- Type: TiNe
- Development: l--l
- Attitude: Adaptive
So, I’ve seen your messages for the past month and I’m sorry I haven’t addressed them. I’ve currently been crunching ~10 hour days at work for the past few weeks, and I’m just now getting to the latter end of that ordeal. So, regarding your inquiry — I would like to separate out two topics: one being CT’s methodological control, as a project, and the other being the case of your specific type.
The question of CT’s methodological control has undergone great strides recently, at least in terms of design, and I’d be happy to walk through some of those things with you if you’d like. The entire purpose of Model 2 is to address proper methodological control — and indeed some of the feedback I’ve gotten lately is that it seems to have gone too far. I still don’t think it’s gone far enough, but for now it is a good step in the right direction. See this page https://cognitivetypology.com/index.php?title=Cognitive_Typology_Methodology for an overview of the current methodology. I think you’ll find that it is many strides above “MBTI randomness” which, last I checked, doesn’t even have methodological control.
But, what I suspect is of more immediate relevance to you is the matter of your type? I have to say I haven’t watched all of your videos since there have been so many of them but I would like to start instead with the psychology — since that seems to be the main point of perceived mismatch. If I pointed out to you your Ne-lead signals again I don’t think it’d make as much difference as me outlining how I see your cognition. So here’s a go.
Pe energy: engagement, exploration, proliferation
From the months I’ve seen you on here and on Discord, I’ve noticed that you are one of our “rapid-fire” posters. Historically, these have been very Pe-heavy or Pe-lead. For example, Bera, Shelley, Faerie (when she’s here), Umbi and most recently Wolf, keb and you. There is a real-time dynamism to your matter of interaction that is very jump-in-the-water-and-swim. This learn-as-you-go, bump-into-walls format is due to the Explorer function. As the name implies, the explorer function is the one which is gathering and testing new information schemes and territories of knowledge.
This animate exploration in you shows up in your voluminous videos, your engagement, but also in the scattered qualify of that engagement. Pe leads, but especially Ne-leads, tend to have a “messy” sort of approach to their interaction. I see this approach in you, and in your psychology. I don’t think it’s explicable solely due to a language barrier, I think the way you think itself is formatted in a rather fragmentary way, so that when you write sentences the scattered way in which your mind works is reflected in a scatteredness of sentences. I’ve known many Ne-leads who have been diagnosed as Dyslexic. The two most common diagnoses I see with Ne-leads is ADHD and Dyslexia, and I do have to wonder how much of this correlation is because they’re Ne-lead (and they’re just ‘naming’ it ADHD/etc) and how much is other variables.
I don’t yet know the answer to this question, but for now I do have to say that you being dyslexic is not at odds with an Ne-lead typing, and if anything it is in harmony with it. You have mentioned believing you are Ji-lead, but I don’t see Ji-lead for you. You are far too loose and quick with your language and interaction to come across as Ji-lead to me. This is all a behavioral analysis, of course, but it seems to me that your behavior fits squarely into Pe-lead. If your behavior was more Ji, what we would see is far fewer things said, with each thing said being of a far higher compression.
Ne: Hypotheses-Hodgepodging & Correlations
I’ve noticed also a habit that you have of connecting together disparate ideas with plenty of ease and without much reservation. A chief example of this is in your recent thread https://cognitivetype.com/forums/topic/dysautonomia-and-ct/ where you said:
“Basically, I recognized immediately that, some of the disease signs were characters I recognized in me, and got interested in the Myers-Briggs due to seeing it crossing paths with, my life long quest for figuring out what had happened to my relative. A lifelong quest for, some strangeness, ended. And I never need ask what it is, again.”
For example, when I read that, I don’t understand the reasoning at all. I can’t see why an Myers-Briggs interest would be the result of watching a video on “Dysautonomia, POTS, and Ehler-Danlos” from the point of view of Ti-Fe or why it would be valid to connect these things in the first place. To me these things seem unrelated, and possibly demonstrate a series of correlation-causation fallacies. Dot-connecting without sufficient discrimination. What seems most curious to me is that it put an end to a lifelong quest you had, as if there was an “aha” connection that clicked everything into place and that was satisfactory. This is a characteristic of being “N-lead” (or, really, to use Model 2 terms: having continuous object-forms as your dominant ontological bias). I experience the same bafflement when I hear Ni-leads talk sometimes, hehe.
In any event, it does not appear to me that your thoughts, their evolutions and their conclusions, follow regimented conditionality (J) or exact conceptual definitions. Instead it seems to me, from my point of view, that you are a dynamic troubleshooter, a fluid data navigator that pieces together reality on the go, drawing parallels between all sorts of data sets without anything being off limits. This all fits perfectly in line with an Ne-lead psychology to me. So, even without a video analysis, and just from knowing you in chat/etc, I would estimate Ne-lead for you.
All that being said, you do have considerable development in Ji and Pi, and your development is non-standard. Yet, it doesn’t seem to me that the joined force of Ji and Pi development is enough to obscure your fundamentally exploratory and dynamic essence. More than being a persnickety perfectionist (Ji) or a wary doomer (Pi) you seem to be an inquisitive correlator (Ne) — but you are a bit of all three. I hope this offers at least an initial draft of how your interaction comes across at least to one person. Others may have different perceptions of you, from their own interactions with you, and maybe they can offer up their thoughts too? I wonder what others see?
Just my $0.02!