- Type: TiNe
- Development: l--l
- Attitude: Adaptive
You gonna have one for emotional attitude as well? That’d be really useful in tandem with this one I think! This seems like the start of a really strong model and typing method, kudos
And yes, a survey for emotional attitude would be good to have too. Gathering data on all variables will be useful, really. The energetic survey is just the first I had in mind — but if every measured vultological variable can have a corresponding psychometric triangulation point, that would be ideal.
I’ve been wondering how CT will be tied in with psychoanalysis. It seems like there isn’t really a delineated line between cognitive type and the rest of the psyche, or maybe a better way to put it is that two people of the same type can manifest in drastically different manners depending on mental health status, emotional development, and even things like cultural background, ethical values and beliefs. I know v1 had 1024 variations of types, but will this be more specifically quantified in v2?
Essentially, function integration will be seen as a four-aspects process. There is the independent integration of a function’s ontological status, its purpose & value, its archetypal character, and its practical abilities/skills. People almost always have some of these but not the others. This is the level of granularity we’ve been needing, when knowing where a function sits in terms of development.
This can also be turned into a survey. Imagine for example a survey on Je, in which there are 40 questions, each divided into 10 sets per facet. 10 questions are about a person’s practical abilities in the real world (i.e. getting-things-done, management, proficiency in logistics, effectiveness in rhetoric, etc). Another 10 questions are more philosophical and deal with how a person views abstract objects (i.e. platonic idealism (~Ji) versus pragmatism (~Je)). A person who’s integrated Je’s ontology will agree with “truth” statements that define “real” via pragmatic philosophy, rather than by conceptual perfection.
Another 10 questions can be about a person’s relationship to the archetype of the King/Queen, to see whether they have ego-identified with the character. This will ask questions such as about fatherhood/motherhood, authority, and rule. About being a lion of a clan, or a tiger. It’ll discuss the integrity of oneself as an authority, a self-view as an ethical mentor, a ‘father’/’mother’ to others– a responsible agent with duties to fulfill in life which expand beyond themselves. Etc.
When this survey is complete, a person will be able to take it and it should account for complex situations where a person is over-identified with a function (i.e. ego fixated) while not actually having it conscious yet. They may score high on one metric such as purpose/value, because they conceptually “believe” and “agree” with the mission or statement of the function, but they also know that they do not “live” that out — or manifest the values they hold.
The first survey doesn’t differentiate this, so right now it’s giving a lot of outputs that more properly map the ego-fixation, rather than the development itself. But when this Aspects of Integration survey’s complete, people will be able to see precisely what aspects of their function they’ve integrated and which they haven’t. 🙂 I think this can be very useful for psychoanalysis because it would give people a window into what exact facets they need to work on, if their goal is to move forward in their psychological journey.
Edit: And as a bonus, it’ll also work as a better metric to compare vultology against. Because the vultology is supposed to match overall integration, rather than just their ego-fixation, which is what this first survey tracks best (putting aside its semantic shortcomings).