The incentive behind Type?
Feb 17, 2016 14:32:09 GMT -5 by Auburn
ayoungspirit, Amsterdam, and 1 more like this
Post by Auburn on Feb 17, 2016 14:32:09 GMT -5
here comes another long mind dump...~ sorry guys.
edit: I take back what I wrote in this OP. Pay no mind to this ramble.
but for those who must know what was said...
I've been having a few realizations lately that I wanted to run by you guys, to see if they make sense. From the convo in the "Website/Bigger-Thinking" thread I started to wonder what exactly the full application of this model is. But I think, the answer ends up being rather simple.
MBTI
I think that the entire incentive that propels the MBTI forward can be summed up as "self-discovery". It has the traction it does because it's a sort of prompt for introspection. I lightly touch on this in the book, but there's a lot more to it.
Have you guys ever been on mbti forums and found some members that are consumed by the sense of identity they cultivate? Have you noticed that for many people, type descriptions are judged solely based on how well they resonate with the person? I must sound oblivious saying this, as it's so obvious.. c_c
Despite some materials that are misdirecting, I quite like the mbti community for being a hub of self-discovery. And this process is not something exclusive to mbti. Carl Jung calls this "self-discovery" process: individuation. As per a wikipedia snippet:
Essentially, the mbti community is a large cluster of individuating people. Of people trying to work out their true nature, and doing so with whatever resources and models they can find.
But what is even more fascinating is how they go about it. The resonance they feel with certain profiles (specifically the INTP, INFJ, INTP, INTJ) is due to what those profiles bring into focus. Many profiles are prose; odes to the absolute nature of a contrast.
And because they highlight the qualities ("N","T","F") of the psyche so clearly, they are deeply relatable but also highly unrealistic or falsely attributed. Many types other than the INxx's resonate with those profiles too ....because they're basically describing the epitome of a mental process.
Here's where I'd like to present a new interpretation. These pure descriptions are necessary for the process of individuation; of self-discovery. That feeling you get when you read a profile and go "yes! that's exactly me! nobody's ever put it so right before" - is a pivotal point in growth. Later it will be balanced by other realizations, but for the moment, that is the validation the psyche needed in order to grow more confident in its nature.
We are all guided through individuation (not just of type, but of other mental elements) by pure symbols. Icons and absolutes. What Jung often called myths. They emerge naturally from us and help us realize, by their clarity, what the true and uncompromised nature beneath us is.... the essence which then ends up needing to yield/bend according to life's necessities.
The types each have a latent sense of what their innate psychology is, and when they encounter that symbol/myth/profile, they know it. I recently wrote an article for TiNe, and I describe at the bottom what this absolute sense felt like to me personally: linky. And I have begun writing an article about this.
Here's another example of a guy describing his sense a bit more dramatically (they aren't really INTP, they are beta).
Profiles
But essentially, these myths have been the central inspiration for most existing type profiles. The love-hate relationship that exists with them arises from how they get so much "right" as far as the mental myth goes, but they are stated in a rather "factual" way which leads to conflicts and bias. The myth is taken to literally represent a type's abilities..... and so then the opposite types ("S") need to be robbed of those abilities for the model to be able to draw a good contrast. Yet, the high Si/Se types also have their own myths, but they're rarely written down as extensively.
Still, no person truly embodies the coolness of their myth; the sense they feel about their absolute self. That said, I do feel it's an important thing to document and to accept. I fear that CT, without acknowledgment of this myth-based guiding factor of types....will not become the source of self-discovery it can be.
I feel this guiding-factor (and its inclusion or exclusion) is what will make the difference between CT growing to be a strictly academic model or one that prompts the process of growth and also has clinical use. I... really feel like tackling this terrain.
But I would like to do so cautiously... It is paramount that the myth be phrased as a myth and not the actuality of a person. The fortunate part of this is that visual reading allows this knowledge to be explored and elaborated on, without the risk of a false typing. We can ask people of each type to describe what they feel about their innate psychology and compare notes to get a fuller picture of a type's sense of themselves and remove the bits specific to people.
