Hierarchies in Typology Communities

Home Forums General Psychology Hierarchies in Typology Communities

  • Animal
    Participant
    • Type: SeFi
    • Development: lll-
    • F Attitude: Unseelie

    In other typology communities, there is no objective system to verify type. So there are always ‘cool types’ and ‘unwanted types.’ In MBTI communities, being a sensor, especially an SJ, is frowned upon – as sensors are supposedly boring people who just do jobs and aren’t creative.  In Socionics, the “uncool, boring normie” label is the Delta quadra.  In Enneagram, it’s 3, 6, 9, 1, and 2.. whereas 4, 5, 7, 8 is the ‘cool klub.’  Sx is hot and sexy, Sx last, boring.  This ‘cool/ uncool’ stuff is pushed even by the teachers and forum leaders.  The more they insult the ‘cool types’ and talk about their dark side, the more ‘cool’ that type becomes. People brag about how fucked up they are, and how this typing label makes them above everyone else because of their intense, badass, artsy problems.  Boring types just wouldn’t get it.

    CT has surpassed this.  Here, since there’s an objective system, people are what they are.  You don’t have 85% of people typing as NiFe (like in most MBTI groups), you just have the people whose signals show NiFe typing as NiFe. So all those ‘cool, elite, artsy, intense’ types are all over the board, and you might find an artistic, intense SiTe. Now that the community has been around for a while, the notion of ‘cool types’ has disappeared. It’s just something you have to get past with the noobs, but most people in the community, who have accepted their typings, are past it.

    But then they had to find SOMETHING.  Some kind of hierarchy, to create cool types and unwanted types. Lo and behold, Auburn discovered development levels.  Alas, there is something to compete over!  The cool people can be IIII and the regular ol’ plebs are I and II.  So now you have people offering services to help people develop more functions for money. You have thread after thread about the amazing psychic experience of developing more functions!  Ah, a hierarchy has been established!  Now we know who the cool people are. Thank the heavens! Without that, what would hold the community together?

    ;D

    • This topic was modified 1 week, 3 days ago by Animal.
    urban
    Participant
    • Type: NeFi
    • Development: l---
    • F Attitude: Unseelie

    Y’know this is exactly what I love about this community. I’m so glad someone went out and put it in words, I couldn’t have said it better myself. I visited a ton of MBTI sites and all the other systems and the hierarchy is real, people just treat each other differently and sometimes even judge beforehand without even getting to know the person whether or not they’re an incel, normie, smart, nerd, hedonist, etc. completely and solely based on their MBTI tag. A person could join in with an ESFJ tag and get a completely different welcome experience than if they had an INFJ tag. Both high Fe types, both great types, but the SJ gets stigmatized more for no good reason other than “xd well [stereotypes].” It’s truly refreshing to see that this system has none of that junk and we’re all just people with out type code trying to better ourselves, like a dang self development oriented forum should be like anyway. And like you said with 85% of people here aren’t typed as NiFe that’s also very true and relieving as well, and really shows what the whole typology community would look like if people weren’t mistyped out the wazoo. Anybody can fill out a test to score INFJ or fill out a reddit type me post with skewed af answers but the vultology doesn’t lie lmao

    Alice
    Participant
    • Type: FiSe
    • Development: ll--
    • F Attitude: Unseelie

    Well, to be honest, I don’t think there is much pressure to be of a more complex development level. Auburn (the only real expert on CT) has explicitly said in his articles and his general posts that no development level is more desirable than any other, and that each has its advantages and disadvantages. The only pressure or examples we see of people obsessed or fascinated with their development has been maybe 2 or 3 isolated examples. I think as a whole, this community is in a healthy spot in regards to those who are ‘in’ and those who are ‘out.’ overall, I think it’s a very welcoming group that encourages curiosity, and doesnt really look down on any behavior besides being generally annoying or disruptive.

    Animal
    Participant
    • Type: SeFi
    • Development: lll-
    • F Attitude: Unseelie

    @Alice

    The writers and experts in every community explicitly say in their articles and posts that no type is better or more desirable than another. Yet the hierarchies continue nonetheless.

    I don’t see it as ‘2 or 3 examples.’ I see a trend that develops and certain people get on board faster than others. But often, others don’t Se what I Se. ;P And that’s ok. I just though it was a funny observation, not meant as any kind of insult.  It’s just how humans are.

    @urban You saw what I saw lol.  I think Pe is keen on picking up ‘underlying patterns’ as they unfold in real time. And I completely agree about how people act in other communities. I can’t even withstand joining such groups anymore. So much crap and bullshit ;D. And then people say typology is evil. Yet clearly in this forum we can see the benefits of using it well. So, it’s all about how it’s approached and the setup.

