- Type: TiNe
- Development: l-l-
- Attitude: Adaptive
I actually liked the idea that one could be a double extrovert or double introvert, like a “true” extrovert/introvert. This was something that made sense to me, since I can think of many extroverted people where its hard to notice any use of an introverted function and vice versa, but still most people seem to be at a balance point between extroversion and introversion. Suddenly typology began to fit into a bell curve as far as E/I is concerned.
I also find the idea of development level interesting, but would like to have both! 🙂 The first time I saw the term, I was a little bit concerned about it, I considered it must mean a measure of how developed a person is. Then I read somewhere that this is not the case, then later that it seems to imply this..at least to some degree. And yes, I know that Jung looked at individuation this way. I can see that there is/has been some speculation about this being the case. That maybe I— could mean a highly developed, specialized dominant function, where as IIII could imply that some drive is lost. I would agree that not all development is about balance. For example J can be judgmental/black&white as opposed to having wise judgment. I guess it was Freud who made the analogy with an army that have to leave some troops behind when advancing, this is development but out of balance.
The idea that one can choose a favorite function, a chosen ego, seems plausible to me. I guess such ego fixation could also be implanted by family or picked up from the environment, for example among some ‘spiritual’ people which spirituality actually is more about fellowship, getting approval or feeling secure.
When I read the thread you suggested, EpicKalypze, I came to think of a book I once read, since people were mentioning having values that were contrary to their type. The author suggest that motivation comes for some extra-typological source. I am not sure if there is any value to it, I found the idea interesting, but it blurred the picture so much to have yet another layer of typology on top of the functions, as if there is not enough confusion already. But there might be something to pick up from it. (also its interesting to read how Jung at first considered feeling as extrovert and thinking as introvert. That this simple dichotomy was how it all started….)
Here is a little extract:
My typology makes use of four of these archetypes: Power, Eros, Spirit and Matter. I define Power
as an urge for domination and control; Eros as concern with relations and connections, and not only among people; Spirit as a fascination with the realm of art, fantasy and ideas; and Matter as interest in physical objects and the natural world…By adding these four fundamental dynamics that provide the energy and a sense of direction for conscious functioning, archetypalmotivational typology deepens and completes Jung’s typology. The combination of the two allows for a more dimensional grasp of personality than an assessment based on conscious preferences alone. For example, knowing someone is an introverted thinking sensation type does not disclose the motivational style or area of interest to which these functions are devoted. Archetypal- motivational typology, on the other hand, may reveal that the introversion, thinking and sensation are used in the pursuit of power.