Emotional Attitudes (Updated)

Home Forums Model 1 Discussions Emotional Attitudes (Updated)

Viewing 8 posts - 1 through 8 (of 8 total)
  • Author
  • #24709
    • Type: TiNe
    • Development: l--l
    • Attitude: Adaptive

    Hi guys!
    As part of the updating process, here are the changes to the emotional attitude articles:

    Emotional Attitude

    This is the response to the discussion in this thread, pertaining to the need to decouple cognition and emotional attitudes. I think this clarification has been very necessary, and I hope it will make a difference in the future when members arrive at CT from elsewhere. As you'll note in the article, all cognitive functions are "modes of thought" (cognition) and emotional attitudes are a separate, feeling-based, system.
    This is so similar to the F-T dichotomy in some other models that it's really striking how cleanly the translation to CT can be. It's likely that most agreeable individuals will type as MBTI "F", and most disagreeable individuals will type as MBTI "T". And I hope this article above, along with the Redefining F and Redefining T articles, can explain how this MBTI dichotomy translates over in CT.
    Also, the previous "Attitudes of the Heart" article has been modified, and broken up into the following pages:

    The language has also removed the ties between Fi and Fe, and treats these emotional attitudes as axes-wide. However, other than that they have been left mostly the same in terms of their content for now. Tweaks to the behavioral aspects will come over time, but at least now the conceptual division should be properly in place.
    I'm curious to know what you guys think! Please let me know your thoughts.

    • Type: TiNe
    • Development:
    • Attitude: Unknown

    I love the new article!
    The understanding that people's emotional attitudes are a separate phenomenon from their cognitive type, but still run in parallel to create a unique relationship between the two, really adds clarity to this topic which has been so essential yet confusing.
    And I luuuv the Ti & Te agreeable combo examples!!  It would be nice to have examples for the other two also ^-^ ..!!
    Umm, regrading the 'function axes differences' manifesting differently in the seelie/unseelie/adaptive/directive...
    On the one hand, it intuitively seems right to imagine that the various combinations of emotional attitudes with the different functions may emerge in behaviors, fixations and emotional mechanisms that are slightly different.  On the other hand.. I donno about this.  Maybe the nuance is too subtle to create any visibly meaningful differences?
    Going over the four descriptions of the attitudes, I can find myself in both the Fe and the Fi.  I relate to some of the things in the adaptive and directive, yes, but I equally relate to the 'deep empathy' and 'hypersensitivy' sections described in the Fi seelie, and I too am a sullen "broken bird; a disenchanted idealist who realizes that the world is too wretched a place for beauty to last within", for example 😉  Or, I relate to 'leveling the truth', for example, but I could also imagine some some Te leads relating to that description..?  I don't relate to the unseelie "bitchiness" at all, but neither so much to the "retribution", although I do think I have a strong sense of justice.
    I'm really curious to know how other people here relate to the descriptions..
    Edit: Also, the directive description is all so very.. dark lol.  So, if I am typed as directive, I would open this description and see: Shaming, Retribution, Leveling the truth, Violence, Manipulation, Cultism.  Yikes! I hope that's not what I am like ><

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

    The understanding that people’s emotional attitudes are a separate phenomenon from their cognitive type, but still run in parallel to create a unique relationship between the two, really adds clarity to this topic which has been so essential yet confusing.

    I'm glad! Yes, it's been needing a lot of attention for a while.

    And I luuuv the Ti & Te agreeable combo examples!! It be nice to have examples for the other two also ^-^ …!!

    Heh! I wrote those two because they're the most counter-intuitive combinations. But writing all of them out would be good, yes.

    regrading the ‘function axes differences’

    Yeah, I'm wholly in favor of editing the behavioral sections presented under each attitude. They have not been reviewed since the article's first publication, and they were meant to be a first draft -- so I'm looking forward to feedback like yours on this. I wonder how other people feel about specific sections in the attitudes. Maybe we can find trends.

    • Type: SeFi
    • Development: ll--
    • Attitude: Seelie

    @Auburn, you say here :

    High F + Agreeable:Habitually highlighting subjects as possessing biotic/living qualities, and having a permeable membrane to their emotional needs at all times.

    Also, this is from your article about Redefining F :

    In CT, F has nothing to do with emotionality. A person’s level of emotional sensitivity & level of emotional affect are not related to F. Emotionality falls outside of the metabolism of cognition – as cognitive processes are non-emotional. Emotion may result from the inevitable net participation of our cognitive processing with our limbic system, but the cognitive processing itself is a separate phenomenon than emotion.

    From your articles I understand that :
    - Permeability is no longer an Fi attribute
    -Emotional Pallate is no longer an Fi attribute
    -Hypersensitivity and overwhelm is also no longer an Fi under stress attribute
    First - am I right? Cause you might for example mean something else when using the word permeability in these 2 contexts and then I could be wrong.
    Then, if I am right, of course, of course, what remains from the Fi behavioral profile?
    And how does it differ from Ti behaviorism?

