espouse needs to take account of shadow functions not as ones we operate in in conscious and dodgy ways a la CSJoseph model, but deficits which affect overall personality with consequent weaknesses/insecurities/blind spots. Wrt my own writing, the lack of a shadow is good news because it reinforces type descriptions.
You’re very diplomatic and fair and clear. I can tell when people are likely to be using Ne for instance because I get annoyed/irritated and don’t want to listen ie in a work meeting. I’m INFJ and am all about the 4 function model.
As for conscious vs. unconscious or subconscious, I think there’s a difference between a person that isn’t aware of their MBTI vs. people that are. Perhaps context matters, but Jung’s “making the unconscious conscious” quote almost suggests that some consciousness is achievable.
In the context of a four function model, I have wondered if our functions are able to work together to "fake" the functions not in our stack. Could an INFJ use some combination of their Ni, Ti, and Fe to emulate Te, for example, due to necessity in certain environments. Would love to hear how you feel about this.
@@cbojar This is a very interesting hypothesis that has been explored by some theories (Cognitive Type in particular) under the concept of “compound effects”. It’s more promising than the 8 function approach in my view, though it is hard to fully operationalise. I’ll get back to this when I have a bit more time.
I’m not aware of “the 8 function model” however, I believe we dip into our less savory functions during times where our typical functions are not meeting our survival needs. We don’t consciously activate them but our primitive brain might, such as if an INFJ is under threat to over giving and realizes the destructive nature of over giving or over-accommodating, the INFJ can consciously swing into maladaptive ways of problem solving with the knowledge that the functions making up their personality are not helping them nor the situation. For example, I can look to an Ne user and think, how might so-so go about solving this problem. Ne shakes us out of ruts and paths we are not considering (and this could be with the influence of the Ne user as we tend to mirror and project the qualities of the people closest to us.) Si is pretty much my least favorite of all the cognitive functions and for good reason… not understanding nor being able to utilize that cognitive function effects how successful I am in certain fields of work but if I can understand how not possessing the Si power works against with clarity, I can understand how I might develop it even if to no success. In extreme circumstances, using our subconscious functions could help to explain a schizophrenic mind… something we’d rather stigmatize than fully understand for its benefit. Just my thoughts, but nothing I wouldn’t test for research purposes. I have my theories.
It didn’t bother me, but I respect this difference of opinion. I believed in the 4 only model first. Plus, as so called shadow functions, we really wouldn’t use them effectively anyhow. It’s either they’re weak, or nonexistent. Weak use seems to be more relatable to me. I do have an ISTJ mother with dominant Si and we’re totally opposites. Her strengths stress me out and vice versa.
Dario Nardi uses 8 functions model. I don't think people usually consciously decide use functions. Like their use is probably automatic depending on task and preferences. Also, it's pretty much impossible to live in modern society without some degree of competence in Te and Si.
I've made a number of videos on the Se grip stress that I'd be happy to direct you to, otherwise I could make a new video on that topic since it's an ever relevant one.
Hi Ren, I agree that using only four functions could be easier and perhaps more useful. But let me push back a bit. I believe you are again presenting a dichotomy: either a) functions are completely conscious or entirely unconscious and part of the shadow from the fifth function onward, or b) we cannot speak about the shadow at all. The way I see it, the shadow is more dynamic. While there is often a correlation between less developed functions and the shadow, I don't know if we can definitively state that specific functions belong to the shadow while others do not. I suspect the shadow can involve aspects of all eight functions, as well as elements of the unconscious mind that are not directly related to the functions. Also, while I agree that functions tend to become more unconscious the lower they are in an individual's function stack, I wonder if this is always the case. I could imagine, for example, an INFJ finding their inferior Se more problematic than their Ne, even though Se is higher in their stack, because Se is in greater tension with their dominant Ni. But I'm not sure.
