• MBTI: John Beebe's Model: Understanding the Archetypes

    Understanding the Archetypes through Eight Functions of Type: John Beebe's Model

    source: http://www.erictb.info/archetypes.html

    The key to understanding exactly how functions play out in each of MBTI's 16 types is the archetypes. Jung's larger theories included hundreds of archetypes, which are "character roles" of sorts (model of a hypothetical person in a particular role), within the psyche. A handful of these began to be associated with the function positions in each type, most notably by Jungian analyst John Beebe.

    First, we need to understand that functions (S, N, T, F) or "function attitudes" (Xe, Xi), are perspectives; not behaviors or skills-sets as they are often treated.
    These functions represent the different ways the emotions are brought into relationship with our higher mental operations. They carry what can be called a "sense of meaning" when brought into consciousness by the ego, and when not conscious, come out as felt reactions. In consciousness, they become the "interpreters" of these emotional events.
    Every person goes though life having to process both concrete and abstract information, and then make both impersonal, technical (logical) and personal, humane (value) judgments. Where our type theory begins; and the whole key to it, is in the way this processing affects us emotionally. The functions are differentiated when a greater value is given to those choices where emotion and reason are in synch. When we use a function that is destined to become "preferred", we feel an emotional investment in what we're doing, and we feel in control of our emotional life, so we keep on doing it. We tend to be more stimulated by the function. It then appears to "develop" or get "stronger", and behaviors associated with it will increase.

    We also should know something about Jung's division of the psyche or "larger Self".

    Archetypes are basically defined as "a way of organizing human experience that gives it collective meaning". The conglomeration of images, memories, and emotions surrounding an archetypal core, but unique to ourselves. So they too are tied to our emotional subsystems. This forms the basis of their connection to the functions.
    So one such human experience involves "heroically" solving a problem. That is one archetype. Another experience is supporting others. Another one is looking up to others to support us. And another involves finding completeness.

    While our type preference lies in the ego, which is the conscious part of the psyche, the archetypes lie in the unconscious part, specifically in the area that is "collective", meaning shared by all people.
    The easiest example of the unconscious is simply things we've forgotten. It's still buried in the memory somewhere; we just can no longer readily bring it up consciously. It may come up on its own through dreams, déja-vu's, sudden flashes of memory under stress, etc. Those are personal forms of unconsciousness. There are others that are collective, which are not based on our own memory, but nevertheless shape aspects of human existence such as our inherited images of male and female, good and evil, love and power, that are represented in all cultures.

    When we have individual experiences that fit into these particular collective frames of organization we are discussing, and form a pattern in us, they then enter the personal part of the unconscious, and become complexes. The archetype is at the core of the complex. And then the archetype forms an encasement around the function. The function then becomes the operational perspective or "world-view" of that complex.

    Thus we develop an inferiority complex around the inferior function, a superiority complex around the superior function, a "best auxiliary" complex (the caretaker) around the auxiliary function, and an "eternal child" complex around the tertiary function. (Beebe)

    However, the ego can still access the function apart from the archetypal "shell". Hence, what many people need to realize is that the function is not fated to be equal to its archetypal carrier. This leaves room for the functions to step away from their carriers and operate independently of what brought them into the ego, and for the carriers to go on being their archetypal selves in the background.
    It can then be removed from the context of the unconscious structure as needed. They wouldn't be made use of the same way a type preferring the function would. You could even recognize the standpoint a situation calling for the function requires, but the emotions felt in those situations won't be under conscious control.
    If not so referenced, then it remains conflated with one of the archetypal complexes, at the limbic level of emotional response.

    To sum it up, the different ways the functions manifest:

    1) Differentiated (the dominant ego perspective)
    2) Undifferentiated: linked to the ego's dominant network
    • ego-syntonic archetype complexes (auxiliary-parent; tertiary-child, inferior)
    • general "uses" of the functions. We can all process tangible, conceptual, technical and humane data
    3) Undifferentiated: Tied to the emotions at the limbic level through imaginal representation —ego dystonic archetypes (Opposing, witch, trickster, demon), other complexes, instinctual reactions

    The full name of these elements is function[-attitude] complexes, or "Archetypal Complexes Carrying the Eight Functions", rather than reducing the complexes to the archetypes or the archetypes to the complexes.
    Jungian theorist Lenore Thomson (author of Personality Type: An Owner's Manual, and several articles, including Implications of Beebe's Model from a Neurological Standpoint; links at bottom) emphasizes the archetypes being complexes.

    To start to understand the archetypes, we first need to understand the process of how they and the associated functions differentiate. This will give an idea of why each particular archetype and function falls in each particular position. The purpose is to present the eight archetypal complexes in a way where they are not conflated with the eight "Xx" "processes" as is often done.

    The ego starts with its preferred comfort zone of the inner or outer world. The ego chooses its dominant function, which it uses in its preferred realm.

    If Thinking (for instance) is chosen as the dominant, and in the internal world, then everything else is rejected or suppressed by the ego: the external world and the other three functions; Feeling along with both forms of perceiving, which remain undifferentiated. (They are engaged, but not as conscious ego functions, and not really distinguished in orientation, though Jung said they would be associated with the suppressed orientation; this case being the outer world).

    "Whatever we habitually put aside to make our willful conscious choices will inevitably make its alliance with the unconscious -- emotions we don't want to feel, desires we don't recognize, etc. That is, the hero who has successfully established a sense of self and assimilated the good, supportive aspects of a Parental figure will be compensated, in the unconscious, by everything s/he's rejected as not part of this self." (Lenore Thomson, Personality Pathways article).
    Another way of portraying this unconscious realm is that the ego's bright light of awareness focuses on one part of reality, plunging the rest into darkness.
    What happens is that the person basically sees the part of themselves that perceives and judges through the rejected perspective in the worst light, then suppresses this sense in themselves, and projects it at others instead.

    In Jung's theory (originally), the orientations are more attached to the ego itself, than to the functions themselves. So there are really four functions, which the ego engages in one of two different orientations, generating eight "function-attitudes".

    Soon, an auxiliary will be chosen, which will be of the initially suppressed perceiving mode of processing, as well as it being in the suppressed outer orientation.

    These two functions will become apart of heroic and parental complexes. (There is additionally a Persona which also associates with the dominant, which is the face we put forth to the world).

    A "child" complex will take on the opposite process from the auxiliary, and align it with the dominant attitude. ("Tertiary Temptation", where the tertiary is more a defense mode that provides justification for remaining in the dominant attitude when the person avoids the tempering influence of the auxiliary).

    This is why the tertiary ends up as the same attitude as the dominant, where it was initially thought to be the opposite attitude, like the auxiliary and inferior. On one hand, the ego tends to reject everything else from its dominant orientation, so that the other functions in essence "collect" in the opposite orientation in this less conscious area. But then you have one of these complexes bringing one of the other functions into the dominant realm, as a sort of backup.

    The opposite function from the dominant, Feeling, will be inferior and most suppressed, yet (in the opposite outer orientation) will deep down inside carry a connotation of completeness. It associates with Jung's "anima/animus", which is said to convey a sense of the opposite gender, which makes sense, since it involves an overall sense of "otherness". (i.e. In gender, as well as function and orientation).

    These pairs of opposite functions are known as tandems.
    Beebe had also named these two tandems. The hero and anima are called the "spine" of consciousness. The parent and child are called the "arm". Since each tandem will consist of either judgment or perception functions, Beebe terms them "rational" or "irrational", being Jung's terms for judgment and perception.

    Beebe has made diagrams of these tandems crossing each other, with the spine as vertical, and the arm horizontal, so that it actually looks like a sort of skeletal frame. (And the dominant function is called the "head" while the inferior is the "tail"). But it actually means more than just that. As you may have noticed, the arm deals specifically with our relations to others. The spine, encompassing our main ego function, and the "soul", deals with our relationship to our own selves.
    These are set in place by the dominant and auxiliary functions. The dominant can be likened to our ego's "operating charter", and the auxiliary is what we often use with others.
    So it's like the tertiary and inferior as a pair are a mirror image of the dominant and aux. as far as the rationality of the function, and whether it is associated with self, or with others.

    As Beebe has expressed it; the spine, which in defining our identity concerns itself more with what we can be or do in and for ourselves. The arm is more focused on the ways in which we use our consciousnesses to reach out to others. Think; a child will look up to others (for help, approval, etc). Just like the parent will try to help children.

    This will prove very helpful in understanding his model, and identifying where particular functions fit in determining a type.

    So with all of this, we can see:

    For a dominant T, the persona carries a mastery of technical knowledge. Our frail limited humanity (including its emotions) thus feels vulnerable, so we ignore it. We thus feel our humane worth would be fulfilled through impersonal mastery.

    For a dom. F, the persona carries an air of humane stature. Vulnerability is losing that, and feeling cold and inhuman. When this happens, then they will turn to a cold, technical perspective.

    For a dom. S, the persona carries an air of tangible stability. Venturing into the abstract world of concepts represents vulnerability.

    For a dom. N, the persona carries an air of knowing the meanings behind things. Vulnerability is being stuck with only what is tangible.

    For an I, the persona focuses on the "depth" of the internal world. The external world is seen as shallow and intrusive.

    For an E, the persona focuses on the external world. The internal world is seen as likely obscure, esoteric and too complex.

    These orientations then color the perspective of the dominant function.

