Speaking of subtype, in a case like mine where all functions are conscious (I won't say highly developed because this isn't an ego thing, but all 4 of my functions have obvious signals), I wonder if it would make sense to make like double subtypes, like SeFi-NiTe....or in a case like Bjork, something like FiSe-FiNi....it's similar to the types (but the opposite) where there are only 2 strong functions, like NiFi as a short form, or SeTe.
Y'know... I'm open to ideas. I know Zweilous has come up with some annotations like "-E" for both extroverted functions or "-P" for heavy on the perception axis, etc.
The reality as I see it so far is that anywhere from 1 to 4 functions can be conscious, and this produces many development levels. I recently wrote something up to that effect here that might be of interest? With something like this representing all combos:
#1 = Usually when very young, when all you have is just your primary function #2 = Standard development, with the top two conscious #3 = Great development, with the first 3 functions conscious #4 = All functions conscious
#5 = Polarized (1st and 4th) but weak on the middle oscillation #6 = Polarized (1st and 4th) but with a developed auxiliary #7 = Double Introverted / Double Extroverted #8 = Very unusual... auxiliary suppressed. This one may not even be possible.
For my personal taste, I feel that going beyond 64 subtypes is a bit much... and messy. And I'd like to keep it simple at the subtype level... BUT... perhaps we can address complexity of development via a different avenue than subtype?
I think E, I, P, and J should cover it if we wanted. X might even be appropriate for the "all four conscious, no subtype" subtype. I agree we don't want it to get out of hand. I think it depends on how far we're willing to go for cases like me, simonemusic, or Jelle who tend to float around different subtypes as we hit different moods and seasons. Jelle really does experience conflict about her type because of it, since Se and Fe subtype alone don't completely cover her ability to engage. I'm Ne in the middle ground, but Si when in a calm season or struggling with depression, and Fe+Ne when I'm feeling secure and it's a nice temperature outside.
If we did go that far I wouldn't worry about making profiles and individual analyses about it. From experience I can say you learn basically everything about "TiNe-P" from the TiNe-Ne and TiNe-Si profiles, the temperament articles, and just learning the theory.
And we might need to think about what the subtype labels are for in the first place. If they're for marking a deviation from "standard" development, I don't think that can be summed up with just one function for everyone. If they're for other members of the community to see at a glance, restricting it to one also requires everyone to memorize the extra unwritten development of each member (which isn't necessarily bad). If subtype is a spectrum, I see single-function notation as like Red, Green, and Blue. Yes, all the colors are contained within those bounds, but Orange, Yellow, Violet, Cyan, Magenta, Black, and White also exist and won't necessarily be comfortable settling.
I think you're right that we shouldn't worry about red-red-orange vs scarlet vs crimson, because we can't observe type that granularly yet, and at that level we're better off comparing them to particular parallel examples rather than trying for a label.
Post by simonemusic (Joseph) on Feb 23, 2018 10:54:07 GMT -5
Auburn Yeah I like the idea of the arrow thing. And Zweilous you're right, there's no point in getting crazy with subtype names. The arrow development thing could just be interesting when studying the video examples, like to show the difference between say Bjork and Janet Jackson who are both listed as FiSe-Fi, but Bjork being a lot heavier on Ni and Janet more typically Fi and Se heavy.
Speaking of subtype, this is slightly off topic, but just to be clear, what exactly is it? I'm assuming it's one of two things (or both):
1. When a person is showing the highest level of signals in a particular function, it becomes their subtype (with the exception of the dominant attitude being the highest) 2. When a person seems to have the psychological personality to match a particular function, or they are psychologically identified with it, or their temperament matches the subtype
So for example, Robin Williams as NeFi-Te makes sense because of his signals, avalanching speech, gesticulation, Ne thoughts being immediately executed out through Te, etc. however psychologically, I imagine he'd me more identified with Ne than Te in the sense of improvisation, ideas etc. Where as Justin Bieber as NiFe-Se doesn't show THAT many Se or Pe signals, but it's clear that his temperament is more in the ESFP area which is attitude, clothes, emphasis on appearances/aesthetics, living in the now, etc. And in my case, I remember you originally had me at SeFi-Te because my Fi-Te was fairly strong, but then changed to Ni because another video showed more Ni signals plus my temperament is very ENFP. So is it a combination of both of these strategies that forms the subtype? For example, what makes Bjork Fi subtype and Kate Bush Ni?
EDIT: I just read that there's a thing on this on the website, but I wondered which of these methods is the biggest influence on subtype.
EDIT: I just read that there's a thing on this on the website, but I wondered which of these methods is the biggest influence on subtype.
Hmmm. The subtypes in the database atm are subtyped by signal strength... but in an ideal scenario they should really be typed by ego fixation, so you're right about Kate Bush and Robin Williams.
Ultimately I think subtype = ego-fixation, and development is what accounts for function consciousness levels. That's more like asking what resources you have at your disposal, but not what you prefer using most. I generally have no qualms with people selecting their own subtype based on their ego fixation. Especially if a person has 3 or 4 conscious functions, any one of them could be where their ego resides. But I do think in general, everyone's ego will be more affiliated with one function.
