The Lenore Thomson Exegesis Wiki
John Beebe has had a significant influence on Lenore. Her description of the Jungian functions is dependent on his insight and language as well as her Jungian knowledge derived from other sources. In the relationship between areas of the brain and the eight Jungian functions, Lenore provides an analysis of INTJ in terms of Beebe's model.
Her book describing the functions depends on his work?!? In his essay on his model and the Wizard of Oz (check The Vision Thing), he refers to her definition of extraverted Feeling as "the literature" and cites her in his sources. Although Lenore wrote an article pulling the Beebe model into her own articulated model for the functions and brain dominance, her ideas do not depend on his. They have their own integrity. And history. --Gib Wallis
Ni - Hero / Te - Parental Complex / Fi - Puer/Puella / Se - Animus
Ne - Oppositional Personality Complex / Ti - Senex/Witch / Fe - Trickster / Si - Demon
In short, what Lenore calls individual identity and Ego-dystonic Shadows are exchanged between different types. The pairings are as follows: ISTJ/ESTP, ISFJ/ESFP, ISTP/ESTJ, ISFP/ESFJ, INTJ/ENTP, INFJ/ENFP, INTP/ENTJ, and INFP/ENFJ.
Since Beebe was ENTP, his profile would be as follows.
Ne - Hero / Ti - Parental Complex / Fe - Puer/Puella / Si - Animus
Ni - Oppositional Personality Complex / Te - Senex/Witch / Fi - Trickster / Se - Demon
Let us examine the way individual identity and Ego-dystonic Shadows are exchanged between INTJ and ENTP.
Can we see some characteristic ways in which INTJs and ENTPs each characteristically draw upon Ni? INTJs, perhaps, to create a sense of self that's independent of experience, and ENTPs to counterargue against facts that threaten to tie them down, by declaring them "biased" or "merely relative" or something? Does anyone have any concrete examples of these ego-syntonic/dystonic things in action?
How about the (ENTP?) economist who titled his Nobel speech "The pretense of knowledge"? Then there's Donald Rumsfeld (probably ENTP), who supposedly spazzed if you told him how you thought the future would play out ("Blind into Baghdad") In fact, Rumsfeld is probably a good example for just about anything in the ENTP shadow.
The Ni Hero complex may be experienced internally by INTJs as clear-sighted visions, deep insights, or a strong sense of "knowing", often with a prophetic quality.
*That's how I perceive it in INTJs I know. HD
This complex may be expressed externally by an INTJ in the form of forthright analyses ("This is how I see it"), insightful explanations ("The key issues are these") or apt summaries of complex situations ("So basically you're saying...."), possibly followed by alternate perspectives ("What if you looked at it this way instead?") or a plan of action ("Your best course of action is this").
*The way I've experienced it, and I'm sure this is truly oppositional, meaning that another type may see it differently, is that the INTJ does not offer such explanations in an interpersonal way. If the INTJ is lecturing, for example, s/he will take the approach described above, and what is offered will be very, very clear and intelligible. But on an interpersonal level, the INTJ is impatient with a give-and-take discussion. HD
I totally agree. - Stewart Edwards
The INTJ may appear to others as confident and certain in their conclusions, perhaps even slightly arrogant or aloof, with a level of detachment from their own ideas ("That's just my view, you can take it or leave it - it's all the same to me").
*Yup, exactly. HD
An INTJ in Heroic mode will freely add their observations to just about any proposal put forward by others, or take an "Informed Expert" position in a discussion.
*Yes. HD
In contrast, the Ni Oppositional Personality Complex may be experienced internally by ENTPs as catastrophic visions, deep uncertainties, or a sense of foreboding, often with a prediction of impending disaster.