    For the arms, there is a similar dynamic, but not as pronounced, as the auxiliary is not as differentiated as the dominant. So the tertiary is not as suppressed as the inferior.

    For example, when confronted with concrete reality I cannot change or even understand, (and SJ's around me say "that's life"), I have always felt sort of like a child. I then might even begin to act like one, pouting, storming off, other rash "tangible" impulsive actions. etc.

    Only when I want to have childish relief, do I voluntarily switch to an S perspective.
    I've noticed, that much of my nostalgia involves a desire to redo parts of the past, but with those "that's life" obstacles removed (basically from the privilege of being older).

    Of course, with the four function positions being filled by four out of eight function-attitudes or "processes", we often from here get the question of what about the "other four" processes for each type. This is where Beebe came in with his "eight-process model".

    In the older theory, the inferior had been deemed what is known as the "shadow"; basically the least conscious part of the psyche. The type with the same four functions in reverse (inferior as hero, tertiary as aux., etc.; the type with all four letters opposite, or "inverse relationship" according to Beebe) was deemed the "shadow type", with a negative manifestation of it erupting under stress. (See www.teamtechnology.co.uk/myersbriggs.html)

    Beebe determined that the inferior was actually apart of the "ego-syntonic" (or primary) range, along with the first three, but that it did border on the true "shadow" or "ego-dystonic" range, which is an even less conscious realm where these supposed "other" four processes lied.
    (So the true "shadow type" would actually end up as the one sharing only the two middle letters, or its inverse, sharing the first and last letter!)

    Recall, there are really only four functions, which an ego interprets situations through in an inner or outer orientation, suppressing the unchosen orientation into the unconscious.
    Jung actually described function orientation in terms of a complete cycle starting from and returning to the preferred attitude, and accessing the opposite orientation along the way. Introverted functions flow from the subject to the object, and then return to the subject as what's irrelevent is subtracted according to the internal blueprint. Extraverted functions flow from the object to the subject, who then merges himself back with the object. So both attitudes are basically implicit in each function. (Hence, really only four functions, once again! And this will explain natural confusion people have telling one attitude of a given function from the other). The ego-syntonic complexes prefer one orientation, which becomes the starting and ending point. So what the ego-dystonic complexes can be seen as doing is "turning up the volume" so to speak, on the "far side" of that process; opposite the starting and ending point!
    So what Beebe's concept of the shadow really is, is a glimpse into these suppressed orientations of both the functions and the complexes that employ them.

    The "hero" degrades into an "opposing personality" interpreting situations through the dominant function in its suppressed opposite orientation. (This is one that Beebe named himself. In Jung's conception, it was just a "negative hero"). Since we're now tapping [further] into what has been rejected from the consciousness by the ego, this, (along with the next three) will often come out in a negative fashion. Yet this one does also back up and fill in the blind spots of the hero. (It is also said to often be the opposite gender, like the anima).

    The "parent" splits off a "critical" version of itself interpreting situations through the auxiliary function in the opposite orientation. Beebe matched this to Jung's "witch" and "senex" (old man) archetypes (for females and males, respectively). Its good side is that it can provide profound wisdom. (A more accurate female archetype might be "The Crone", which carries the intended "formerly respected, now negated" sense like the Senex, but without the "magical" connotation of the "Witch", which is not really what the archetype is about).

    The negative aspect of the "child" receives its interpretations of situations through the opposite orientation of the tertiary and becomes a bratty "bad child", associated with Jung's "trickster" archetype. It rebels and creates double binds for self and especially others, and its good side is comedic relief.

    The anima or "soul" is shadowed by a "demon" which interprets situations through the opposite orientation of the inferior. (This is basically a "negative anima", and it appears a "double negative" principle leads to it being the same gender as the person). Since that was already the most suppressed area, then its shadow manifests in a particularly destructive fashion. It can also become an "angel" or "transformer" in bad situations.

    The resulting order, it must be stressed, is not to be assumed to be strength. And even though we have used "shadow" as the group of bottom four, even that is not a hard division. According to Mark Hunziker and Leona Haas Building Blocks of Personality Type (Unite Business Press, a division of Telos, 2006):

    Actually, the shadow encompasses all processes that are primarily unconscious in an individual. Which processes these are will depend on that person's type development and can even include all eight in a very young child. Note also, that the normal hierarchy of preference for processes five through eight has not yet been empirically established, and in practice is likely to vary from person to person. Beebe cautions us not to assume too much on the basis of his numbering, which in many ways is simply for convenience in identifying the various positions. He simply puts it forth as a tool that he has found useful and informative and which at least for the first four functions seems to reflect the order of conscious cultivation of the functions that he has observed. The numbers for the shadow functions are identified merely to mirror the ordering of the first four.
    (Glossary: "Shadow", p. 215, emphasis added)

    This theory isn't really describing the functions being "used". It's showing the complexes when they're influencing one's behavior.

    In actuality, rather than the archetypes constraining the functions, the functions constrain the complexes. That is, when a complex is activated, the behaviors will reflect the function associated with it. When the complex is invoked, the feelings will reach us by way of the associated function; and especially the aspects of it that we don't usually allow into consciousness, or something that we associate with it that strikes us as fitting the archetype. (oppositional or adversarial, cranky or witchy, deceptive or mischievous, or evil and inhuman. It could also hold for the inferior and other primary ones as well).

    As an example of a more positive side of the shadows, Beebe mentions an INTP husband of an ENFP interviewer, whose dominant function is her Trickster. The "humorous" positive side of this archetype gives us "a certain ability to cope" that "allows you to get through the jungle of human relations". For her, the function conveyed "a sense of humor about introverted people and understood how to get along with them". ("Typology in the Development of Integrity")

    The different tandems also carry over into the shadow. All four complexes tend to be very negative towards both self and others, but the opposing personality and demon, as the shadow of the spine, will be more connected with the self (ego). The witch/senex and trickster, as the arm will be more about "tying down" others to get them off our backs. Hence, you will see the "Oppositional" process described in Linda Berens' books (the Understanding Yourself and Others series and Dynamics of Personality Type; Telos Publications) as being "stubborn" about things, while the "critical parent" is more sharply "critical", and described elsewhere in terms of "low blows" and "looks that stop you dead in your tracks". One is primarily serving the ego it is shadowing, while the other is focused on dealing with the other person.

    There also are simply the consecutive pairs, which in Socionics, are called "blocks".
    The dominant and auxiliary, will be more developed and mature, and the tertiary and inferior (when they develop, in coming years) will be less developed and immature, from being initially suppressed and thus lower on the acceptance order from the first two. This will set the stage for the archetypal roles or complexes mapped to the functions.

    Also, from what I have seen, the blocks will also parallel. The opposing and witch will convey the confidence of the hero and parent in a very aggressive way. The trickster and demon, while not really "vulnerable" themselves like the child and anima, nevertheless will compensate for the vulnerability of those complexes, and thus come out very reactively. We are still vulnerable in situations that call for the 7th and 8th functions. Like for me, certain physical acts such as walking elevated tracks. In that case, the Trickster tries to protect me from the potential danger (picked up by the preferred extraverted iNtuition) by making me feel double-bound from moving one way or the other. The gaps look bigger and impassable without tripping, any way I look. Consciously; I know I can get across, but unconsciously, there is something preventing me. So this protection often comes at a price, as it is evident here.
    The truly "vulnerable" aspect of the archetype in this case is what can be called "the fool".
    Also, it seems the demon splits into an equally vulnerable, totally pathetic "bad-guy/loser" image we fear becoming if we don't fight the demon without, while projecting the truly powerful evil image onto our opponents).

    The Trickster and Demon function influenced decisions particularly are said to end up being regretted because they usually erupt in such a rash manner from being the most suppressed, and in the more vulnerable areas.

    So now, we can make generic terms for the eight archetypes. They can be reduced down to three variables which should give a more concise idea of what they are about:

    positive (primary) vs negative (shadow)
    confident (top two of four functions) vs vulnerable (bottom two)
    ego-focused (spine) vs others-focused (arm)

    hero: positive, confident, ego-focused
    parent: positive, confident, others-focused
    child: positive, vulnerable, others-focused
    anima: positive, vulnerable, ego-focused
    opposing: negative, confident, ego-focused
    witch/senex: negative, confident, others-focused
    trickster: negative, vulnerable (compensatory), others-focused
    demon: negative, vulnerable (compensatory), ego-focused

    I also believe there is a sort of "mirroring" dynamic in the shadows, where even though the opposing and witch shadow the confidence of the hero and parent, it also does reflect in a way, the vulnerability of the child and anima. This is masked by the aggressiveness of them, and can be evidenced in descriptions of the opposing as "avoidant". Hence, Beebe has been cited ("A Closer Look at the Auxiliary Function" lecture, 2008, APT, Sacramento, CA) as saying that intimidating the child will trigger both the witch and trickster. The trickster is the shadow of the child, but the witch is sort of a larger reflection of the child. (Just like, as was pointed out, the child is a reflection of the parent).
    In fact, in classic Jungian theory, the Senex was the shadow of the Puer, rather than the Good Parent. (Many pairs of comedians or characters reflect a Puer/Senex duo, with one being silly and simpleminded, and the other, grumpy and serious). Hence, the good child ends up compensated by both the critical parent, and bad child. This is also what I believe explains the opposing personality being opposite gender, like the anima/animus. It is a negative compensatory reflection of it.
    Likewise, the trickster and demon shadow the vulnerable child and anima, yet reflect (in a negative way) the strength of the hero and parent. Think of the word "trickster", as well as a "devil" who often "appears as an angel of light". They tend to appear innocent, yet end up as the most dangerous. Just like there was classically a Puer/Senex duo, then the similar contrast to the good Parent would be the Jester; the polar opposite of the king or authority figure who is threatened by anything that isn't conventional. This would represent a pairing of Parent/Trickster in certain forms.

