p.s. - oh right, you asked about the marionette lines vs old age: young chomsky:
^ this is about as Ti as anyone's face ever gets. the smiles you captured for him (re: giddy giggling question) are also all textbook placid Fe smiles. oh gosh, pardon me if these posts are disjointed. it's 2:30am in this part of the world and i just felt compelled to share my $0.02 for what it's worth. hope it's helpful in some way!
Despite my sincerest efforts, i have not been able to formulate a system 100% free of contradiction.
That's because human beings aren't free of contradiction with respect to cognitive function models. Humans use all 8 of the functions. The more developed someone is cognitively, the more likely they are to exhibit signals from all 8 functions. Preferences are the cornerstone of typology and this system can be no different if it is to be viable for use on humans.
You've created a good system. The issue isn't your system. It's the typology models that assume binary use of cognitive functions, rather than preferential use.
Disclaimer: Everything I say here is my OPINION. Please keep that in mind.
Auburn Thanks again for your helpful and thoughtful post. I'm looking forward to seeing the webtool and everything that that offers. I think it's a great idea and step forward.
But this is in reverse. It's not that Chomsky's displaying Te because his hands look like Hilary Clinton's. It's that Hilary Clinton is displaying Fe-like warm swelling. Both of them are.
I'm still new to Vultology, but I don't get the sense that what they're doing comes from 'warmth'. Rather, Je itself is executing a judgement, and the Je person is 'synchronising' visual representations of those judgements. Those judgements happen as neurological processes associated with words and concepts in our brains somehow, and we 'expel' them with vocalized 'words', along with emphasis to highlight the finality of thinking and decision making. Along with the words, our bodies make appropriate gestures that highlight that finality and precision, and these gestures are ideally, or prototypically, 'chops' and 'nods', because they visually represent finality - there's a motion with a definite end point. This seems to me to be a fundamental Je thing, not necessarily a Te or Fe thing. But if you layer T or F on top of Je, they flavour it differently. T is more raw and simple and sharp, while F requires constant pinging with ethical considerations - "does this finality affect the social environment?" This may slow down Fe chops, because the person is evaluating social implications in real time. The Te person doesn't really do this, and therefore her chops should in general be more cold and precise.
I think because Fe is slower, it's easier for it to be on beat, and easier for audiences to follow, giving the Fe speaker a well-coordinated rhythmic feel. Te chopping would more easily syncopate (go off beat) because Te judgements don't have the problem of consideration of social impact, and physiological manifestations naturally lag behind the cognitive judgements that they represent. If anything, to me Fe chopping looks more like 'affected Te chopping', that is, Te chops are closer to 'perfect ideal chops', and Fe chops are 'coloured in'.
For example, Bill O'Reilly does lots of chops and synchronisations not because he's occasionally doing warm Fe gesticulations, but because he's turning Je gesticulations into Te gesticulations. Neil deGrasse Tyson on the other hand is making Je judgements that, on a robot, would look, er.. robotic, but he's smoothing them out with warm Fe physiological gesticulations. I think they're both doing Je gesticulations, just flavouring them differently. Bill O'Reilly seems to do a lot of them, and they're quite often on-beat. Is it necessary to call these 'warm on-beat', or could they just be 'Je on-beat', and 'Te snippy on-beat' and 'Fe warm on-beat'?
Here are some of Bill's:
Martin Shkreli also does it:
They usually line up with a particular word in the sentence that's in focus, 'focus' itself being a judgment result. Chomsky does this quite a lot. His gesticulations have a 'judgement focus coordination.' If I had the software and know-how, I could make a graphic of a wave file of his speech acts and show how they coordinate with his articulations. It's like his body is constantly representing the judgements that his mind is making. It's such a different rhythm and style than you or Alerith or Alanis Morissette has (like the difference between 'rap' and 'country'), but I don't really know how to show it. :/
As for Si v Ni, it seems like Chomsky is constantly doing Ni Zone-outs.
His stares are distant, and he frequently 'snaps back', as if coming awake from whatever part of his brain that he was accessing. I haven't seen this in Si types much who, like Ne, generally scan the surroundings and return to the interviewer without that abrupt 'return to reality'.
