CT types vs. temperament

Home Forums General Psychology CT types vs. temperament

Viewing 13 posts - 1 through 13 (of 13 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #30247
    Hrafn
    Participant
    • Type: SiTe
    • Development: l-ll
    • Attitude: Seelie

    Rather than believing people are routinely mistyping themselves in the MBTI system, I’ve begun to believe that the two systems are measuring two different things. If CT is measuring cognitive differences, the MBTI is attempting to gauge temperament**—the patterns of behavioral & dispositional traits a person displays outwardly.

    Spoiler

    Yes, the MBTI pays lip service to the Jungian functions, but as auburn and others have pointed out, it’s really mostly based around the four pairs of preferences (I vs. E, S vs. N, etc.) which, incidentally, correlate with preferences in the Big Five. Most people who encounter the MBTI never even learn about the functions. (In casual conversations about the MBTI, I don't think I've ever identified myself as an ISTJ or ISFJ, as it just doesn't make a lot of sense for me to identify as a "J" type in that system).

    So, for example, I don’t necessarily think most people in typology communities identify as N-types only because the descriptions are biased toward end. I’m sure that’s part of the story, but I think the other part is that the typology systems that attract cult followings (MBTI, Enneagram, etc.) have features that probably make them unappealing to people with strongly-pronounced S temperament. Namely, they tend to be based around archetypes and are outside of mainstream psychology.

    Based on my real-world experience, for instance, I don’t believe that the average Se-lead in the population at large is anywhere near as Ni-ish as the average Se-lead on this forum.

    [collapse]

    All this to say, I believe temperament can be thought of as a different phenomenon than CT itself—a phenomenon that, although it’s more nebulous, isn’t necessarily less real. As far as I can see, each type within the CT system can manifest a whole range of behavioral patterns, overlapping with those of other types in meaningful ways.

    It’s true that in a holistic sense, it’s true that all NeFi’s exude NeFi-ness. They all metabolize information in a certain way, and there are clearly some common threads running through their personas & behaviors. But these behavioral patterns are convoluted, and not the kind of traits that are readily recognizable to a casual observer. Nor are the specific qualities of NeFi-ness archetypal enough that they have enjoyed widespread recognition within different cultures’ ways of describing personality.

    This is because there are multiple factors within the CT system that influence patterns of behavior. A seelie NeFi II-I will tend to behave quite differently than an unseelie NeFi I-I-. But we can even see examples of people who are twin shades, having identical vultologies (and presumably very similar patterns of cognition) but rather different attitudes toward life. I believe this is because due to temperament, as well as ego & perhaps other factors.

     

    CT’s approach toward temperament

    Even though CT hasn’t always stated so explicitly, it seems to me that it has largely already recognized the difference between its system and a temperament system. As far as I can see, CT has taken two different approaches to the problem of temperament. One approach is to assume that people generally have the temperament that is “native” to their type. For example, FeNi = E+N+F attitudes, FiNe = I+N+F, etc. In this formulation, temperament doesn’t need elaboration because it’s clearly implied by type itself.

    A second approach to temperament--which CT used to emphasize more in the past—is to assume that while temperament correlates with type, factors such as development, ego, etc., influence it as well. In general, I find this second approach more useful, although I don’t think the two approaches necessarily contradict each other. I think it’s possible that all FeNi’s (or at least the overwhelming majority) have "native" E+N+F proclivities, but that environmental factors push some of them to develop in different directions.

     

    CT types’ correlation to temperament

    As far as I can tell, there are several factors within CT theory that correlate with a person’s temperament, but no one single factor, or predicable combination of factors, is completely determinative. Within any given type, I'm certain you can find an expansive array of temperament patterns--even if some of them occur only rarely.

