Reply To: Harry Potter's Fictional Type

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

  • Type: SeFi
  • Development: lll-
  • Attitude: Unseelie

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.

I was talking about the fundamental structure of the system, actually; but using examples to try to make my point. But now, I feel like I need to get my thoughts back in order.

My point was not about particular characters, but about the entire approach to Fe in general – exactly as you originally interpreted it. I think we may have talked past each other somewhere, so I have to go back and see what I missed, or phrased wrongly, that made it sound otherwise.

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. “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.

I know, and this is exactly what I love about your website, that you don’t do PC and try to validate anyone. This is exactly exactly what makes your system more viable to me, and more palatable. I don’t need my identity validated; I’ve told you this — it isn’t where I’m coming from.

I guess I’m just feeling there’s still something missing  here, from the deeper side of Se. For instance I have never once complained about the delinquint & addictive stuff. I wholeheartedly agreed with it from the start, and enjoyed that you had the balls and the honesty to put it in the Se category.

I need to take time to rephrase my point because now I think I’ve given an impression of a meaning that isn’t where I was going with this. Sorry about that — my fortĂ© is definitely not in making verbal points.

But I will assure you that I’m not asking you to equalize functions or talk around the darker points. I would hate that.

  • This reply was modified 1 year, 10 months ago by Animal.

© 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.