    (This mirroring concept will be expanded a bit, further down).

    Here, in a nutshell, is an example of the degradation of all four "primary functions and archetypes, into all four shadows:

    Jung had defined the concepts of "abstracting" and "empathy" in terms, respectively, of introversion and extraversion (rather than intuition and Feeling, as they came to be used). To "abstract" is to devalue the object and strip it of all irrelevant elements, and to empathize is the essentially merge the subject with the object, trusting the object. Basically, "subtracting" and "adding", respectively.

    So for shadow degradation, it then makes sense that if I prefer to devalue the object in favor of subjective content in technical relationships (the dominant ego perspective), and then tend to trust the object with humane relationships, and this is a vulnerable, shaky area (inferior); then if I constantly get "burned" there, I'll eventually withdraw the value from the object and place it back into the subjective content, in which I then strip it of its association with irrelevant elements (which don't make sense to the subjective content). The issue is still one of humane relationships, so it's not simply the dominant perspective "mixing" with the inferior, as some four-process theorists would argue.

    This is a negative, reactive response that is not consciously controlled, and using a humane perspective I normally dissociate from the subjective content.
    Likewise, when it comes time to take action through technical means, I'll merge with the object in a negative way to support ego's goals (and thus oppose the threat).
    This covers the spine.

    As for the arm, the child seeks relief (in my case, nostalgia about the past) through Si, in which I devalue the tangible object in experience, and instead save the most relevant images. But the preferred perspective this is filtered through is still Ne, which merges with the conceptual object and says things should be open, and unique.
    If something conventional and closed is forced on me, that will make me feel like an oppressed child. So then, how will the person or institution responsible for this come across? As a negative, limiting parent, and one who forces a particular negative pattern, in which the object is now devalued, and a particular relevant element is locked in on, and thus not open and flexible. Thus, the projection of the Senex through the perspective of Ni. And then, how does this child deal with this perceived bad parent? Try to get him off my back through trickery, merging with the environment of emergent tangible data; being "bad" myself through the Trickster with Se (which is also simultaneously projected onto the other person in the form of a menacing bully).

    The understanding of the complexes starts with the ego, and its boundaries; both external ones (against all that is not self), and internal (between the conscious and unconscious), in addition to the ego's defenses. Particularly against painful emotions that can be damaging to us. When these defenses are challenged, then the ego's integrity is at stake.

    The way this seems to work is that the Self tries to bring the shadow perspectives into consciousness, and the ego resists this, trying to keep them out of consciousness when they go against the ego's goals. When they do come into consciousness against the ego's wishes, it will often take the form of an erratic reaction, often responding in kind through the perspective of the function, or behaviors associated with it. This is what would be commonly misconstrued as "uses of shadow functions".
    So from what I have been able to gather, the specific complexes are basically "constellated" in response to the following threats to the ego:

    The Opposing Personality is a reaction towards the ego and especially its heroic dominant perspective and persona being opposed or obstructed. Obstruction might also be when ego's connection with the anima is obstructed.

    The Senex/Witch is the reaction against negation and vulnerability. Negation would seem to be a challenge to the parental authority of the auxiliary perspective, and vulnerability would be from threats to the child. Hence, intimidating the child said to trigger both the witch and trickster (We can notice so far, the "mirroring" dynamic that has been mentioned).

    The Trickster is a reaction against being controlled or put upon. (Child feels burdened, parent feels powerless).

    The Demon is basically a reaction against a threat against the ego's integrity structure. The extreme case of this would be "ego death": the removal of its boundaries. So, in lesser cases of stress, it might erupt when the ego feels totally helpless, especially when the anima is under strong attack. Where the anima represents our connection to "life", the Demon reprsents "death".

    Again, you can see in this how the spines deal more with the ego itself, while the arms are about others.

    The Demon and Trickster are also said to specifically appear at times when there is danger of ego disintegration. This is when the ego's boundaries (mainly, in this case, its defenses) are totally breached. We would then be left defenseless against damaging emotional content. So the unconscious area of our personality dispatches these last stands to protect the ego's integrity. This might occur in the aftermath of trauma, especially when trying to get back to normal, where demonic figures appear in dreams threatening to destroy you in some way, or the the person's ego might confuse itself to bind him from taking action that might expose him to more trauma.

    From here, there is a debate as to whether these complexes surface only in those kinds of severe instances, or in everyday situations.
    The way they were originally conceived is more the former. Beebe, of course, introduced the latter view.
    For now, I believe it is a combination of both. You could say the everyday constellations of the complexes are miniscule versions, for when the ego's boundaries feel threatened in more miniscule, everyday ways, especially by emotional pain.
    The former view does acknowledge that more positive versions of the two complexes appear later in life, to help us grow towards individuation. The Trickster, for instance, then floods consciousness with double-binds to force the ego to grow beyond its normal perspectives. This might be a bit closer to what Beebe's theory is trying to convey.

    It is true, that the Trickster and Demon, as discussed by Donald Kalsched were originally more about trauma. I have also seen a notion that the whole shadow (which originally to Jung was one single archetype) was more likely what we know as the Opposing Personality. Sort of like four-process theory, where the inferior is considered the whole shadow, this would be basically a five-process theory.

    I found this review of one of Kalsched's books by Beebe where he provides a bit of rationale for having four shadow complexes rather than them being "blurred into a master mythologem like Jung's dark Mercurius, who too easily becomes a metaphor for the whole shadow in all its shape-shifting aspects": Book Review: The Inner World Of Trauma: Archetypal Defenses of the Personal Spirit by Donald Kalsched)

    Seeing now that the original concepts were about trauma made me have to consider if the Trickster and Demon were necessarily the best archetypes to assign to the negative child and negative anima roles. (There were actually hundreds of archetypes to choose from. The ones we discuss are just those Beebe chose to represent the ego's cognitive dynamics. There are actually several different archetypes bundled in these "roles" as it is).
    Still, for now, apparently, it seems there are miniscule versions of the energies that hail from this space for lesser threats, that are nevertheless seen as grave to the ego's position. These "traumatic" occasions would be special instances of the Trickster and Demon, where the Self now tries to keep damaging information out of consciousness, despite whatever the ego is trying to do with it.

    Hence, both the 7th and 8th functions as brain hemisphere lateral alternatives or "mirrors" of the dominant and aux, as well as shadows of the tertiary and inferior. Also, the 5th and 6th functions both mirroring the same-hemisphere tertiary and inferior, as well as shadowing the dominant and auxiliary.

    Examples of the shadows in my experience

    What the complexes are all about is projection. The complexes (especially the shadows) are what we project onto others, and the goal of ego-development is to "own" them, and see them as apart of ourselves.
    Hence, the larger self, which encompasses both the ego consciousness, and the personal and collective unconscious is said to constantly be trying to "get our attention" through means such as conflicts and reactions, as well as dreams.
    This is because the ego thinks it's the center of the psyche, when the larger Self really is.

    When we project the encompassing complexes onto people, they seem to fit those roles, likely through the lens of the function-attitude in that position in some way, and we react often antagonistically in kind through that function. Or, they might genuinely be fitting the role in their own behavior. Projection can be "positive" as well, though that can still ultimately become a negative thing. The anima projection on a loved one is an example (and there is a danger of becoming over possessive, or the feelings seeming to go away when the sense of "otherness" about the person wears off), and we also are projecting onto people when we are jealous of them, thinking they have something we don't.

    To own the complex instead of projecting it at others, we must see ourselves as playing those roles; our own worst enemies.
    This is hard, because these parts of us are what we have shut out of our consciousness.

    When we withdraw the complex, we then become more receptive to interpretations of situations through the function that has become embedded in the complex's archetype. We can then experience the positive side of the perspective more.

    This is what has somewhat misguidedly become shorthanded as "developing the functions". That again assumes the functions are "skills" we "use". But you're not really developing functions; you're expanding consciousness and recovering (integrating) suppressed perspectives, as that again is what the function attitudes are.
    The hypothetical goal is called "individuation". While this would yield a more balanced perspective in living, it is really not simply being "strong" in "all eight functions".

    Really, self-growth is what all of this stuff is really, ultimately all about!

    Naturally, what happens in midlife, is that when the ego grows a bit bored of seeing life through its lifelong perspectives (seeing they haven't really solved the pains of life), it weakens its defenses, and the suppressed perspectives will be able to come into consciousness more. For instance, the Trickster will be "flooding consciousness with paradoxes that have no solution within the framework the ego has established". (Lenore Thomson, Personality Pathways). The ego can either continue trying to resist, or instead become more open to them. (Hence, it's not a matter of the functions automatically "developing" like the first four did). This is what is supposed to lead towards "individuation".

