Initial Thoughts on Development Levels
Apr 1, 2018 23:27:51 GMT -5 by Auburn
Alerith, sitbone, and 11 more like this
Post by Auburn on Apr 1, 2018 23:27:51 GMT -5
Long post warning. Sorry guys, but there's so much to say about this! Here goes...
For the past week or two I've been going through the database (now at 650+) and reviewing every sample... adding the development levels of their functions. I'm nowhere near done yet but I'd like to report my findings to you guys so far, and open up a discussion.
Firstly I should say function development is a gradient, but we cannot justify the exponential complexity a gradient function development system would add (as was hinted at by the stages of development series). Instead, the database right now (and the labor) can only afford to make a binary delineation. A yes or a no. A 1 or a 0. The notations we decided on are "l" (for fully conscious) and "-" (for unconscious).
Parameters and Goals
The goal, as with all things CT strives for, is to provide an objective metric for defining and identifying development levels. So for example, if someone asks "What does a TeSi ll-l look like? and how are they different from a TeSi l--l?" then the database should be able to give that answer by referencing videos of TeSi of said development levels. Essentially the ll-l and l--l developments of the TeSi would have subtle but prominent differences in vultology and overall character. I have been trying this with the TeSi's first and the results have been very satisfying and illuminating. I will post examples of them in the post to follow.
Defining Conscious & Unconscious
But, in order to differentiate development levels properly, vultology does have to be factored into the reading. Which is why, by this new definition, a function isn't considered conscious unless it:
a) is visible in vultology
b) is present in behavior
c) has autonomy
Question 1: Autonomy
This goes against some previous thinking in the typology community that assumes non-primary functions can't have autonomy of interest. In general, it's considered that all lower functions "serve" the primary one. I actually started with this assumption myself, but was forced to discard it as I've seen ample evidence -- in myself, the database and this community -- that people can use lower functions at high levels of competence and for their own purposes and not in service to the primary. One example of this is TeSi Stephen Colbert, who is an Ne comedian and simply enjoys it.
It is better to -- as Jordan Peterson says -- think of the psyche as a collection of sub-personalities each wishing for their own vector. When a function is fully conscious, it's no longer just in service to its master, but takes the reigns of your person and guides it to action. For example, a TiSe who is a precision sculptor or designer is using Se's attuned focus for their Ti's aims, but a TiSe with truly conscious Se will obtain the qualities of Se's spontaneity, impulsiveness and desire for action. So Tony Hawk is ll--, while Sam Harris is l--l. Sam Harris is a materialist/literalist, and is concrete (S) in his understanding of the world and indeed absorbs/reads much information, but he does not "pursue" Se for its own sake nor explores the world recreationally.
Question 2: Vultology
We also see in Sam Harris's vultology a lack of that Pe bubbling momentum, darting eyes, and general fluidity. And in general that's always the case when a function isn't conscious. Now lets dive deeper into this and lets say we had someone who "did" a lot of Ne-ish things, while not showing Ne signals. They actually still don't have it fully conscious because part of consciousness is when the energetics of it are alive and animated in you. For example, TeSi James Cameron doesn't have conscious Ne even though he's more than adept at producing vivid imaginary worlds and is a creative by heart. Is it conscious? We know his Ne is not conscious because we know what a TeSi looks like with Ne conscious: re: Stephen Colbert. Is James Cameron witty in real-time? And does he do parodies? Does his energy have buoyancy and does he have that sparkle in his eye? ...no he doesn't.
So here we see an example of just how much a function can actually contribute to personality, while not being "fully conscious." It's better to think of this new development levels system as either "fully conscious" or not (again, 1 or 0). Take me for example, I don't have conscious Si even though I spend a lot of time daily archiving and organizing sample data (= behaviors) because I don't show the vultology of Si very heavily and also because I haven't integrated Si's innate philosophy.
Integrating the Philosophy of the Function
It's not enough to have the tangential qualities of a function, in order to consider it conscious. The philosophy and temperament underlying the function itself has to be integrated into your person. Conscious Si actually requires temperance/caution/reservation/anticipation to appear in the personality... and that's when the personality actually shifts. An Si affinity for coin collecting is just the first steps along the fetishism. You never really integrate Si until you actually integrate the senex archetype into your person and you learn about context, right-timing, the-way-of-the-world, and to have a respect for that.