I've gone on long enough... ...what are your thoughts? I'm quite interested in anything you'd like to say or add
edit: I take back what I wrote in this OP. Pay no mind to this ramble.
but for those who must know what was said...
I've been having a few realizations lately that I wanted to run by you guys, to see if they make sense. From the convo in the "Website/Bigger-Thinking" thread I started to wonder what exactly the full application of this model is. But I think, the answer ends up being rather simple.
MBTI
I think that the entire incentive that propels the MBTI forward can be summed up as "self-discovery". It has the traction it does because it's a sort of prompt for introspection. I lightly touch on this in the book, but there's a lot more to it.
Have you guys ever been on mbti forums and found some members that are consumed by the sense of identity they cultivate? Have you noticed that for many people, type descriptions are judged solely based on how well they resonate with the person? I must sound oblivious saying this, as it's so obvious.. c_c
Despite some materials that are misdirecting, I quite like the mbti community for being a hub of self-discovery. And this process is not something exclusive to mbti. Carl Jung calls this "self-discovery" process: individuation. As per a wikipedia snippet:
In Jungian psychology, also called analytical psychology, individuation is the process in which the individual self develops out of an undifferentiated unconscious β seen as a developmental psychic process during which innate elements of personality, the components of the immature psyche, and the experiences of the person's life become integrated over time into a well-functioning whole.
Essentially, the mbti community is a large cluster of individuating people. Of people trying to work out their true nature, and doing so with whatever resources and models they can find.
But what is even more fascinating is how they go about it. The resonance they feel with certain profiles (specifically the INTP, INFJ, INTP, INTJ) is due to what those profiles bring into focus. Many profiles are prose; odes to the absolute nature of a contrast.
And because they highlight the qualities ("N","T","F") of the psyche so clearly, they are deeply relatable but also highly unrealistic or falsely attributed. Many types other than the INxx's resonate with those profiles too ....because they're basically describing the epitome of a mental process.
Here's where I'd like to present a new interpretation. These pure descriptions are necessary for the process of individuation; of self-discovery. That feeling you get when you read a profile and go "yes! that's exactly me! nobody's ever put it so right before" - is a pivotal point in growth. Later it will be balanced by other realizations, but for the moment, that is the validation the psyche needed in order to grow more confident in its nature.
We are all guided through individuation (not just of type, but of other mental elements) by pure symbols. Icons and absolutes. What Jung often called myths. They emerge naturally from us and help us realize, by their clarity, what the true and uncompromised nature beneath us is.... the essence which then ends up needing to yield/bend according to life's necessities.
The types each have a latent sense of what their innate psychology is, and when they encounter that symbol/myth/profile, they know it. I recently wrote an article for TiNe, and I describe at the bottom what this absolute sense felt like to me personally: linky. And I have begun writing an article about this.
Here's another example of a guy describing his sense a bit more dramatically (they aren't really INTP, they are beta).
Profiles
But essentially, these myths have been the central inspiration for most existing type profiles. The love-hate relationship that exists with them arises from how they get so much "right" as far as the mental myth goes, but they are stated in a rather "factual" way which leads to conflicts and bias. The myth is taken to literally represent a type's abilities..... and so then the opposite types ("S") need to be robbed of those abilities for the model to be able to draw a good contrast. Yet, the high Si/Se types also have their own myths, but they're rarely written down as extensively.
Still, no person truly embodies the coolness of their myth; the sense they feel about their absolute self. That said, I do feel it's an important thing to document and to accept. I fear that CT, without acknowledgment of this myth-based guiding factor of types....will not become the source of self-discovery it can be.
I feel this guiding-factor (and its inclusion or exclusion) is what will make the difference between CT growing to be a strictly academic model or one that prompts the process of growth and also has clinical use. I... really feel like tackling this terrain.
But I would like to do so cautiously... It is paramount that the myth be phrased as a myth and not the actuality of a person. The fortunate part of this is that visual reading allows this knowledge to be explored and elaborated on, without the risk of a false typing. We can ask people of each type to describe what they feel about their innate psychology and compare notes to get a fuller picture of a type's sense of themselves and remove the bits specific to people.
I've gone on long enough... ...what are your thoughts? I'm quite interested in anything you'd like to say or add