    In short, the four basic positions can be summed up as
    1, 5 ego's identity and advancement
    2, 6 ego's authority over others
    3, 7 ego's submission or deference
    4, 8 ego's connection to life, aspirations

    So it seems, the way the complexes (the more negative ones, mainly) are constellated, is that
    1) we feel {inferior, obstructed, negated, double bound, ego threatened}
    2) we then project this onto others
    3) we then respond in kind

    So here now are the pertinent complexes.
    The thing to remember, is that anyone can do any of these things using the functional perspectives, but for the type with that function connected to that archetype, there will be a heightened emotional investment in the action or reaction, as the function translates the emotional responses involving the complex into cognitive information.

    HERO (dominant)

    Since this is the ego's main standpoint, we probably don't often project it at others. We "own" it right off the bat. It is "us", at least in our conscious self-image.
    I imagine it's when we're really young, and we look up to those who manifest the perspective that will become dominant in our own consciousness. We then seek to be like them and emulate them; becoming better and better at the process as we go on. We eventually master it, and thus are able to withdraw the projection; seeing ourselves as the "hero" in this area.

    As "operating charters", the emotionally positive sense of heroically solving a problem would best be captured by the rational mind through the following perspectives:

    Se (ESxP): The environment must be scanned for tangible experiences
    Si (ISxJ): Life must be familiar to my storehouse of data
    Ne (ENxP): The environment must be inferred for alternative possibilities
    Ni (INxJ): Life must have an underlying significance inferred by me
    Te (ExTJ): The environment must be efficiently organized
    Ti (IxTP): Life must make technical sense to me
    Fe (ExFJ): The environment must be socially friendly
    Fi (IxFP): Life must be humanely congruent to me

    GOOD PARENT (auxiliary)

    You would think we likewise don't project this much, since we see it as just as integral to our type as the dominant. But since (according to Lenore) we often jump straight to the tertiary defense, we apparently do not always completely own the complex.
    When we do, we reportedly gain a strong motivation to teach and mentor others, and sometimes going to the opposite extreme of wjhat's been called "preaching the auxiliary". The person now rigorously "parents" others with their perspective, including their method of owning the complex.

    I imagine projecting the parent would mean you would see others as parent figures you want to help you with the perspective of the function in that position. Running to the tertiary, we're playing a role of "child" (that function's archetypal shell) anyway. Again, when we mature in the function, we then take a more "parental" role, and would then withdraw the projection.

    But being in a heavy SJ environment, I have probably not had many people I could project this onto, so I believe I owned it pretty early, making my Ne very strong (as reflected by the cognitive process test), to the point of seeming to be possibly my dominant.

    The emotionally positive sense of authoritatively supporting others is best captured by the rational mind through:
    Se (ISxP): Aiding others in tangible experiences
    Si (ESxJ): Teaching others according to what's familiar
    Ne (INxP): Showing others alternative possibilities
    Ni (ENxJ): Showing others underlying significance of things
    Te (IxTJ): Directing others to efficiently organize the environment
    Ti (ExTP): Teaching others according to logically truth
    Fe (IxFJ): Instructing others on group ethics or values
    Fi (ExFP): Teaching others by one's own personal relation to situations

    PUER/PUELLA ("eternal child", tertiary)

    Since this would be the function our egos run to to maintain the dominant attitude, we probably don't project this associated complex onto others. The ego naturally owns it quickly. (Projection would be seeing others as "children" in some way).

    The tertiary thus "inflates" itself, aiming to appear full of "wisdom and maturity" and be equal to the dominant or auxiliary of others. Yet then it deflates itself, and I (for instance) become like a child wanting to be taken and led into the innocent past through nostalgic interests. It also tends to "tell us what we want to hear" (for me, relying on what I know to be factually true).

    Actually, all conscious complexes tend to inflate themselves. It's actually the ego that is doing the inflating, as it seeks to be the center of the psyche (in place of the Self). So since the tertiary is the ego's first line of defense of the dominant perspective, it seems to be the one that is seen "inflating" the most.

    The emotionally positive sense of child-like relief is best captured by the rational mind through:
    Se (ENxJ): Looking to be led by others in tangible experiences
    Si (INxP): Nostalgic enjoyment of memories, especially childhood
    Ne (ESxJ): childlike exploring of alternatives, new possibilities
    Ni (ISxP): childlike exploring of underlying significances
    Te (ExFP): Finding relief in organizing the environment
    Ti (IxFJ): Childlike exploration of logical frameworks
    Fe (ExTP): childlike when connecting with others
    Fi (IxTJ): Find relief through internal harmony; personally relating to situations represents innocence

    Now, we enter the realm of the less conscious complexes; the ones that do get heavily projected onto others, and need to be owned.

    When we project the encompassing complexes onto people, they seem to fit those roles, generally involving the function-attitude in that position in some way, and we react oppositionally in kind with that function. Or, they might genuinely be fitting the role in their own behavior.
    To own the complex instead of projecting it at others, we must see ourselves as playing those roles; our own worst enemies.
    This is hard, because these parts of us are what we have shut out of our consciousness.

    ANIMA (inferior, aspirational)

    What it is about, and which function it encases:

    The collecting place of our sense of "otherness", including life, libido and and instinctual energies. The word means "soul". Shaped largely by the parent of the opposite sex, projected onto those we fall in love with, and encases the inferior function.

    We likely feel inferior in both the internal or external orientation, and the functional perspective associated with the inferior.

    Possible drawbacks from the emotionally freighted sense of connecting with life:

    ISxJ's might feel inferior in new possibilities.
    INxJ's might feel inferior with current tangible experience.
    IxTP's might feel inferior in humane (personal) matters (including one's standing in social groups).
    IxFP's might feel inferior in technical (impersonal) matters, such as regarding logical organization.
    ESxP's might feel inferior (spaced out) by conceptual frameworks such as archetypes and symbolism.
    ENxP's might feel inferior when it comes to a storehouse of tangible acts, such as learned order
    ExTJ's might feel inferior on a humane level, including personal integrity.
    ExFJ's might feel inferior on a technical level, such as regarding logical understanding.

    How we project it onto others:

    ISxJ's Cling to dominant perspective. Criticize NP's as irresponsible regarding learned knowledge
    INxJ's Cling to dominant perspective. Criticize SP's as reckless
    IxTP's Appear insensitive or unfeeling and openly complain about FJ types.
    IxFP's Criticize other's organization
    ESxP's Criticize this stuff as irrelevant.
    ENxP's Dismissed learned methods as irrelevant
    ExTJ's Become defensive and develop a martyrdom complex where it's everyone else's ethics that are bad.
    ExFJ's Criticize others as illogical.

    In each case, there's a deep down inside longing for what they are brushing off, that they might realize if they look for it. Espsecially in mid-life, when individuation takes us inward.

    We (at least unconsciously) feel we would be best completed in the orientation by someone by our side who somehow fulfills the perspective. (Since this is a projection onto the person, they are not necessarily a type that prefers the function).

    I imagine this might come out in the emotional images that surface when we think of a beautiful romantic day:

    ISxJ's exploring new possibilities, to "create new memories".
    INxJ's enjoying rigorous tangible experience together, and extracting meaning from it.
    IxTP's strolling through a beautiful setting involving an atmosphere colored by other people; admiring technical things.
    IxFP's working side by side at some sort of logical organization with a humanitarian purpose.
    ESxP's someone to get lost with in a world of conceptual frameworks such as archetypes and symbolism, and then realizing their dreams.
    ENxP's enjoying nostalgia together, and exploring them as exciting possibilities
    ExTJ's someone who gives them a sense of personal integrity, giving them further incentive for their logical ordering.
    ExFJ's exoploring technical wonders, and feeling connected through this.

    Yet in real life, no one can ever fulfill this ideal companion, so we tend to just find fault with people who use the opposite perspective.

    Since in the typical Beebe order where the eight are evenly divided four and four, the inferior usually falls on the "ego-syntonic" side, where the next four are "ego-dystonic" and negative. So Berens includes it with the first three as generally positive, having a negative side, rather than generally negative, having positive side.
    So the "negative" side of this "aspirational" function she calls "projective"; and often the first aspect of it experienced. We "project our fears, shoulds and negativities onto others". What happens, is that it basically shapes ideals we feel inferior in, which are then projected outward at others by thinking of them as what they "should" do.

    In reality, it is all the shadows or unconscious complexes that get projected onto others. Of course, this harmonized with standard four-process theory, where the inferior IS considered to be the whole "shadow".

    So that is another aspect of the inferior projection besides just the opposite gender stuff.

    How to own it:
    We see others as completing us (i.e. we're inferior), but we need to see this completeness in ourselves. We need to become better at what we feel inferior at ourselves, rather than placing demands on others.
    In the deeper Jungian concept, there is also a whole sense of "libido" or "life-giving energy" we tend to project onto the opposite sex (especially men projecting onto women). When we come to see this in ourselves, we will withdraw the projections, and also again gain more access to the unconscious. The anima/animus then becomes a "sage", and ultimately, an inner source of wisdom. There are two links on the anima below (Donald Kalsched, Paul Watsky) which will provide more information on this.

    What is trying to be brought into consciousness is the need to own the shadow; what is "not I", the ego-dystonic; and a good place to start is with the [yet ego-syntonic] perspective of the opposite function and orientation together.

    Now, to "the shadow", proper.
    "The Shadow" was originally (to Jung) a single archetype that gets projected onto our enemies. In this model, it is of course divided into four distinct roles, shadowing the primary archetypes. (In the older model, it is just the inferior itself. So in this model, the inferior or anima/animus is often called "the bridge" to the unconscious).