*I've never experienced it as in any way this dramatic. Rather, a person expressing Ni intigates in me (and that's the way to frame what's happening) a sense of unapproachability. S/he doesn't appear open to discussion of where the intuitions/thoughts expressed came from. This is extremely frustrating, since my preference for Ne says, let's lay everything out on the table and take it from there to arrive at understanding. HD
Yes, I've noticed how frustrated my ENTP partner gets when my own Ni causes me to withdraw and go quiet. You may find it helpful to understand that we're often unable to discuss a forming Intuition, since it cannot be expressed in words at this stage. It can be frustrating for us too, when we just "know" something, but cannot say HOW we know it! - SE
(think of the battle between Tesla and Edison as an example, Tesla being the INTJ and Edison being the ENTP- particularily in terms of what led Edison to oppositional and almost demonic behavior.)
This complex may be expressed externally by an ENTP in the form of negative criticisms ("That'll never work!"), brusque dismissals ("You're missing the point") or outright contradictions of others' comments or ideas ("You're wrong"), possibly followed by the ENTP's own version of events ("No, I think it is like this instead") or suggestions for action ("This is what you should do").
*MBTI step II identifies me as an accepting (vs. critical) ENTP, so I don't identify with this personally. However, I've seen plenty of this sort of behavior in the ENTP discussion group. HD
The ENTP may appear to others as forceful and determined in their oppositions, perhaps even bossy or argumentative, with an emotional attachment to their own ideas ("No-one listens to my views, I don't know why I bother").
*Granted. HD
An ENTP in Oppositional mode will say "No" to just about any proposal put forward by others, or take a "Devil's Advocate" position in a discussion.
*I don't think ENTPs are stubborn in this way. Oppositional mode comes out as anger when Ni refuses to explain itself. For the ENTP it's play to take up alternate positions: there's nothing more fun than to toss contradictory ideas back and forth. HD
I did not mean to imply stubbornness here. I've often observed that ENTPs may take up Oppositional mode out of sheer delight (and sometimes pure mischief!). I also would like to emphasise that the "Devil's Advocate" role often played out by ENPs can be a very positive thing - for example, it is a useful way of bringing counter-arguments to the table, or for considering a situation from all angles. - SE
Hypothesis: The Ni Oppositional Personality Complex is the psychological dynamic driving the commonly described argumentative or contrary behaviours displayed by some ENTPs.
*You'll have to show me some evidence/arguments for this. It doesn't sound right at all. HD
This came to me as one of my own Intuitions. As I mentioned above, it can take some time for the reasoning behind the thought to become clear. In this case, the Intuition was quite strong, but I have yet to come up with any direct evidence! - SE
**We could probably agree that the function-attitudes don't operate completely independently; in fact, I believe that's one of Beebe's main points ("dialogical"). What is argumentative in ENTPs derives from auxiliary introverted Thinking. So while Ni is baffling to Ne, the auxilary Te in the INTJ comes across as the punitive parent (Witch/Senex) who wants to "manage" my behavior. That's the real source of the anger. With INFJ (or ISFJ, for that matter), it's Fe that's manifested. This is not usually a problem, because my Fe puer is willing, sometimes even eager, to go along. HD
A problem I've been having (in determining E from I types) is the difference between the Oppositional Personality, and the Witch/Senex (aka "Critical Parent"). It seems both "oppose" others, though it is some details that are different between the two. In Berens' books, for instance, ENTP "can become stubborn about their perceptions of how the future will be", and the INTP will "put a damper on plans for the future with negative thoughts about how events will turn out". But this would fit what you have described for the ENTP, above.
The Critical is actually described in other places as being even more sharp in its opposition. (For Te, the ENTP is described as becoming "quite critical and disgruntled about a lack of order, illogic and inefficiency and tend to rebel against structures and schedules", while the INTP becomes "stubborn about how things are organized and insistent on a very systematic approach to things"). This is the function used to "stop people dead in their tracks" ("looks that could kill", etc), or even make "low-blows". It's then said to "go on and on", and be very "authoritarian". How does one make low blows with Ni? Shout some future-related insult like "you're going to amount to nothing", or something? Eric
As an ENTP, I perceive Ni as an untested (though perhaps valid) vision of the way things are, in contrast to my desire through my own experience to understand the whole. I can't identify with any of the narrow-minded attitudes described above.