    Here are the main factors I’m aware of that correlate with temperament:

    • Ego function: As far as I can tell, this seems to be the single biggest factor that determines temperament. Se-leads who identify strongly with Ni tend to have N temperament, regardless of how developed their Ni functions are. Ego seems inherently squishy, though: it’s not visible vultologically, and as far as I understand, it probably never will be. Also, ego and temperament are parallel concepts in a lot of ways, so saying ego correlates strongly with temperament might be a truism.
    • Cognitive function hierarchy: People who lead with a particular function are very likely to have that function’s attitude as part of their temperament (e.g. Fe-leads are likely to have F temperament). For the auxiliary function, this tendency seems less pronounced but still more true than not (e.g. an NeTi will more likely than not have T temperament). But, there are plenty of anecdotal counterexamples—people who identify with a temperament that’s opposite their native hierarchy. For instance, Beatrice Chestnut is a TeSi II-- vultologically, but identifies as ENFP.
    • Function development: A person’s temperament will tend to be more heavily influenced by conscious functions than by unconscious ones. An NiFe I-I- would be more likely to identify with T temperament than an NiFe II--. An NiFe I—I would probably be more likely to identify with S temperament than would an NiFe I---. (Again, though, plenty of counterexamples). Unlike cognitive function hierarchy, function development is malleable and can change throughout a person’s lifetime. So temperament could influence function development just as easily as function development influences temperament. Perhaps the two interact.
    • Attitude of the heart: Seelie/adaptive correlates with high agreeableness on the Big Five, and with F in some versions of the MBTI system. Unseelie/directive correlates with low agreeableness / T.
    • Fallen affect: Correlates with neuroticism on the Big Five.

     

    There are many different ways of defining temperament

    Any way of defining categories of temperament seems inherently arbitrary. I see no obvious, naturalistic categories into which different people’s patterns of behavior can be grouped.

    • As I mentioned above, CT used to talk about temperaments, and had its own system of eight different ones: EST, ESF, ENT, ENF, IST, ISF, INT, INF. To be honest, I never understood why J vs. P weren’t included, as I find this to be a very useful kind of attitude difference between people.
    • In some ways, then, I feel the four pairs of preferences in the MBTI system are actually a pretty good way of defining temperament categories. But temperament is better understood as several pairs of contrasting traits than as a set of discrete types. The difference is that in the MBTI system (as in CT), there is a clear boundary between ESTP and ENTP—they are understood as two separate types. But in a temperament system, there would be a fluid continuum between an ESTP and an ENTP (keep in mind, I’m talking about these types only as sets of attitudes here, not in terms of cognitive functions!)
    • There’s also, of course, the Big Five. As far as I’m aware, it’s one of the most scientifically-validated systems of measuring temperament. Unlike the MBTI, it’s based on traits rather than types, which is a big plus. But in some ways I don’t feel like Openness to Experience is as sophisticated as S vs. N can be, or that Agreeableness is as sophisticated of a metric as T vs. F. That's my gut feeling, anyway. As auburn has pointed out, agreeableness actually seems to correlate more with light vs. dark F attitude than with ethical vs. logical orientation.
    • The Greek humors are a kind of temperament system, and these correlate pretty closely with the four EQs. This recent paper showed that people’s self-assessment of their dominant EQ matched up pretty closely with their vultologically dominant EQ. This makes me think that insofar as EQs are concerned, temperament and CT line up pretty closely—perhaps more closely than do the different attitude preferences.

     

    **If temperament is the pattern of behavior a person habitually displays, I suppose the MBTI is actually measuring something more like ego or self-image, since it’s based on self-typing rather than typing for others. The assumption, I suppose, is that most healthy people have self-images that are reasonably well aligned with their temperaments.

     

    • This topic was modified 1 month, 2 weeks ago by Hrafn.
    • This topic was modified 1 month, 2 weeks ago by Hrafn.
    • This topic was modified 1 month, 2 weeks ago by Hrafn.
    • This topic was modified 1 month, 2 weeks ago by Hrafn.
    • This topic was modified 1 month, 2 weeks ago by Hrafn.
    • This topic was modified 1 month, 2 weeks ago by Hrafn.
    • This topic was modified 1 month, 2 weeks ago by Hrafn.
    • This topic was modified 1 month, 2 weeks ago by Hrafn.
    • This topic was modified 1 month, 2 weeks ago by Hrafn.
    • This topic was modified 1 month, 2 weeks ago by Hrafn.
    • This topic was modified 1 month, 2 weeks ago by Hrafn.
    • This topic was modified 1 month, 2 weeks ago by Hrafn.
    • This topic was modified 1 month, 2 weeks ago by Hrafn.
    • This topic was modified 1 month, 2 weeks ago by Hrafn.
    • This topic was modified 1 month, 2 weeks ago by Hrafn.
    • This topic was modified 1 month, 2 weeks ago by Hrafn.
    • This topic was modified 1 month, 2 weeks ago by Hrafn.
    #30265
    Peter
    Participant
    • Type: FiNe
    • Development: l---
    • Attitude: Unseelie

    Two things come to my mind:

    1) It's actually easier to believe for me that people don't know what they are talking about and they have distorded self-image as part of ego identification. I don't have a problem to imagin that this is a main factor.