    What it is about, and which functional perspective it encases:

    We feel negative emotions of our dominant perspective being obstructed by things in the opposite orientation. Then, we become stubborn about them. The complex then defends the dominant perspective in that opposite orientation.

    ISxJ's Feel obstructed in or become stubborn about tangible reality.
    INxJ's Feel obstructed in or become stubborn about emergent meanings and possibilities
    IxTP's Feel obstructed in or become stubborn about the way things are organized
    IxFP's Feel obstructed in or become stubborn about group standards
    ESxP's Feel obstructed in or become stubborn about their perceptions of how things once were
    ENxP's Feel obstructed in or become stubborn about their perceptions of how the future will be
    ExTJ's Feel obstructed in or become stubborn about models and principles and robotically following them
    ExFJ's Feel obstructed in or become stubborn about personal values

    How we project it onto others:

    The subconscious attitude generally is: "you're obstructing me, so I'll oppose you". [I'm so immersed into my dominant orientation and oppose the opposite one, and project the opposition onto you]

    ISxJ's Think that living in the moment is irresponsible. (However, some who do it are sexy).
    INxJ's Probably think that multiple possibilities are absurd. The patterns point to one right conclusion.
    IxTP's Think that agreed upon logical rules are stupid and a waste of time. Spunky Te types might be sexy
    IxFP's Think that agreed upon ethics do not get to the real needs of people; affect them negatively, etc.
    ESxP's Memorized rules and such are stupid and limiting of freedom.
    ENxP's Taking only one possibility is stupid and limiting.
    ExTJ's Breaking things down into trivial detail is stupid, inefficient and a waste of time
    ExFJ's Tailoring everything to individual personal needs is too much trouble

    How to own it:

    We're making others into "opposing personalities" ("negative heroes" or "villains"), but we're really our own villain.

    What is trying to be brought into consciousness: the need for the rejected orientation.

    Ji/Pe types have chosen P and suppressed J. And Je/Pi types have chosen J and suppressed P. Hence, P's might not really make many decisions externally, but instead just try to get by under other people's order, with which we can easily find fault, but not offer much of a better solution ourselves.

    If we were to exercise (own) more of a J attitude (as represented by our dominant function's opposite orientation), we would be more proactive in the outer world and thus able to attain better positions of control and not feel so at the mercy of others. We would then be able to withdraw some of the vilification or criticism we direct at those in power.
    Likewise, if J's would likewise take on more of a [suppressed] P attitude, they would withdraw a lot of their blame on others for not being organized enough.

    This complex is also usually contrasexual, like the anima/animus. It seems to be what we "lust" after in the opposite sex. While the anima is "madonna" or the "nice guy" we "love" in the opposite sex, this complex is the "whore" or "bad boy". (My own observation). This will especially be prominent in men who have not developed their anima to the stage where they dissociate it from their mother.

    WITCH/SENEX ("critical parent")

    What it is about, and which functional perspective it encases:

    We feel negative emotions connected to extreme crankiness, as like an authoritarian figure whose position is negated, and then become "critical and disgruntled" (Berens) about the associated perception or judgment perspective. "Parent" others negatively in a limiting, authoritarian fashion.

    ISxP's Feel negated in or become disgruntled about rememberance of facts.
    INxP's Feel negated in or become disgruntled about patterns and perceived significance of events (and what they appear to lead to).
    IxTJ's Feel negated in or become disgruntled about variable logical principles
    IxFJ's Feel negated in or become disgruntled about personal ethics
    ESxJ's Feel negated in or become disgruntled about current sensory experience (what things look like, etc).
    ENxJ's Feel negated in or become disgruntled about alternative possibilities.
    ExFP's Feel negated in or become disgruntled about group values
    ExTP's Feel negated in or become disgruntled about set logical order

    How we project it onto others; how it might play in their subconscious mind:

    ISxP's Avoid past rememberances, except to blame, and will make them critical if others dwell too much
    •I'M the authority on factual data, and you have dwelled too much on the past and should move on [I feel bad about the past, and project it onto you]

    INxP's Interpret everything in terms of a "big picture" in which the worst will happen, and blame those around them:
    •I'M the authority on concepts and inferences. What you're doing fits (implies, infers, etc.) a negative pattern I see, and I'm going to stand against it. [I feel the patterns are against me, and project it onto you].

    IxTJ's Will often angrily hit others with logical "truth" or principles:
    •I'M the authority on logical order. You are being totally illogical! [I subconsciously know my logic is not very deep with my external focus, and I project this onto you]

    IxFJ's Can angrily hit others with personal or universal ethical "truth":
    •I'M the authority on ethics! Your behavior shows a lack of personal integrity. [I feel I'm not living up to the personal (internal) side of ethics with my external focus, and I project it onto you].

    ESxJ's Very critical about the way things look, which they easily spot to find fault with (I call them "hawks")
    •I'M the authority on tangible reality (e.g. how things look). What you're making is ugly. [I feel deficient in this area, and project it onto you].

    ENxJ's Might attack people for bombarding them with alternative possibilities and meanings, especially if they do not have any "authority" to do so:
    •I'M the authority on conceptual ideas. Your ideas are totally ridiculous! [I cannot handle multiple emergent possibilities and project this onto you]

    ExTP's Will fight, compete and one-up others over the way things are ordered.
    •I'M the authority on logical sense. You are being totally illogical! [I subconsciously know my logic is not readily practical to others with my internal focus, and I project this onto you]

    ExFP's will authoritatively chastize those perceived as disrupting social harmony (and end up disrupting it themselves), and will reference standards imposed upon themselves:
    •I'M the authority on ethics. You're displaying bad social behavior [I go against external values when they conflict my internal standard, yet my conscience bothers me about this, and I project it at you].

    How to own it:

    We see others as shaming, blaming "critical parents", setting limits on us in an authoritarian (Hunziker) fashion (and then react in kind), but we're really our own critical parent, and blaming others for this.

    What is trying to be brought into consciousness through this is wisdom neglected in our preferred Parental complex.

    TRICKSTER (bad child, clown)

    What it is about, and which functional perspective it encases:

    Emotions connected with that of a bad child; either dealing with one, playing tricks and binding the ego, or then being one to get back at or rebel against the threat, will often come through the perspective. Where the Puer tells us what we want to hear, the Trickster tells us what we don't want to hear! We feel "bound", and then, in a rebellious fashion, try to turn the tables by using it for deceiving, double-binding, trapping others

    ISxP's Might feel 'double-bound' by alternative possibilities
    INxP's Might feel 'double-bound' by tangible reality (physical things, etc), and then it seems to become the perfect vehicle to try to turn the tables on others with, or to be silly with.
    IxTJ's Might feel 'double-bound' by social values, and use them to trap others into behaving or conforming
    IxFJ's Might feel 'double-bound' by set logical order, and make mistakes trying to implement it themselves
    ESxJ's Might feel 'double-bound' by patterns or inferences, and use them to trap others into confirming their worst fears
    ENxJ's Might feel 'double-bound' by memorized facts that go against ego, and use them to trap others
    ExTP's Might feel 'double-bound' by a focus on personal values, and use them to trap others
    ExFP's Might feel 'double-bound' by variable logical principles and use them to trap others or be silly

    How we project it onto others; how it might play in their subconscious mind:

    ISxP's See people tossing out alternative possibilities and meanings as bad children or clowns:
    •HA! Got you! You're trying to bind me [I feel lost with emergent inferences and project it onto you] so I'm going to bind you with concepts and possibilities.

    INxP's People performing rigorous stunts are clowns; people pointing out tangible reality that goes against the ego seem like "bullies":
    •HA! Got you! You're trying to bind me [I feel bound by tangible reality and project it onto you], so I'm going to bind you with tangible reality

    IxTJ's might criticize others' social behavior to scare them by saying they are bringing rejection on themselves:
    •HA! Got you! You're trying to bind me with social rules [I feel bound by social rules and project it onto you], so I'l bind you with social etiquette

    IxFJ's see people organizing things logically as "bad children":
    •HA! Got you! You're trying to bind me [I feel confused by externally set technical order and make mistakes with it, and project it onto you] so I'm going to bind you with technical order.

    ESxJ's see symbolism and inferences as silly, yet unconsciously use them themselves under stress, in a "bratty" fashion:
    •HA! Got you! You're trying to bind me [I feel confused or lost with stored conceptual patterns and project it onto you], so I'm going to bind you by proving that you're confirming my worst intuitions.

    ENxJ's People who dwell on the past (instead of moving on) are "puerile", and yet they might distort it to get them off their back:
    •HA! Got you! You're trying to bind me [I feel trapped by stored facts and project it onto you], so I'm going to bind you with stored facts (including making you look crazy for bringing them up; e.g. the past).

    ExTP's see opponent's passion in a dispute and try to outdo it themselves in a childish fashion:
    •HA! Got you! You're trying to bind me [I feel bound by the personal side of situations such as universal values and project it onto you] so I'm going to bind you with ethical values.

    ExFP's: All this archetype stuff ("puers trigger witches", etc. logical frameworks) is just excuses for bad behavior (I actually had one say this to me!):
    •HA! Got you! You're trying to bind me [I feel confused or lost with technical variables and project it onto you] so I'm going to bind you with technical details.