And so more and more I'm seeing development as the integration of the four archetypes (sub-personalities) *into* your *person*...
Senex - Old Man
Puer - Child
King/Queen - Father/Mother
Princess/Prince -
This also provides a very solid, and spiritual definition of development. Development isn't just learning a new skill, it's also a transformation of personality. It's by no means easy, and it generally takes an unusual situation. As I was examining the database from this new focal lens I realized that the 'default' development for a person is actually just their primary function conscious. Just as Jung first said. And the others, including the auxiliary, are at the very least not "fully conscious" like the primary is, and tend to glob together in the unconscious. So the prototypical TeSi is actually l--- in development. I'll explain this below:
TeSi Developments
l--- = Capitalistic, Business-Minded, Goal Oriented, Go Big or Go Home (Ted Cruz, Jake Trapper)
ll-- = Entrepreneural, but cautious, reserved, consientious, historical (J.R.R Tolkien, James Cameron, Trucker Carlson)
lll- = Witty Te+Ne Banterer, Eccentric Nerd, Sarcastic, Jester (Rachel Maddows, Stephen Colbert, Amy Schumer)
llll = Unknown
l-l- = Eccentric Nerd, Prolific Media Generator, Talker-Talker (Philip DeFranco), Reviser-esque
l--l = Logistical Ethicist (Germaine Greer)
A typical TeSi has a development of l--- and will be your standard debater personality; carrying a political message or pushing forward with a financial agenda. But a TeSi with Te + Si fully conscious actually sorta steps back and says "ok yea, i build resources for myself. im a businessman. but i just wanna settle down with my family. tell stories. i don't wanna be out there trying to overturn the system"
and that's the senex energy ^
So for example, J.R.R Tolkien and James Cameron are both TeSi storytellers... and they've both got senex energy to them. They were both successful orators and did a lot in their lives (huge career portfolios) but they were less political and more narrative, hence ll-- which means the Father and the Grandfather archetype are balanced. The commanding energy of Je is tempered by the mellow energy of Pi. Non-mellow Je-leads are almost certainly l--- and the l--- developed TeSi is one that hasn't really been tempered yet.
They either:
a) still dream of making it big
b) still dream of making a big change in the world (Je)
c) are not happy with the state of things, one way or another
But when the l--- Je-lead integrates Pi, they actually learn to be content with a degree of how life is on its own.
If instead the Je-lead is l--l in development, then they still don't have senex energy nor puer energy, but they have a prince/princess energy and a personal castle (Ji) so they're doubly political. Examples of this are TeSi l--l Ayn Rand, TeSi l--l Germaine Greer and possibly TeSi l--l Richard Dawkins. What I mean by "princess" energy is that they:
a) have a private/pet theory/tower (not just an affiliation with a stance)
b) are to some degree unyielding in what is a self-consistent inner paradigm built by axioms
c) they're not just political or economical, they're ideological.
This should show up in their vultology (and it does consistently) via a sort of double rigidity, stiffness, angularity and pointed reservation.
But why so strict?
The reason why the criteria for consciousness is so strict and why all these parameters have to be in place, is because there *are* people who actually qualify for them. And so for example, if we lumped every TeSi who had creative interests into the lll- category, we would lump James Cameron and Stephen Colbert together. But as we discussed, Colbert has far more Ne and the puer is active in him while Cameron doesn't and just uses Ne supportively. And so if we are to build a 1-or-0 system, consciousness is defined by being all the way there. This actually provides a very beautiful objectivity and the database is looking so clean, I can't wait to show you guys. I will post an example of this below as a proof of concept.
For the past week or two I've been going through the database (now at 650+) and reviewing every sample... adding the development levels of their functions. I'm nowhere near done yet but I'd like to report my findings to you guys so far, and open up a discussion.