I may end up adding an extra row to the database for "development" and restructuring subtype based on ego.
Type
Subtype
Development
Video URL/etc
Kate Bush
FiSe
FiSe-Ni
Fi + Ni
youtube.com/watch?v=Y4AtbKVoRa0&t=6m1s
Bjork
FiSe
FiSe-Ni
Fi + Se + Ni
youtube.com/watch?v=oUKMIlsoevU
Janet Jackson
FiSe
FiSe-Fi
Fi + Se
youtube.com/watch?v=t5zTf94FTJo
Megan Fox
FiSe
FiSe-Se
Fi + Se
youtube.com/watch?v=9ROL5IA6GPo
^ What do you think of something like this. Here, for example, Development shows which functions are conscious, but Subtype shows which function is preferred and ego-associated. I think this might solve the dilemma we're seeing. Because trying to squeeze all "conscious" functions into the subtype annotation... and just expanding it out to more acronyms, just gets messy. What do u guys think of this, though?
Omg, i really like this solution. Because for example, I've been conflicted over Enya who I had as FiSe-Te for a while because she has conscious and very visible Te later in life. But that never felt right. Her personality rests in Fi even though she has all functions developed. And others like FiNe Jill Stein and FiNe Susan Cain have the same problem. They've got conscious and snippy Te but their egos are entirely in Fi.
IDK, that convention isn't easy for newcomers to read (and still appears to suggest an order since the placeholders for functions are in order). WHat about this:
Bush: FiNi Bjork: FiSe-Ni Jackson: FiSe-Fi Fox: FiSe-Se
Including Se in Bush's type seems redundant, since Ni makes it clear what quadra she's in.
In the case of Einstein and others who who were unilateral in development, when about putting second but undeveloped function in parenthesis? (Not the sure if the example is correct, that Einstein only had Ne conscious, but that's what I'm illustrating).
Einstein: Ne(Fi)
And if Einstein had been polarized, you could say:
Einstein: Ne(Fi)-Si
Last Edit: Feb 24, 2018 12:38:19 GMT -5 by teatime
teatime - i see where you're going, but then what about someone like Enya who has all four functions, but ego in Fi? Or Marissa Mayer who also has all functions but ego in Te? Is there a way we can tell where the ego is, even when development is the same?
Type
Subtype
Development
Annotation
Kate Bush
FiSe
FiSe-Ni
Fi + Ni
FiNi
Bjork
FiSe
FiSe-Ni
Fi + Se + Ni
FiSe-Ni
Janet Jackson
FiSe
FiSe-Fi
Fi + Se
FiSe
Megan Fox
FiSe
FiSe-Se
Fi + Se
FiSe-Se
Enya
FiSe
FiSe-Fi
Fi + Se + Ni + Te
?
Marissa Mayer
FiSe
FiSe-Te
Fi + Se + Ni + Te
?
hmmm, as i think about it, i'm not sure this can really capture all variations since: 8 Development levels x 4 egos/subtypes = 32 combinations we can maybe reduce that down to 12~16 or so by eliminating irregular or impossible combos, but it's still a lot. we'll run out of easy annotations.
what about annotating development as 1's and 0's and placing it next to subtype?
Ran the idea by Discord (in the Fe/Ti hall) and there seems to be convergent agreement on the lines for developments idea. wanted to post a section of that in here for reference:
i've been meaning to articulate this but i think a clear line should be drawn between the definition of conscious and unconscious. especially if we're gonna make annotations now. For example, Alerith and i have debated a lot as to whether her Fe is conscious or not. My argument is always that it isn't, but at times she's felt very INF and ....but digging deeper it's more like Fe fetishism. because i think a dependable and objective/quantifiable metric we can use for a conscious function is when it actually starts to manifest in real life effects. so for example, my tendency to make online communities and to articulate so much and to coordinate groups is indicative of conscious Fe
but if someone just has a sense of affiliation with their F function but they don't really display it continually in either light/dark ways, i'd say its fetishized
Zweilous (TiNe)
I tend to do the same
jelliwulf (TiSe)
I have visibly light and dark behavior I’m sure of that
Zweilous (TiNe)
It's in smaller groups, but I try to coordinate my friends to all get in on things.
Auburn | TiNe-Ti
right, i definitely see conscious Fe is Jelle. That's interesting Zwei... then you might have all four functions conscious
그 숙녀분 Puffs
So would my feeling INF be a similar thing there, auburn?
Zweilous (TiNe)
Church meets at mine and Mochi's house, and (a bit more tellingly) I personally invited each of my D&D players, and I use my game as an excuse to learn about them and speak encouragement into their lives. When I say I play Dad Friend I really mean it.