    How to own it:

    We see others as a bad child or binding us, but we're being a bad child or binding ourselves.

    What is trying to be brought into consciousness is the perspective orientation opposite the dominant one our "child" complex runs to. In severe trauma, the Self uses it to try to keep information out of consciousness, and bind a person from taking action that might expose the ego to more damaging content.


    What it is about, and which functional perspective it encases:

    The most suppressed area of consciousness. Also named by various theorists, "Internal Saboteur", "Bad Object" or "anti-libidinal ego". Carries emotions associated with evil, either someone trying to destroy the ego (real or apparently, imagined), or the ego in turn trying to destroy a [perceived] threat. Where the anima represents our connection to "life", the Demon conveys a association with death. Encases the opposite function of the dominant perspective orientation.

    ISxJ's deep conceptual meaning is an area of the unknown and runs totally counter to the concrete structure needed
    INxJ's The past is highly irrelevant, and likely haunting
    IxTP's the personal factor in situations, or conscience might be a nagging, guilt-provoking issue we wish could go away.
    IxFP's Logical analysis totally depersonalizes life
    ESxP's Interpretations of current reality are highly irrelevant
    ENxP's "may get caught up in a binge of being in the physical moment; excessively seeking stimulation or following the urge to sleep or do nothing" (Berens)
    ExTJ's Social harmony might be manipulated for personal goals (and at the expense of real harmony), rather than shaping one's own behavior
    ExFJ's Logical order is a necessary evil done in a huff to accomplish goal of social harmony

    How we project it onto others; how it might play in their subconscious mind:

    ISxJ's see conceptual frameworks as crazy, yet use them under stress in an overblown fashion ("dire predictions with detailed certainty"):
    •Your abstract dreamworld makes me feel totally lost [so I project this onto you], so I'm going to use negative inferences to make you feel threatened.

    INxJ's "When really stressed, they may waste time reviewing the impact of the past."(Berens):
    •You're trying to destroy me with my past, [I feel threatened by stored facts (which I see as irrelevant as it is) used against me, and project it onto you], so I'm going to use your past to destroy you!

    IxTP's Might become very envious and resentful at people seen as morally self-contented, and want nothing more than to upseat and expose them. They come across as evil hypocrites wearing a "good guy" mask. They then end up coming off as self-righteous themselves in trying to outdo these others. Also, self-destructive in expending time and energy passionately engaging in all-so-"important" personal causes against these objects of envy:
    •You're trying to destroy my humanity to the core (internal), so I'm going to destroy yours! [I really want to self-destruct from my need for internal logical "sense" and external personal validation being violated, and I project this onto you]

    IxFP's Logical analysis is cold and evil, and they'll use it to demolish someone else's analysis:
    •Your impersonal analysis makes me feel totally depersonalized [and I project this onto you], so I'm going to destroy your logic

    ESxP's: emergent conceptualization makes me feel totally lost and you're taking advantage of this:
    •[I "over-read 'between the lines'" and project this onto you by "misinterpreting the meaning of someone's actions and attributing negative intentions where there were none" (Berens)], so I'm going to react accordingly.

    ENxP's "zero in on isolated details, hastily acting on them in a chaotic disjointed way" (Berens):
    •feels undone by emergent tangible experience not under control of conceptual knowledge, and projects by trying to destroy others with rash impulsive reactions

    ExTJ's Others are socially destructive, and are out to get me; I'm doing SO much for others, and not appreciated:
    •You're trying to destroy me from the inside out (e.g. "my integrity"), so I'm going to destroy your standing on the outside [I really want to self-destruct from my need for my external logical image and internal personal validation being violated, and I project this onto you]

    ExFJ's Others' disorder is making me crazy; frenzied rush to clean and fix everything or order the other person:
    •Your lack of orderliness totally destroys my sense of [humane] harmony [I feel gravely overwhelmed in the logical aspect of external oder, and project it onto you], so I'm going to destroy your mess (or become highly irritable as I clean the area).

    How to own it:

    We see others as "devils" (destroyers) in these areas, but the destructive evil is really within us!

    What is trying to be brought into consciousness is what the ego is fighting most against; the perspective opposite to its dominant function, but in its sacred preferred orientation. In severe trauma, the Self uses it to try to keep information out of consciousness to protect the ego from more damaging content; and demonic figures might appear in dreams threatening the ego with death if the ego's already fragile boundaries are being breached.

    Owning this complex might make our ego feel it is in danger of becoming nonexistent, or transformed into the weak, pathetic, helpless image I mentioned earlier, that we despise as totally allowing the evil that opposed the ego to prevail. Think "Ichabod: the glory has departed". If the anima is the soul, then this represents the ego, rather than united with the soul, instead sapped of all life.
    However, this figure, like the others, is really the ego's own projection. In actuality, it is really the "daimon"; the word "demon" is derived from, but without the necessarily evil connotation "demon" has taken on. The word means "replete with knowledge", "divine power," "fate" or "god." In Greek mythology, it included deified heroes. They were considered intermediary spirits between men and the gods.

    Man was called not only to survive and reproduce, but to love and help others along the way. This includes showing grace and forgiveness, as we ourselves need. This would represent, what in Christian terminology is called "partaking of the Cross". Hence, why that poor pathetic archetype looks the way he does, and is even associated with evil. He has borne the entire shadow of the world! And our ego resists becoming this, in favor of its own goals, and seeking its own way. The unpreferred perspectives then often make the ego feel threatened. Particularly the inferior function when "infiltrating" the dominant orientation.
    If we spend all our energy maintaining the ego's wishes and protesting our pains and disappointments, we eventually become the very evil we see in the world (which we are projecting on them as it is), and representing the "dark side" of life we would associate with "demons". If we accept more of a "suffering servant" mantle, then we become like "daimons" or "angels", being messengers of God, and true heroes; even if not recognized by the world.

    Here's another perspective for understanding the shadows in terms of the primary functions they are shadowing.

    When Se is the shadow degradation; the person goes from a primary perspective of subtracting from tangible data what is irrelevant or untrusted, and now adds or interjects himself into the emergent experience in a (usually) more negative fashion.

    When Se is in Opposing Personality role, the ego function is Si, which internalizes tangible experience through memory. When this is challenged, the focus is shifted to current, emergent reality to backup past knowledge. (After all, the past once was present, and is to be learned from in order to know what to expect in the present).

    In a similar fashion, when Se is in witch/senex role, Si is the function the ego uses to parent others. When the 'parental' advice based on past knowledge is rejected, then the parent becomes critical and uses current reality to place blame and find fault.

    When Se is trickster, then Si is puer, and internalized tangible experience is what the ego childishly falls back on to maintain its introverted attitude. If this is challenged, the ego will use current tangible reality to get others off his back by pointing at others ("you do it too" defense {triggered when the ego is intimidated through the puer by memory-based fear of punishment}). "wanting to have its own way": wanting to see things for myself, and having concrete evidence for things such as spirituality.

    Se as demon: The person aspires to being more attentive to internal sensations. External sensations may undermine this.

    When Si is the shadow degradation; the person goes from a primary perspective of adding or interjecting himself into the emergent experience to subtracting from the tangible data what is irrelevant, in a (usually) more negative fashion.

    Si as Opposing Personality: The person is focused primarily on the present (emergent tangible data). The past (stored tangible data) is used as a reference to how it links to the present, which they will stubbornly cling to.

    Si as witch/senex: the person parents others by noticing current tangible data. If this is ignored, they will turn to stored tangible data to criticize things by.

    Si as trickster: Sensory pleasure is a source of childlike relief. If this is threatened, they will reference memorized experiences to get the person off their back.

    Si as demon: the person, immersed in the world of Ni, ultimately wants some connection to the tangible world, usually the present. Under stress, they may turn from present to past reality.

    When Ne is the shadow degradation; the person goes from a primary perspective of subtracting from conceptual data what is irrelevant or untrusted, and now adds or interjects himself into the emergent data in a (usually) more negative fashion. He'll veer away from likely outcomes according to internalized conceptual patterns, and merge with the objects themselves, using their open, multiple meanings or possibilities to toss out at others, perhaps sarcastically.

    Ne as Opposing Personality: The person usually has "knowings" based on internal abstract perceptions. If this is challenged, they will turn towards external stimuli to back up their perception.

    Ne as witch/senex: The person parents with foresight and following their visions. If this is spurned, they will turn to an external sense of possibilities to criticize with.

    Ne as trickster: The person finds relief in using their imagination to perceive the future. If this is intimidated, they would try to tie others down with multiple external interpretations.

    Ne as demon: They aspire to having a sense of the future. When stressed, it can turn into messed up interpretations.

    When Ni is the shadow degradation; the person goes from a primary perspective of adding or interjecting himself into the emergent possibilities to subtracting from the conceptual data what is irrelevant, in a (usually) more negative fashion. They now "lock on" to a negative outcome extracted from all other possibilities!

    Ni as Opposing backs up Ne as hero. The ego cherishes multiple opportunities of external obects being open. If they are shut out, then the person will "lock on" to an internal negative perception of what will happen.

    Ni as senex/witch uses its perceptions to criticize or cast blame, with a cynical outlook on the future. They normally "parent" others with external-based multiple possibilities, but when these seem to be shut out by circumstances (or if they cannot obtain the meaning behind something), they will generate a specific perception internally based on patterns seen (archetypal "models" of situations), and 'parent' others in a negative fashion with this.