    Mitchell Newman
    • Type: NeFi
    • Development: ll--
    • Attitude: Seelie

    One thing this reminds me a lot of is Enneagram.  Agreeable (Adaptive, Seelie) seems likely to have enneagram 9 for their gut fix.  Disagreeable (Directive, Unseelie) more likely enneagram 8 or 1 for their gut fix.  This even relates to the emotional boundaries point: 9’s have softer, more permeable boundaries and having a harder time saying no, whereas 1’s and 8’s have firm instinctual boundaries.

    • Type: FiSe
    • Development: ll--
    • Attitude: Unseelie

    One thing this reminds me a lot of is Enneagram. Agreeable (Adaptive, Seelie) seems likely to have enneagram 9 for their gut fix. Disagreeable (Directive, Unseelie) more likely enneagram 8 or 1 for their gut fix. This even relates to the emotional boundaries point: 9’s have softer, more permeable boundaries and having a harder time saying no, whereas 1’s and 8’s have firm instinctual boundaries.



    Of course, that isn't always the case, though--this coming from an unseelie 9.
    When I first read about the heartitudes/emotional attitudes, I suspected that unseeliness came from some kind of psychological trauma. But of course it isn't quite that simple, either. Though the article does say this "...but is the result of their life conditioning and how a person has come to route their emotional pathways over years. However, this early emotional conditioning often becomes a life-long feature of personhood."
    I did do a small survey earlier this year, to see if there was a link between Ea and attachment styles, and it turned out that a greater proportion of the unseelie/directive group had an insecure avoidant attachment (as scored by answers to a psychological quiz). But it was only a small group of participants. Just in case you find that interesting.

    Mitchell Newman
    • Type: NeFi
    • Development: ll--
    • Attitude: Seelie

    That's an interesting response Janie, and I actually relate to it a lot.  I agree that it's not always the case and did not mean to say that it was, but the fact that it isn't always the case (especially for the reasons that you lay out) raises some interesting questions for me:
    I have also struggled with an avoidant attachment style in my life, although it is becoming less and less that way as I grow up more and spend more time with the opposite sex, for example.  It doesn't entirely surprise me that it's more common for Unseelie/Directive because there were some points in Unseelie Fi which I related to about not wanting to show your vulnerable feelings to others.  However, I was typed as Seelie Fi, and it is true that more often I am agreeable and I aspire to be open and kind with people.  Maybe I was Unseelie before and am becoming more Seelie, and there are still some remnants of my old Unseelie self.  Or maybe I (and by extension other people) are not purely Agreeable or Disagreeable.
    After all, agreeableness is actually a scale on the Big 5, not a binary trait.  Now, the Big 5 is a self-assessment test, and the fact that it's a scale is by virtue of how it is measured as answers to a series of questions, so that may not tell us that the ontology of "agreeableness" is truly a continuum.  However, there are enough shades and variants on the test, and enough complexity in people such as ourselves (I am a Seelie who relates to a few aspects of Unseelie, you are an Unseelie who relates to the agreeable enneagram type 9) to suggest that it may be good to include a non-binary measurement of agreeableness and disagreeableness.
    When it comes to the abstract principles, it seems pretty straightforward that Agreeable relates more to 9, and Disagreeable 8 and 1 (especially 8).  However, in practice it's not that simple.  It's ALREADY not that simple in the Enneagram alone, because the Enneagram types aren't discrete by nature: wings are important part of the theory.  So a 9w8 with a strong 8 wing may be considerably more disagreeable than a 9w1 with a weak 1 wing.
    Moreover, in the Humanitarian Socionics that I study, there is a concept called the "communicative space", invented by Victor Gulenko.  What's important about it in this context is the concept of "communicative distance":

    1) Far-close range. When interacting at a long distance, people are separated by a significant distance, their communication is largely subject to conscious and social control. This distance usually occurs between strangers or in groups of more than eight people. Close distance means that communication takes place with close contact in space and is distinguished by spontaneity (a greater degree of influence of the unconscious). This distance is most typical for groups of up to eight people, especially if they know each other well.

