Mingling Theories - Enneagram, Jung, MBTI, CT

Agreed on that. I was just highlighting that this is particularly troublesome when it comes to type systems such as socionics where behavior is still relevant when typing people and people tend to think behavior > functions rather than realizing that it's functions > behavior that matters.




No, I agree, although one could perhaps question what the nature of this "reality" as you describe it truly means. How do I know that the reality you perceive is the same as I perceive? We don't. We can assume workable models and definitions we can agree on to describe reality but we cannot truly attest that the way you and I even understand the logical nature of said model is the same even if we fundamentally agree on its principles.

Furthermore, I never once posited that I agree with that you should type based on behavior - if anything, I think my posts should be clear on that I don't. To me behavior is simply a different kind of reality of personality type often separate from actual cognitive processes, even if there is overlap when studying actual output.

I am however of the belief that various aspects of the human psyche will interact in complex ways and it is important to untangle what is what in that process. Many people cannot do this. This is why I brought up that many think 7 possibility-seek think is reflective of Ne because they fail to separate between process and process. Two different processes can work together which can create confusing output to those who are less trained to separate output content.




Agreed when it comes to type communities as a whole. With that said, I still think it's useful to understand more than one system theory not to excuse observational discrepancies, but to understand if so why discrepancies in fact occur and whether refinement is thus needed. As a whole I think your theory is sound but I question some of it especially with regards to how you understand the P functions and I've been wondering if your own perception bias has led you to understand it this way.

As I mentioned, you typed me as an NiTe even though I am fairly sure, and so is Flatlander, that I'm FiN(e) (I can direct my intuition, it is not fully differentiated in either direction, although I feel you might choose to discredit this). You might argue that we do not understand the theory well enough or the functions well enough but this does create a logical disrepancy and I was curious how you'd see that connection personally.

While I agree with your overall point of view of system refinement, clearly there must be something that is affecting your understanding and I thus see enneagram as one plausible cause/explanation. Again, to me, I simply see it as untangling the different processes so you can move on to refine and understand that which is truly relevant better.

Then let's go back to Jung then and see what he said about function differentiation. Jung claims that the ego can orient itself towards either introversion and extroversion, these are the two most basic attitudes. Furthermore, he says that especially in dysfunctional individuals (the ones he actually studied), the ego will pick up one function preference in which it will view the world and thus reject the opposing function of opposite attitude into the unconsciousness which is the result of the neuroses he observed in his patients.

As you say yourself, it is this function pair, the dominant-inferior relationship, that matters the most in a person's psyche. Jung does not make any clear claims about the auxiliary being functionally opposed in any specific manner, which is why you have those who have read Jung claiming that it is for example possible to have a double-introverted ego of say, TiNi, which is, to my knowledge, the way Jung understood his psyche himself. It should be apparent to most who have also read Jung that his thinking does reflect that of introverted intuition and introverted thinking. There are even those who claim that all functions except the dominant will be of the opposite function attitude of the dominant, thus resulting in Ti-Ne-Se-Fe for instance, in what we would consider to be a Ti dominant type. I do not agree with this model as I have seen little evidence to support it in people's actual cognition.

Furthermore, Jung's definition of function differentiation is that it is a process that occurs over a long period of time and the function we obviously differentiate first is the dominant in terms of ego attitude and then later function preference. Logically then, the differentiation of the auxiliary is that we first,

1. Choose our auxiliary function preference and
2. Differentiate the function attitude

Considering that Jung himself considers that most people will not even have a clearly defined type at all, it is questionable whether most people will have a clearly defined auxiliary preference both in terms of function and orientation attitude. While your idea of the push-pull flow of introversion-extroversion seems to sound good on paper, if a person is for example just clearly an N in terms of auxiliary, meaning that the person is capable of both introverting and extroverting that intuition at any given moment which I do and I've seen others do as well. You even yourself admit that some people seem to express a dominant-tertiary function preference more than others, for instance singer-songwriter Thom Yorke whom you noted had a strong preference towards Ni in your visual reading of his body language. Now, the question is as I asked you before, why can't Ni be his second ego conscious function, i.e. auxiliary in your model if he so clearly shows such a preference towards Ni?

Then there are those who don't even seem to have an auxiliary. This is something I have especially observed in young Pe dominant types where they clearly show issues filtering their perceiving data into a structured system. It's not even a case of Pe-J, but a case of Pe - X - X - Pi. Again, your model isn't capable of explaining this and while I realize it's still in development, I wonder why you assume that all individuals should have a strongly developed function preference both in terms of dominant and auxiliary. What does age play in this?

So suffice to say, in the light of this, your interpretation of the psyche is thus just that, another interpretation of Jung. I do think your theory is as a whole more solidly based on Jung's writings than other theories but there comes a point where a theory is logically defined in a way because it's convenient and seems pretty and whether it accurately describes the phenomena it tries to describe. Where does your theory fall in this area?

I don't? What functions do you think I have?


