- Type: TiNe
- Development: l--l
- Attitude: Adaptive
This thread is just a ramble… 🙂 So, pardon the multi-posting. Err, I have a few more thoughts.
Update #1: Selective Focus
One of the key, necessary changes in the field that needs to happen is that typological systems need to stop swallowing up whole chunks of the mind into their pie slices. To not do this, what is meant by type needs to be defined more discretely. For instance…
…above we see a diagram of how CT is conceptualized. Notice that CT is not taking up everything. Instead it is localized around “objects” – which are one of the phenomenologies humans have. CT is a description of how we build up and represent objects in our mind (and thus a situation), what properties they have and what forms they take. The dotted lines represents some of the other processing regions the CTA makes tangential use of, in order to accomplish this task, but they stand on their own as well.
Notice that the CTA, as an object-management process, does not have much to say about anger, fear, love, sensations, self-image, and so on. If a person wants to have a description of these elements, they have to look to another complementary system. (No longer can convos about Fi and Fe be stand-ins for this matter.) And in that sense CT is more specialized in its scope – but it tries to do “one” thing right, rather than trying to be a whole-human outline using archetypal, but ultimately heuristic, dichotomies. There is a lot of complexity in human nature and each individual subject – the body, emotions, sense perception, logic, dreams, etc — is its own enormous field of study which can, and should, be treated rigorously, because each one may vary independent of any other one. (In fact, that’s what we keep seeing, with clumsy Se-leads, emotionally dissociated Fi-leads, etc.) Good science focuses on identifying these contingencies or non-contingencies and examining each closely.
Update #2: Non-Absolute Thinking
Another one is absolutist thinking. It’s a human inclination to want to form clean, closed systems. Absolutist thinking is one of the J system’s greatest indulgences, and one I’ve been the most guilty of. But this won’t do. There are hardly any things in nature that conform to monolithic architectures without some exceptions here and there. The more absolute the system is, the longer it takes to update itself because erroneous data is looped-back and re-explained within the absolutist framework which is held as axiomatically true. I think this happens everywhere that humans engage in activities — from government to religion to ideologies of all sorts, but also in sciences and forms of reason. The hard pill to swallow here is that the multi-variability of complex phenomenon like the psyche makes it so that, at best, we can only approximate “most” cases. So we should never close the door to the exact opposite of our theory being true. This is SO hard to do, and it’s so easy to slip into myopic thinking. We have to actively combat this human tendency for certainty by fostering a culture of skepticism and reiteration. It has to be possible for your model to evolve — it has to be seen as a work-in-progress, always. So that’s also part of the newest CT efforts, where model 2 is built to be upgradeable at the core.
That’s it for now! Now that I’ve written it, I’m not really sure why I wrote all this ..or who I write it for. Maybe just for myself? …Maybe it’s just been swimming in my mind and I needed to spew it out. Sorry guys! >.> Err, still I hope some of these thoughts are interesting to some members here lol! Or not.
What do you guys think of all this?
How do you see the evolution of typology?
And how do you see its future?