- Type: TiNe
- Development: ll-l
- Attitude: Adaptive
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.
This is great development, and I agree this level of granularity has been needed. Awesome to see where you’re going with this 🙂 I haven’t read through all the posts, but it seems like there’s something that’s still not being addressed though.
From what I’ve observed, especially by comparing the different thought processes of friends of the same type (and yes comparing my own thought processes with the other TiNe and TiSe’s), there seem to be different ‘layerings’ of function interaction. Sometimes you get the same results, but not all the time. You can have two people of the same type and function dev, with similar emotional attitudes, who have very different methods of expressing themselves, interpreting events and reacting to those events. In particular what I’m interested in is why functions take on different ‘flavors’ (eg. ‘dark’ and ‘light’ Ne and it’s particular character, the ‘vibe’ Ti gives off in different ppl) and why the if:then cascades of people with the same developments vary.
I don’t know if you’re already forming an answer to this, maybe that’s already part of your updates. It’s the thing that boggles me about type at this point though! And I’ve begun to deduce it from the pov of archetypes, since it seems like parental relationships are somewhat predictive in how this layering forms. But idk, the psyche is a hot mess of overlapping wires influenced by so many nuances XD
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.
^ I looooooove this ^_^ That’d be so epic! God though you’ve got your work cut out for you with such detailed assays o.o
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.
Yes I imagine such data could be a very valuable tool. It’s like what Dr’s do with lab panels, but with levels of functions instead of antibodies or minerals, etc. It might also help in diagnosis and treatment of mental maladies as well. I’ve noticed that often maladaptive loops tend to be associated with specific functions, especially those that are unconscious. Function integration could be a tool for psychological healing.