I know of this theory from the Typologist C.S. Joseph, I wasn't able to confirm whether it originated from him or if he just repuposed it/became its biggest advocate. Either way, it's an interesting theory that aligns with my own system pretty neatly. However it also highlights my contention with Chase (C.S. Joseph), not as a person, but rather how he tries to approach typology with as a 'hard science' with too much reliance on systems and rules.
I'll be the first to admit this stuff is nowhere near a hard science, but it is incredibly theoretically sound, and that's why its potential through treating it as a guideline and as hypotheticals is far more effective.
The same very much goes for this theory, Chase engages with this system as though it is a definite reality. He claims that we weave in and out of these four sides of our mind in different situations in a near-constant state of fluctation. That we basically 'dip into' the other three different personality types within us to act more like them on a moment-to-moment basis. He seems to have spent a lot of time analysing these function fluctuations.
I'm not trying to refute this idea, though I will say it appears to me as though there's a little too much confirmation bias and trying to make things fit the neatness of a system involved. If you want to get that into the weeds of things, then go for it, but personally I don't see the point in getting quite so into the details. Maybe it's just my INFJ adversity to Si talking here, but I do see a bigger, more important picture here that's being missed.
In addition, I think I have more general psychology knowledge to draw from than Chase, who seems more focused on Jung in particular.
For starters, I've never heard Chase mention Winnicott's idea of the False Self in reference to this theory, when the two concepts align so perfectly it's almost like they're puzzle pieces separated by time. And this connection is really emblematic of the true value hidden in this theory.
Anyway, that's enough pre-amble, let me explain it. I'll use the type in the picture above so as to make things easier: the INFP.
The INFP has a function stack of Fi-Ne-Si-Te. This is the primary personality or the Ego. This is what most people relate to as their "identity".
Now, since Te is the last in that four-stack, it's the Inferior/Aspirational function. In the Four Sides of the Mind theory, the fourth function of the Ego stack is considered a 'gateway' into another personality type, whichever one has our Ego functions but in reverse. In the INFP's [Fi-Ne-Si-Te] case: the ESTJ [Te-Si-Ne-Fi].
Now, Chase equates this with the 'Subconscious' but that's an error. The Subconscious merely refers to information that is not in immediate conscious awareness but can be retrieved at any time if attention is brought to it. What this gateway truly leads to is the False Self, which is the self that we form in order to gain the approval of others. We idealise whichever archetype corresponds with our Inferior/Aspirational function, because they are naturally proficient in our greatest area of insecurity.
What this means is that the INFP's self-perception leans towards seeing the archetype of the ESTJ as more desirable to others than them.
This theory is merely lending a template to the very real truth: as Human beings, our primary desire is to be desired by those we desire. In other words, we want the reciprocation of our desire more than anything else on this Earth. And "desire" doesn't have to be meant sexually at all. It can be simply about attention or affection, as it is when we are infants and we desire our caregiver's attention (especially mother's).
Attachment styles form out of how this dynamic plays out in the very earliest stages of life. This means that there may be huge correlations between attachment repsonses and the gateway of the Inferior/Aspirational function. And that's something I'm eager to research in the future.
Therefore, this gateway leads to the False Self, meaning we now have a potential template to work from when identifying this aspect of self-identity.
Jung's Persona idea is similar, but is more what we project to the world to protect ourselves, rather than an internalisation of expectations, so the False Self still fits much better.
What this theory does get right is attributing the next quarter of the mind as the Shadow, but it's a little under-defined. So if INFP Ego is: Fi-Ne-Si-Te, the Shadow is the opposite, and its 'gateway' is the 5th function or the Nemesis: Fe-Ni-Se-Ti. This is the Ego function stack of the ENFJ.
In terms of this theory, the Shadow represents the archetype we are most envious of, the type we perceive as having everything we don't, but we also don't really want to be that type, because there is a natural antagonism in the way functions oppose when absolute. For example, as an INFJ [Ni-Fe-Ti-Se], I envy ENFPs [Ne-Fi-Te-Si] for their free-spirited nature. I also have great compatibility with them, but yet find them particularly aggravating in many ways, especially when unhealthy.
The Jungian Shadow concept is a vague term for the aspects of self that are shrouded in the unconscious. We cannot access them without some external assistance, i.e. therapy... OR... a system of theory that makes them "solid". It is the same difference between our ancestors seeing lightning in the sky and attributing it to angry gods vs. us knowing that electricity is plasma and we can harness it to do amazing things for us. Awareness is the key difference between bewilderment and something we can utilise.
But there is something else to consider here, the work of another psychologist. The enemy of most Jungians, in fact - the granddaddy of psychology himself: Sigmund Freud.
And that thing is the Id. The Id represents our primal drives; our desires. But in a different sense than Winnicott's False Self. These desires are purely our own, it's desire in the pure aspect of "I want that, and I want it now". The Id fits into the Shadow, but the vagueness of the latter covers over the former too much. The Shadow can be co-opted by New Age types who attribute everything to "unhealed wounds", the ugly truth of humanity which the Id represents - the one that generates universal shame like an out-of-control conglomerate corporation precisely because it has been swept under the rug for too long - is that we are animals operating machinery (our brains) we are ill-equipped to handle. And that fact - along with the drives of the Id - will rule you until you accept the neutral truth.