Brad looks like he scans the environment but then easily returns to the interviewer.
Also, Chomsky doesn't ever toggle his eyes. I don't know, he just seems very Ni to me, but you're obviously far more experienced at this. What do you think?
While I was going through NiTe samples I came across Aubrey Plaza, whom I know nothing about (I don't watch a lot of TV). I swear I'm not looking for 'inconsistencies' but her sample struck me as more Ne than Ni:
So I went looking for more interviews and found this one:
She reminds me a lot of my FiNe friend, and that interview sounds so FiNe-ish to me, do you think? "I have no plan... I never have a plan when I go on those shows... those kind of situations go against every instinct in my body to like... retell a story and act like it's the first time I've told it." Actually, I really relate to this too.
Is it possible that when she's acting she doesn't toggle so much, and maybe that gives her a different vibe? Or are there other factors I'm missing?
But this is in reverse. It's not that Chomsky's displaying Te because his hands look like Hilary Clinton's. It's that Hilary Clinton is displaying Fe-like warm swelling. Both of them are.
I'm still new to Vultology, but I don't get the sense that what they're doing comes from 'warmth'. Rather, Je itself is executing a judgement, and the Je person is 'synchronising' visual representations of those judgements. Those judgements happen as neurological processes associated with words and concepts in our brains somehow, and we 'expel' them with vocalized 'words', along with emphasis to highlight the finality of thinking and decision making. Along with the words, our bodies make appropriate gestures that highlight that finality and precision, and these gestures are ideally, or prototypically, 'chops' and 'nods', because they visually represent finality - there's a motion with a definite end point. This seems to me to be a fundamental Je thing, not necessarily a Te or Fe thing. But if you layer T or F on top of Je, they flavour it differently. T is more raw and simple and sharp, while F requires constant pinging with ethical considerations - "does this finality affect the social environment?" This may slow down Fe chops, because the person is evaluating social implications in real time. The Te person doesn't really do this, and therefore her chops should in general be more cold and precise.
I think because Fe is slower, it's easier for it to be on beat, and easier for audiences to follow, giving the Fe speaker a well-coordinated rhythmic feel. Te chopping would more easily syncopate (go off beat) because Te judgements don't have the problem of consideration of social impact, and physiological manifestations naturally lag behind the cognitive judgements that they represent. If anything, to me Fe chopping looks more like 'affected Te chopping', that is, Te chops are closer to 'perfect ideal chops', and Fe chops are 'coloured in'.
For example, Bill O'Reilly does lots of chops and synchronisations not because he's occasionally doing warm Fe gesticulations, but because he's turning Je gesticulations into Te gesticulations. Neil deGrasse Tyson on the other hand is making Je judgements that, on a robot, would look, er.. robotic, but he's smoothing them out with warm Fe physiological gesticulations. I think they're both doing Je gesticulations, just flavouring them differently. Bill O'Reilly seems to do a lot of them, and they're quite often on-beat. Is it necessary to call these 'warm on-beat', or could they just be 'Je on-beat', and 'Te snippy on-beat' and 'Fe warm on-beat'?
Here are some of Bill's:
Martin Shkreli also does it:
Going slightly in a tangential direction than the specific Chomsky case, I absolute love the way that you describe the Te vs. Fe distinction. I think that this also very much affects the difference in which the articulation occurs (see the 'oratory strengths' thread). I find the above to be very true!
SOLID GOLD!
Last Edit: Jan 20, 2018 9:42:33 GMT -5 by mikesilb
So is it possible that there is one extra layer to the hierarchy, where 'generalized Je' lies above both Te and Fe.....and this 'generalized X(e/i)' happens for each of the four EQs which then subdivides into it's two components?
Or is it the case that there is no 'generalized X(e/i)' and the primary level of the hierarchy would be the specific cognitive function itself?
(Sorry again to divert from Chomsky to a more general, theoretical topic).
Last Edit: Jan 20, 2018 9:55:03 GMT -5 by mikesilb
Glad it was helpful. I don't really know if it's true or just idealistic reductionism, but it seems to make sense, and could explain some things.