Firstly I should say function development is a gradient, but we cannot justify the exponential complexity a gradient function development system would add (as was hinted at by the stages of development series). Instead, the database right now (and the labor) can only afford to make a binary delineation. A yes or a no. A 1 or a 0. The notations we decided on are "l" (for fully conscious) and "-" (for unconscious).
Parameters and Goals
The goal, as with all things CT strives for, is to provide an objective metric for defining and identifying development levels. So for example, if someone asks "What does a TeSi ll-l look like? and how are they different from a TeSi l--l?" then the database should be able to give that answer by referencing videos of TeSi of said development levels. Essentially the ll-l and l--l developments of the TeSi would have subtle but prominent differences in vultology and overall character. I have been trying this with the TeSi's first and the results have been very satisfying and illuminating. I will post examples of them in the post to follow.
Defining Conscious & Unconscious
But, in order to differentiate development levels properly, vultology does have to be factored into the reading. Which is why, by this new definition, a function isn't considered conscious unless it:
a) is visible in vultology
b) is present in behavior
c) has autonomy
Question 1: Autonomy
This goes against some previous thinking in the typology community that assumes non-primary functions can't have autonomy of interest. In general, it's considered that all lower functions "serve" the primary one. I actually started with this assumption myself, but was forced to discard it as I've seen ample evidence -- in myself, the database and this community -- that people can use lower functions at high levels of competence and for their own purposes and not in service to the primary. One example of this is TeSi Stephen Colbert, who is an Ne comedian and simply enjoys it.
It is better to -- as Jordan Peterson says -- think of the psyche as a collection of sub-personalities each wishing for their own vector. When a function is fully conscious, it's no longer just in service to its master, but takes the reigns of your person and guides it to action. For example, a TiSe who is a precision sculptor or designer is using Se's attuned focus for their Ti's aims, but a TiSe with truly conscious Se will obtain the qualities of Se's spontaneity, impulsiveness and desire for action. So Tony Hawk is ll--, while Sam Harris is l--l. Sam Harris is a materialist/literalist, and is concrete (S) in his understanding of the world and indeed absorbs/reads much information, but he does not "pursue" Se for its own sake nor explores the world recreationally.
Question 2: Vultology
We also see in Sam Harris's vultology a lack of that Pe bubbling momentum, darting eyes, and general fluidity. And in general that's always the case when a function isn't conscious. Now lets dive deeper into this and lets say we had someone who "did" a lot of Ne-ish things, while not showing Ne signals. They actually still don't have it fully conscious because part of consciousness is when the energetics of it are alive and animated in you. For example, TeSi James Cameron doesn't have conscious Ne even though he's more than adept at producing vivid imaginary worlds and is a creative by heart. Is it conscious? We know his Ne is not conscious because we know what a TeSi looks like with Ne conscious: re: Stephen Colbert. Is James Cameron witty in real-time? And does he do parodies? Does his energy have buoyancy and does he have that sparkle in his eye? ...no he doesn't.
So here we see an example of just how much a function can actually contribute to personality, while not being "fully conscious." It's better to think of this new development levels system as either "fully conscious" or not (again, 1 or 0). Take me for example, I don't have conscious Si even though I spend a lot of time daily archiving and organizing sample data (= behaviors) because I don't show the vultology of Si very heavily and also because I haven't integrated Si's innate philosophy.
Integrating the Philosophy of the Function
It's not enough to have the tangential qualities of a function, in order to consider it conscious. The philosophy and temperament underlying the function itself has to be integrated into your person. Conscious Si actually requires temperance/caution/reservation/anticipation to appear in the personality... and that's when the personality actually shifts. An Si affinity for coin collecting is just the first steps along the fetishism. You never really integrate Si until you actually integrate the senex archetype into your person and you learn about context, right-timing, the-way-of-the-world, and to have a respect for that.
And so more and more I'm seeing development as the integration of the four archetypes (sub-personalities) *into* your *person*...
