- Type: TiNe
- Development: l--l
- Attitude: Adaptive
You almost sound like a Je-lead!
But no, actually, Je-leads don’t sound like that.
Firstly I wanna say.. I can’t imagine how hard it must have been, and still is, to fight the odds that you’re constantly faced with. That sounds like a really challenging battle that would require exactly the kind of fortitude that you’ve developed. I’m reminded of @alerith who had said similar things, having gone through her own trials with health. I don’t think CT is ready for psychoanalysis atm but if it’s ok with you I’d like to try something? …In the interest of truth-seeking.
Odd as it may sound, actual Je-leads seem to me to lack this level of preoccupation with Je. That is to say, they just ‘are’ without having to ‘try to be’ as much. They’re often conscientious, but out of temperament rather than out of need. Beyond the usual effort that Je takes to wield, what you describe sounds like a struggle to modulate a lower function, which is exactly what we see of your vultology. We struggle to do what is non-native to us, otherwise it wouldn’t be too much of a struggle. I wonder if that makes sense?
So while you describe this experience as “central” to you –and perhaps it really is at this point– this centrality may be the result of who you have become, more than who you were born as. I understand this is a technical/semantic point, and it makes little difference in the end. But I wonder for example that if you hadn’t become sick, if your relationship to your relatives had been better and not evoked envy or feelings of a need to self-parent.. would you be someone else? Can we even know? What parts are central, and what defines centrality?
I had no idea developing another function could make this much difference.
Me either. It took me a while to learn what role nurture plays in the equation, since I began with the assumption that nature was most of it. I think we have a need to know “who I am”, and this is almost always asked as a static question. But we’re all a kind of process; a work in progress. One part hardware, one part software. We can alter parts of us.
My sense of you is that you’ve done a lot of self-work. But even that has implications to it, doesn’t it? Self-work doesn’t need to be done, if one is being their most natural self. Almost all of the 3-4 function conscious individuals we’ve seen have had careers or lives defined by working on their weaknesses. Patching up their Achille’s heels. And they’re almost all “paradoxes” in the sense that they have conflicting traits.
It’s as though some parts of one function override parts of another, and the specific mix of which parts override which parts is subject to their personal journey. So I realize you don’t “fit” the Pe or Se description to the letter, but I wouldn’t worry so much about that because I think it’s entirely expected for a 3 function conscious person to go against parts of their own energy.
As the model currently stands, it would suggest that you are modulating Te highly, which happens when a person has a need for a function – since need is what most often catalyzes the growth. We’re still investigating how early these needs can emerge, but so far it seems possible for children to rely on a non-primary function even before age ~5, which are the formative years of personality.
There’s some literature that suggests the first ~5 years of life are crucial to defining how the personality is for the rest of a person’s life. So I do wonder if that may be a missing piece to this puzzle. Perhaps very early modulation of lower functions causes a kind of permanent hybrid personality. I know @teatime mentioned feeling she has always had Si. Perhaps we can make a thread or two more closely examining the first 5 years of life, and see what patterns we find?