    We live in a world that is ruled by stereotypes and superstitions. People believe what they want to believe without any rational analisys.

    2) Sure, we can find many correlations between psyche's dimentions and we can do many useful categorizations apart from type.

    Personality theories are seen as inferior and neglected becouse are hard to measure, track and verify. We can't use them to make predictions for performance of individuals, and it's not even proper to explain particular behaviors with type.

    Jung's theory is based on philophical contencepts becouse he wanted to provide thinking tools and vocabulary for his patients in order for attach meaning to contents of their inner life.

    What we are trying to do now is to move his ideas to the field of cybernetics as more productive approach to understand differences between people and gain some insight that may close the gap between objective observations an subjective experiences.

    The problem for people in typology community is that they do basic mistake non stop, all the time. They can't separate cognition dimention from trait/behaviour dimentions. They are prone to take skills/traits/abilities/habits as a cognition thing. What they lack is meta-awarness/meta-cotnition and perhaps education. Everybody think and reflect but this don't makes ESTP to be INFJ. We can see very extraverted people typed as introverts anf vice-versa - all the time, and Auburn in one of last video adressed that topic. This example showing us that they failed not only to recognise things on cognitive field but also don't have knowledge and awarness to recognise their temperament.

     

    #30337
    fayest42
    Participant
    • Type: FiNe
    • Development: ll--
    • Attitude: Unseelie

    @hrafn I agree with everything you've said here. For a while I really wanted to figure out which Jungian system was the "right" one and I went from thinking that CT was wrong because it didn't agree with my conception of MBTI to thinking that MBTI was wrong because it didn't have the level of rigor that CT has (which, to be fair, is still not much rigor in a scientific sense, but better than MBTI at least), but I finally read enough about CT and saw enough examples of people's types to understand that CT and MBTI actually both have real insights into people, but they're just talking about different things. Unfortunately, I think this causes a lot of confusion for people coming to CT from MBTI and often they want to find a way to square their CT type with their MBTI type. My understanding of both systems and of myself worked a lot better when I just accepted that I'm an FiNe in CT and an INTP in MBTI (which is perhaps a bit odd like your example of Beatrice Chestnut since my Te isn't even fully developed, but so be it). Similarly, my good friend is very much an INTJ in MBTI and an NeFi in CT. It's not a contradiction at all.

    ETA: Just wanted to clarify that I don't think CT and MBTI have no relationship to each other whatsoever (and clearly you don't either based on your original post). I do think that CT/cognition informs MBTI/temperament, but they are not the same thing and you cannot predict one from the other with 100% accuracy.

    • This reply was modified 3 weeks, 4 days ago by fayest42.
    #30348
    Peter
    Participant
    • Type: FiNe
    • Development: l---
    • Attitude: Unseelie

    I'm an FiNe in CT and an INTP in MBTI

    So.. Do you have biotic attitude and you evaluate things with emotional register in CT and  you prefer an "impersonal systems approach" in MBTI?

    • This reply was modified 3 weeks, 3 days ago by Peter.
    #30351
    fayest42
    Participant
    • Type: FiNe
    • Development: ll--
    • Attitude: Unseelie

    @piotr-dlugokecki Hmm, I'm not quite sure what you mean by evaluating things with emotional register in CT. I generally approach decision making through reason rather than emotion, which is why I'm a T in MBTI. But that's not what determines whether you lead with a T function or an F function in CT. I think this article does a good job of explaining my experience of Fi/Te in CT: https://cognitivetype.com/it/

    #30352
    Peter
    Participant
    • Type: FiNe
    • Development: l---
    • Attitude: Unseelie

    I mean metabolism of Fi&Ti function in CT
    https://cognitivetype.com/metabolism-j-functions/#definitions


    And here is JCF understanding of functions:


    For me it's the same in both theorems but Auburn use somewhat algebraic equation, and MBTI describe it in more humanistic way .

    Use of emotional register it isn't the same as making decision by emotion (in colloquial sense). In both frameworks Fi is rational reasoning but personal (taking emotion into equation). In both frameworks Ti is rational reasoning but impersonal.

