(Sorry, I'm in a very ENT modality right now and I have like only 70% of the refinement of Ti present, with 50% more Ne than usual. So my ideas are more scattered lately, albeit more plentiful!)
Why wait. I figured it'd be great to start formalizing CT more now, via comprehensive online wiki and presence. Giving more resources to the world and stepping closer into a more thorough direction/presence.
The wiki is writable to all signed up users, and registration is open so anyone can contribute.
Feel free to test it out, and play with it. Pages have an "edit" link at the top right corner when you're logged in, to make adjustments.
Doing this has always been one of the main goals, but I've been trying to wrap my head around "how to make profiles" for like, ever. I think with a proper definition of the connection between types, subtypes and general attitudes.... that finally becomes possible in a way that I feel is most accurate.
I feel this synthesis (if successful) addresses everything MBTI offers, as well as the important Socionics overlaps, essentially allowing CT to potentially encompass everything they capture and more. At present CT lacks a lot of the practical detail and information which the former two bring.
I think the proper/full theory of typology has to be able to account for the entirety of the phenomenon... and it's become evident to me that CT needs to grow into the behavioral dimension, gracefully, in order to achieve parity with psychometrics (i.e. Big5), modern psychology at large, and to properly take typology forward.
I'm all for the motto of keeping things as simple as possible, but no simpler. It just so happens the human psyche is damn complex , and a 16 type theory simply isn't robust/thorough enough to capture the essence of humanity. So while it pains yet invigorates my soul, I'm going to be trying to shoot for quantifying the 64 subtypes into really rich profiles online.
The book elaborations series has been a good starting point for me, but as you're all aware I *definitely* lack the scope to catalog all these variations myself... so in a way I must extend out this project beyond my limit. And I hope that some of you guys will also feel impassioned to contribute your thoughts and experiences, if the inspiration comes. Collectively we have far more experience relating to what the types look like and behave like. I wanted this to be a collaborative project, as much as possible.
I think we can really do it, and give the world something really great. The most accurate typological wiki of the phenomenon of type. It's a long term project, but I'm in no rush. I think slowly building up this database can help us all create something lasting, but also evolving and expanding. And the journey is bound to very exciting on its own.
If you don't mind my prodding, I'd like to know more about the behind-the-scenes of this whole website. I believe you do have this info posted in various places, sort of scattered throughout. You have a team of readers, correct? I'm asking because of all the Jungian theory babies, this is the one I believe in. I'd like to see it take off, and I believe it's going to take your directive Fe for that to happen (delegate, delegate, delegate). I see tons of opportunity for real research using CT. I have been thinking about doing some grant writing for some of this.
The original reading team has fizzled out (uni work, careers, etc) though I'm ever grateful for what they added. But the regulars on this forum are quite excellent readers already.
Alerith (Renee Bayard, my partner IRL) and I could be considered the 'main' team, but I pilot test any ideas I have with the veterans here and they often surprise me with their insights. So it's co-investigated and co-created.
I'd like to see it take off, and I believe it's going to take your directive Fe for that to happen (delegate, delegate, delegate). I see tons of opportunity for real research using CT. I have been thinking about doing some grant writing for some of this.
I, for one, would love to help with the stuff you mentioned above, but I just can't train my eyes to see the patterns you see. I can pretty much only spot the same 3 or so types that I could spot natively before even learning about Jung. It's a very subconscious process for me. But it's also very real, and that's why I felt very energized when I first heard of Keirsey 15 or so years ago.
I think there is hope that I could learn to see what you see, objectively as you do. In the meantime, there must be something I could do that's useful.
Actually there is something that would really help move things forward.
To make our General Attitude profiles above (EST, INT, ISF, INF, etc), we need to gather the best, or most on-point behavioral descriptions of those qualities from books or in internet resources. And then use them as a reference to create our own profiles.
I wonder if you know of any good/solid descriptions out there?
The attitudes aren't actually types, and what MBTI and Keirsey are measuring isn't *cognition* as much as it is personality. Still, they are a real phenomenon. And it appears that things like the Big Five have confirmed their reality. They're just a more surface level analysis of personality that has some correlation to cognitive type.
The mistake JCF-MBTI made was to make a 1:1 association between the attitudes and function hierarchies. We now know something like an FiNe can be an "INF" but depending on development can instead be an "INT" or even an "ENF". The two layers can coexist so long as they're not considered synonymous. Took a while to think of a way to synthesize the knowledge both have to offer.
but yea, they were rejected for a long time. And CT is still function-centric. but discarding them altogether was probably throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
My biggest downfall is that as a J-lead I tend to reject data that doesn't "fit". But through exposure with P-leads I've realized this is quite wrong.
What really needs to happen is a way has to be found to make sense of all information via synthesis. Or, a combination of elegant synthesis and perfect delineation.
Perhaps JCF-MBTI took the word "function" in the mathematical sense; hence the 1:1. Hehe.
You say your biggest downfall as a J-lead is is rejecting data that doesn't fit. Do you see Si and Ni leads also doing this? Or perhaps they just *look* like the do this so they may accomplish Je's goals.
Post by tobyspringfield on Apr 30, 2017 18:18:08 GMT -5
I think the fundamental difference between Ji and Pi is that while Ji filters out what doesn't quite fit automatically, Pi tends to hoard information automatically (I heard Erifrail mention this once and it made me laugh at how true it is). So while a Pi type could have a clear, linear explanation of something, akin to a J type, they will subconsciously have all facets of the matter stored, just simply choosing one path as their preferred mode of explanation, only shifting perspective when the situation deems it necessary or conflicting data challenges the worldview. Hope this helped😉