    Ivory
    Participant
    • Type: TiSe
    • Development: ll--
    • F Attitude: Adaptive

    Amen. The objectivity in recognizing type within CT is such a breath of fresh air. I have a crazy amount of praise for this project, but I feel like being negative so I will continue on with that (don’t shoot me):

    As Animal mentioned, there are the “development levels.” While demonstrably real and they definitely should be explored, part of the issue that invites hierarchical thinking here lies in the naming of this phenomenon: development suggests developed and undeveloped functions. While this isn’t a problem when looking at type in an objective way, we must understand that the vast majority of people who look into typology are, at least in part, looking to identify with a type and as such, instead of seeing their type listed with objective development levels, many will see it as ̶h̶a̶v̶i̶n̶g̶ being a “developed type” – as opposed to being an un(der)developed type. The term “levels” doesn’t exactly help with this problem either.

    Competition is everywhere and you will never be able to avoid it. That’s fact. It’s the nature of Nature. But what is also fact is that according to the “development levels,” an individual with I— can become II–, meaning a gain in development level, and a theoretical III- becoming a II– (is this even possible?) means a loss in development level. The competitive soul won’t rest until they achieve IIII. And the really competitive soul will try to monetize “helping” others gain such “levels.” 😉 It’s like an RPG, and each level you gain you will hear a *DING* and gold sparkles will flash. Now, who wouldn’t want to be MAX LEVEL?!?

    Of course, the latter has MAJOR ethical problems, the biggest ones being the lack of psycho-therapeutic support and the overall infancy of this territory. While CT may not engage in such practices, the potential for this type of abuse is currently present in the basis of the model. It’s something to look out for.

    Animal
    Participant
    • Type: SeFi
    • Development: lll-
    • F Attitude: Unseelie

    Exactly, @Ivory . In true trickster fashion 😉 I approached this provocatively, but my concern is real. When I developed Fi, it happened as a result of trauma and the development itself was traumatic and took years to settle in. As an artist and writer, I have ample work documenting what was going on in my mind, and it is clearly showing the introduction of Fi and how it reconfigured my brain. I am not supposing that every experience of development is equally traumatic nor that it is triggered by trauma – however, I do know firsthand that this can result from trauma, and can leave a person in a state of mental disarray. One may argue I was already in that state because of trauma, which is true; however, the development in and of itself was a journey that I carefully documented, even though I did not have words for it like “Fi.” I’ve heard others in the community talking about the severity of their development journeys too.

    So it struck me a bit odd to come back around a few months later and hear people boasting about newly developed functions.  Many people who find their ways to these communities are mentally ill, unstable and traumatized.  Some are just young and hormonal, but this is still something that makes them vulnerable. I could not help but wonder: if this idea to push for fast track development actually works, is this place going to fill up with psychotic broken minds? And if not then what is it, a popularity contest?

    Ivory you worded this better, I just wanted to throw in my agreement. Sanity should not be trifled with, and becoming an epicenter for psychological breakthroughs is a dangerous game if you aren’t prepared for it.

    • This reply was modified 1 week, 3 days ago by Animal.
    • This reply was modified 1 week, 3 days ago by Animal.
    • This reply was modified 1 week, 3 days ago by Animal.
    Alice
    Participant
    • Type: FiSe
    • Development: ll--
    • F Attitude: Unseelie

    Maybe all we need here is a change of nomenclature! I’m honestly surprised that my Fi-lead, non Je-having ass is suggesting a rebrand, but what if we shifted focus from language like “development” and “level”, and instead switched to possibly more neutral language, like “structure of consciousness,” or “psychic structure”? (I’m sure somebody could think of something catchier).

    That way, with maybe more awareness of the benefits of unconscious functions, we could instead say that my “functional structure” is ll–, or “natively ambiverted” if we wanted to move away from the original notation. l-l- could be “double extroverted”, etc etc.

    All this, or we could continue this conversation as new people join and hopefully help stop people from thinking competitively. I agree that it seems to be a natural thought that llll is the “best” development when we are early in learning CT, but hopefully people do away with assumption quickly as they learn more about the system.

    Rondo
    Moderator
    • Type: NeTi
    • Development: llll
    • F Attitude: Adaptive

    Lots of different angles to come at this from; glad you started this thread @ animal. The first angle for me is that nothing should be off the table in terms of being made fun of and equalized that way, as long as the humor isn’t flaunting ill-intentions. Speaking only for the forums, this hasn’t been an issue in my eyes on this topic, or for almost any other, and leaves space for a healthy counterbalance to the idea that IIII is some kind of ‘higher state’.

    The second angle for me is that in my earliest submission video here, before even officially joining the forums, I explicitly criticised the language of “development levels” [and have continued to try and come up with alternatives], and with much the same reasoning as Ivory gave here. I also criticised the visual representation of more ‘sticks’ being a problem of implicit visual hierarchy on the forum, as Animal has pointed out.

    However, I’ve also contributed to this dynamic personally by creating content around it. I don’t regret either endeavor: the 2nd post in the Developing to IIII Thread, or the Type IIII Emporium Thread itself (mainly an excuse to hold myself publicly accountable for my results and to get better at vultology through refining a search for elusive samples). The Developing to IIII Thread indicated to me that there is a real desire from members of the community to develop more functions, and I’m thankful I didn’t have the ambition to post anything approaching a concrete, step-by-step guide there, as years working on my own mental illness and that of others personally and professionally have indicated time and time again how quickly well-meaning actions descend into chaos.