    Then I wonder how someone can be Fi-lead in one system and Ti-lead in another?

    I generally approach decision making through reason rather than emotion, which is why I'm a T in MBTI.

    But that don't make you T-type in both frameworks.

    But that's not what determines whether you lead with a T function or an F function in CT. I think this article does a good job of explaining my experience of Fi/Te in CT: https://cognitivetype.com/it/

    In JCF it's the same, that's not what determines but can lead you to be mistyped. I am afraid that "compound function" concept in CT are going to push futher misunderstandings of JCF theorems and create illusion that there is more differences than it really is.

    In other words - in JCF there is no concept of compound function but this doesn't mean that behaviours can't be atypical. Two things come to my mind:

    1) There is misunderstanding in MBTI community about Fi function. It leads to believe that Fi is equal to making decisions by emotions in JCF. That's not true.

    2) People make mistakes with typing becouse they focus on behaviours rather than cognition and can't recognise pattern of own cognition. CT make it easier becouse of signals that can evaluete your functions in somewhat direct and concrete way.

    • This reply was modified 3 weeks, 3 days ago by Peter.
    • This reply was modified 3 weeks, 3 days ago by Peter.
    • This reply was modified 3 weeks, 3 days ago by Peter.
    • This reply was modified 3 weeks, 3 days ago by Peter.
    • This reply was modified 3 weeks, 3 days ago by Peter.
    #30358
    Hrafn
    Participant
    • Type: SiTe
    • Development: l-ll
    • Attitude: Seelie

    ETA: Just wanted to clarify that I don't think CT and MBTI have no relationship to each other whatsoever (and clearly you don't either based on your original post). I do think that CT/cognition informs MBTI/temperament, but they are not the same thing and you cannot predict one from the other with 100% accuracy.


    @fayest42
    , yes I agree. I suspect MBTI types and CT types probably correlate with each other pretty strongly among the general population.


    @piotr-dlugokecki
    I agree that having multiple versions of the Jungian Cognitive Functions is redundant & not particularly useful. I also believe the CT way of defining them comes closer to the truth about them than does the MBTI. Whenever I've spoken about MBTI types in this thread, I'm completely disregarding the JCF and talking about different types solely as collections of temperament traits. For example, if I refer to INTP, I'm thinking of it as I+N+T+P, NOT as Ti+Ne+Si+Fe. This is where I feel that the MBTI types, the Big Five, etc., can be useful. Every TiNe has Ti+Ne+Si+Fe as its functions, but is every TiNe most accurately described as I+N+T+P attitudes? Most probably are, but surely not every single one. If I remember right, George Bush, Fred Rogers and Edward Whitten are all seelie SiTe I---'s. While I don't know a huge amount about any of them, they all do seem very different in their dispositions and attitudes. If we think about ISTJ, again, as I+S+T+J, I doubt they are all best described as ISTJ's in those terms.

    • This reply was modified 3 weeks, 2 days ago by Hrafn.
    • This reply was modified 3 weeks, 2 days ago by Hrafn.
    #30361
    Peter
    Participant
    • Type: FiNe
    • Development: l---
    • Attitude: Unseelie

    Whenever I've spoken about  ̶M̶B̶T̶I̶  types in this thread, I'm completely disregarding the JCF and talking about different types solely as collections of temperament traits. For example, if I refer to INTP, I'm thinking of it as I+N+T+P, NOT as Ti+Ne+Si+Fe. This is where I feel that the ̶M̶B̶T̶I̶ types, the Big Five, etc., can be useful

    If you did that then you didn't spoke about MBTI but about some abstraction you created on your own.

    **If temperament is the pattern of behavior a person habitually displays, I suppose the MBTI is actually measuring something more like ego or self-image, since it’s based on self-typing rather than typing for others. The assumption, I suppose, is that most healthy people have self-images that are reasonably well aligned with their temperaments.

    I get what you mean. People type themselfs. They type themselfs by how they see own behaviours aka temperament and this is how they identify themselfs, it's a part of their ego-image. But this is not MBTI. I am calling this memeBTI, becouse only labels are used from MBTI with attached stereotypes to them. What they do is wrong from MBTI theory point of view.