I'd love to see CT reduced as far as possible (as long as it was 'true'). Perhaps that gets to some set of basic binary signals, ones and zeros, positive and negative, on and off, active and passive etc. I feel like that might be happening with iNtuition, which I speculated about here. And maybe that idea could be extrapolated to T and F and S, but idk. Maybe Auburn has some more thoughts on that. It was really his book explanations that helped me make sense of MBTI, because I found everyone else's explanations to be so surfacey and symptomy (INTJs want to take over the world; ENTPs are social comedians *eyeroll*), and Auburn's explanations seemed to get to the foundation of the why. I think he's good in that department.
So is it possible that there is one extra layer to the hierarchy, where 'generalized Je' lies above both Te and Fe.....
According to the Nardi study, both Te and Fe are highly related to the Fp1 and Fp2 regions, with Te leaning to the left and Fe leaning to the right, so yes, it's very likely that generalized Je is a cognition element unto itself. This would certainly explain the similarities between them, and why some people have less distinction between Te and Fe than others.
Disclaimer: Everything I say here is my OPINION. Please keep that in mind.
I'm still new to Vultology, but I don't get the sense that what they're doing comes from 'warmth'. Rather, Je itself is executing a judgement, and the Je person is 'synchronising' visual representations of those judgements. Those judgements happen as neurological processes associated with words and concepts in our brains somehow, and we 'expel' them with vocalized 'words', along with emphasis to highlight the finality of thinking and decision making. Along with the words, our bodies make appropriate gestures that highlight that finality and precision, and these gestures are ideally, or prototypically, 'chops' and 'nods', because they visually represent finality - there's a motion with a definite end point. This seems to me to be a fundamental Je thing, not necessarily a Te or Fe thing. But if you layer T or F on top of Je, they flavour it differently. T is more raw and simple and sharp, while F requires constant pinging with ethical considerations - "does this finality affect the social environment?" This may slow down Fe chops, because the person is evaluating social implications in real time. The Te person doesn't really do this, and therefore her chops should in general be more cold and precise.
I think because Fe is slower, it's easier for it to be on beat, and easier for audiences to follow, giving the Fe speaker a well-coordinated rhythmic feel. Te chopping would more easily syncopate (go off beat) because Te judgements don't have the problem of consideration of social impact, and physiological manifestations naturally lag behind the cognitive judgements that they represent. If anything, to me Fe chopping looks more like 'affected Te chopping', that is, Te chops are closer to 'perfect ideal chops', and Fe chops are 'coloured in'.
For example, Bill O'Reilly does lots of chops and synchronisations not because he's occasionally doing warm Fe gesticulations, but because he's turning Je gesticulations into Te gesticulations. Neil deGrasse Tyson on the other hand is making Je judgements that, on a robot, would look, er.. robotic, but he's smoothing them out with warm Fe physiological gesticulations. I think they're both doing Je gesticulations, just flavouring them differently. Bill O'Reilly seems to do a lot of them, and they're quite often on-beat. Is it necessary to call these 'warm on-beat', or could they just be 'Je on-beat', and 'Te snippy on-beat' and 'Fe warm on-beat'?
Kahawa - that's an interesting way to put it! Certainly 'on-beat' might need an improvement in terminology, as i see what you mean about Te types still being on-beat although it's 'cold and precise' in how it hits that beat.
Speaking in terms of reducing signals down the farthest, i think Te can Fe can be differentiated as a matter of velocity and tempo. Suppose we had hand tracking software (hand tracking devices aren't too expensive) and we took 20 Te-leads and 20 Fe-leads and measured the position and velocity of their hands. Maybe a simple A.I. program could isolate the subtle pattern. The most granular I've been able to get in describing the difference is roughly as:
So is it possible that there is one extra layer to the hierarchy, where 'generalized Je' lies above both Te and Fe.....and this 'generalized X(e/i)' happens for each of the four EQs which then subdivides into it's two components?
Or is it the case that there is no 'generalized X(e/i)' and the primary level of the hierarchy would be the specific cognitive function itself?
(Sorry again to divert from Chomsky to a more general, theoretical topic).
