Model 2: J Systems (Draft)

Index Forums Cognitive Functions Model 2: J Systems (Draft)

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

    Hello,

    This writeup is a rough draft of the J systems, in the new CTA context.

    The Political Problem

    If I may, I’d like to preface this with a bit of context. For the past two weeks I have been tearing my hair out, attempting to figure out the problem of the J systems. It is considerably more difficult to quantify than the P systems because the J systems are inherently political in nature. They are also the very source of our definitions and delineations and as such, modeling the J systems cannot be done successfully if their modal structure restricts the liberty of ‘choice’ (judgment) we all have in all matters of life.

    For example, to call Fe/Ti collectivist would be an error because, by virtue of being a J system, an Fe/Ti user is free to choose what sort of ideology to affiliate with. And it may not be collectivist at the end of the day. Likewise, an Fi/Te may decide a collectivist structure is more just and fair. Or an Fe/Ti user may adopt a meritocratic philosophy and nothing says they can’t. I tried to look for politically neutral terms, but after burning my brains and studying many different political ideologies and methodologies for social organization, and personal value organization, I decided this was altogether the wrong path to take.

    The path to describing the J systems must be apolitical in its architecture, but capable of allowing any political ideology to be adopted. This doesn’t mean that political affiliations won’t aggregate around the architecture, but these affiliations must be considered secondary, not primary. What I’d like to propose in this post is a solution to this problem that appears to fit the data to me.

    Basic Structure

    To start off, the simplest structural difference between the J systems can be summarized as follows:

    What we see here is an inverted symmetry. The center point is Ji, and the outer ring is Je. Stars are biotic and circles are abiotic. As you can see, in the Fi/Te pair the center is a star (Fi), and the outer ring is made of circles (Te). The opposite is true of the Ti/Fe pair, where the center is a circle (Ti) and the outer ring is stars (Fe).

    Notice the lines connecting the circle together, these lines are vector interactions. This is because Je is always object-to-object. The ring of object-to-object interactions forms around the Ji core or compass. You can also think of the outer ring as “actions”, which are vectors. So if each of these two diagrams is a person, then their outer ring represents their verbs.

    • The verbs of Fi/Te are abiotic (Te), but they stem from a biotic core motivation (Fi).
    • The verbs of Ti/Fe are biotic (Fe), but they revolve around abiotic principles.

    Simple enough, right? But this doesn’t tell us very much yet. We start to see the effects of this structure when we introduce complexity.

    Vector Spaces

    The next thing to examine is how this structure interfaces in a vector space:

    Here we see the J axes each represented as an interaction between three rings –which are three individuals. Notice that for the Fi/Te structure, the abiotic objects interface with the objects of other individuals, together forming an abiotic object vector space: a mechanistic economy. The inverse is true for Ti/Fe, where biotic objects interface with other objects, forming a biotic vector space: a negentropic economy.

    Social Structures

    Now, I have to stop right here and say very universally that human beings are a social species. That means both J axes bear the responsibility of caring for their fellow man, of making social structures that are “good” for as many people as possible. Both have empathy for others, both feel pain and loss at the pains of the other. Both have maternal/paternal instincts. And in fact, ‘abiotic’ thinking is a tool for an ultimately organism-assisting goal.

    Therefore, both of these structures are life-conducive. As I explained in this post, the Te vector space has it as a goal to maximize the well-being of those it cares for, but it does so by examining the situation abiotically and organizing vectors impersonally, but towards personal aims. So long as we understand that the aim of both J axes is the same, we can begin to properly describe the differences.

    Fi/Te

    One word that came very close to describing the Te/Fi structure for me is Utilitarian.

    “Utilitarianism is a family of normative ethical theories that prescribe actions that maximize happiness and well-being for all affected individuals. Although different varieties of utilitarianism admit different characterizations, the basic idea behind all of them is to in some sense maximize utility, which is often defined in terms of well-being or related concepts.”

    The basic structure of utilitarianism is one where the shared vector space is designed to maximize the happiness of the individuals that live in the vector space. In other words, politics revolve around how to establish mechanistic protocols (Te) that appropriately revere the essences of individuals (Fi) and allow for their autonomous fruition.

    This is just an example, albeit a very common example, of where Fi/Te ethics ends up going. At the extreme end of this we see Libertarianism + Free-Market Capitalism. But as I said in the beginning, we cannot make 1:1 equations between J systems and political philosophies. We can only say that Fi/Te users tend to, on average, develop utilitarian ideologies because this is in implicit alignment with their J system’s formation. (I believe this is testable, although the correlation won’t be 100%.)