I think that for Jung the shadow isn't a matter of cognitive functions, because for him the shadow is not structured like a person (and he is right in that respect). The way I see it, it should follow directly from this non-personhood that the concept "cognitive function" doesn't apply to it. This does not reduce the theoretical and empirical importance of the shadow but separates it off from the cognitive domain. If you think your Ne is stronger than your Se, I see two solutions and one dead end. Solution 1 (my preferred one): this "Ne" is just another facet of Se you hadn't considered before. Solution 2 : it really is "Ne" and the resulting 8-function model deals with functions capable of entering the conscious field, i.e. non-shadow functions. Dead end: Ne is a shadow function.
Yes and no. When a function sinks into the unconscious (like Se for INFJs) it changes in texture and becomes much wilder, less structured and less predictable than when it is conscious. Jung usually calls these unconscious manifestations "archaic" and "infantile". So it is never as if, out of the blue, a fully grown function is unconsciously activated. When it is unconsciously activated it's always archaic and infantile for Jung. In this context it's almost misleading to speak of "using" a function, which presupposes a degree of rational conscious control.
You say the 4th function is subconscious. If that were the case, wouldn’t we walk into walls etc. It’s certainly hazy and poorly focused (or focused widely), but no way is it subconscious, I don’t care what Jung said 😂. Intuition is our top function, and that is partly subconscious, so there’d be no hope if our other perception function was subconscious, especially an extroverted one.
the parsimony principle • (evolutionary biology) The hypothesis that the phylogeny which includes the fewest character changes is the one most likely to be correct
My guy, your Ti is out of control... (now this is from someone that's put in 30-45 mins the last 450 days str8 studying MBTI, Carl Jung, everything.) Im not upset at all. What i am concerned with, is my not so knowledgable INFJ brothers and sisters being led astray. But let me explain what I mean... I do believe in the 8 function model. Makes perfect sense. I see it in all humans I interact with... U CAN integrate with your shadow. This is also what Carl believed. Do you? Did u know that? Or the whole point of mentioning a "shadow" makes 0 sense. Im not saying I can consciously use(or turn on like a light switch) all the functions, but I am present(self-aware x 10...a side effect of spiritual awakening) enough to know which functions I am using...at the present moment when they are being used. When I'm normal, happy, pissed, just hanging out etc. For example, I was 275lbs 3years ago, and I am now 225lbs. Now what function in our 1st four governs consistency??? 🤔🤔🤔🤔 For me personally, it's not a "oh, I'm going to turn on my Si and lose weight"(even thoug i always knew i would at some point when i "felt like it")....because I would have never gotten to 275 in the first place. It's more of a "oh, no wonder I'm 275lbs..because of my Si being mastered!💡" (aka Si angel) my Te has also been mastered. Question, how many spiritually awakened(aka nirvana) INFJs have you ever met? Don't worry, we both know the answer already. There are also levels to being spiritually awakened as well. I will tell you again...at my current level of spiritual awakening, I do not have the normal 4 function stack anymore...mine is more like: Ni (Fe/Fi) (Ti/Te) Se...
I appreciate your wisdom & reflection. It's a quality of Ni that we have to always update.
"Being conscious of the Unconscious", "Conscious/Unconscious" is one of my favorite reflection.
I like the place with trees too, I hope it's not too noisy & draining for you.
Calling it worthless was an excellent use of Te. :)
@@lukmorabc lmao 🤣
Good video. I wasn’t triggered by your last 2 videos. I like a robust exchange of ideas to get to the truth. I think you make very good points and are more aware of what Jung thought than I am. It makes sense that our perceiving and judging axes are fixed and thus if we were to access those in our shadow, we would be altering our brains function which seems impossible.
As was discussed in your last video, the fact that we can, for eg. have some understanding of external structures (which could come under Te) does not mean we are actually using Te. We are simply obtains Te data via Se and Ti. We need to separate cognitive function use with manifestation of phenomena which fall under a cognitive function. If we were unable to operate outside our own cognitive functions in this way, we would not be able to make any sense of MBTI functions we don’t possess, or even the world. This could also be factor in MBTI scepticism. The fact we can understand a function we don’t use does seem counterintuitive.