    MBTI(JCF) are part of jungian analytical psychology. We don't measure anything here becouse type describe qualitive aspect of a person and not quantitive. Introspection is a part of therapy and typing I assume is supervised by therapist. I believe that system of JCF was created as terminology/dictionary/axioms that helps patient and therapist have meaningful dialog about content of inner mind experiences.

    Types have nothing to do with traits in both frameworks. If someone use MBTI as traits descrition then he/she is misusing idea of types and don't get theory right. In true MBTI (psychotheraphy or professional coaching context) it's totally normal that people with the same type are different becouse types doesn't describe individuals but relations between elements of cognition. It's a tool and not an identity. "I S T J" label it's only a code and means ecxactly the same as SiTe or Si(Te-Fi)Ne.

    Some additional layer of introduction description of dichotomies was added to simplify start for newbies. I understand that this eventually could have contributed to misunderstandings in unprofessional context of modern "memeBTI" communities which we can find on internet or in badly applied services in corporal bussiness world.

    Please, look at definitions I pasted before. They are different not becouse of content but becouse of language.

    Language is different becouse these frameworks was created in different times, in different context and by people with different purpose on mind. JCF(MBTI) want to convey knowledge of psyche in humanistic spirit. CT is focused on systemitzation and is trying to be aligh with cognitive science standards which didn't exists before.

    But essentially: CT-model 1 is another interpretation/iteration of jungian typology.

     I agree that having multiple versions of the Jungian Cognitive Functions is redundant & not particularly useful.

    This adds a level of difficulty becouse there is a need to shift from declarative layer to the conceptual layer. On declarative layer they seems different becouse of language and usage. On conceptual layer they share a lot of similarities. Differences play a role in dialectic dialog between them. Dialectic method is fundation of JCF and a way to make a progress. Becouse we don't know where the truth lie and we need a lot of perspectives to light on this field of research.

    I also believe the CT way of defining them comes closer to the truth about them than does the MBT

    I like it becouse I gain some new insights but I don't think these definitions are ulimate answer. It's a one step closer to bring JCF on the cognitive science table. I like it but I am also sceptic about it.

    • This reply was modified 3 weeks, 2 days ago by Peter.
    • This reply was modified 3 weeks, 2 days ago by Peter.
    • This reply was modified 3 weeks, 2 days ago by Peter.
    • This reply was modified 3 weeks, 2 days ago by Peter.
    • This reply was modified 3 weeks, 1 day ago by Peter.
    • This reply was modified 3 weeks, 1 day ago by Peter.
    • This reply was modified 3 weeks, 1 day ago by Peter.
    • This reply was modified 3 weeks ago by Peter.
    • This reply was modified 3 weeks ago by Peter.
    • This reply was modified 3 weeks ago by Peter.
    • This reply was modified 1 week, 3 days ago by Peter.
    #30484
    fayest42
    Participant
    • Type: FiNe
    • Development: ll--
    • Attitude: Unseelie

    @piotr-dlugokecki You seem to be conflating JCF and MBTI, but they are not equivalent. MBTI doesn't refer to Jungian functions or even Myers-Briggs types generally. It specifically refers to the Myers Briggs Type-Indicator, which is just a test that determines where you fall on I vs E, N vs S, T vs F, and P vs J. You are right though that my characterization of F in MBTI being about making decisions based on emotion is not really correct. This is just a result of me not being actively involved with MBTI stuff for a long while now so I've misremembered some things. Looking it up again, it's more that F is about considering people and what will create the most harmony whereas T is about being consistent and logical even if it will make people upset.

    Regarding that definition in CT of Fi using the emotional register, @Auburn can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that definition is outdated. The F functions in CT don't really have anything to do with emotion - they have to do with recognizing things as biotic.

    This may not be exactly relevant in the context of this discussion, but since the topic of using emotions in making decisions came up, I wanted to add something I've learned recently: In reality, we all actually use emotion as a necessary part of our decision making process. People who have brain damage that leaves their reasoning abilities intact but makes them unable to experience emotion are literally unable to make decisions. If you're interested to learn about this, you can google the neuroscientist Antonio Damasio and specifically the "Elliot" case.

    • This reply was modified 1 week, 6 days ago by fayest42.
    • This reply was modified 1 week, 6 days ago by fayest42.
    #30487
    Peter
    Participant
    • Type: FiNe
    • Development: l---
    • Attitude: Unseelie

    You seem to be conflating JCF and MBTI, but they are not equivalent. MBTI doesn't refer to Jungian functions or even Myers-Briggs types generally. It specifically refers to the Myers Briggs Type-Indicator,

    ...so I've misremembered some things. Looking it up again, it's more that F is about considering people and what will create the most harmony whereas T is about being consistent and logical even if it will make people upset.