    Still, the most typical conclusion for Fi/Te users to come to is to say that the objective vector space exists to be organized so as to serve oneself and those the self values, and others should be free to do the same and tend to their own families as well. And the government rules of the objective vector space would benefit from allowing everyone the capacity to achieve that personal agency. But again: “most natural” is not a definitive statement. We can all choose differently.

    Fe/Ti

    As for the Fe/Ti axis, something else has to be understood about the nature of the structure, to grasp what sort of social structure it generates. I now know it is incorrect to call Fe/Ti collectivist, or socialist, or any of these very broad terms. This is because, as stated above, both J axes have the well-being of all people in mind. The difference lies in something else.

    And this has to do with how vector ordering happens in Fe, as J+. As we touched upon recently, vectors are organized according to an order. And for Fe, this creates a unique situation where there is an ‘objective’ living order, or vector intent, which things ‘ought’ to be organized towards.

    For Fe it is not merely a matter of banding together, it is a sort of phenomenology/experience that registers a trans-personal ‘ought’ that they owe biotic/willed allegiance to, and which pulls their energies towards it the way J+ pulls vectors into order. And for those who mutually feel this living order’s pull, their biotic vectors adhere to it as a sort of mission that is synonymous with their own vitality. But it’s not a “mission” in the general sense of the word, it’s more like a belief that one’s own vitality is inseparable from this extra-personal object’s ontology. So the object is uplifted.

    This can lead to more macro-organistic tendencies in Fe/Ti users: tribal behaviors, and sects of people who wholly self-identify with that biotic object/vector for their existence. But it also may not lead to that. Like with Fi/Te, people have free choice. They can choose to turn away from this vector pull. Like Simba when he chose hakuna matata. The difference is that they cannot shut down the implicit pull because causality’s vector space is forever tied to the biotic. So ‘purposeful’ causality, and purpose in general, will forever be contingent on this for them. The choice to turn away will come at a cost.

    And this is where we hear people like Peterson talk about the shamefulness of not molding yourself into the hero you were meant to be, or fulfilling your purpose. This is where we hear Fe’s say meaning is to be found by [ being part of this ought ]. And that there’s something that you know you ‘should’ be doing. This is different from Fi thinking they are not being true to themselves. It’s Fe sensing a dis-order between their own biotic vectors (verbs) and the intrinsic nature of the macro-causality. This is different than social pressure –which Fi/Te users are also subject to– because it comes from Fe/Ti user’s very phenomenology.

    As such, the true difference between Fe/Ti and Fi/Te rests in where the direction of biotic energy is coming from or going to. With Fi it’s coming from the core, and radiating away – organizing reality according to those wishes. With Fe it’s being pulled outward by an attractor. Which leads me to what I believe are the truly unvarying, apolitical structural differences between these two J systems:

    (R)adial vs (G)ravitic

    What you see above is sometimes called a positive point charge (R), and a negative point charge (G). I looked for better names for a while but there does not seem to be single-word descriptions for them. So I choose my own. “Radial” refers to the fact that the structure radiates outward from a central point. “Gravitic”, or gravitational, refers to the fact that the structure pulls/attracts, like gravity, towards a convergent target.

    In order to illustrate this more completely, I have to create a higher resolution diagram for those at the beginning of this post:

    What we see above is the same thing as in the first diagram, but it has been multiplied by four successive rings.

    The Radial structure has the star shape propagating across each of these successive rings. And remembering that the white circles are Te vectors, then we see that the Te vectors combine across themselves forming a structure that supports the star shape.

    For the Gravitic structure, we have successive layers of biotic vectors. But if you look at the arrows, the biotic vectors (verbs) are pointing towards the attractor, which sits outside the body. This is the essence of what causes it to be gravitic, rather than radial. For the radial structure, the star is in the middle, and the vectors go out from the star. For the gravitic structure, the star is outside the structure, and the biotic vectors point towards it.

    Scaled

    And when we multiply this across individuals, what we see is this:

    We again see the Radial types join abiotic vectors together and form a structure that is in some way meant for all, and which facilitates everyone’s needs, through mechanistic means.

    The Gravitic types might do the same, but notice that the arrows of the Gravitic types are not just coming together at the intersection of three agents, they are going toward the attractor. Again, this is because the attractor is purpose-giver and this is not synonymous with group consensus.