Yes! Je *is* a standalone category and real phenomenon of its own, and Te and Fe are bifurcations of it. hehe, Aqua was just having a similar moment recently, and teatime not long ago said in discord "Pe" is a thing!
i guess it hasn't been said explicit enough, ..but that's why the forum boards are divided by Articulator/Explorer/Compass/Worldview. and that's why the book signals were written in order as: J P Ji Je Pe Pi Fi Ti Fe Te Ni Si Ne Se
Yes, I'm still "under the influence". It has brought further realizations like the reality of E/I energy too! Now that I see Je/Ji/Pe/Pi and the four Greek humours, I see a bit more what Pe/Je have in common and what Pi/Ji have in common. It has also helped me see a little (for myself!) what Pe/Pi have in common and Je/Ji have in common. IOW, it has helped me see a little better what Judgment, Perception, Introversion and Extraversion are in themselves, "concretized" them just a little bit more for me.
According to the Nardi study, both Te and Fe are highly related to the Fp1 and Fp2 regions, with Te leaning to the left and Fe leaning to the right, so yes, it's very likely that generalized Je is a cognition element unto itself. This would certainly explain the similarities between them, and why some people have less distinction between Te and Fe than others.
Ooh, that book sounds really interesting, I think I'll check it out.
Yes! Je *is* a standalone category and real phenomenon of its own, and Te and Fe are bifurcations of it. hehe, Aqua was just having a similar moment recently, and teatime not long ago said in discord "Pe" is a thing!
i guess it hasn't been said explicit enough, ..but that's why the forum boards are divided by Articulator/Explorer/Compass/Worldview. and that's why the book signals were written in order as: J P Ji Je Pe Pi Fi Ti Fe Te Ni Si Ne Se
Yeah, I find that breakdown really helpful. Knowing what J and P are, and then Je etc, and then Si etc, is far more helpful than knowing what an 'ISTJ' is 'like'. Knowing the parts, I can get to the whole.
So, another thought since we're on the topic anyway - I'd like it if Te and Fe were T and F versions of some underlying Je function, but what if they're not actually reducible, they're just similar? For example, we have a left hand and a right hand, but there is no Platonic 'hand' devoid of leftness or rightness. At first glance it seems like L and R hands are versions of an ideal 'hand', but is there really such a thing? There's a hand with a thumb pointing out from the left of the palm, and a hand with a thumb pointing out from the right of the palm, but there's no 'non left or right' hand. AFAIK, our DNA doesn't go "Run 'hand' program. Apply 'leftness'." It's useful sometimes to talk about hands devoid of L or R-ness, but it's a construct. I think... Does that make sense? It was just a thought this morning, so I haven't really thought through it much. Maybe that Nardi study could shed some light....
So, another thought since we're on the topic anyway - I'd like it if Te and Fe were T and F versions of some underlying Je function, but what if they're not actually reducible, they're just similar? For example, we have a left hand and a right hand, but there is no Platonic 'hand' devoid of leftness or rightness. At first glance it seems like L and R hands are versions of an ideal 'hand', but is there really such a thing? There's a hand with a thumb pointing out from the left of the palm, and a hand with a thumb pointing out from the right of the palm, but there's no 'non left or right' hand. AFAIK, our DNA doesn't go "Run 'hand' program. Apply 'leftness'." It's useful sometimes to talk about hands devoid of L or R-ness, but it's a construct. I think... Does that make sense? It was just a thought this morning, so I haven't really thought through it much. Maybe that Nardi study could shed some light....
Yes, that's fascinating. But would it matter which one is true? Personally, it only matters in the sense of what explanatory/elucidating power comes from understanding Je-ness as such. You will know a LOT about either left or right hand just by knowing what a hand is or "hand-ness" for example, probably more than you could learn about either when focussing on each in particular as a left/right hand. Or, given the pervasive "hand-ness" phenomenon, you could understand a LOT about the right hand just from studying the left. So in fact, there IS such a thing as hand-ness, even if it is never seen in isolation from left-ness or right-ness. In that particular analogy, hand-ness says more about what kind of a thing either hand is than left-ness or right-ness. If Je (all EQs) operates this way, for me, it doesn't matter which one of your two constructs about how they originate (which comes prior btw EQ or Functions) is real.