How is your theory, that attempts to type people based on their body language, any different? Is typing people based on body language not the same as behavior? If so, then how do you understand behavior?



Why assume that I don't? I already explained to you that I however think the human psyche is very complex, I think we can both agree on this, and utilizing one model to explain it all is probably at this point in time given what we know about human cognition and personality, not possible. To therefore rely on other theories to explain that which another theory cannot is not an excuse, but it can equally be seen as a way to realize a theory's weakness and that it is extremely difficult to formulate a good theory that explains everything. Cognitive type (in a Jungian sense) explains something different to the MBTI, which explains something different to socionics which explains something different to enneagram theory to just namedrop the most popular within type communities.

Understanding the limitations of a theory does not mean that you do not fully understand said theory. I would in fact argue the contrary.


Then what is intuition to you, and how does your understanding of intuition fundamentally differ to how I have used the word intuition in this context?


How so? I ask again, what is a realistic understanding of cognitive type and personality theory to you?

What says that I do and what says that you don't? How can you prove your own objectivity?

@milkesilb, the way you write in general is very Fe-oriented and it seems to come very natural to you. You seem to be strongly concerned with how people understand you and whether your behavior is overall appropriate, although perhaps in a more subdued manner. You often thank people, either explicity or implicitly, and you keep stressing how you prefer a positive emotional atmosphere. To be quite honest, I have yet to engage a delta/gamma type who does this to the extent you do. I do think your thinking is oriented towards Ti based on how you in general formulate your posts. If you'd compare your cognitions versus mine as expressed in this post in response to erifrail, does my cognition ring true to you at all? It should mostly reek of Te and intuition.

The way you are careful with your thinking as in, careful to apply theories, seems to suggest weaker Ti. I've seen this very thinking expressed in a very confused IEI-Fe and you remind me strongly of him, although your thinking is clearer than his. Do you relate to the vortical-synergistic cognitive style proposed by Gulenko? There's an article that describes it on Wikisocion.

Also, why must you be an ILE in socionics just because you are TeNi in CT theory?

As for socionics being cognitive over behavior, yes and no. Our cognitive preferences create a specific behavioral output which what the quadras and Reinin dichotomies are based on. If you are correctly type in the system, the type should fit you pretty much like a glove. Honestly, I have yet to engage a Te dominant, especially an LIE, being so insistent on what you call "passionate interactions". I think your word choices here reveal a lot about you. The LSE that I know can be very warm and friendly but he does not view himself as a very caring or passionate person and why should he? His feeling is in the super-id block and thus something he does not experience himself particularly good at doing.

Also, what does affecting people's emotional states mean to you? How would you define it and why are you bad at doing it? And why are you not a good physical caretaker? What does it mean to be a good physical caretaker to you?

What do you think of Si and Fe?

Also, I think until erifrail defines his system more clearly it should not be mixed with other systems. Based on his few posts in this thread he in fact seems rather adamant by even comparing his theory to other theories. Until he defines the functions in a clear manner and how he sees each function playing out in the psyche at a cognitive rather than physiognomical level, I think one should be careful trying to cross-compare to see if there are any correlations. I tend to try to view type theories as separate and explaining similar but somewhat different phenomena as a starting point. That leads to the least theoretical confusion I think.

Anyway, you should seriously consider why you have such strong inclination to express what is clearly the result of Fe as a function not just in this post, but also in others. I know an ILE-Ti and while she can Fe she doesn't do it the way you do, not as obviously and as clearly. Being ego-oriented towards thinking, it is still impersonal logic she considers first.

Right, I now understand why you have adapted the MBTI function model and it's because Nardi uses it. Aside trusting Nardi's science though, how do you know that his definition and understanding of the functions are sound and capture each type properly? There's a logical error in your reasoning here because you say that INPs would exhibit the Christmas tree pattern as their second most preferred EEG scan pattern, but this still operates on the assumption that the cognitive pattern we see is linked to a specific function output and that this output is in fact clearly differentiated in the individual in the first place. It could be that what Nardi identifies as the Ne Christmas tree pattern in INPs could be something else entirely because he still operates within MBTI theory to a large degree by for instance working together with Linda Berens, and this is a logical error on his part. He is trying to merge MBTI and Jung and one can debate the results of this.

Anyway, the real problem as I see it becomes when we try to connect Nardi's science to what we actually observe. I'd love to test my brain and get a scan of it and see what it spits out because I think it would say a lot about how Nardi understands cognitive type but that is highly unlikely right now, anyway. As much as I like how Nardi's research attempts to validate the MBTI/Jung as a theory, Nardi's theory also fundamentally differs to yours in many areas, being: (1) He seems to support the idea of an 8 function as opposed to 4 function model; (2) He seems to be of the belief that we can differentiate/develop shadow functions, most likely because Nardi supports John Beebe's function model; (3) Nardi has yet to explain how his theory pertains to the conscious-unconscious to my knowledge, at least he never mentions this in the papers/speeches I've read/heard by him; (4) Based on how I understand Nardi, he also seems to suggest that we can practice our functions by engaging with activities that force us to engage different areas of the brain that we are not used to engage. This view is logical because if Nardi comes from the perspective that the brain is the source of function output and there is no real limitation to how we can use the human brain more than based on habit, then we can also practice a different function output by engaging in activities that encourage such output. I think in his Google Talk he used the example of someone who was a football player and engaged with the areas related to Se even though the person did not seem to be an Se type otherwise.