    Previously I associated democracy with Fe, but that was a mistake. Radial philosophy can very much come to conclude that “all should be equally represented.” Ironically, it is Gravitic philosophy that can sometimes be very non-democratic if what it concludes is that specific agents should sacrifice themselves for the greater cause (toward the attractor). Individual sovereignty may or may not be a value that Gravitic types arrive at. Macro-organismic priority may lead individual agents to be seen as dispensable if the sovereignty of the attractor, and the mission toward it, can be saved.

    However, a Gravitic type may also disagree with where the crowd thinks the attractor is. “Guys it’s over here.” So once again this is not synonymous with group-think, or social pressure or conformity. It’s all an act of logical processing. The voluntary, deliberate and conscious participation of G types is at play here – whether it leads to lone researchers of ‘It’, or collectives.

    ~ ~ ~

    This is already quite a lot, so I will stop here for now.

    But if this viewpoint above proves to be properly representative of the corresponding types, then this would finalize the core elements of model 2 – where Fi/Te would be “R” and Fe/Ti would be “G.” These would replace the letters D and L respectively. I apologize for the rapid prototyping and name changes. I promise things will solidify soon, and I feel confident it will give birth to a far better model that can properly meet the rigor and scrutiny of the wider world in ways model 1 can’t do.

    Looking forward to your feedback! Please let me know if this sounds or doesn’t sound right for you guys – or if you have any questions.

    • This topic was modified 2 months, 2 weeks ago by Auburn.
    • This topic was modified 2 months, 2 weeks ago by Auburn.
    • This topic was modified 2 months, 2 weeks ago by Auburn.
    • This topic was modified 2 months, 2 weeks ago by Auburn.
    • This topic was modified 2 months, 2 weeks ago by Auburn.
    Auburn
    Keymaster
    • Type: TiNe
    • Development: l--l
    • Attitude: Adaptive

    Further notes on G : Orthogenesis / Directed Evolution

    I also would not like to miss this opportunity to mention that the G structure is inclined toward a certain philosophy as well. I mentioned utilitarianism being more prototypically compatible with R. And if I had to pick one from the set of philosophies I’ve come across it would be orthogenesis. I very nearly chose orthogenic as the term that encompasses the G structure, before choosing to focus on structure rather than philosophy or biology. As per Wikipedia:

    Orthogenesis, also known as orthogenetic evolution, progressive evolution, evolutionary progress, or progressionism, is the biological hypothesis that organisms have an innate tendency to evolve in a definite direction towards some goal (teleology) due to some internal mechanism or “driving force”.

    The presence of the attractor, and the gravitic implicit bias of G causes it to see causality as not merely ‘there’, or not merely ‘mechanical’, but as having some ‘goal’ some ‘aim’ some ‘teleology.’ Fe, or G+/negentropy, can also be thought of as teleological in its registration of causality.

    This pattern is so persistent that we even see it in G+ types with very high IQ’s, G+ Christopher Langan being a prime example of this. He is world famous, has an IQ of 195+, and is Fe-lead. He developed what he called his: “Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe” (CTMU) which he maintains “explains the connection between mind and reality, therefore the presence of cognition and universe in the same phrase”. (…) additionally contending that with CTMU he “can prove the existence of God, the soul and an afterlife, using mathematics.”

    And if we go to CTMU.org what we see is this:

    The main title is “Teleologic Evolution”, which again echoes what was said about G+ seeing causality as force-driven towards some non-random, willfully “directed” universal (or at least objective) progress. Langan aims to connect consciousness and universe together — as so many G (Fe/Ti) types do.

    Just another example, of many, can be seen in FeNi Thomas Chenault from Pod’lair. Chenault, like Langan, believes himself to have found the ‘true’ ‘Theory of Everything’ which explains mind and reality simultaneously; a common theme. The subtitle of the theory is “Everything is Energy Evolving”, which carries teleological undertones.

    Now, I am not making any assertions about the viability of these models – only pointing out how it is that an orthogenetic and teleological predispostion stems out from G’s gravitational structure.

    Another related behavioral effect that emerges from G is a focus on ‘human consciousness’, as a sort of objective thing. The presence of the attractor, ‘sensed’ by the G type, leads often times to obsessions about questions which try to arrive at the ‘objective truth’ of the biotic, the conscious. Thus there is a strong statistical connection between G types and cognitive science, or what I might summarize as “theories of the mind/consciousness”, because for G types the nature of the (would-be-abiotic) universe and human beings are roughly the same problem. Insofar as G types are interested in universal questions, it is often the case that they’re interested in them through this mind-angle.