    What Victor Gulenko has found in his practice is that people act differently at these different communicative distances, and that this is important for type diagnosis.  What's more, in Humanitarian Socionics there are various subtypes of each type (Dominant, Creative, Normalizing, Harmonizing), which is similar (but not the same as) to something like Agreeable/Disagreeable variants of the types in Cognitive Type (especially if you add in development levels, but that's not germane to this discussion, so we can leave it aside for now).  More recently, what Victor has discovered is that people can have different subtypes at different communicative distances.
    To give an example, John D Rockefeller is considered as an LSI DN.  What that means is that he is a Logical-Sensory Introvert who has a Dominant subtype at far communicative distance (meaning at far distance his Business Logic Te and Power Sensorics Se would be enhanced).  At far distance, he is one of the most powerful capitalists in history, able to compete, persevere and monopolize at a level few other people are capable of.  However, at close communicative distance, he had a Normalizing subtype (enhanced Structural Logic Ti and Comfort Sensorics Si): he liked to study accounting and manufacturing details for extra hours even to the point of pedantry (not true of most business leaders), redrafted his letters until they were absolutely perfect instead having the more expedient behavior more typical of a pure dominant subtype, he served in many supportive help roles such as a janitor, he dressed scrupulously, and he tended to blend in with his subordinates and lead them in a more polite and subtle rather than demanding way.  If you met him, he may well appear to be a rather modest and agreeable man, not the domineering capitalist the most people know him as (which he ALSO was).
    None of that applies to type of Rockefeller in Cognitive Type, and that wasn't my intention.  The point is just to demonstrate that people can appear quite different at far and close communicative distance, and that you can take this into account in a theory of types.  This may suggest the possibility of a more nuanced assessment of Agreeable/Disagreeable, but there are a few ways you could go about it.
    It may be that people can be Agreeable or Disagreeable depending on the distance of communication.  That gives 4 gradients of possibility:
    AA (agreeable at far and close distance), AD (agreeable at far distance and disagreeable at close), DA (disagreeable at far distance and agreeable at close), DD (disagreeable at far and close distance)
    How this might look: Someone who is AD may be very polite and accommodating to strangers, ready to yield for them and empathize with them up to a point, but with their family, lovers or close friends, they may have attachment issues and close their emotional boundaries after a certain degree of closeness is reached, or maybe they can even be more domineering and disagreeable with family, lovers or close friends.  Likewise, someone who is DA may play a very tough role at the workplace or need to be very strong and disagreeable as a leader or public face of something, but at close distance with their family they may be utterly polite, tolerant, yielding, empathic and open.  Basically, the tough steely person with a soft heart once you get close enough to it.  And some people may be more purely Agreeable and Disagreeable, not varying as much.
    Another dimension to this is time (as you pointed out with life conditioning): people may be born agreeable, but suffer some kind of trauma or adverse circumstances, and to adapt they have to harden their heart against the world and become tougher and more disagreeable.  Or, someone who was born very disagreeable may go so far that they alienate everyone around them or go to jail or something like that, and they eventually have a spiritual awakening that helps them to develop an agreeable side or even become a mostly agreeable person.  A further interesting question to consider is how strong the biological components of this are, when it comes to whether someone is born agreeable or disagreeable and how stable that is.  In Humanitarian Socionics, people are born with a subtype as far as we know, but it can change if circumstances that demand the change coalesce with a strong internal desire to make the change.  In Cognitive Type or Socionics, if someone started as one variant and changed to another, it's interesting to consider how similar they are to someone who was born that way.  Maybe there is no meaningful difference, but maybe the difference is still quite substantial.

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

    There's a lot of great ideas here! o,o
    I have to admit I'm fully aware that this agreeable/disagreeable spectrum does not cover the full range of emotional attitudes a person can take-- and it's far too limited in its nuance. I think it's at around this point that CT has to "hand things over" to a model of emotional fixations. I see Attachment Theory, Schema Therapy, the Enneagram and the Personality Disorders models as all fitting into this camp -- but without a clear "winner" yet.
    The problem is in verifying any of these models, including CT's Ea's, as necessary dualities rather than as different ways to "cut up the pie." I think the CT vultological distinctions between seelie<-->unseelie and adaptive<-->directive work well at the extremes. For example, very clear seelie vultology will demonstrate a psychological parallel to high agreeableness. But Ea does seem like a bell curve to me, with most fitting in the middle. Yep @varlawend I do see it as a spectrum (as I mentioned in the article), and that lets me know that CT probably isn't grasping the "true reality" of emotional dynamics through this dichotomy.
    For the time being, agreeable-disagreeable is the only (albeit low-resolution) spectrum that I know of that can be visually tracked. I know that some enneagram groups have been trying to find their own ways to quantify the types too and am eager to see what they come up with.
    Oh and Janie, I think you are not really that unseelie. xD You have plenty of seelie energy too, as I mentioned in that one thread with your bashful smiles. As noted, it's a spectum and we need more dedicated vultological revisions of this spectrum (perhaps a scale system). But I think you would fall within the bell curve, like most people. I am also planning to make a survey (like the Energetics one) that can be used to measure, from a psychological angle, where a person falls along this spectrum and see if it matches the vultology.

Viewing 8 posts - 1 through 8 (of 8 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
© Copyright 2012-2021 Juan E. Sandoval - Use Policy