Functional Stack, levels of development and function descriptions

Home Forums Model 1 Discussions Functional Stack, levels of development and function descriptions

Viewing 7 posts - 26 through 32 (of 32 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #14424
    LadyNerdsky
    Participant
    • Type: FiNe
    • Development: ll-l
    • Attitude: Unseelie

    Wow, that's a pain to read. Here's a link to the Google Doc to save your eyes.
    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fvYXZh3oi6kEoXP4ESTqXihjHhg9i8YxoQv4AC9Nr-o/edit?usp=sharing
     

    #14432
    Auburn
    Keymaster
    • Type: TiNe
    • Development: l--l
    • Attitude: Adaptive

    *drools*
    Data! Hehe.. this is candy.
    You did this by isolating samples that only have a first-name, right? That's a clever trick! (as long as we remove Madonna)

    Initial thoughts:

    E-vs-I
    Ah so it does seem that E-vs-I is split around equally in the population, if we take the standard development as indicative. This is in keeping with what we'd predict in the CT model (and of a genetic phenomenon), so it's very comforting to see. At the same time we see that the consequentially higher E-to-I ratio within the celebrity sphere is also in keeping with what we'd expect in the public sphere, as Bob put it:

    AgentBob - Yesterday at 7:24 PM
    I suspect the reason you've outlined is correct. If |--- introverts are less likely to take on public facing roles, double-introverted introverts should be even less common
    AgentBob - Yesterday at 7:25 PM
    That is in keeping with the model's assumptions
    If the opposite were true, that would need explaining

    Development Levels
    Awesome that you did all this. This clarification allows for a better look at development when accounting for the celebrity over-representation of E-lead l-l- types, which I think would look more like this within the average population:

    ^ (not real numbers/data... just a diagram)
    Each lower function is progressively less likely to develop, from 2-4. And this even applies to the last four development levels:
    lll- (2+3) is easier than...
    ll-l (2+4) which is easier than...
    l-ll (3+4) which is still easier than...
    llll (2+3+4).
    This supports the idea that the lower a function is, the more challenging it is to develop it, and developing two lower functions (i.e. l-ll) is harder than the middle two (i.e. lll-) and so on. All 4 functions developed being the least representative.
    Developmental Pressures
    This caught my attention:

    Introvert leads are overrepresented in development II-- (68.8% I vs 31.3% E) given that there’s an equal number of extrovert and introvert leads in the database overall.
    Introverts seem more likely to develop a conscious E-function than extroverts are to develop a conscious I-function.

    As well as:

    So far, no extrovert leads have developed double-introvert functions.
    4 of 5 introverts who developed double extroverted functions are Ji+Pe, with all 4 being Ti-lead, 4 being “dark” heartitude and 3 of the 4 being Ne-aux. The remaining introvert is Si-Te.

    Yes it does seem like there is more pressure for introverted types to develop extroverted functions than the other way around. This makes sense if we consider the above, and how the more public a sphere tends to be, the more it favors extroversion, meaning the introverted l--- type would be in dire need of some manner of developing agency, while the extroverted l--- type would naturally start in possession of some baseline agency and have less pressure.
    Fascinating.
     

    #14440
    Anonymous
    Inactive
    • Type:
    • Development:
    • Attitude:

    Hey @ladynerdsky, thank you for all this data:

    No Ji-leads have flat affect so far, which is interesting given just how common they are overall...Is there any reason that Ji-leads seem impervious to Flat Affect so far? E.g. Is there an extra emotional resilience, just for example, or are Ji-leads slipping through the vultological cracks?

    I'm Ji lead and have flat affect, I'm also double introverted (though I think I am getting closer to developing Je) and have Pi concious. Given just my own experience, I did not have emotional resilience, but rather an easy way to ignore emotions (especially because they are not felt that strongly in me) by thinking about them, and I always thought that I could solve emotional problems with other people inwardly, by myself. However, I think ignored emotional energy can be stored and released once it has enough accumulated power to overtake you, as it did with me. Aditionally, I think Ji-Pi can develop flat affect easily, because on one hand I think Ji-Pi can be form a very "idealized" world, aligning to "truth," and see the "real" external world/people as failing to match to it (or even more precisely, failing personally in fashioning/impacting the "real" world, including one's self, to match the "idealized" world). Idealized vs real world are qualified here because I don't think that is how I originally saw it. I didn't see  the "problems" of the external world as not matching my ideal (I think that is an explanation from extroverted perspective), bur rather as the "real" world is the one where I have discovered its "truth," the one in built up in my mind after so much careful thinking and constructing, and the "external" world is the one that is fake and living in a fantasy (and I therefore have the overwhleming "burden" to make people see the "truth" of the "real" world) 🤪.
    Also, @supahprotist is an extrovert Pe lead with flat affect, and interestingly has both his introverted functions conscious too.

    #14452
    Auburn
    Keymaster
    • Type: TiNe
    • Development: l--l
    • Attitude: Adaptive

    It's also interesting to see the over-representation of reviser (high Pe+Ji) types, at ~75%, in our volunteers.
    This is also in keeping with what we'd expect of a community that's based around a budding idea, where enthusiasm and optimism are in high demand and there's less operationalization. Pe-leads as "explorer" types do live up to their namesake, and tend to gravitate more towards new ideas and theories/concepts.
    This is all great to see when we consider all these are visually read people. So this is a very tangible phenomenon that links body mannerisms to demographic distributions even in our own community.
    edit: I suppose other causes could be at play, such as revisers being more highly represented online, or in psychology forums in general.