As mentioned previously, the 4 function model you and Jung espouse needs to take account of shadow functions not as ones we operate in in conscious and dodgy ways a la CSJoseph model, but deficits which affect overall personality with consequent weaknesses/insecurities/blind spots.
Wrt my own writing, the lack of a shadow is good news because it reinforces type descriptions.
You’re very diplomatic and fair and clear. I can tell when people are likely to be using Ne for instance because I get annoyed/irritated and don’t want to listen ie in a work meeting. I’m INFJ and am all about the 4 function model.
As for conscious vs. unconscious or subconscious, I think there’s a difference between a person that isn’t aware of their MBTI vs. people that are. Perhaps context matters, but Jung’s “making the unconscious conscious” quote almost suggests that some consciousness is achievable.
I definitely think MBTI understanding, especially for INFJs alters the game a lot.
In the context of a four function model, I have wondered if our functions are able to work together to "fake" the functions not in our stack. Could an INFJ use some combination of their Ni, Ti, and Fe to emulate Te, for example, due to necessity in certain environments. Would love to hear how you feel about this.
@@cbojar This is a very interesting hypothesis that has been explored by some theories (Cognitive Type in particular) under the concept of “compound effects”. It’s more promising than the 8 function approach in my view, though it is hard to fully operationalise. I’ll get back to this when I have a bit more time.
I’m not aware of “the 8 function model” however, I believe we dip into our less savory functions during times where our typical functions are not meeting our survival needs. We don’t consciously activate them but our primitive brain might, such as if an INFJ is under threat to over giving and realizes the destructive nature of over giving or over-accommodating, the INFJ can consciously swing into maladaptive ways of problem solving with the knowledge that the functions making up their personality are not helping them nor the situation.
For example, I can look to an Ne user and think, how might so-so go about solving this problem. Ne shakes us out of ruts and paths we are not considering (and this could be with the influence of the Ne user as we tend to mirror and project the qualities of the people closest to us.) Si is pretty much my least favorite of all the cognitive functions and for good reason… not understanding nor being able to utilize that cognitive function effects how successful I am in certain fields of work but if I can understand how not possessing the Si power works against with clarity, I can understand how I might develop it even if to no success. In extreme circumstances, using our subconscious functions could help to explain a schizophrenic mind… something we’d rather stigmatize than fully understand for its benefit. Just my thoughts, but nothing I wouldn’t test for research purposes. I have my theories.
It didn’t bother me, but I respect this difference of opinion. I believed in the 4 only model first. Plus, as so called shadow functions, we really wouldn’t use them effectively anyhow. It’s either they’re weak, or nonexistent. Weak use seems to be more relatable to me. I do have an ISTJ mother with dominant Si and we’re totally opposites. Her strengths stress me out and vice versa.
Makes perfect sense to me, ty for your hard work.
Do it Renaud!
Dario Nardi uses 8 functions model.
I don't think people usually consciously decide use functions. Like their use is probably automatic depending on task and preferences.
Also, it's pretty much impossible to live in modern society without some degree of competence in Te and Si.
What about the idea of “grip” stress causing INFJ to behave differently? What is your opinion on that concept that is so widely discussed? Thanks.
I've made a number of videos on the Se grip stress that I'd be happy to direct you to, otherwise I could make a new video on that topic since it's an ever relevant one.
@@RensRoom I’ll take a look back at some of those videos, thanks, and also appreciate the one from today it makes a lot of sense
Hi Ren, I agree that using only four functions could be easier and perhaps more useful. But let me push back a bit. I believe you are again presenting a dichotomy: either a) functions are completely conscious or entirely unconscious and part of the shadow from the fifth function onward, or b) we cannot speak about the shadow at all.
