What is the rationale behind the function pairs? Dec 18, 2018 21:12:43 GMT -5 by zero
Post by zero on Dec 18, 2018 21:12:43 GMT -5
I am a new member to the forum and new to CT as well. In periods I have been interested in jungian types and MBTI, but very soon I have been frustrated with the lack of logic and evidence. So I am glad that I accidentally found this website, CT really makes sense! And maybe vultology when I get more into it, initially I can just say that I find it interesting.
I have never accepted the idea in MBTI that if one has identified the extroverted function, the other function is then by definition introverted. This insisting on regularity/order/symmetry is like saying that a man should always marry a woman. Its equal to the lack of any reasonable explanation for some of the rules in the enneagram, e.g. why the “wing” of a type always have to be one at the side. Humans have a natural love of order. And as a human being I LOVE such systems, although I become disappointed again and again, after some deeper scrutiny. Until now nobody have managed to come up with anything like the periodic table when it comes to psychology.
So I like that CT has rejected some of the ideas in MBTI and started more or less from scratch, but not totally from scratch as some ideas from (newer versions of) MBTI have not been challenged (or at least I cannot find where, neither at the CT website or any MBTI site), one of the ideas is the rule of the the polarity of functions. I LIKE this idea because it creates such a beautiful order, just like when you have found South West you also know NorthEast. But as long as I am skeptic, I am stuck at this point
I am on the brink to just accepting this idea, because a whole new world would open once I accept that Si always combine with Ne. So I really hope to be convinced!
The dichotomic version of MBTI gives a very shallow description, the function pairs open up to a much deeper description/understanding.
As the possible function pairs are given it makes the interplay of the cognitive functions much easier to grasp, whereas it would be quite confusing to have a stack of 8 functions that could combine in every way.
So I would really like to be presented for the argument for the axiom of the function pairs.
Why cant a person have a realistic information gathering (Se) AND a historical Information synthesis (Si). Is this not rather common to find among very dry college professors? Or somebody who has nothing surreal or metaphysical about them. I think I am oscillating between these two, when I am doing my financial accounting, not much intuition is needed then.
Then when I am at a party and find company with someone who has a lot of N, I might go into an oscillation between Ne and Ni – I see some surreal meaning in what the other person says (Ne) and I connect that to some metaphysical viewpoint (Ni) and the conversation gets really bizarre. Couldnt it be that many artist oscillate like that in their creative process, especially avantgarde artists.
I can see that an oscillation like that sooner or later would cause a psychotic breakdown and maybe too much oscillation between Se and Si is what is found in autistic disorders?
So if an oscillation HAS to take place between Pe an Pi (BTW - I can see that there have to be some oscillation, that you cannot use one function separate, but wasn´t Jungs original idea that the “oscillation” happened between the main function and the helping/auxiliary function (J and P))?
I can also see that probably only one oscillation can take place at once, like it is said in the material “It is conceivable that the existence of both axes in the same psyche would cause mental aberrations due to conflicting instructions for how to metabolize information.” but what I suggest is this:
That when oscillating between Pe and Pi I could shift between S(e or I) and N(e or I) depending on what applies best at the moment: Someone says, 'I dreamt about rats tonight'. I could go 'oh, have you had rats in your house in the past? (Si) or I could say 'maybe rats symbolize something unconscious in you (Ni). Whatever I say the other person could stick to Se and refuse my psychobabble and talk about a rat he once saw (Si), or he could use Ni and see what the symbolic meaning could be.
The conversation would be pretty boring if both stayed in Se/Si, I would look at a cup (Se) and say that this was the kind of cups we had in my childhood home (Si) and the other would comment that in his family they always drank tea.
In short – I find SO much depths and meaning in the descriptions of the functions in CT, but I still dont know what to think of the “polarities”. Cant I have any Ne if I have Ni ?.....