    But I have to be careful once again and say that I’m just talking about emergent statistical effects here. There are some G types that are stone cold materialists, but if we did a statistical analysis of the distributions across the general population, I believe there would be a very considerable tilt towards G types in certain fields and modellings like these.

    • This reply was modified 2 months, 2 weeks ago by Auburn.
    • This reply was modified 2 months, 2 weeks ago by Auburn.
    • This reply was modified 2 months, 2 weeks ago by Auburn.
    • This reply was modified 2 months, 2 weeks ago by Auburn.
    • This reply was modified 2 months, 2 weeks ago by Auburn.
    • This reply was modified 2 months, 2 weeks ago by Auburn.
    Auburn
    Keymaster
    • Type: TiNe
    • Development: l--l
    • Attitude: Adaptive

    R / G as Unified Agendas

    Also I’d like to address one quick detail in the diagrams above. At first glance it may seem that “Radial” and “Gravitic” describe things moreso from the point of view of the biotic angle: Fi and Fe respectively. And although that has something to do with it, this isn’t entirely correct. The biotic dimension does seem to provide more life-impetus than the abiotic, which guides the living trajectory of the organism more as a whole, but it couldn’t do this alone — it’s a mutual activity.

    Radial would not be radial if R+ (Te) did not act upon the world. Radiation would just stop at Fi’s unbridled radiation if it wasn’t for Te moving reality along in that vector. And with Te’s aide, Fi/Te can, as a whole, radiate out into the world in the way it chooses.

    Likewise G would not be gravitic if G+ (Fe) sensed the call of the attractor, but did not have a compass to course-correct its navigation process. Ti (G-) lead types are also driven towards the ‘problem’ of this elusive objective (willed/conscious) attractor, albeit from a more essentialist and definitional place; aiming to cognitively ‘grasp’ it along with everything else.

    Practiacally speaking, Ti’s (G-) task in the pair is to make sure that the course of their pursuit of abstract Fe (G+) questions is conceptually pure, true and monistically sound. It therefore functions more as a ‘standard’, a compass and editor of mistakes along the navigation of G+ toward the attractor. G- is not the life-impetus process, it’s a passive compass that mainly subtracts what it sees as falsehoods in the larger G oscillation. In both Radial and Gravitic cases, it is Je that is moving them forward. But in both cases, it is the Ji compass helping define (R-) what ‘forward’ is, or refine (G-) what ‘forward’ is.

    (But I should also mention that this unified agenda manifests the most when both functions are consciously engaged. As with V and M, R and G describe the ‘total’ activity of the systems. If a person is repressing one side of the oscillation, this won’t be experienced quite the same and the isolated definitions of the poles come into play instead.)

    • This reply was modified 2 months, 2 weeks ago by Auburn.
    • This reply was modified 2 months, 2 weeks ago by Auburn.
    • This reply was modified 2 months, 2 weeks ago by Auburn.
    • This reply was modified 2 months, 2 weeks ago by Auburn.
    • This reply was modified 2 months, 2 weeks ago by Auburn.
    Rua
    Moderator
    • Type: NeTi
    • Development: ll-l
    • Attitude: Adaptive

    Very happy to see ‘J’ targeted more precisely and stripped of overt political affiliations. These visuals are extremely helpful in conceptualizing what you’re describing here.

    While I understand that G’s nature as gravitic might imply an explicit connection to the ‘Attractor’, a change to its visual representation could be helpful. From my understanding, the attractor can’t be fundamentally detached from a G user’s cognition; its conception as a separate body is characteristic of the dominant gravitational pull it exerts on the rest of G. Making the gravitational influence it has visible might clear up any confusion, as in the current iteration it could be seen as separate from G itself, which I’m assuming is not the intention of the model.

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

    @rua ^ right!

    It would be more coherent like this. Here, the arrows are now pointing to the star which is nonetheless held within the structure, but along the final vector space. Yes this feels right, especially in light of the IF article, where I mention that a variant of G exists that is pious “In Relation to a Self-Crafted Object.” Thus, the object [attractor] can also be acknowledged as self-crafted (within-the-mind).

    And whether we wish to say that all G types self-craft the star, or whether it truly exists outside, is a theological question better left unknown — since I don’t wanna cross theological lines, any more than I want to cross political problems. Putting the attractor within the structure also retains the G structure within phenomenology. But at the same time, to those who have a theological bent, it doesn’t omit the possibility that the existence of the attractor within them is isomorphic to an extrinsic attractor.

