There's gonna be quite a few entries coming soon, so rather than making a lot of threads in the coming weeks, I'm going to consolidate the roadmap up towards Model 1's completion all in this thread. 🙂 The completion of Model 1 will be marked by the completion of all needed articles. And once all the articles are written, they'll all go through a final editing phase before being consolidated into the Practitioner Manual for Psychodynamics, as book 2. I'm still aiming for this to happen in late 2021, so my internal goal is to have everything done by ~November.
Okay, so... for now I have these two edits to show:
The Model 1 homepage has now been greatly expanded to include all necessary theory components. I'm hoping this page can be a good first-stop click for newcomers now. There won't be any more components to Model 1, as development levels + emotional attitudes + compound functions answers 99% of all cases.
And I also reworked the language of the compound functions quite a bit. They will definitely be part of Model 1, since they're essential for Model 1's theoretical completion. Without it, the issue of the 'unavailable' functions is left unaddressed. So this finally ties together everything in a way that answers all key questions.
The compound functions aren't really an addition to CT, since it's been implicit in our approach to the functions from the very beginning -- but this needs to be made explicit in order to address the wider Jungian conversation across the world. I still gotta write out all the individual profiles of the compound functions though. I'm excited for that.
edit: Also, you'll notice that Emotional Attitudes have been slightly reframed. This is because the new reports now independently measure the strength of agreeableness and disagreeableness, rather than pivoting them against each other in an either-or sense. So the results can look more like this:
Previously, a person was either classed as "seelie" or "unseelie, or as "adaptive" or "directive", as if one could not be strong in both at once, or weak in both at once. But this has proven to be not how the vultology and psychology manifests in people. Instead, it seems that a person can either be high in both attitudes or low in both attitudes. A person low in both attitudes is low on emotionality in general, and a person high in both is very emotional in both directions and can alternate between them easily.
Copy-pasting the text from the Alias article here:
In the CT models, an alias is a non-literal term used to describe a cognitive function or group of functions working together. An alias operates as a nickname or laymen shorthand to refer to an otherwise technical concept, with the purpose of allowing for more personable communication. However, these alias should not be confused with the use of these terms in other domains of academia, where they may have different meanings.
The following are examples of aliases in the models, and how their CT meanings differ from meanings which may exist in other disciplines.
The term platonism is used as an alias for G- or Ti. The term is itself an abbreviation for J- (Ji) essentialism + abiotic (T), which gives us "abiotic essentialism." Thus, what is meant by platonism is identical to abiotic essentialism. Abiotic essentialism is a mode of thought which seeks to isolate essential definitions through a remote, non-anthropomorphic ontology. Here, being-ness is impersonal. Even if the topic at hand is a person, they will be described in a platonic fashion - as though from a textbook or dictionary.
The term animism is the counterpart to platonism, as an abbreviation for "biotic essentialism," which is R- or Fi. Biotic essentialism is likewise seeking essential definitions, but not by depersonalizing or describing matters remotely. Instead, the definitions given include a biotic ontology of the topic, registering it as animate.
However, since these are alias, we do not mean that Fi/Te users cannot generate platonic concepts, when we use the academic definition of platonic. Philosophers and mathematicians of both Fe/Ti and Te/Fi axes make use of platonic principles in their work often. In CT, the term platonism is simply a convenient shorthand for G-/Ti's operation, and is not literally equivalent to platonic thought as described in other literature. The combined activity of both functions in an axes can produce both forms of information in both types.
The term mechanics is used as an alias for R+ or Te. The term is itself an abbreviation for J+ (Je) causality + abiotic (T). What is meant by mechanics here is abiotic causality, which seeks to recognize causalities (Je) remotely (T), with an impersonal ontology. As such, R+/Te registers cause and effect in a clinical fashion, as inanimate, robotic operations.
The term teleology is used as an alias for G+ or Fe. The term is itself an abbreviation for J+ (Je) causality + biotic (F). What is meant by teleology here is biotic causality, which is to say cause and effect infused with intent, purpose and will. The causality registered by R+/Fe itself is 'aiming' for a given outcome, as though willfully moving in a vector towards a 'someplace.'
Naturally, R+/Fe can also register the "mechanics" of things, if we take the general sense of the word. This does not mean that R+/Fe is non-mechanical in its thoughts, if we take that to mean it fails to produce accurate causal sequences. Indeed, many R+/Fe types excel as engineers, but the processes are never without willful purpose. CT's connection of Te with the alias mechanics and Fe with teleology, is meant only to highlight the different flavors that both processes have, in how they treat causality as abiotic or biotic respectively.
The term actuality is used as an alias for V+ or Se. The term itself is an abbreviation for P+ (Pe) real-time + discrete (S). What is meant by actuality here is "discrete real-time," which is a mode of registering the present moment (whether concrete or conceptual) by a recursive re-focus on the directness of what it is, without distraction or diversion. It is called actuality because it is focused on what is 'actual', or present in an non-compromised or unmodified manner.
The term potentiality is used as an alias for M+ or Ne. The term itself is an abbreviation for P+ (Pe) real-time + intersectional (N). What is meant by potentiality here is "real-time intersectionality", which is to say the crisscrossing of information in the "here and now," to produce new objects. It is called potentiality because it is focused on what could emerge from the intersection of real-time objects, at the partial expense of the actuality of objects.