The way I see it, the shadow is more dynamic. While there is often a correlation between less developed functions and the shadow, I don't know if we can definitively state that specific functions belong to the shadow while others do not. I suspect the shadow can involve aspects of all eight functions, as well as elements of the unconscious mind that are not directly related to the functions.
Also, while I agree that functions tend to become more unconscious the lower they are in an individual's function stack, I wonder if this is always the case. I could imagine, for example, an INFJ finding their inferior Se more problematic than their Ne, even though Se is higher in their stack, because Se is in greater tension with their dominant Ni. But I'm not sure.
You make me wonder if MBTI understanding could lead to some development of ‘missing’ functions. The brain is plastic to some degree.
I think that for Jung the shadow isn't a matter of cognitive functions, because for him the shadow is not structured like a person (and he is right in that respect). The way I see it, it should follow directly from this non-personhood that the concept "cognitive function" doesn't apply to it. This does not reduce the theoretical and empirical importance of the shadow but separates it off from the cognitive domain.
If you think your Ne is stronger than your Se, I see two solutions and one dead end. Solution 1 (my preferred one): this "Ne" is just another facet of Se you hadn't considered before. Solution 2 : it really is "Ne" and the resulting 8-function model deals with functions capable of entering the conscious field, i.e. non-shadow functions. Dead end: Ne is a shadow function.
Bravo!
If Jung said it I agree :). Isn’t it possible to use the functions unconsciously?
Yes and no. When a function sinks into the unconscious (like Se for INFJs) it changes in texture and becomes much wilder, less structured and less predictable than when it is conscious. Jung usually calls these unconscious manifestations "archaic" and "infantile".
So it is never as if, out of the blue, a fully grown function is unconsciously activated. When it is unconsciously activated it's always archaic and infantile for Jung. In this context it's almost misleading to speak of "using" a function, which presupposes a degree of rational conscious control.
You say the 4th function is subconscious. If that were the case, wouldn’t we walk into walls etc. It’s certainly hazy and poorly focused (or focused widely), but no way is it subconscious, I don’t care what Jung said 😂. Intuition is our top function, and that is partly subconscious, so there’d be no hope if our other perception function was subconscious, especially an extroverted one.
the parsimony principle
• (evolutionary biology) The hypothesis that the phylogeny which includes the fewest character changes is the one most likely to be correct
My guy, your Ti is out of control...
(now this is from someone that's put in 30-45 mins the last 450 days str8 studying MBTI, Carl Jung, everything.)
Im not upset at all. What i am concerned with, is my not so knowledgable INFJ brothers and sisters being led astray.
But let me explain what I mean... I do believe in the 8 function model. Makes perfect sense. I see it in all humans I interact with...
U CAN integrate with your shadow. This is also what Carl believed. Do you? Did u know that? Or the whole point of mentioning a "shadow" makes 0 sense.
Im not saying I can consciously use(or turn on like a light switch) all the functions, but I am present(self-aware x 10...a side effect of spiritual awakening) enough to know which functions I am using...at the present moment when they are being used. When I'm normal, happy, pissed, just hanging out etc.
For example, I was 275lbs 3years ago, and I am now 225lbs. Now what function in our 1st four governs consistency??? 🤔🤔🤔🤔
For me personally, it's not a "oh, I'm going to turn on my Si and lose weight"(even thoug i always knew i would at some point when i "felt like it")....because I would have never gotten to 275 in the first place. It's more of a "oh, no wonder I'm 275lbs..because of my Si being mastered!💡" (aka Si angel) my Te has also been mastered. Question, how many spiritually awakened(aka nirvana) INFJs have you ever met? Don't worry, we both know the answer already. There are also levels to being spiritually awakened as well. I will tell you again...at my current level of spiritual awakening, I do not have the normal 4 function stack anymore...mine is more like:
Ni
(Fe/Fi)
(Ti/Te)
Se...
"How can I have a shadow when I AM the light !" 💡🫴🏻
... hop... hop... hop... hop🐰🤌🏻*click