CFs/EQs --Mind/Will--Cognition/Intentiom

[Faex]

I've said this on discord before but I feel even more convinced now. I really don't think CFs and EQs are the same kind of thing at all. And it's possible not distinguishing this might be interfering with our ideas amd descriptions regarding types and their development.
I'll come back to say more more later, but my point is I think the EQs are 'intentional', i.e, located more in the aspect of the psyche we call colloquially, "will". They seem like inbuilt tendencies of the decision/action/choice expression of libido.
Whereas the CFs seem very clearly cognitive--what we normally think of as "intellect" or "intelligence". The psyche that 'knows'.
I personally think it is quite possible for a person to, for example, have the powers of Ni, cognitively, but no Senex energy. I.e. No "pull" to expend his energy in those "talents" of the four EQs we've listed before. And I think this layer of distinction is one thing whose lack may also interfere in our descriptions in a way that we don't yet see very well.
 

[Faex]

Ok, so I'm back. Here goes. I think it's brilliant that CT recognizes that personality type is a complex (Jung's usage). A composite of beliefs, motivations etc. That sets CT way apart from other Jungian typologies, and I think we have vultology to thank for it.
Our psyches have the twin aspect of awareness and energy (roughly, intellect and will). The innate, natural ability to know and the innate natural ability to do/effect etc. The ego is a complex of our current limit of self-awareness and those aspects of the will (desires, intentions, etc) that are within that awareness. The ones we identify with.  And personality type is kinda like that: a complex of cognition and energetics. What I'm suggesting is that we don't strictly blur the distinction between cognition and energetics.
"Full development" can mean a CF (whatever they ultimately are) is well-rooted in both cognition and energetics. We know we are both unconscious and conscious in our intellect. So perhaps it's the case that the development cycle goes like:
Intellect --> Will
(or Cognition --> Energetics)
And in the first stage (Intellect) it goes, as we know it does, Unconscious --> Conscious.
But I think we speak of "fully conscious" as if it is the same thing as "fully developed", and I'm not sure that's accurate any more. We know, using the analogy of beliefs, that things start in a kind of superficial 'mental' level, and don't start affecting our lives until it sinks deeper into a more body/heart/will level. Until it is integrated into our priorities.
It's in that sense that I mean I think CFs are cognitive and the EQs are "intentional" or in the realm of inclination/desire/pull/will/choice etc.
But that's because we think of them as two separate aspects themselves that merge in a way (which seems accurate to me).
But another way to see it is to consider that a CF (whatever it is), is a capacity that sits in the unconscious, rises into the conscious cognitive 'realm', then with time/devlt, sinks into the deeper will and is integrated into the priorities of the person. In this sense, the 4 EQs aren't really a thing in themselves so much as four sets of similarities, between Fe/Te & Ne/Se & Fi/Ti, & Si/Ni.
But I prefer the first way (which is how we look at it now): The EQs are inclinations of the will (IMO) which merge with certain elements of cognition (the 8 CFs), to create a complex we recognize as a 'personality type.'

[Juan E. Sandoval]

This is a very interesting take. My suspicion is more or less the same: that type is probably an intersection of two phenomenon, the  CFs and EQs. Cognition and Energetics.
Cognition appears to be more hereditary, and we either do or don't belong to a given quadrant. Whereas the Energetics seem to be in some way under the control of our will, as you said, although we begin in one energetic nativity.
From an evolutionary perspective, what do you suppose these aspects are? One initial thought I had is that the Energetics may have evolved first along the lines of necessary activities for living:
Hunt/Grasp (Je) & Gather (Pe)
Hunting and gathering may then have developed an inverted assistant side:

Hunt /
Analyze

&

Gather /
Store

Where in order to hunt most effectively, an introverted component developed that was calculative (Ji) and evaluated the situation in order to execute (Je) the best action. And where the Gather instinct introverted and developed a map/understanding (Pi) of where things were to be found later.
This is a very flimsy, breakfast-table idea, but I figured it might add to this curious discussion.

