- Type: TiNe
- Development: l--l
- Attitude: Adaptive
Actually before your case study, a few more notes… going back to your OP:
I’m noticing a pattern in my own cognition that I’d like to find a CT based explanation of. Most of the time when I’m thinking, I’m thinking about myself. The content of my thoughts is subjective. I know that, metabolically, functions aren’t supposed to be content as much as processing, but nonetheless, this is a persistent pattern that I’d like to understand. I remember from the CT book, perception and judgement were described as input and processing respectively. Is it possible that by processing myself, I’m processing Pi?
To put it another way, I’m trying to understand myself as a subject. I’m not trying to necessarily understand typology or other people, those are more byproducts of the core goal of self knowledge.
This would be Ji, according to our current definitions. It’s part of the question of identity, even though “identity” in this case doesn’t mean the floral decoration of one’s inner world, but nonetheless the focus is turned on oneself as a subject.
I also think that that the Pi description may be biased towards Pe. While it’s supposed to be an introverted function, it seems very focused on the external world. Is it possible that the current Pi behavioral description is biased towards reviser Pi? Reviser Pi would be more focused on the external world because it’s serving a Pe agenda, right?
I think I see what you’re getting at. Presently, the definition of Pi is not focused on the external world but it also isn’t focused “on the self.” I would frame it by saying that this is a Ji vs Pi difference, where Ji focuses on the self-identity question (a kind of introversion) while Pi focuses on more thematic and broad questions (what is the landscape of the cosmos?) The latter does appear more externally oriented in comparison to Ji (which is very explicitly self-focused).
But looking at it more closely I don’t think that’s quite what is happening. Lets take for example Pi’s proclivity towards philosophy. This is clearly a type of introspection; an attempt to bring about narrative structure from an internal and convergent place. The subject stitches together information reactively, and almost soliptically –as some philosophies can be quite insular. Yet it requires a “broader” context than the self, so Pi does have a wider aperture of information it draws from than the self, but I don’t think that’s the same as it being externally oriented. The metabolism is still directed inward.
Now, as for your case study…
You clearly appear to be introspecting to me, more than anything else. So I would like to propose a few side-by-side hypotheses and you can let me know what you think of this:
- Failed Prediction by the Model? It’s healthy to remain open to the possibility that CT is just wrong here. One of the most direct answers might be that your vultology does not reflect your psychology. This would mean the model may need further refinement in the particular visual niche you fall into. We’ve had gaps before that have pressed us to seek out more data, in order to make sense of it. You may be [x] type and that is not being reflected in your vultology according to our current metrics, due to external noise factors, lack of CT resolution, etc.
- SeTi + Affect + Ti + Ni: The next possibility is that you may indeed be a P-lead and a reviser (as seems to be the case) (but which means “Pe-lead” and that seems misleading at first), but the combined effect of all other factors is sufficient to generate the deviations we are seeing in you from the standard Pe Beta. For example (heresy is another similar case) the effects of flat affect may be more significant than previously thought in immersing a person into introspection regardless of type. It could be that Affect+Double-Introversion is enough net introverted energy to make even a Pe-lead into a powerhouse of subjective reflection. This doesn’t violate CT technically, since we don’t use a binary E-I dichotomy, so there is no need to remain faithful to the “introvert” versus “extrovert” designations typically used. From what we’ve seen so far, a double-introverted E type is, for all practical purposes, an introvert. But their energetics will still suffer modulation strains. And this appears to be precisely what we see in you. As I mentioned in your report, the clamping you feel suggests some tug-of-war going on in you where something is being inhibited. It would make sense that Pe was being inhibited, leading to these responses of excessive doubt, while lacking J decisiveness, or Pi narrative.
- NiFe: I actually have the hardest time thinking of this as your type. Not only are the signals not there, but the psychology also is not there. You seem much closer to TiSe, psychologically. Your excessive revising, questioning, subject-focus (in the Ji way) and lack of anchoring… would highly conflict with NiFe as defined in CT. You don’t appear to have the psychological qualities of episodic continuity, a panoramic philosophy, a steadiness and temperance, etc.
- TiSe: This type I see as more likely than NiFe, for the reasons mentioned above. But I still find it less likely due to a total lack of Ji rigidity, despite what seems like super heavy Ji use. If you were TiSe, your Ji-lead-ness would be so obvious. But instead, what it seems like to me is a lot of Ji energy, without the Ji poised spine. And again I don’t get much Pi energy from you, if we’re defining Pi according to CT which is: https://cognitivetype.com/metabolism-energetics/
More than just “content” being subject or object, Pi in CT is all the above qualities ^
Without these qualities, it isn’t Pi. And I really don’t see most of these qualities in you. But I do see lots of Pe+Ji qualities in you. So Beta Reviser seems solid to me.