My descriptions were only intended as a hypothesis of how Ni may operate in its "shadow" oppositional mode in ENTPs. Shadow functions are notoriously difficult for any type to be consciously aware of in themselves. I have had many interactions with both ENTP and ENFP types, in which I have encountered the phenomena described above. According to Beebe and Beren's theory, Ni also operates in ENTPs in a more conscious and positive "Backup" role, which provides support and depth to one's dominant function. Your perception of Ni as a "vision of the way things are" sounds like this more conscious "Backup" use of Ni. - Stewart Edwards
In all fairness, I would like to have included a counter-description of how Ne operates in both types, however as an INFJ with oppositional Ne myself, I find it very hard to perceive this function in myself. I do notice that I use my own Ne in its positive, backup role for brainstorming or generating options, among other things. One possibility for how oppositional Ne may operate in INFJs and INTJs is to create a state of extreme distractibilty, experienced by each type as a loss of focus and scattering of attention. Perhaps you could generate some examples from your own experience of Introverted Intuitive types? - Stewart Edwards
I just dug out my old audiotapes of two lecture series by Beebe. I want to listen to them again to help reconstruct my memory of what he said. Also, I need some time to reread parts of Lenore's book. Dunno when I can get around to this ;) but I hope soon. Meanwhile, I hope you don't mind if I comment on some statements above. Hal Dendurent
See http://www.psych.ucalgary.ca/thpsyc/VOLUMES.SI/2002/12.2Beebe.html for Beebe's "An Archetypal Model of the Self in Dialogue" in Theory & Psychology 2002 Vol. 12(2):267-280. The article contains a full and clear explanation of the eight functions and could be the basis for further discussion here.
I already found and read this article several months ago - it has proved an invaluable reference for framing a lot of my current thinking around the archetypes. Do you know of any other useful references by Beebe? (I have scoured the net for all I can find!) - Stewart Edwards
It's no longer on that site. It's now at http://tap.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/12/2/267 for a price (like $20 for one day, outside of subscription to the journal). - ETB
--more Beebe links below, now--
As to how Ne operates, making estimates might provide an example. How far is that, how much time has elapsed, how much stuff is there? Can I quickly guess to within, say, 10%? Yes. Fuzzy logic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuzzy_logic) comes naturally. As with your Ni, I can't explain how it works, only that it does work (within limits) and that the process comes more from musing than from observation. HD
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Beebe -- the Wikipedia article, my work, which anybody can edit. HD
One of Lenore's most potent contributions is simply describing how over-reliance of the dominant function eventually, by design, leads to scenarios in which that dominant function is ineffective -- leading to tertiary defense, a vicious cycle, and revenge of the neglected inferior. Though this system may have been well known to therapists and well-informed type enthusiasts, Lenore deserves tremendous credit for opening it up for pretty much anyone to access -- and see, by looking at their OWN life (and not a footnote or citation) to see that there is truth in this.
But what isn't discussed in the book -- probably because it wasn't necessary to discuss it -- is *how* over realiance on the dominant function manifests itself. In other words, when we say that an ESTJ "over-relied on Te", what does that mean? How does that actually play out?
The quick assumption is that it's just more and more Te -- Te on top of Te, and then MORE Te, and then Te referencing itself so you have *exponential* Te -- all the while supported by Wayland Smithers "yes man" of tertiary Ne.
But does this really make sense? It wants to make sense, but really -- does it make sense -- does reality tolerate Te on top of Te, and furthermore, if Te is working on day one, why shouldn't Te work on day six or six hundred? For Te to stop being effective, something has to change. So what changes? What's added to the mix to make Te become destructive? My sense is that it could be the function noted by Beebe's trickster archetype.
The trickster archetype does more than just deceive other people -- it's *self deceiving*, too. In blatant terms, it's the result of 'buying your own bullshit.' And the reason that you can buy it, is because of the power available from the dominant function.