[Faex]

That's interesting, @auburn!
Yes, I agree. You can develop all four EQs but not all eight CFs.
FQs: Yes, we are born with our FQs, as we know from how CFs tend to run in families. I'm not sure how we become the different types within that quadrant, though. Why I was NeFi rather than TeSi or FiNe or SiTe, for example. Tis a mystery.
EQs: I think the EQs are "natural powers" of the will that start as mere pulls or inclinations. Four typical ways in which our libido is channelled through 'choice'.
When fully 'conquered' by the will (what we call 'fully developed'), they feel less like inclinations/tendencies/pulls and more like powers. It's then we say a person can just call on them at will, as need arises, and they show up without much hassle. (When you talk about 'modulating').
When not under the full control of the will, calling on them feels like climbing a steep hill with a load on your back on a hot day. Or just plain impossible sometimes.
So it makes sense that they often develop from necessity, as a person is plunged into situations where developing these powers becomes do or die. We are then forced to 'do the work' of developing them and we become willing to endure the unpleasant early stages before it becomes easy.
I think looking at spiritual literature on the development of 'virtue' we may possibly find that a lot of it is about developing EQs, described in different language and with different frames.
Their origin? I've no idea. The one energy or life force has that one instinct to "be/do"; to self-actualize. I dunno how it splits into four other instincts. Or perhaps there are more than just four, who knows?
I think your idea from evolution is a great way to understand how that split may have happened though: To execute, you need observation. To respond to a myriad random options, you need a non-random way to choose. Hence Senex and Compass energy. That doesn't sound bad to me at all.
 
 
 

[Tea]

More on this later, but I entertain a similar idea, Fae. The representational model I proposed in the old forum doesn't rule your idea out, but I'm still unsure.
As far as the EQs go, I'm unsure whether or not to place Pe as a gathering strategy or not. It may be more in the realm of Je. At their most primitive, I see the functions like this:
Pe - search
Ji - identify and qualify (assess value)
Pi - map (squirrel away both knowledge and resources)
Je - hunt/gather/coordinate
 
This may be why we like to use our first and third functions together, as has been noted in Jungian literature. They seem to take aim at a similar goal. It actually almost seems that gathering would be incidental to searching, making it a Pi behavior.
There is something about Ne's allocentrism that makes it a good gathering function, and Se's convergence that makes is a good hunting function. I think the correlation between Se and hunting strategies is obvious (tuning out peripheral detail and locking in on one course of action), but I'll make two quick notes on why I relate Ne to gathering strategies:
1. Great apes rely on extensive literal maps - rather than real time prowess - for gathering food.
2. Divergent behavior of prey animals (think rabbits binkying as a strategy for confusion) = multiple courses of action.
 
 

[Faex]

Pe – search
Ji – identify and qualify (assess value)
Pi – map (squirrel away both knowledge and resources)
Je – hunt/gather/coordinate

I agree with this! And I especially like the association of Se with hunting. Ne would be a terrible hunter! Lol.
Je is very linear in the way it "hunts" though, not at all like Pe/Se. Je depends on a stable field where you can plan and co-ordinate things. It depends on predicting the outcome several steps from now. Stability is imperative for that, which is why it goes well with Pi's long-range/panoramic observation.
Unlike Pe which is all about responding in-the-moment to random elements in a dynamic field. Pe is about making choices and responding intelligently to things no one foresaw, so these are things you can't really plan for. Je is much more dependant on the kind of stability Pi foresight allows.
And yes! I love "Ji-identify/assess value." 100%. The diagnostics of Ji. In order to respond intelligently to random options, you need a non-random way to choose. Ji seems like a necessary ability/function for an intelligent animal that is dealing with a dynamic field and having to respond to unpredicted/unpredictable change in few steps. -Then you need more of a "This is always right/wrong" or "This is always true/false" kind of assessing 'tool' that's more universalist--a compass!
But I'd modify it as Je- farming; Pe- Hunter-gathering (Coz of the Je reliance on predictability).
 