    Is this definition or interpretation?

    Regarding that definition in CT of Fi using the emotional register, @Auburn can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that definition is outdated. The F functions in CT don't really have anything to do with emotion - they have to do with recognizing things as biotic.

    Well, we can clarify this. I thought this was actualized definition of model 1. Maybe you are talking about model 2.?

    This may not be exactly relevant in the context of this discussion, but since the topic of using emotions in making decisions came up, I wanted to add something I've learned recently: In reality, we all actually use emotion as a necessary part of our decision making process. People who have brain damage that leaves their reasoning abilities intact but makes them unable to experience emotion are literally unable to make decisions. If you're interested to learn about this, you can google the neuroscientist Antonio Damasio and specifically the "Elliot" case.

    I am familiar with this. But thank you. 🙂

    This actually is argument for "emotional register". 😉

     

    • This reply was modified 1 week, 6 days ago by Peter.
    • This reply was modified 1 week, 6 days ago by Peter.
    #30540
    fayest42
    Participant
    • Type: FiNe
    • Development: ll--
    • Attitude: Unseelie

    @piotr-dlugokecki From what I have seen of MBTI, how it is used, and how it has been researched, they may pay lip service to Jungian functions, but they do not actually use Jungian functions in any meaningful way. And the MBTI test itself does not test for the functions - it is simply testing for E vs I, N vs S, T vs F, and P vs J - similar to the Big Five test.

    Is this definition or interpretation?

    It is a paraphrase of a definition.

    Well, we can clarify this. I thought this was actualized definition of model 1. Maybe you are talking about model 2.?

    I don't know. I haven't been around much since the split between the two models. What I remember is that when I was around more frequently, before the emergence of model 2, Auburn spoke about divorcing emotion from the F functions.

    This actually is argument for "emotional register".

    How so? It means that everyone uses emotions to make decisions, not only those with developed F functions.

    #30541
    Peter
    Participant
    • Type: FiNe
    • Development: l---
    • Attitude: Unseelie

    From what I have seen of MBTI, how it is used, and how it has been researched, they may pay lip service to Jungian functions, but they do not actually use Jungian functions in any meaningful way. And the MBTI test itself does not test for the functions - it is simply testing for E vs I, N vs S, T vs F, and P vs J - similar to the Big Five test.

    If I want learn MBTI I will go to manual, and there I can read about jungian functions. I don't know what else I can say. Things you meantioned are superficial aspects of topic I think. I would rather refere to theory behind MBTI to know what MBTI is about.

    It is a paraphrase of a definition

    oh, either way, basic definitions wont get us far. We need to contextualize this informations and don't get lost on the route.  🙂

    I don't know. I haven't been around much since the split between the two models. What I remember is that when I was around more frequently, before the emergence of model 2, Auburn spoke about divorcing emotion from the F functions.

    How so? It means that everyone uses emotions to make decisions, not only those with developed F functions.

    I think Auburn wanted to focus on "information processing" aspect of the functions but then there is a question: What informations are processed? In his formula pasted above this informations can include emotional register or simply emotions. This would be align with jungian concept and also with our knowlegde about decision-making processes in our brains. They are not separate from emotions. How exactly this happens? Well... that's the point. Everybody do it but different types do this in different cognitive manner and with different cognitive priority.

    • This reply was modified 3 days, 19 hours ago by Peter.
    • This reply was modified 3 days, 18 hours ago by Peter.
    #30544
    Peter
    Participant
    • Type: FiNe
    • Development: l---
    • Attitude: Unseelie

    Here is clearly stated how emotions are treated in model 2 and model 1.

    https://cognitivetypology.com/index.php?title=Model_2_vs_1_Differences

     

     

Viewing 13 posts - 1 through 13 (of 13 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
A forum exploring the connection between Jungian typology and body mannerisms.

Social Media

© Copyright 2012-2021 Juan E. Sandoval - Use Policy
searchhomecommentsenvelopegraduation-hatbookearth linkedin facebook pinterest youtube rss twitter instagram facebook-blank rss-blank linkedin-blank pinterest youtube twitter instagram