How do Temperaments Work? Is there a Limit to Possibilities for Modulation?

Home Forums Model 1 Discussions How do Temperaments Work? Is there a Limit to Possibilities for Modulation?

Viewing 4 posts - 1 through 4 (of 4 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #7359
    Animal
    Participant
    • Type: SeFi
    • Development: lll-
    • Attitude: Seelie

    Using myself as example - I'm SeFi III- with a strong, obvious Ni ego fixation.  Could I be INF temperament?
    I'm not claiming that is my temperament, but I'm curious how the system works.  What arrangement of functions is required for a temperament to be modulated?

    #7371
    Auburn
    Keymaster
    • Type: TiNe
    • Development: l--l
    • Attitude: Adaptive

    This article covers the essentials of temperament:

    Introduction to Temperaments


    The temperament system is depreciated in CT because it's essentially broken. And it cannot be unbroken due to inherent limits. For example, as soon as you get a 3-4 function conscious individual, it cannot support them. I'd like to walk through one type, as an example, and see what develops when we apply developments/etc to them:
    SeFi l--- Seelie + Se Ego
    ^ This person may be ESF in temperament, and straightforward. An Elle Fanning type.
    SeFi l--- Seelie + Fi Ego
    ^ This person may be ISF in temperament due to their ego being in Fi, despite not having a conscious Fi function.
    SeFi ll-- Seelie + Ni Ego
    ^ This person may be INF in temperament due to being conscious in Fi (I) and furthermore by having an Ni (N) Ego fixation.
    SeFi l-l- Unseelie + Se Ego
    ^ This person may be EST in temperament due to having an Unseelie (correlates to "T") attitude, and an Se Ego.
    SeFi l-l- Unseelie + Ni Ego
    ^ This person may have an ENT temperament due to having an Unseelie (correlates to "T") attitude, and an Ni (N) Ego.
    SeFi ll-l Unseelie + Te Ego
    ^ This person may have an INT temperament due to being double-introverted (I), having an Unseelie (correlates to "T") attitude, and a Te (T) Ego.
    As you can see, we've essentially run through the whole spectrum of temperaments, by accounting for all the variables within development/ego/attitude. This is why people mistype so prominently across typology communities. Mostly it's because the focus of people's minds is in their ego and in their attitudes.
    Not many people think of themselves in terms of their metabolic processing. We associate most with our preferences, rather than how we calculate and compute reality at the millisecond scale. If our preferences happen to be aligned with our metabolic processing then we get it right, but otherwise we misjudge.
    It's definitely possible for SeFi's to be INF in temperament, and any other temperament. Any type can identify as any temperament as far as I can tell. This makes temperament not very useful or telling at the individual level, but it does factor in at the interpersonal level.
    As I mention in the article, a group of people of four different energetic quadrants can rally together over "ENT" interests like Dungeons & Dragons. Or people from diverse quadrants can all share an affinity for INF poetry, art, empathy and romance. Temperament is more of a general platform or shared space of radiance.
    Most typology forums (i.e. INFJforum / INTPforum) are essentially hubs of "INF" and "INT" temperaments, respectively. Anyone who identifies with those preferences generally has something related to contribute to that discussion. So I don't mean to entirely devalue it. It has its application if we don't look at it as an identity/type, but as a set of attitudes that join together in terms of interests, habits, shared topics, preferences, etc.

    #7380
    Auburn
    Keymaster
    • Type: TiNe
    • Development: l--l
    • Attitude: Adaptive

    Another way to consider what temperaments are is the difference between What and How. Temperament is "What", but says nothing about the "How". We can illustrate this with two individuals like so:

    They share little/nothing in common in terms of their metabolism, but they have overlap in temperament. Both of them may have a:

    • Shared dislike for the warmer/gushier/feely aspects of human nature
    • Shared affinity for philosophy, science, maths, video games and technical domains
    • Shared dislike for established thought, and have an independence of mind
    • Shared difficulties with fitting in due to being too blunt about insensitive facts
    • Shared grievances with being unable to feel things profoundly, or make lasting connections
    • Shared inability to open up or to really come to care about certain things
    • Shared lack of dexterity or proficiency with kinesthetic matters
    • Shared sense of disembodiment or absentmindedness from the present

    But their reasons for each (the "why") will be very different. And so what you might see is that the two individuals above may be great friends! Same hobbies and interests, same grievances with society and a shared bantering about it. Similar experience of school or workplace. But if they interacted long enough at a very personal level, their metabolic differences would become exceedingly obvious.
    For example, mismatches in communication, not "getting" where the other is coming from. Being unable to step into their shoes to understand why they "did it that way" or why they "thought about it like that." So long as it's kept at the domain of temperamental context, the two are very alike, but when examined under a microscope they're coming from opposite sides of reality.
    Oppositely, two people of the same type (or energetic quadrant) may have the experience of really knowing where the other is coming from, despite disagreeing with them. There's a kind of sympathy for the "how", and an understanding related to the formation of thought and the origin/seed of an idea, even if its execution is not how we would go about it.

    #7390
    Animal
    Participant
    • Type: SeFi
    • Development: lll-
    • Attitude: Seelie

    Thanks Auburn - that's helpful. I was wondering what the point of temperaments  was, considering any type could be anything.  The only temperaments that come close to suiting my focus in life are INF and ISF, but INF wins by a long shot, considering the type of abstract interests I have. I may not be as delicate and fragile as the description says, nor do I talk about philosophy in abstract terms, but my entire life has been focused on dedicated self-searching, soul-searching, discovering the meaning of life, and seeing into other people on a deep, primal spiritual level.  So if temperament has any meaning, it would have to be INF for me.
    But then I wonder - are we talking interests or temperament?  My life focus is INF - not ENF, as it's very deeply personal and internal - but my temperament is not over-sensitive, delicate and fragile. To be fair, I am one of the most sensitive people ever, but I charge in to fight for what I believe, and petty arguments are dust off my back.  In deeper ways, things stay with me forever and get explored down to the wire on a soul level. People across other forums typed me as INFJ and sometimes INFP in the beginning until better descriptions of Se started to surface; I was the only one insisting on ISFP because I related to Se/Ni on a functional level.  But I'm really not a sensualist as much as a spiritualist in my interests; even if I clearly express those interests using sensual and physical artistic cues a la Se dominance.
    This is why I wondered what temperament even means.  Is it how you seem in the eyes of others (in the case of INF - quiet, subdued, fragile) - or is it where your focus lies (in the case of INF - soul searching, self searching, meaning of life and identity, etc)?
    Is it about 'what you deeply care about and explore; a life focus' or 'how you seem as a person, as in fragile vs. tough etc?'

Viewing 4 posts - 1 through 4 (of 4 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
© Copyright 2012-2021 Juan E. Sandoval - Use Policy
searchhomecommentsenvelope