    Ni as trickster shadows Ne as child. Imaginativeness using multiple possibilities is a playful, childlike endeavor. If this is intimidated, the person will then try to bind the other person with negative premonitions of what will happen. They may act as if it is inevitable or as good as having occurred already, and become very childish.

    Ni as demon: shadows Ne as anima. The person really has a typical aversion to too much abstraction (favoring internal concrete remembrance), but does aspire to seeing the meanings behind things. Under stress, this will become very negative forecasting "with detailed certainty" (Berens).

    When Te is the shadow degradation; the person goes from a primary perspective of subtracting from technical data what is irrelevant, and now adds or interjects himself into the logical aspects of the object in a (usually) more negative fashion. You try to promote your frameworks as the most efficient, and in some way get them implemented.

    Te as Opposing Personality will back up the ego's internal technical model of how things should be, and thus when the principles are violated, it will be "stubborn" about how things are technically organized.

    Te as witch/Senex will back up parental Ti which seeks to instruct others with its models. So when people do not follow the technical principles, it will turn to the external technical order of things to criticize and find fault.

    Te as trickster will shadow the Child, which delights in technical models and frameworks. If someone intimidates this, it will turn to external technical principles to strip down the offender.

    Te as demon: Very Feeling (humane focus) driven person, and while they have an aspiration to Ti, when things do not make sense, they will overcompensate with a focus on external technical efficiency and virulently trying to establish order.

    When Ti is the shadow degradation; the person goes from a primary perspective of adding or interjecting himself into the technical content to subtracting from it what is irrelevant, in a (usually) more negative fashion. He now (temporarily) steps aside from the means to the end of implementing efficiency, to referencing the inherent "universal" principles, explaining why this is the way it should be, or why others should understand or act accordingly.

    Ti as Opposing Personality: The person's hero is extraverted Thinking, which orders the world for technical efficiency. When this is challenged, they will turn inward to universal technical principles to stubbornly support their external focus.

    Ti as witch/senex: The person parents others with rules of external technical efficiency. When this is not adhered to, then they begin parenting critically with the universal technical frameworks and principles of the world that support the external rules.

    Ti as trickster: External technical efficiency is looked up to with childlike innocence. The person will turn to the underlying technical principles behind it as a last resort if intimidated. Otherwise, it is seen as puerile detail.

    Ti as demon: The person has a deep down desire to be organized and systematic. If this is intimidated with too much technical detail, they then seek to rip to shreds the models and frameworks, proving them inconsistent; destroying the offending logic from the inside out.

    When Fe is the shadow degradation; the person goes from a primary perspective of subtracting from humane content what is irrelevant, and now adds or interjects himself into the external interpersonal situation in a (usually) more negative fashion.

    Fe as Opposing Personality: The person is driven by personal and universal humane values. If these are challenged, they will appeal to external set values to defend the ego.

    Fe as critical parent is supporting Fi as good parent. ExFP's parent others with personal or universal humane values. If a group or people in a group are violating these, then the person will begin using external set values to parent the people in a critical fashion (including blaming).

    Fe as trickster: The person finds relief through universal/personal humane values. External set values are appealed to (often in an overgeneralized fashion) when motivating someone to do what's important, particularly if the person's behavior is affecting them in some way.

    Fe as demon: The person's directive heroic external logic is ultimately driven by a deep sense of what's important (humane variables they personally relate to). If this is challenged (especially by accusing them of bad behavior), they turn on the offenders to try to destroy their sense of group values, or use external set values to put others down, or claim to be unfairly treated.

    When Fi is the shadow degradation; the person goes from a primary perspective of adding or interjecting himself into the interpersonal environment to subtracting from the external values what is irrelevant, in a (usually) more negative fashion. They now retreat to their own personal values (as a defense), which they normally adapt to accomodate others.

    Fi as Opposing Personality: The person is driven (by externally set standards) to accommodate others, but since this can easily be taken advantage of, when stressed, (or more frequently; from coming from a background of abuse), they will turn the value system inward and erect a hard stiff wall of what is important and desired to themselves personally.

    Fi as critical parent: The person parents others with externally set humane values. If this is ignored, a negative internal humane judgment system will erupt to sharply put down the offender.

    Fi as trickster: Social acceptance will be a vulnerable spot for them. If this is intimidated, they will use universal humane values to get others off their backs.

    Fi as demon: Fe as anima will be very dependent on others for acceptance. This external influence will provide their sense of personal integrity and worth (their "personal relation" to life). If others constantly reject the person, this may trigger a very negative, destructive "universal" sense of being no good as a person, which may also cause backlashes against others. Universal humane values will be used as a "club" to condemn offenders or their systems (i.e. destroy their basis for personal integrity, such as showing they are not really congruent with their own stated values).
    The person will also vehemently resist any charge of violation of Fe or Fi values. They may be put off by any self-righteous moralizing in others (which pricks their conscience in a provocative way), and try to outo or take them down.

    In the above, I attempted to show the characteristics of how the four primary functions degrade into their shadows. What should also not be left out is the similar transformation of the first two into their brain lateral counterparts (which are actually the last two), according to Lenore Thomson's theory.

    Basically, all this is, is holding the same orientation and switching the function (within the j/p category). Under certain instances of stress, when your dominant or auxiliary functions cannot solve the problem, instead of simply swapping i/e orientation for those same functions, which is engaging their "shadow" counterparts, the ego "tries" the reverse: holding the same orientation with the opposite function.

    Basically, (to use Beebe's concepts) the hero becomes the demon, and the parent becomes the trickster.
    These are called the "Crow's Nests" in Lenore's ship analogy, while the preferred functions with the attitudes reversed are the "Double Agents" (who as the opposite side brain alternatives act as the "maintenance crew", but may attempt mutiny. And the tertiary and inferior basically cause trouble from outside the ship).
    (Should be pointed out that in Lenore's view, the Crow's Nests and Double Agents are not necessarily the same as the archetypes associated with the same functions).

    SP's: Se-->Ne
    SJ's: Si-->Ni
    NP's: Ne-->Se
    NJ's: Ni-->Si
    TJ's: Te-->Fe
    TP's: Ti-->Fi
    FJ's: Fe-->Te
    FP's: Fi-->Ti

    This can be understood in conjunction with the above descriptions of the triggering of the shadows through the primary counterparts. For the hero works in tandem with the inferior or anima, which is shadowed by the demon, and the parent works in tandem with the child, which is shadowed by the trickster. So under some stress, the shadow of a function will be engaged, and under more stress, the full shadow tandem will be engaged.
    (Should be noted Lenore herself is more reserved in applying the archetypes to the last three functions).

    To gain further understanding of how the opposite function in the dominant attitude might surface, recall that we feel vulnerable in situations where our Persona (and its dominant functional perspective) is threatened. Then the normal inhibitions against the inferior function is removed ("what have I got to lose? I'm already 'out there'").
    Depending on the situation, the person may even remain in the same brain hemisphere or J/P zone, and thus manifest the function in the dominant attitude, or Beebe's "8th" function, or Lenore's "Crow's Nest".

    The way this seems to happen, is that it's not about "using" one of eight function-attitudes or another. It's about the four functional perspectives (S, N, T, F), and for which one is inferior for us. The resultant attitude will be shaped by how the situation hits us.
    It might be that the initial feeling reaches us by way of the typically assigned inferior function-attitude (opposite in both function and attitude), and then the reaction is in its shadow, in the dominant attitude, or the so-called 8th function. Hence, the "ship" order, which is often reflected in cognitive process test result "strengths".

    If this happens a lot, you then become used to the perspective, and may "use" it more, but it still carries a general negative connotation (such as solutions to negative situations), and is somewhat uncomfortable.

    So when feeling vulnerable, I then turn to a very strong, emotion-laden humane perspective.
    I always had strong emotions when watching animal shows, and seeing how they used to paint or place big bulky radio transmitters on animals they wanted to keep track of. It was for a good purpose that made sense (studying and often trying to protect endangered species), but I couldn't help imagining how it would feel to have that stuff placed on the body and no way to get it off (Fi-personal identification to the situation).
    Also, many fictional stories I can't watch, because of identifying hypothetically, in horrible situations. Any good ending doesn't even "redeem" it.

    This made it seem like I might be an FP; after all; isn't a TP always supposed to be "detached", "impersonal", "objective", "unemotional", and put the cause of stuff like science first?
    Still, the Fi has an extremely negative and unconsciously controlled connotation, so for whatever reason, I identify and then shut down in fear of the emotions that erupt. That is what by definition makes a T preference. If other T's aren't so affected, then that is their own individual experience. Maybe some of them are just better at ignoring or stuffing their emotions.

    F's on the other hand; especially FP's, would likely enjoy the emotional reactions, even the negative parts, and a happy ending would maintain F's overall values and redeem all the negative stuff. I only sense this in certain fantasies involving the anima, and again, that stems from an overall negative "humane" context, with the Feeling as the last resort "angel" that transforms where T is unable to solve the issue.

    This diagram shows how basically, type is really shaped by just the two preferred functions (and their associated archetypes), and the other six are generated through both reflection and shadowing. This creates a two way symmetry, where you have reverse images, and a double-reverse image, which then becomes congruent in shape to the original image. This ends up indicating certain similarities.