    #14464
    LadyNerdsky
    Participant
    • Type: FiNe
    • Development: ll-l
    • Attitude: Unseelie

    You did this by isolating samples that only have a first-name, right?


    @auburn
    Yep, combed through the database line-by-line and coded my own in Google Sheets. Wasn't sure if Koops or Chuck were volunteers or YouTubers, so they're in my dataset anyway. There's a couple of mistakes I've got in my data though. For example, I've just noticed for you, your F-attitude is Adaptive here, but on the database your II-I development is Directive. Which is probably what the video example shows, but not reflective of your current dev?

    Ah so it does seem that E-vs-I is split around equally in the population, if we take the standard development as indicative. This is in keeping with what we’d predict in the CT model

    What's the prediction/mechanism for this in CT? I've probably glossed-over it in the wiki somewhere. It's funny, I was going off a statistic I heard somewhere (no source though) that Extraverts were 75% of the population. Then again, I guess there's an important distinction between cognitive extraversion and social extraversion. Maybe social extraverts are the 75% but cognitive extraversion is 50/50. Or that 75% stat is rubbish to begin with.

    Each lower function is progressively less likely to develop, from 2-4. And this even applies to the last four development levels

    There's definitely a skewed distribution so far showing hierarchical development of functions with increasing levels of difficulty bringing "lower" functions into consciousness. There's not enough data yet on the less common development levels, but while I was compiling it I was wondering if heartitude and/or Flat Affect is one of (or the) mediating factor determining "non-standard" development order. I'm just imagining 1,2,3,4 being "standard" development, but prolonged social/emotional/mental distress disrupts the order and forces "lower" functions to surface earlier than predicted.
    Almost like standard is I---, then II--
    But some kind of stress diverts development from I---, to I--I (or I-I-, especially for introvert leads), then II-I from there.
    The academic in me ideally wants anonymous questionnaires filled out exploring life experiences to correlate with dev levels. Something like an Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE) score. ACE ties into studies looking at the neurobiology of toxic stress, where childhood exposure disrupts neurodevelopment, which in turn increases risk of social, emotional and cognitive impairment and predicts negative health outcomes in adults. It's such a powerful longitudinal study. (In first to say, I'm not saying that the I--I or I-I- among us are impaired or "inferior" in any way.)    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adverse_Childhood_Experiences_Study
    @scientiam I'm glad you're on the database now, with @supahprotist, I think? Thought there were some community members missing while I was compiling things. You're the very important combo-breakers 🙂

    I did not have emotional resilience, but rather an easy way to ignore emotions (especially because they are not felt that strongly in me) by thinking about them, and I always thought that I could solve emotional problems with other people inwardly, by myself.

    Do you feel this is a Ti-thing, Ji-thing, or something else? I could have written this myself, especially including the part about latent emotional energy finding a release eventually, but if it's been repressed for so long it will engulf you when it does. Thanks for elaborating on the Ji-Pi connection with Flat Affect.
    I relate to so much of what you said about Ji-idealism and personal "truth" falling short of what the "real" external world "is". (Judicious use of quotation marks necessary). My whole year has been getting my shonky Ji-castles smashed by reality, and I'm bitter AF 🙁

    #14469
    Auburn
    Keymaster
    • Type: TiNe
    • Development: l--l
    • Attitude: Adaptive

    What’s the prediction/mechanism for this in CT? I’ve probably glossed-over it in the wiki somewhere.

    It's not that explicitly mentioned, at least not formally. But it relates to the genetic hypothesis, which suggests that type is intrinsic both in terms of function quadrants and energetic quadrant (though both by different means). Since all identical twins are the same type, I would postulate that the mechanism which decides Je/Pe/Pi/Ji as the lead function is also genetic, and it makes more sense for that to be equally distributed.
    It appears to me that the mechanism of Je/Pe/Pi/Ji inheritance is not dictated the same way as alpha/beta/gamma/delta. Quadra distribution may indeed be uneven around the world, since function-axes bifurcations in the human race may have lead to more of some quadras than others in certain localities by the rules of heredity.
    But energetics don't appear to be "locally" hereditary (i.e. Pe-lead parents don't give birth to Pe-leads only), but more functionally and intentionally diversified by design. So far the hypotheses goes that the mechanism for Je/Pe/Pi/Ji inheritance appears to be analogous in ways to how it is in ants which are divided into specialized roles (gatherer, solider, builder, etc) so that the whole colony performs its operation properly. Our species may have developed a method by which we get an equal number of new Je-leads every generation, because we need them to organize, and Pe-leads because we need new gatherers, and Pi-leads because we need more storers, and Ji-leads (err, what are we for? jk) and so forth.
    If there's a kind of "random" generator for lead-process, then the ratio should stay the same in humanity overall, just as biological sex always stays at around 50%. This is, at least, the working idea behind CT and what it may be. But this is stepping far into uncharted territory and genetic studies which we haven't even begun to design so this is all speculation.

    #14476
    Anonymous
    Inactive
    • Type:
    • Development:
    • Attitude:

    @ladynerdsky,

    Do you feel this is a Ti-thing, Ji-thing, or something else? I could have written this myself

    I really don't know, I thought some parts were Ji thing first and some specific aspects a Ti thing second, but if you relate to all or most of it perhaps it could be your unseelieness? Fi's relation to the emotional register is something I still don't understand: how involved is it and how is it different from how Ti manages/ignores emotion? Perhaps I should clarify that the "overtaking" of my stored emotions has happened only once in my life, and otherwise any emotional "overtaking" just consists of rare, unconscious angry outbursts.

Viewing 7 posts - 26 through 32 (of 32 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