Auburn | TiNe-Ti
Puffs - yes i think so. and often times the 'pull' of an unconscious function into individuation calls one into a sort of 'INF' inner journey. but it's not the same as saying one has conscious Fe, which is to say it has a level of outer presence and agency in the world to act on its own agendas
jelliwulf (TiSe)
I scold my friends for not acting right as well Zwei. In a parental way
그 숙녀분 Puffs
gotcha
그 숙녀분 Puffs
"and often times the 'pull' of an unconscious function into individuation calls one into a sort of 'INF' inner journey. but it's not the same as saying one has conscious Fe, which is to say it has a level of outer presence and agency in the world to act on its own agendas"
Would it then behoove us to annotate for an unconscious "pull" function? because I could see it causing a similar situation in others who have various pulls towards one or the other
그 숙녀분 Puffs
|-^| what about this for a function with a pull because it looks like the dash literally is getting pulled up lol
In the psychoanalytical sense, a differentiation is made between function development and ego-fixation. Ego-fixation designates where a person’s self-identity lies at a given time, but not necessarily where they are most functionally competent. For example, a TiNe may feel deeply called by Aler (Fe) into a sort of heroic fetishism while still lacking all the ability to manifest, apply or champion Fe as a person with conscious Fe would. In this case Aler is ego-fixed but still unconscious, and this is the essential definition of fetishism or of a muse/anima projection.
When a person is fascinated by a lower function which they do not yet actively possess in consciousness, it is a sign of a call from the unconscious to develop that function. The path to develop this lower function involves a convergence of polarities, but will lead to greater integration. As our TiNe example continues to focus on his relationship to Aler, eventually it will be brought into consciousness and what began as fetishism now manifests as genuine capacity. He will begin to not only value the feminine energy in art, poetry and myth – but will manifest it himself in his deeds and words. Here, the ego finally comes to match development.
if i had to give it an annotation i'd say have an ego fix/subtype while the development is unconscious. Like: NeTi-Fe l--l ^ that says Fe is the ego fix but it is unconscious. by implication one can infer that it's fetishized I see this with a lot of Te-leads sometimes TeSi-Fi ll-- ...they're very managerial, blunt, but if asked they'll tell you they're a softie and value Fi
jelliwulf (TiSe)
Hahaha my dad thinks he is a softie
Zweilous (TiNe)
Hm, yeah
jelliwulf (TiSe)
Anytime I express kindness he tells my mom I got it from him It’s so not true lol Auburn have you noticed a pattern of fetishizing the third or the third having an aspirational role Also I 100% agree on the call to consciousness thing Auburn! In my tracing my developmental history consciousness was always preceded by crisis and fetishization Then the function seemed to emerge
I think development notation might be an answer to what I was looking for in Si subtype Feeling that it looked one-sided and concerned that people would interpret me based only on the Ne sub samples
Auburn | TiNe-Ti
zwei yknow, coming to think of it i think that you are TiNe-Ne llll ^ and u have developed Si so that was throwing you into that ego for a while
Zweilous (TiNe)
When the IST Chomsky/Miyazaki side is also really strong, as is the Fe/INF But I'd probably still have to pick Ne if I picked one, yeah.
Auburn | TiNe-Ti
omg this feels like a breath of fresh air. seems we're getting to a workable solution one that is nuanced enough to make sense of subtleties without overcomplicating
Zweilous (TiNe)
This also clears up the TiNe-Si vs TiSi business Because now it's TiNe-Si III- or TiNe-Si I-I-
Wouldn't it really be something more like "IV,III,II,I"?
I guess the objective of the binary is to add another way to fine tune it, but it seems to me that reality just doesn't work like that. You can't simply denote a function as "strong" or as "weak". It's a lot more complicated. Trying to describe someone's usage of the functions with a binary indicator is just asking for problems, in my opinion.
Just my two cents.
"We all ride upon the waves of life, towards the expanse of death, through the nature of beauty. So ride, ride hard, ride towards death with a victory unconquerable. Lash out away from life as does the wind in a sail. Ride on, ride on, into the ceasing of the darkness! Ride into the shelter, seek justice in the beauty, seek power in the life."
chuck - right. but its in part an issue of practicality.. We're aware that function strength is more of a gradient, and we've actually made a 4 point gradient before here for each: link.
IV = ego associated III = conscious II = subconscious I = unconscious
And I think that's totally fine, and when delving into people's individual psychologies, it's good to look at them with as much nuance as possible. But we're more trying to settle on naming conventions, which unfortunately can't be as infinitely nuanced as what might be the ultimate truth of people. That's one of the tradeoffs of any typology, as typology is a form of generalization. Gotta pick a level of resolution for your orthography that's perfect. Go too granular and you'll only be describing singular people. Go too general and there will be many exceptions that don't fit any category.
I think MBTI is in the latter, with only 16... missing so many that fall in the cracks. We'd like to do something better, but also keep it manageable. Open to ideas, though.
Right, strength lies on a continuum. The notation is meant to refer to which functions are "conscious" or "unconscious". That is, whether or not the person is able to consciously access and use it.
Tabulating strength would be crazy since we don't have a way to measure it in specific amounts.
EDIT: Aub beat me to it d:
Last Edit: Feb 24, 2018 18:36:06 GMT -5 by Zweilous