    Of course, it was Beebe who split off #'s "5-8' as the "shadows" of 1-4. Also, as one can gather in some of his essays, there is also a mirror dynamic, where parent becomes child, and such. 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. So the archetypes work the same way.

    I feel bound in a situation (which constellates the Trickster), which also implies a form of negation (which constellates the Senex). So the part of me that feels bound by the current reality will accuse someone deemed responsible of "thinking it's funny" or "playing around", which are "bad child" projections. (I also ask "what do they get out of it?") A bad child implies a need for a critical parent to point out and chastize him. They compensate for the presence of each other. So this simultaneously erupts, providing the authoritarian anger and blaming posture, using a conceptual meaning (even if off the wall) of the situation implicit in view of the tangible reality I'm reacting to in the first place.

    I also suspected a larger overall mirror dynamic in the fact that the Anima/Animus and Opposing Personality were both "usually opposite gender", yet the demon ended up same gender. (I would have thought the demon would be opposite gender like the anima it is shadowing).

    So for a male, the hero is male, yet its initial reflection is female. It's direct shadow is also female. If you rotate the shadows to be right side up, you'll see that they are congruent to each other, and both reverse of the hero.
    The demon is the reflection of the shadow, which is a double-negative, that ends up congruent with the original positive shape. Hence, it is also male. (The gender symmetry is explored more below). This apparently only works with the spine archetypes. The arms are all presumed to be the same gender. This is probably because of the fact that the spines concern the ego's relation to self, and the arms are focused more on others.
    It also ends up yet again harmonizing with Lenore's theory. The right/left brain alternatives are the same shape as the preferred functions.

    Here is a working answer to five questions I had compiled as to understand the whole eight archetype concept in a nutshell:

    1) What exactly triggers (constellates) them in us
    2) How others' "use" (manifestation) of them affects us
    3) how they affect ourselves, inside
    4) how we use them on others
    5) when the "good" or "bad" sides of them surface

    It seems:

    1) The [archetypal] complexes (personal unconscious) are constellated when a situation invokes a memory of an experience associated with the corresponding archetype. Like something that makes us feel inferior, adversarial or cranky; or makes us feel trapped, or feels like evil. Or (for the shadows) we feel obstructed, negated, put upon, or our entire ego's integrity feels threatened. We then view this through the perspective of the associated function-attitude.

    2)Others' manifestations of these functions may trigger these memories, and affect us in kind. (i.e. according to the archetype, and it's functional perspective). Otherwise, they will be subject to how they fit the ego's goals (positively, no effect, etc).

    3)We normally see the functional perspectives as "irrelevant" (or sometimes even have an aversion to them or situations calling for them), and under stress, engage them in a rash, haphazard way. Again, the products of the undifferentiated functions do not have this effect on us when not in conflict with the ego.

    4)We project them onto others, in which we see the other person as the archetype. (This can be either from them truly acting in a way that matches (resonates with) the archetypal complex, or likely more often, just our manufacturing the illusion of such when a situation somehow evokes it). We then react to them in the same way. (adversarial, critical, etc). The goal is to see these archetypes in ourselves rather than project them.

    5)The positive effects surface more either in certain instances of stress when the primary counterparts cannot solve the problem. Otherwise, it is when we "own" the associated complexes and withdraw them, that we gain more conscious access to the functional perspectives. (And of course, there is also the "undifferentiated" normal everyday use of the function).

    I have found a great parallel between the blocks and the four playing card suits:

    1/2: ♦ diamonds: the ego's most cherished goals
    3/4: ♥ hearts: the vulnerable, innocent area
    5/6: ♠ spades (sharp weapon)
    7/8: ♣ clubs (blunt weapon)

    It has also been outlined in Socionics, by:
    Valued (i.e. primary):
    1, 2 Strong
    3, 4 Weak
    Subdued (i.e. shadow):
    5, 6 Strong
    7, 8 Weak
    [Numbers changed to Beebe's stacking order, with which they line up in this case]

    "Sameness" vs "Otherness" and gender assignment in the spine archetypes

    OK, to further highlight the concept of "otherness" and how it differentiates the "spine" complexes and their associated functions.

    We wake up as conscious egos in a large world where so much is different from us. So we choose certain mechanisms to define our identity.

    We confidently pursue ego's goals
    We take on a gender identity
    We choose a dominant function
    we choose a dominant orientation (inner or outer) to operate primarily off of.

    This all becomes connected with our public "persona", and takes on a "heroic" sense in achieving our goals.

    Everything else is "not I" or "other", and collects in an opposite space that conveys a sense of "otherness". This includes what remains unconscious to us, in the "larger self"; both personal, and collective.

    For one thing, life or nature itself is too big for the ego to contain. We have a rather small place in it. So we feel inferior in it, as we run to the dominant preferences we feel confident in to try to make something of ourselves so our egos feel at the center of things.
    So this "otherness" space takes on a sense of inferiority.

    We feel vulnerable in it
    It takes on a sense of the opposite gender
    We associate the opposite function with it
    We associate the opposite orientation with it

    (It's also thus opposite J/P attitude, and opposite brain hemishpere).

    At the same time, it creates a sense of awe in us, and we end up looking up to it. It becomes like our soul. It creates our attraction to the opposite gender, with a sense of "mystery" we would like to uncover and conquer. You can even see this sense of otherness in Adam's "now, this is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh!". Some interpreters even say "now" should be more like "wow!". He is admiring for the first time, in awe, this new "other" that has just been split off (differentiated) from him. The whole concept of "eros" I believe is a desire to reconnect to what has been split off from us, and be "whole" in a way (which of course then becomes the means of producing the next generation).

    This is seen first, in our opposite gender parents, spawning the contrasexual aspect of an "anima" or "animus" complex (as well as the oedipal complex), and as you mature, and they are no longer "other", it transfers to other members of the opposite gender as potential romantic partners. (And then, when we have one, their "otherness" tends to wear off, and we continue to "itch" in curiosity about others).
    So while we in a sense reject this space, we at the same time "aspire" to it.

    It seems the ego's preferred function always carries with it a sense of confidence.
    Meanwhile, the other aspects of "otherness", the opposite orientation and opposite gender, remain bound together. This probably is a reflection of the persona.

    So it's like two contrasexual images form (They're not how the actual other gender experiences themselves; just our own projections). Or you could think of it as one contrasexual image that separates into two.

    Both stem from your own sense of inferiority concerning your "portion in nature". Both of them are what you essentially want to conquer. Both involve the opposite orientation and J/P attitude. However, it is divided according the the function and its sense of confidence or vulnerability.

    The half that is totally "other" is connected with what you are in awe of, and would complete you. The other half is more the negative side of this; where aspects of the "other" have begun to mix with ego's dominant world-view. So it conveys what you feel opposed by, and also what you wish you could master and fight back with. (Also compensating for the more vulnerable side of the dual complex).
    My further theory is that this might be the image of the ideal fantasy ego that has integrated at least some aspects of the anima. With it, we basically take the opposite orientation and opposite gender and combine it with our dominant function and heroic persona image; combining the opposite orientation the anima lives in, and what is desired sexually (what we ourselves don't possess, which is basically a kind of obstruction to completeness) with the dominant perspective.
    So for me, this is embodied in the image of a witty female who gains respect from everyone (power) through impersonal control of the environment, coupled with a sexy finesse. I would never want such a female as a "love"-relationship partner, but there is still an attraction. This to me is basically the aspect of femininity that needs to be conquered rather than mated to the ego. To an IFP, I imagine they might tend to fall in "love" with this image, and find a nurturing nurse or maid image more "sexy".

    These basically connect to the madonna/whore dilemma for men; and "good guy/bad boy" for women.

    So when our ego needs to combine its dominant function with the opposite orientation (and opposite brain hemisphere), it manifests in an "oppositional" form that may carry a contrasexual connotation. (I describe this for me a bit in the longer part 2a).

    Even less desired is the flipside of this, where the opposite world view invades the dominant realm. The opposite function had been relegated to the opposite orientation, but when it creeps into the dominant orientation, it may come off as totally at odds to ego's way of seeing things, and ends up in a space so deep in our unconscious, which comes across as the repose for evil.
    Where the inferior space unites us with the positive side of life and its instinctual energy, this space in its shadows unites us with the negative "pitiless", "inhuman" side of nature, such as its "remorseless cycles" of extravagance and dissolution, as it has been described.

    In one sense, it is more similar to the dominant, being the same J/P attitude, and hence the same brain hemisphere. It thus also retains the dominant gender. It becomes the opposite of that ideal romantic image you have of the opposite gender, sharing with it only its sense of vulnerability (which seems to be hidden behind its fierce reactiveness). In other words, imagine being a heterosexual male and witnessing the most beautiful princess; now compare that to a weak pathetic male. Both need protection, but which would you rather date? Or to look at it another way, if you had a chance to date the princess, you would not yourself want to be the weak pathetic male.

    Otherness in gender, in both cases is what we desire, while sameness, outside of its heroic persona context, is generally repulsive. (I'm not sure how all this works outside of a heterosexual, cisgendered mindset). Hence, this seems to be why genders are assigned to the archetypes the way they are.

    Reminder, this is only the "spine" complexes (1/4/5/8) we are dealing with, as these deal with the ego's relation to self. The arms (2/3/6/7) all seem to default to the dominant gender. Otherwise, as far as the other elements such as function, orientation, and confidence, they reflect and shadow the same way.