Reply To: Harry Potter's Fictional Type

Index Forums Cognitive Functions Harry Potter's Fictional Type Reply To: Harry Potter's Fictional Type

  • Type: TiNe
  • Development: l--l
  • Attitude: Adaptive

The problem I’m having is that I see the stories of complex characters, who have developed many functions or have very human trajectories, being cast as examples of “Fe myths” – regardless of what their type actually is. I see 1-dimensional characters who have never put themselves through the grind in any way and have no additional functional or personal complexity, being cast as “Se myths.” And I can’t help but wonder even how many SeXi I— would see themselves reflected in such characters

This is funny to be because I read your posts as though you’re making a point about the universal structure of the CT system, and interpret it that way, and try to boil down on what changes you’re pointing to.

But reading what you just wrote, it sounds like you’re taking very particular issues with the presentation of the information (i.e. fictional samples) based in part by the moral undertone provided, which to me seems irrelevant and beside the point. And I guess I’m showing my Alpha bias here, but I can’t control what people read into things.

My SeTi brother loved the Joker from the Dark Knights series and considered him a sophisticated character. I also consider Slim Shady to be a sophisticated character. Inversely, Hercules seems to be a bloke and rather flat and 1 dimensional. I could say the same thing about Gilgamesh, although he’s got a tad more complexity. Goku is also very flat. But what’s this got to do with anything?

It’s not my focus or desire to give people examples which validate them as complex human beings, nor to be sensitive to their feelings of being compared to samples which they feel are flat. Firstly because I can’t control who sees what as flat or multi-dimensional, or whether they find someone virtuous (i.e. having “positive” traits) or unholy.

It’s also not my business to equalize the playing field across the types in any dimension whatsoever. I don’t have political correctness on my agenda. If, for example, it turns out that Se-leads are more highly represented in crime and imprisonment than Ne-leads, to me that’s just a fact. If that leads to the creation of a profile that has more incriminating qualities associated to Se (i.e. delinquency & addiction), that’s just my observation of the truth of reality.

Rather than changing the description, it may be better to ask — why is Se being demonized in certain cultures? Why is it being incarcerated? Why is it “taboo”? We may then find that rather than adjusting the profile or shying away from the samples that are most emblematic of the phenomenon due to their taboo status, we can rectify social opinion at the wider scale and come to view Se with less spite.

edit: And on the same note, we might get Fe off it’s high horse. Because like I said, at least in the USA the influence of Protestantism has glorified Fe mythology.

This is cultural narrowness. Someone else from a different culture might read the Fe profile –just as it is right now– and not see that it’s being over-praised, but may say “wow, what a needlessly taxing and fussy way to exist.” Indeed, even I read the Fe profile and I just see a lot of excessive toil.

  • This reply was modified 1 year, 11 months ago by Auburn.
  • This reply was modified 1 year, 11 months ago by Auburn.
  • This reply was modified 1 year, 11 months ago by Auburn.
  • This reply was modified 1 year, 11 months ago by Auburn.

© Copyright 2012-2020 J.E. Sandoval


The content on this site is not
intended for medical advice, diagnosis,
or treatment. Always seek the advice
of your physician or other qualified
health provider with questions you
may have regarding a medical condition.
For more information visit this link.