    With that being said I also don’t believe it’s right to just say, “Oh well we’re not ready and dunno exactly when or how to be ready, so to anyone suffering the ill-effects of an emerging function attempting to integrate: good luck.” @animal – I think your point has been made clearly at the present time, and the rules have been adjusted accordingly: charging money for such a service without a wealth of personal and professional experience is wrong; I’ve always been of the same opinion, and based on the severe lack of response there it seems that was already the general consensus. If you have any suggestions as to how to tackle this issue more systematically, I’d be more than happy to listen to them, as this is something that will only become more relevant with time, not less, and has been rattling around in my head for a while now.

    Inevitable qualifying statement: being labeled as IIII here just means Auburn has seen video evidence that the individual demonstrated the ability modulate to a proficient use of four functions within a limited span of time. It doesn’t mean they will always display these four functions, just that it’s been seen in at least one video. Having once been integrated, I don’t know that functions can be lost from consciousness, but it certainly seems their overt, conscious influence can recede. @auburn – please correct me if I’m wrong here.

    And from the patterns I can draw from the database, it seems that the vast majority of our celebrity examples that would be considered successful and admirable by others are Type I’s and II’s that doubled-down on their strengths to achieve mastery and success in a primary domain. The samples/individuals I currently find most inspirational and interesting tend to be Type I–I polarized J-leads, and they tend to give relatively few fucks about others’ opinions, being driven to push through their ethics and goals without endless second-guessing. That seems to me a much more stereotypical and “badass” way to operate than the few examples of IIII that I’ve seen, and I’m hopeful that as we accumulate more detailed psychological knowledge here, that the pros and cons of these different modulations will be arrayed such that IIII will only look like the most obvious and appealing choice if one isn’t willing to dig past surfaces.

    • This reply was modified 1 week, 3 days ago by Rondo.
    Animal
    Participant
    • Type: SeFi
    • Development: lll-
    • F Attitude: Unseelie

    @Rondo

    Oh yes, I’m not worried about the money and the rules anymore 🙂 Auburn handled that beautifully and he is clearly on top of it. Nor was it my intent to insult him or the community.

    I was talking more about a vibe that works its way through a community and has potential to poison it. I’ve seen this in many typology communities before. I thought there was humor in it too, but apparently I touched a nerve or something and it came off more like a ‘dig’ than I intended.

    I do believe the development levels are real and that he’s showing something true. Something that is obvious now that we’ve seen it. I can’t unsee it. The evidence is empirically sound and the development levels described for myself and others really ring true to their character.

    My only concern is that the community seems to think, “More development good, less development bad,” even if the words that come out say otherwise. It’s a vibe. An undercurrent.

    I’ve spoken about my personal thoughts on my own development – I am not convinced I’m better off overall with Fi development, and I’m in no hurry to develop Ni although I do see that as an inevitability for me personally.   It would be enough to just state my own view on myself and stop there, if I hadn’t caught wind of potential harm.

    I’m not suggesting that CT should abandon development levels or discussion about it.

    I was poking fun at humans being human, but also kind of holding up a warning sign.

    That’s all.

    Rondo
    Moderator
    • Type: NeTi
    • Development: llll
    • F Attitude: Adaptive

    ^^ No offense taken here 🙂 It’s best to have things out in the open as much as possible, then any negative undercurrents can’t grow and become something untamable, and positive undercurrents can be amplified. I’m not convinced that the most fundamental human tendencies of “beautiful = good / ugly = bad” or “more > less” will ever be made extinct, no matter how much time and effort is spent on community and self-education, but

    My only concern is that the community seems to think, “More development good, less development bad,” even if the words that come out say otherwise. It’s a vibe. An undercurrent.

    I think you hit the nail on the head right there, and I’ve probably helped to propagate that line of thinking even though I have my disclaimers that the forcing of function development can have severe negative consequences, and that the psyche has its own indications of what it wants and is ready for above those of the ego. My personal experience is that my life was improved by integrating more functions, but if I just use my own life as a benchmark for everyone else that’s a pretty poor way to operate. Anyway, it would just be rambling at this point to go on, but I approve of this message/thread XD.

    Animal
    Participant
    • Type: SeFi
    • Development: lll-
    • F Attitude: Unseelie

    Yes the experiences differ. But a lot of people come to these communities with mental health issues and having a system that pushes for ‘messing with the psyche’ when very little is known about it, just seems like something to be cautious of. I fully support exploring the system itself and I think this community, and its leader , is amazing!! So I meant no harm, I guess my sense of humor just fell flat.. *hides*

Viewing 11 posts - 1 through 11 (of 11 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
© Copyright 2012-2020 | CognitiveType.com
This website's articles, its reading methodology and practices are the intellectual property of J.E. Sandoval.
Animaged GIFs, images and videos belong to their respective owners.