For example, the trickster archetype for and ESTJ is Ni. Starting from the beginning of the cycle:
An ESTJ finds themselves in charge of an underperforming, confused, medicore and toxic construction project. The ESTJ's Te is desperately welcome here. It's clear, consistent, and mapped. It justifies decisions with reference to empirical evidence and published rules of order. It makes sense -- and things get built.
Fast forward 6 weeks. The ESTJ is starting to grate. Though progress has been made and problems have been solved, other problems have emerged -- different problems that require different frameworks and creative thinking.
Now, here's the thing: if the ESTJ was *still operating as a functional Te*, then there should be no real problem here. The ESTJ saw problems 6 weeks ago and implemented solutions to solve them. The ESTJ should STILL be able to do that now. Te 6 weeks ago should STILL be Te 6 weeks later. The same skills should work. But they aren't. Why? That's where the Beebe trickster archetype seems to fit.
If the ESTJ *believes* that he/she is assessing different frameworks and choosing the "best one against a set of criteria", then this is where the delusion can set in. In other words, the ESTJ, who is "energizing" his/her dominant Te function because of its successful performance in the past, starts to build an Ni fortress to keep critics at a distance and to protect the power-intoxicated Te.
In other words: the ESTJ, using the momentum supplied by a "happy and well fed" Te, starts to BELIEVE that he/she is choosing the best framework and is aware of -- and takes ownership of -- lateral consequences.
So the idea here is that it's not just "too much Te" or "too much dominant function." It's the dominant function *assuming* that it's employing the trickster archetype. And that assumption is what allows, in this example, an effective ESTJ 6 weeks ago to being a *destructive* ESTJ today.
Here are the trickster archetypes for all types (opposite of tertiary function):
INTJ - Fe ISTJ - Fe INFJ - Te ISFJ - Te INTP - Se INFP - Se ISTP - Ne ISFP - Ne
ENTJ - Si ENFJ - Si ENTP - Fi ESTP - Fi ENFP - Ti ESFP - Ti ESFJ - Ni ESTJ - Ni
So here's the hypothesis to play with: "Overuse" of the dominant function, which leads to personality disintegration, happens when an individual uses the energy that comes from a confident, nourished dominant function to *assume* that he/she is employing the trickster archetype function, for the purposes of simply enabling the dominant function to continue expressing itself. Therefore, careful -- and potentially humbling -- self-scrutiny to see how an individual is using their trickster archetype function is an effective 'warning sign' to know whether the dominant function is being overused. If the trickster archetype is manifesting defensively -- something is wrong. If not -- continue.
What do you think?
This sounds interesting, Jason. I can't form much of an opinion about it right now, though, because I don't know much about the Trickster archetype. Can you recommend a good place to read about it? --Ben Kovitz
An exhaustive print of Beebe's model does not seem to be available, and much of it has been communicated mainly through lectures. You can get parts of it from various places.
The basics, and how he evolved the model:
http://www.ccc-apt.org/system/files/Beebe+-+Evolving+the+8-function+model+APT.pdf
http://www.ccc-apt.org/system/files/Type+and+Archetype+-+Part+One+-+The+Spine.pdf
http://www.ccc-apt.org/system/files/Type+and+Archetype+-+Part+Two+-+The+Arms+.pdf
Another informative article: "TYPOLOGY IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF INTEGRITY: An Interview with Dr. John Beebe", In Touch August, 2000
http://www.centerpointec.com/files/typology_Development.pdf
Type templates of the archetypes you can use to see which ones fit you best: http://www.vtwellness.net/type_and_archetypes/archetype_based_self_exam (Mark Hunziker site)
"An Archetypal Model of the Self in Dialogue" in the Theory & Psychology journal: http://tap.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/12/2/267. (Mentioned above. He even analyzes Woody Allen's movie Husbands and Wives in light of the archetypes).
These two don't seem to be online:
He introduced his model in "A new model of psychological types" (1988), C.G. Jung Institute of Chicago.
