Reply To: New Articles Thread

[Hrafn]

Hi @Auburn, I'm enjoying seeing these progress. I have a few quick thoughts  on some of them.

Previously, a person was either classed as “seelie” or “unseelie, or as “adaptive” or “directive”, as if one could not be strong in both at once, or weak in both at once. But this has proven to be not how the vultology and psychology manifests in people. Instead, it seems that a person can either be high in both attitudes or low in both attitudes. A person low in both attitudes is low on emotionality in general, and a person high in both is very emotional in  both directions and can alternate between them easily.

This makes sense & seems like an excellent innovation... I'm curious if you have any contrasting examples you could share of people who are high/low in these domains.
 
IF https://cognitivetypology.com/index.php?title=IF
While I relate a lot to I+F as temperament, attitudes, this partial IF profile reads like a description of an unhealthy Enneagram 1. I don't relate much to it at all, as I've already tried to explain elsewhere. As a youth, I tried to force myself to believe many things I "thought" were ethical, but if they grated against deeply-held/unarticulated beliefs, they were unsustainable. A huge part of coming into my own, as a young adult, was working out beliefs that adhere (or at least, don't conflict) with my more viscerally, deeply-held ethical values--which I'm assuming were probably largely formed in early childhood or something like that.
So, yes, I've had an ongoing process of "ethical construction," but it's also a process that relies heavily on direct experience & deeply-felt beliefs. These direct experiences & deeply-felt beliefs provide quite general guidelines. This, while I have a decent amount of intellectual latitude for this kind of ethical exploration & construction, I've learned that whatever conflicts with my more visceral sense of things will not last.
In the end, I strongly believe using "direct" ethical information (e.g. sourced from the emotions) is a universal human quality, even if Fi's tend to operate more heavily on that basis. Conversely, I suspect that using the intellect for finer-scale ethical realignment is also quite universal.
I'm not sure I've expressed this very well, but this is the best I can do for now.
 
ES https://cognitivetypology.com/index.php?title=ES
This profile is much better than the IF one--I can relate to most of it. I've long noticed that I often have a steep learning curve at first when I'm trying to learn a new activity (relative to others I see), but that after I have enough reference points, the learning will become a lot easier & more self-perpetuating. Another tendency I have, perhaps related to Ne's directionless improvisation described here, is that I'm generally terrible at following step-by-step directions when I'm learning something new. If I'm trying to follow instructions, I'll feel like I'm just acting by rote in a meaningless way, since I don't yet have a map of what I'm doing in my head. So instead, I'll just tend to fumble around till I have enough reference points that I have a more gestalt & portable knowledge of the activity.
Here, too, I found some parts of the article a bit extreme & overstated. For example:

With ES, Si's expertise is far more domain-restricted, causing the learning curve to be steeper upon jumping to a new territory, even if a largely adjacent one.

Well, if it's an adjacent domain to something I already know, it's generally pretty easy to extend out the reference points from those other activities. If you think about Pi as a map, all you have to have is a few adjacent points, or a sense of continuity, to extend it outward. If I have experience in enough different adjacent domains, a lot of times it's really not difficult to pick up a new activity. In that case, I can basically know how to do something even before I've actually done it.
The directionless fumbling comes from being unable to connect a particular sense of activity or movement to past experience in any meaningful way.
That said, I suspect that what constitutes an "adjacent domain" for Ne-Si is a little bit more local & concrete--it might be more "translocal" for an Se-Ni user.