For that matter, what really are the EQs and CF anyway? Are the EQ as this label implies just four instincts to act ie energy? The Functions just cognition, so that the 8 functions are a marriage of cognition and energy? Are I/E part of the energy of the EQ or just what this energy is married to to produce the four variations of that instinct, providing it an orientation? Ghosh. It looks like I will be reading the CT book again. Sigh, I wish I had it on kindle, but I will look at it bit by bit.
I think I sort of get how you get S/N/F/T from P/J (kinda). I think it has something to do with the nature of data/information dealt with by human brains/minds as decided for us by our evolutionary needs. People/things/actual/potential type stuff/focus. But how this marries with I/E AND libido to create the four EQs and 8 CF leaves my head spinning.
There's a lady called Cathy Kolbe who has this Kolbe Index that has been much more successful than MBTI in terms of reliable testing over time. (Btw, I do wonder what her CT is). She claims it's because she is not testing personality, emotions, cognition or intelligence but just conation or instincts which are closely tied to the idea of motivation. I found my result there fitting much more snuggly than MBTI so I thought that conation/instincts is more stable and easier to test than cognition. But that was because for whatever reason, I didn't really get that Jungian typology is about instincts too! Now that I do, I wonder if these are different kinds of instincts or if Kolbe is just isolating the libido bit of Jungian typology.
I wrote this earlier but then thought it was too much speculation for the thread and cut it but now I think, what the heck, will just put it here and let you all respond if you wish.
While thinking of the questions I've asked above I wound up with: Is Jungian Typology a 4-Dimensional phenomenon made of four things: Libido + Orientation (I/E) + Cognition (J/P) + Categories of Data prioritized by the mind/brain (Actuality/Potentiality/People/Things)?
If so, do we know which is prior to which (Does it matter?)? Are the 4 EQs or indeed the 8 CFs just channels for the libido? Or is that just one way of looking at it? Perhaps Cognition is the point, not the libido? Or perhaps the situation is better represented by a sphere on which any point could be the center of the entire object.
I'm thinking of the Scholastics' idea (Or was it the Greeks?) that the soul's two powers that separate humans from other animals are: Intellect and Will. The rational principle. Ie. The power to know and to choose/act (agency). They seem to correspond roughly to cognition (power to know) and libido (power to act).
And the F/T/S/N of Jungian Typology seem to be more specific forms of cognition: ie cognition as it is applied to the objects of cognition (People/Things/Actuality/Potentiality) becomes F/T (J) and S/N (P); ie They are Cognition modifying itself according to the nature or the categories of the objects presented to the psyche for the derivation from them of meaning/understanding of reality. I see these categories of objects modifying Cognition as information prioritized for us to focus on by evolution. It's what we need to know about life/reality to survive so our mind-body structure filters everything else out.
Kahawa, lmao at your trying to find Chomsky smiling! Plus, you are speaking my language in seeing Fe as F flavored Je. This is love! You explain Je just as I see it. (mikesilb, about your question, I keep sketching it out, but the order of bifurcating nodes are hard to place with so little evidence. The strongest evidence seems to be for the J/P dichotomy. I personally don't think we begin with a specific function.). In fact much of what you say is what I've been arguing for. Handedness, for example. Furthermore, it's determined ontogenetically, not genetically. Thre is no "Left hand gene." It's simply one side picking up strength. I see no reason it wouldn't be the the same for function flavoring.
Chomsky is very P heavy. He's interesting to listen to because he'l go into P loops for hours, giving all kinds of history lessons. He never refined his own system, which strikes me as odd for a Ti-lead. That seemed to be left up to other linguists. When used his trees for application, they constantly revised it in a more Te way. He was true to his idea, but the way he sketched out syntax seems very Ne: The details were to be filled in later. Ti is also a TOE (theory of everything) function, but Chomsky's TOE is very N.
Together, Ne-Si can seem almost indistinguishable from Se-Ni. I have trouble with Chomsky myself. Back to the hand analogy, I still think it possible to use any of the four functions both ways (so yields 8 functions). I agree with Doc about functions being preferential just based on what I've seen in the body. And I believe it's easiest to just stick with four based on what I conceptualize about neural networks.
[P.S. I have an evolutionary linguistics project concerning Je functions for anyone who's interested in wading through data and taking lots of measurements with me. ]