Senex - Old Man
Puer - Child
King/Queen - Father/Mother
Princess/Prince -
This also provides a very solid, and spiritual definition of development. Development isn't just learning a new skill, it's also a transformation of personality. It's by no means easy, and it generally takes an unusual situation. As I was examining the database from this new focal lens I realized that the 'default' development for a person is actually just their primary function conscious. Just as Jung first said. And the others, including the auxiliary, are at the very least not "fully conscious" like the primary is, and tend to glob together in the unconscious. So the prototypical TeSi is actually l--- in development. I'll explain this below:
TeSi Developments
l--- = Capitalistic, Business-Minded, Goal Oriented, Go Big or Go Home (Ted Cruz, Jake Trapper)
ll-- = Entrepreneural, but cautious, reserved, consientious, historical (J.R.R Tolkien, James Cameron, Trucker Carlson)
lll- = Witty Te+Ne Banterer, Eccentric Nerd, Sarcastic, Jester (Rachel Maddows, Stephen Colbert, Amy Schumer)
llll = Unknown
l-l- = Eccentric Nerd, Prolific Media Generator, Talker-Talker (Philip DeFranco), Reviser-esque
l--l = Logistical Ethicist (Germaine Greer)
A typical TeSi has a development of l--- and will be your standard debater personality; carrying a political message or pushing forward with a financial agenda. But a TeSi with Te + Si fully conscious actually sorta steps back and says "ok yea, i build resources for myself. im a businessman. but i just wanna settle down with my family. tell stories. i don't wanna be out there trying to overturn the system"
and that's the senex energy ^
So for example, J.R.R Tolkien and James Cameron are both TeSi storytellers... and they've both got senex energy to them. They were both successful orators and did a lot in their lives (huge career portfolios) but they were less political and more narrative, hence ll-- which means the Father and the Grandfather archetype are balanced. The commanding energy of Je is tempered by the mellow energy of Pi. Non-mellow Je-leads are almost certainly l--- and the l--- developed TeSi is one that hasn't really been tempered yet.
They either:
a) still dream of making it big
b) still dream of making a big change in the world (Je)
c) are not happy with the state of things, one way or another
But when the l--- Je-lead integrates Pi, they actually learn to be content with a degree of how life is on its own.
If instead the Je-lead is l--l in development, then they still don't have senex energy nor puer energy, but they have a prince/princess energy and a personal castle (Ji) so they're doubly political. Examples of this are TeSi l--l Ayn Rand, TeSi l--l Germaine Greer and possibly TeSi l--l Richard Dawkins. What I mean by "princess" energy is that they:
a) have a private/pet theory/tower (not just an affiliation with a stance)
b) are to some degree unyielding in what is a self-consistent inner paradigm built by axioms
c) they're not just political or economical, they're ideological.
This should show up in their vultology (and it does consistently) via a sort of double rigidity, stiffness, angularity and pointed reservation.
But why so strict?
The reason why the criteria for consciousness is so strict and why all these parameters have to be in place, is because there *are* people who actually qualify for them. And so for example, if we lumped every TeSi who had creative interests into the lll- category, we would lump James Cameron and Stephen Colbert together. But as we discussed, Colbert has far more Ne and the puer is active in him while Cameron doesn't and just uses Ne supportively. And so if we are to build a 1-or-0 system, consciousness is defined by being all the way there. This actually provides a very beautiful objectivity and the database is looking so clean, I can't wait to show you guys. I will post an example of this below as a proof of concept.
) the verdict is still out on whether any particular development level is favorable over another. It seems to me (and this is just preliminary) that people who have some functions unconscious (re: l--l Sam Harris) exercise more concentrated effort into their conscious ones. So Harris has a massive dose of Judgment, and thus a precision in Ti and Fe of a sort you would not easily find in TiNe Hayao Miyazaki or another individual with 3 or 4 functions conscious. It's looking to me like a trade-off scenario. So if you can imagine you have "100%" energy to spend, you can divide that up 25% on each function, or 50% in two, or 100% in one (the primary). For example it doesn't look to me like a llll has 4x as much power as a l---, but instead both have the same cognitive bandwidth, but organized differently. That might be the scenario we're looking at, or as it appears to me... but again I don't know. I'm trying to approach this problem objectively, without a biased lens or ideology.
This plus his training and "over-development" of Ne explains things as well. 