Jung himself is quoted: "Until you make the unconscious conscious it will rule your life and you will call it fate." There's nothing mystical about that; you just don't know what you're doing.
This is one of the most annoyingly misinterpreted aspects of Jung's Individuation, coupled with the Collective Unconscious. Until you accept the full scope of Humanity's debauchery as being present within yourself on some level, you will be condemned to mimic it, be it mild or extreme.
You're the same species, with the same brain, as the people who facilitated the Holocaust. Or any other of the countless genocides in history. And no amount of running away from it and dehumanizing the 'other' will change that fact.
Jordan Peterson's tendency to moralise anything he disagrees with shows that, for all his study on Jung and talk of 'integrating the monster', he completely missed the point, like almost everyone else. Remember, Jung may have broken away from Freud, but he was also Freud's star disciple beforehand, he knew all about the Id.
The Id needs to be considered, because it is one of our most dangerous aspects when ignored. One of the biggest reasons for this is that the Ego and the Id can get along like a house on fire if you let them, and in this analogy, the house is your life, and the fire is still fire.
Lastly, we have what Chase dubbed the Superego, and this one he actually gets spot on (in the terminology at least). In Freudian terms, the Superego is the is disciplinarian of the mind, it tells us what we 'should' do, and we frequently project that onto others. This is usually formed by our external environment, but the Four Sides of the Mind adds a more individual touch to the idea.
Let's look at the INFP Shadow functions again: Fe-Ni-Se-Ti. The final function in this stack (and also the final overall) is called the Demon. The Demon is the gateway into the Superego, which means the Superego is led by the Demon function, becoming ISTP: Ti-Se-Ni-Fe.
This gives it a certain characterisation less present in the simple Freudian Superego. It's almost Superego + Id in a sense. This Superego not only wants to enforce how it perceives things "should" be, it also punishes. Again, this is both intrapersonal and projected.
Think of it as your "inner Gestapo officer". Or one of the those insufferable school prefects, but one with a particularly vindictive demeanour. The kind that'll plot to get you expelled if you offend them. The "cancel culture" phenomenon is essentially big groups of people operating unknowingly from this quadrant of their psyche.
It is fiercely defensive of the Ego, but mainly the Ego as it "should" be. It chastises and fights any attempt to grow beyond the established self and is vehemently opposed to any kind of Ego-Shadow fraternisation.
This sense of "should" is deeply in line with Albert Ellis' work on the subject of "must" and "ought" mentality. Ellis says: “There are three musts that hold us back: I must do well. You must treat me well. And the world must be easy."
The Superego is the part of us that would impulse-desire to see Ellis pelted with rotten fruit for daring to suggest that any of these things are in need of any kind of change.
What this means in essence, is that the INFP can begin to look at themselves through the templates of:
- a Distorted ESTJ False Self, who both puts their own archetype on a pedestal, but also simultaneously resents themselves because they aren't 'good enough' at the strengths they "should" be good with. As such, this resentment is also projected onto traits associated with the ESTJ Ego.
- a Distorted ENFJ Id/Shadow, who engages with their own archetype as 'has it easy' and again, projects this onto anyone else who shares the traits of this archetype with envy.
- a Distorted ISTP Superego, who engages with the world fangs-first with twisted logic and potentially violent physicality.
This means they have started to confront aspects of the psyche which have been established for years and are essential in our growth as an individual. And all of this is done through a protective barrier of detachment from the idea of self, something the godfather of Person Centred Counselling - Carl Rogers - called the 'Self-Concept' which he described as an impregnable fortress. Maybe so from a direct approach, but what if we Trojan-horsed it instead?
If every INFP archetype in the world has these same dynamics as a challenge, then the individual is no more 'good' nor 'bad' than any of the others of their type. Suddenly the self-concept seems less intimidating once it is disarmed from the reason it's defensive in the first place. That being, the idea of the 'self'. When the individual looks at themselves through the lens of their archetype, rather than their self-identity, it can allow for a more external perspective, one that is free from judgement via the system itself through the recognition that all types - and therefore all people - have predisposed strengths, weaknesses, vices and flaws.
Once we are no longer 'good' or 'bad', we can look at our own traits and behaviours more impartially.
Thus, it is highly recommended our INFP example be administered positive role models for each of these types (+ their own Ego type for good measure), stat!
They might not be as bad as Distorted in one or more of these quadrants, but being prepared for the worst is often a good approach to anything (the only real exception I can think of is doomsday-preppers because it takes over their entire lives).
For those with keen awareness, you may have noticed that each of the gateways corresponds with my Counterbalance system, i.e. for each function, if it is a Judging function, the gateways will be the other 3 Judging functions, and vice versa for the Perceiving functions.