    Yes! Agh, this was actually bugging me– and now it’s like when you snap that last puzzle piece into place. Thank you for pointing it out Rua.

     

    • This reply was modified 2 months, 2 weeks ago by Auburn.
    • This reply was modified 2 months, 2 weeks ago by Auburn.
    • This reply was modified 2 months, 2 weeks ago by Auburn.
    Auburn
    Keymaster
    • Type: TiNe
    • Development: l--l
    • Attitude: Adaptive

    I am also testing this modelling at the extremes, to see if it holds up. One extreme would be to try to imagine a G type who happens to have an internal belief system that coincides very much with how an R type would have their own. And this is what we see:

    What we see here is a situation in which the G type doesn’t have just one self-crafted object/value, but five. And lets say that practically speaking they’re the same key five values that are also held by a close R type friend:

    ^ What we see here is an R type who’s radial extension spans out in the same five directions. And yet, the difference is clear. It’s the difference between push and pull. It doesn’t matter if the values are the same, but the “how” of abiding by them is inverse. The R type has these values as a property of the compass, and the G type has these values as an object-vector derived conclusion, or set of conclusions.

    The manner in which they go about the values will also be different. The G type will still aim to confirm their own biotic vectors (verbs/acts) according to said values, in a sort of act of self-transmutation. J+ ‘orders’ vectors according to the [ Ideal ]. The value ‘out there’ needs to be ‘met’ by qualia control.

    Oppositely, the R type will emanate out according to the compass values, and aim to have reality meet them through R+ mechanistic order.

    Problem: R type self-change

    This leaves open one question though, which is the way R types handle self-change. We cannot say that only G types work on ‘character’. Moral work is another one of those things, like politics and theology, that I need to avoid prejudicing things towards. And I believe this structure can address that point as well.

    It’s certainly possible for R types to change the location their values are pointing. But, like a laser beam, change of trajectory is contingent on the starting positions of the emanations. So, in the metaphor above of the 5 pointed star of the R type, the central star may change itself by an act of will, so that the radiation shape changes. Not being an R type, I don’t know to what degree this can be done, but I imagine R types who don’t “like who they are” can find ways to change that, and as a result also their radiated values.

    ///

    This difference in method — push or pull — necessarily leads to different strategies being more common. A good example of this can be seen in TiNe (Gm-) Amy Cuddy, who writes about Power Poses and using a “Fake it ’til you become it” strategy. This is a type of outside-in self-transmutation, where one’s biotic vectors (one’s “character”) is changed rather pragmatically by doing things that would change the character through the course of doing them. Once again I have to be careful here and not draw 1:1 relationships between behaviors/strategies and R & G. But it does seem more common for G types to find this sort of solution.

    And on the opposite side of things, we have TeSi (Rm+) Martha Beck advocating for purifying oneself back into the ‘right form’, a kind of essentialist perfect ‘you’. With books like: “Finding Your Way in a Wild New World: Reclaim Your True Nature to Create the Life You Want.” The idea here being that we go astray from our true north, and that’s why we dislike ourselves. And the solution is to get back to it. Not to ‘become’ something, but to ‘un-become’ what one was distorted away from.

    (Again, these are just statistically common messages and motifs I see manifest in R and G types. But what ultimately defines R and G types is the structures/diagrams above. A G type may wish to return to an original shape as well, but that original shape will never be the Radial structure above. It may be more like an R- circles based star that the biotic arrows conform to. Although, I’ll have to leave that matter for another post.)

    • This reply was modified 2 months, 2 weeks ago by Auburn.
    • This reply was modified 2 months, 2 weeks ago by Auburn.
    • This reply was modified 2 months, 2 weeks ago by Auburn.
    • This reply was modified 2 months, 2 weeks ago by Auburn.
    • This reply was modified 2 months, 2 weeks ago by Auburn.
    • This reply was modified 2 months, 2 weeks ago by Auburn.
Viewing 6 posts - 1 through 6 (of 6 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

© Copyright 2012-2020 J.E. Sandoval
SEE HERE FOR MORE INFORMATION

DISCLAIMER

The content on this site is not
intended for medical advice, diagnosis,
or treatment. Always seek the advice
of your physician or other qualified
health provider with questions you
may have regarding a medical condition.
For more information visit this link.

SHARE: FACEBOOK, SUPPORT: PATREON