So if you build your theory based on Nardi, why do you not agree with these assertions? And we can move this to another thread if you want.

This isn't really true. Even without typology those brain regions are understood to have particular mental/psychic functionality. Nardi's experiment confirmed that those who use "Ne" in the uncertain mbti-sense, did indeed show brain activity of a sort that aligns with prior neurological documentation of what those regions do. The error isn't present because mbti didn't define the use of the brain regions, neuroscientists have mapped that and Nardi's work confirmed that. Confirmed that it's indeed true that type hierarchy is arranged in that manner - by the nature of the brain patterns observed and what they mean due to what areas they're stimulating.



I reiterated exactly how we 'base' this theory, yet you try to revert to interpreting it someway else. Observable reality demonstrates what aspects of MBTI are correct, which are false. Which aspects of Jung are right, which weren't. Likewise with Nardi. We base it on observable reality - and measure ourselves and other systems to that.

I don't necessarily support those four points about Nardi, or know for sure that those are his stances, I never made the claim to be based on those. You won't understand what we're conveying by trying to pin it down to some other person's model, and then asking "why don't you believe in x-y-z of their model too, it's part of their model too?" Well, because we're not even saying that we're based on their model in the first place. Instead of debating who said what in the past, this should be about how to figure out what is true from all the things that have been said and how to know/test what is true.

ayayai. we're going around in circles...


1. Yes, I do believe in the i-e-i-e ordering of functions.
1a. Why? No, it's not just because MBTI used it... but because:

- - - I can see it myself visually.
- - - I can confirm it psychologically.
- - - Neuroscience, from test run so far, supports this ordering of hierarchy. (see #5 for more details)

2. Yes, I do think type is innate.
2a. Why? Because I've seen babies grow, seen the 'character' they have even at birth and also visually read them, and seen that remain stable even in later years.


3. No, I don't think it's 100% absolute, nor is anything in life.
3a. Yes, sufficient brain damage/autism/etc, probably could change things - but CT theory holds true at very least in all non-extreme cases. Tests could be run to see how it plays out in such cases though, but to use the "what about brain damage" argument is a cheap move. Of course that has effects which we can't possibly predict, but it doesn't mean the theory isn't correct otherwise.


4. No, just because Nardi may believe in some conscious-subconscious/beebes theory/etc doesn't mean we do.
4a. Why? Because we take only what's verifiable from theories. Nardi's neuro-work makes sense. If other parts don't, we don't use them.


5. We all use all tissue in our brain. If we didn't the tissue would die/decay. Cognitive functions are not brain regions they are equations/algorithms of brain activity. Yes, we all use all our brain, but in different sequence. For example both the zen-brain pattern (default for Ni leads) and the christmas tree pattern (default for Ne leads) utilize all brain regions, but via a different formula. The argument still holds that Ne can exist at the exclusion of Ni, and so forth, if they're understood to be rhythms of brain activity - brain functions, and not brain regions.


6. As for the conscious/unconscious: directly from Typology Models Comparison article:



7. All 4 functions are conscious in a type (i.e. Ti,Ne,Si,Fe for TiNe). The socionics ego theory or whatever, doesn't apply here.  We have 4 functions that are conscious and the other four are not consciously available to us [not necessarily unconscious/subconscious, i don't truly know.]. When Alerith said that thing about FiNi, she didn't mean Ni would be ego and Se would be unconscious. Both Ni and Se are conscious in an FiSe and are used in tandem. At any given time they could be using Fi+Ni, but that would not change the ordering.


8. "Why don't you answer the questions why you build on certain ideas but discard others?" - I have answered, like 4 times. If a person says 5 things, but 2 of them are false, are you gonna say "I believe you" and accept all 5, because they're mostly right, or say "I partly believe you" and believe the 3 things they got right and not the 2 they got wrong? This is elementary deduction.

9. I'm done elaborating though. If it isn't clear after this post there's no hope trying further, so I'll drop it here and agree to disagree with you. But I hope this served to explain things to others in the future with the same questions.

What I have been noticing, and what I think you (Erifrail) eluded to a bit, is that the enneagram seems to be the sort of "fix it" people use to allow themselves to be the type they want to be, rather than what they are.

For example, a certain individual I know beyond the shadow of a doubt to be TeNi, identifies himself as an ENTP type 8w7. He attributes all of his Se and Te tendencies to his enneagram, simply because he fancies himself as being very creative and ingenius like the common ENTP profiles, and disregarding that there is nothing stopping a TeNi from having these very generically defined adjectives.