"UNDERSTANDING CONSCIOUSNESS THROUGH THE THEORY OF PSYCHOLOGICAL TYPES", Chapter 4, Analytical Psychology: Contemporary Perspectives in Jungian Analysis, Joseph Cambray and Linda Carter (Editors), Hove and New York: Brunner Routledge, 2004, pp. 83-115. is like a more detailed and in depth version of "Evolving the 8 Function Model"
I recently corresponded with both him and Lenore! (separately). They both helped me finally come to a fuller understanding of all this stuff. From Beebe (second and third articles listed above), that his "spine" and "arm" concept define specifically the axis of the ego's relation to self, and relation to others. This helps us tell which role functions in similar positions are playing, like the question I had above (Opposing vs Witch). Like for people weighing between E and I, and have both a strong Ne or Ti, and not sure which is dominant. The dominant will be more about the ego; thus carry a "heroic" connotation, and the auxiliary will be more about others; hence the "parent".
Then, Lenore put up these articles; the latter three comprising much of our discussion:
http://www.personalitypathways.com/thomson/type3.html (Jung MBTI Theory ) http://www.personalitypathways.com/thomson/type3-1.html#question (Psychological Orientation vs. Cognitive Skills) http://www.personalitypathways.com/thomson/type3-2.html (Different Meanings of Temperament) http://www.personalitypathways.com/thomson/type3-3.html (John Beebe & Archetypes)
Among other things, she says Beebe's model is a good, if you think of it in terms of COMPLEXES. This helped me, because I and many others looked to "functions" to react and DO other things, but it's really the complexes. I could never figure out how my Ni "bitterly criticized others" (especially since it's internal perception), however, the Senex (old man) complex definitely does this all the time, using its negative intuitions about the future or universalized meanings; and then it all fell into place.
Also helpful is her framing it in terms of an ego choosing a dominant function and orientation, in which the other functions and orientation are rejected until the other functions differentiate. That was why originally, the other three functions were believed to all be in the opposite (rejected) orientation, yet then it is the Puer complex that orients the tertiary into the dominant attitude (Now, I could understand what the "Tertiary Temptation/Defense", discussed here was really all about). So there are really four functions, used in either an external or internal orientation. Introversion and extraversion then gain back their meaning --as properties of the person or ego, in contrast to others who make them properties of the "functions" or "processes", and thus define I/E simply as "dominant function attitude". It's also easy then to understand how an ego suntonic function degrades into an ego-systonic one. The ego is simply switching to a rejected orientation of the function, via rejected negative aspects of the complexes (e.g parent becomes witch; child becomes trickster, etc). So in looking at the ESTJ's Ni above, you might want to look at the puer Ne as well, because that also might be what degrades into the trickster Ni in this interpretation.
She also mentioned the ego has an emotional investment in its dominant function. This helped me with T/F, since popular assumption suggests emotional investment is a sign of a Feeling preference.
However, she also says in those articles that the trickster (and she also said demon, in a part that was edited out) manifestation is not a normal occurrence, but in cases such as "ego-disintegration", or "when the ego is ready to individuate, or the person is ready to grow". So I wonder if the example above with the ESTJ's Ni would count as Trickster in that case, or was that a case of "ego-disintegration"? I myself do think the complexes manifest a bit more than that.
So I'm wondering whether Lenore has changed her views a bit since the book. She doesn't seem to be emphasizing the "ship" model so much (and the specific order with the tertiary and inferior last, and the others inbetween), but instead rather more into clarifying Beebe and returning to a more pure Jungian perspective. I'm wondering then if the Crow's Nests are supposed to be synonymous or coterminous with the Witch/Trickster. I never got to ask that, but just assumed it. Like when we make the right brain alternative switch from TiNe to FiSe, is that also the demon/trickster in addition to the Crow's Nest; or are those describing separate kinds of degradation in separate instances?
In any case, I and many others are finding Lenore's system to be a valuable check & balance to Beebe's system.
Eric B