Naturally, all individuals exist in the immediate, actual present. The designation of actuality to V+/Se does not exclude M+/Ne types from having an experience of the present. Technically, both are 'actual' processes by virtue of being real-time, and both also pursue 'potential' by virtue of being exploratory and curious. The grammatical distinction here serves only to highlight the additional emphasis both processes have in their respective domains.
The term locality is used as an alias for M- or Si. The term itself is an abbreviation for P- (Pi) time/coordinates + discrete (S). Thus, what is meant by locality is "discrete coordinates" or "discrete time." Being a P-/Pi process, Si stores information as spatiotemporal coordinates, but it does so with definite, static placements -- in other words, "local." Locality, in this sense, means "in a given place at a given time" and nowhere else.
The term trans-locality is used as an alias for V- or Ni. The term itself is an abbreviation for P- (Pi) time/coordinates + intersectional (N). Thus, what is meant by trans-locality is "intersectional coordinates" or "intersectional time." Being a P-/Pi process, Ni stores information as spatiotemporal coordinates, but it does so across datasets (as intersecting arrays) rather than by a finite, local set of coordinates. The "trans" in trans-local means that it traverses across, or intersects, locations. It is not in any one location, yet it is "located" within the sum of the intersections themselves.
Hi @Auburn, I'm enjoying seeing these progress. I have a few quick thoughts on some of them.
Previously, a person was either classed as “seelie” or “unseelie, or as “adaptive” or “directive”, as if one could not be strong in both at once, or weak in both at once. But this has proven to be not how the vultology and psychology manifests in people. Instead, it seems that a person can either be high in both attitudes or low in both attitudes. A person low in both attitudes is low on emotionality in general, and a person high in both is very emotional in both directions and can alternate between them easily.
This makes sense & seems like an excellent innovation... I'm curious if you have any contrasting examples you could share of people who are high/low in these domains.
While I relate a lot to I+F as temperament, attitudes, this partial IF profile reads like a description of an unhealthy Enneagram 1. I don't relate much to it at all, as I've already tried to explain elsewhere. As a youth, I tried to force myself to believe many things I "thought" were ethical, but if they grated against deeply-held/unarticulated beliefs, they were unsustainable. A huge part of coming into my own, as a young adult, was working out beliefs that adhere (or at least, don't conflict) with my more viscerally, deeply-held ethical values--which I'm assuming were probably largely formed in early childhood or something like that.
So, yes, I've had an ongoing process of "ethical construction," but it's also a process that relies heavily on direct experience & deeply-felt beliefs. These direct experiences & deeply-felt beliefs provide quite general guidelines. This, while I have a decent amount of intellectual latitude for this kind of ethical exploration & construction, I've learned that whatever conflicts with my more visceral sense of things will not last.
In the end, I strongly believe using "direct" ethical information (e.g. sourced from the emotions) is a universal human quality, even if Fi's tend to operate more heavily on that basis. Conversely, I suspect that using the intellect for finer-scale ethical realignment is also quite universal.
I'm not sure I've expressed this very well, but this is the best I can do for now.
This profile is much better than the IF one--I can relate to most of it. I've long noticed that I often have a steep learning curve at first when I'm trying to learn a new activity (relative to others I see), but that after I have enough reference points, the learning will become a lot easier & more self-perpetuating. Another tendency I have, perhaps related to Ne's directionless improvisation described here, is that I'm generally terrible at following step-by-step directions when I'm learning something new. If I'm trying to follow instructions, I'll feel like I'm just acting by rote in a meaningless way, since I don't yet have a map of what I'm doing in my head. So instead, I'll just tend to fumble around till I have enough reference points that I have a more gestalt & portable knowledge of the activity.
Here, too, I found some parts of the article a bit extreme & overstated. For example:
With ES, Si's expertise is far more domain-restricted, causing the learning curve to be steeper upon jumping to a new territory, even if a largely adjacent one.
Well, if it's an adjacent domain to something I already know, it's generally pretty easy to extend out the reference points from those other activities. If you think about Pi as a map, all you have to have is a few adjacent points, or a sense of continuity, to extend it outward. If I have experience in enough different adjacent domains, a lot of times it's really not difficult to pick up a new activity. In that case, I can basically know how to do something even before I've actually done it.
The directionless fumbling comes from being unable to connect a particular sense of activity or movement to past experience in any meaningful way.
That said, I suspect that what constitutes an "adjacent domain" for Ne-Si is a little bit more local & concrete--it might be more "translocal" for an Se-Ni user.
i've been meaning to talk to you about your latest video. there's something important to note in it. give me a few hours and i'll have something to show you.
Partial Pages -
This completes the first drafts of the compound functions!
Now, as with anything in CT I intend to back this all up with data, so I hope to make followup threads showcasing these compounds in action in our database samples.
It's important that CT does not fall into rationalizations -- which 8 function models are notorious for -- but that it explains each theoretical addition from the data. I do believe these compounds can be shown to be objective realities, rather than purely speculative symmetries.
And I'm excited to get to that next. 🙂