[Faex]

Also, re the cognition/energy thing and CFs/EQs, and the two phenomena marrying to form the types. An example I'm think of is this:
Ji CFs: Imperative/Universalist/Static/Diagnostic thinking- Accumulation of 'What-is' knowledge into crystalline belief systems. Or the process of forming Ji crystalline castles. So Ji cognition would be that formation process rather than its output (the castles).
But the Ji EQ would be simply: Yes/No or accept/reject (Integrity).  A choice, informed by the 'Diagnostics'.  It fits in more with will and 'Compass'.
Another example; Je cognition would be How-to/Process thinking, or the absorption/accumulation of vast 'How-to' knowledge; But the EQ would be "drive" (the colloquial sense of it). The inclination/power to actualize the how-tos.
Etc etc.
 
 

[Muwu]

From my personal experience, what I usually see is that energetics tend to follow perspective and the lense associated with that perspective. It takes modulation into a state to extrapolate energy out of it and depending on this state you get a general feel for things. This is most noticeable with I-I- types where your double extroverts unapologetically take up space, and your double introverts peer in like owls.  Often double introverts can modulate into an extroverted energy quadra - but it's likely to be sloppy and out of place compared to a person who natively sits there. Energy depends on the moment that it's in and what you're modulating... It's awfully hard for me to picture a I--- Si dom who has Pe energy all the time without Pe developed.
So to this extent Energy =/= development because it lacks the psychological capacity to register data at a sufficiently proportionate level to the dominant function. In regards to development it leads to the question -> "Does sufficient vultological signage indicate development and to what level is implied usage." I don't think that modulation without consistent appraisal makes for development because development implies usage at a reasonable level in regards and conjunction to the main POV. The lack of consideration should be denoted as - in development. Momentary adaptation and modulation shows considerate but not integrated POV.

[Tea]

Thinking about it again, Pe has to be hunting and gathering, too. Why else would you explore except to gather? Je would do the same but strategy that relies upon knowns about the world.
I have a hard time separating the EQs from the CFs. IMO, the depth and quality of a CF in a person's psyche is dependent upon their ability to muster up the EQ. Looking at others here and even myself, it's apparent that the ability to reason along the lines of a function has a direct correlation to the energetic manifestation of it.

[Faex]

I agree with you both for different reasons!
I think EQ and CFs  are definitely different things, but perhaps they must always go together when the EQ is active. For example, if you have 'drive', then you'd naturally be inclined to How-to/Process thinking. If you have a strong compass, you'd naturally be inclined to use what-is thinking extensively. If you have the Pi kinda 'caution', you'd be naturally inclined to develop an extensive map/longe-range view, and if you have the exploration instinct you'd be inclined to the Pe-kind of horizontal pattern tracking.
BUT, it's possible, though perhaps not probable, (though this is my very strong hunch) that it doesn't work the other way around. You can have How-to/Process thinking without necessarily developing drive; What-is thinking without developing 'integrity'/compass instinct; Pi historicity without developing Senex caution, and Pe tracking/horizontal patterning without developing the explorer instinct.
For example, Puff felt strongly about his Si access (and full disclosure I feel the same about mine given my very strong proclivities for the Si elements Aub identifies) but he has no Senex energy. I don't think we should be dismissing that kind of feedback/data. Instead we should be finding ways to account for it.
In Puff's sense, Si would be kind of a servant energy. Useful but in the background. But not in any way "undeveloped" IMO. I feel the same way about my Si hoarding, routines, precedents, anecdoting, love of History, and tracking things very extensively across time, in great detail (trivia etc). I have no senex energy, but no one can tell me my Si is undeveloped IMO. It's just a backseat useful servant rather than a main player contributing agendas and priorities.
On the other hand, I have little drive (minus the last 6 months of sheer necessity) and very little taste for process-thinking, though I've improved some. I just am too averse to Je, poor me. Don't know if it's ever gonna be overcomeable, this aversion.

[Author]

Posts