NiTe – Teal Swan & The Ego

Home Page Forums Vultology & Learning Center NiTe – Teal Swan & The Ego

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

    @thanatesque – I may have found a close twin shade of you:

    NiTe, Teal Swan has a whole channel dedicated to Ni mysticism, and is positioned as a guru in her own right. You can view her channel here.

    The Ego

    This video about the ego is quite interesting to me. I see the ego having other vital functions in the psyche aside from self-protection, so I find her a bit more condemning of it than is necessary, but I do think she’s generally right about the negative consequences it can have.

    From a CT perspective, it appears the ego gets most associated with either the N/T/S/F function and that is where the self-identity rests. And it does seem motivated partly by a need to see oneself in a certain way.

    An “F” ego will focus on their own characteristics as an ethical person, and repress their own moments of insensitivity and interpersonal neglect. A “T” ego person will see themselves as someone capable of making decisions unencumbered by the befuddling appendage that is the human heart, able to retain a level head in all situations. An “N” ego person will see themselves as a harbinger of unknown wisdom from the unconscious, deriving rapport and a sense of value from viewing themselves as such. An “S” ego person will see themselves as realistic, practical, not lost in la-la-land and therefore wiser than those who allow themselves to be swept away by the unseen.

    Thoughts on Mistyping Patterns via Ego Functions

    Men in many cultures often have a “T” ego, due to the need to see themselves as level-headed. Lay typologists often have an “N” ego and find refuge in typology for the validation it gives that ego image. It allows them to preserve a self-concept of higher importance by weaving together a story of “Why I was not understood in the world.” The reason, they infer, is that they are intuitive and others aren’t, and so they see things in a way others don’t, which is why they are outcast and misunderstood.

    I’ve also seen the ego in “I”, where people write an ego-validating narrative of themselves which paints their social shortcomings positively as an aspect of their introverted idiosyncrasies. These usually have a picture of introversion that is synonymous with social incompetence. A bit more sophisticated are some who have an image of introversion as the need to recharge soon after an interaction, whether it was gracefully handled or not, but the reasoning is not much better.

    The ego is one of the biggest obstacles to viewing oneself properly, and is one of the biggest reasons for mistypings.

    The Standard MBTI as Ego-based Typology

    Now, without aiming to cast any shade on the Myers Briggs system, but simply trying to describe it as a social phenomenon (as it is, involving millions of people across the globe), I feel inclined to say it’s structural design lends itself to this ego projection. Indeed, one may argue it is predicated on it, since the standard MBTI gives the final verdict to the subject themselves and notes that they should define their type by “their preferences.”

    Therefore the standard 4-letter-code that most of us first came to affiliate with is a reflection of our ego or self-image/self-preferences, since that is essentially how the architecture of the model works. Your friend doesn’t take the test for you, answering questions about who you are. You take it yourself, according to your own self-perception.

    With what I’m doing with CT I’m particularly interested in the ego for how it interferes with the underlying metabolism we have, which can run so very counter to how we view ourselves along these flatter attitudinal dichotomies.

    General questions:

    • What has been your ego journey?
    • What attitude has felt most like you, and why do you think you may have come to affiliate with it so heavily?

    Also bear in mind there’s no shame with having an ego somewhere. As I said I think there’s a valuable side to the ego which she seems to be neglecting. I think it’s unavoidable to have one, yet becoming aware of where it is, is probably best for our overall well-being.

     

    • This topic was modified 1 year, 6 months ago by Auburn.
    • This topic was modified 1 year, 6 months ago by Auburn.
    • This topic was modified 1 year, 6 months ago by Auburn.
    • This topic was modified 1 year, 6 months ago by Auburn.
    • This topic was modified 1 year, 6 months ago by Auburn.
    • This topic was modified 1 year, 6 months ago by Auburn.
    • This topic was modified 1 year, 6 months ago by Auburn.
    • This topic was modified 1 year, 6 months ago by Auburn.
    Thana
    Participant
    • Type: NiTe
    • Development: lll-
    • Attitude: Unseelie

    Ooooohhh ? 🙂 and I will respond later

    • This reply was modified 1 year, 6 months ago by Thana.
    Hrafn
    Participant
    • Type: SiFe
    • Development: l-ll
    • Attitude: Adaptive

    Argh, I just wrote a reply to this and it got eaten up by the scroll-wheel on the mouse I’m using! I think I remember what I wanted to say though.

    I’ve been wondering about and interested in this topic for quite a while, and I still have some curiostities about it. I guess the first thing is that I’m assuming “ego” refers to the same sort of self-image-construction as does “temperment,” no? Yet unlike with temperament, which tracks where someone falls into each of three dichotomies, ego seems more like a “pick one of four” kind of scenario:

    From a CT perspective, it appears the ego gets most associated with either the N/T/S/F function and that is where the self-identity rests. And it does seem motivated partly by a need to see oneself in a certain way.

    I’m just curious about why this is, and whether it necessarily has to be the case? I would say my ego definitely rests toward the P side of the scale, but as best I can tell, it seems to sort of bobble about in the space between S & N.

    The other thing I’ve been wondering about relates to the topic of ego and self-image–it seems to me like these are complex and multi-layered. I have sort of an absurd anecdote to help explain what I mean here. When I was about 11, my mom once told me that I was an introvert, and we had a discussion about what an introvert was. I gladly accepted the label, so from that age, my self-image included an association with the word “introvert.” However, in other ways my self-image during that period of my life was pretty ENT. I had a lot of nerdy hobbies involving imaginative engagement with the objective world. I was socially inept–more than I even recognized at the time–but I wasn’t really withdrawn. At times I even got into trouble because of my loud mouth. When I was about 14, our teachers had us take some MBTI-knockoff test, and I actually “cheated” on it. As I was filling in the bubbles, it dawned on me what the “E” and “I” on the test stood for. I saw that I was responding in a way that was about to peg me as an Extrovert, whereas I considered myself an “Introvert”. So I went back and reevaluated some of my responses to get a score I was happier with. (The irony, of course, is that it turns out I actually was an introvert).

    My point is that self-image can be multi-layered an contradictory. At the most superficial level, I identified with being an “introvert.” Yet at a slightly deeper level, I had internalized lots of the traits that are associated with extroversion.

    I remember a kid I went to high school with who was probably a double-extrovert, likely an NeTi I-I-. He was outgoing, talked fast & lots, and was generally very active. There was an almost spring-loaded quality about him, like the slightest prompting would cause him to bounce into a flurry of speech & motion. Nonetheless, he identified as an “introvert.” Now, I can’t speak to the countours of his ego, but let’s imagine we could get a holistic glimpse of the ins & outs of who he saw himself to be…Somehow I doubt that would correspond all that neatly with Introversion, however defined.

    Now, I’m certainly not saying that because he was a double extrovert, he can’t possibly have had an introverted ego. I’m sure it’s possible for a double-extrovert to genuinely see themselves as introverted. It’s just that I would anticipate that it would somehow or other manifest itself in their personas. Otherwise having an introverted ego would mean little more than facile identification with a label. “Introversion” is sexy right now in popular culture, and a lot of people identify as introverts. But does this mean that all of a sudden, lots more people have internalized the traits of introversion in any meaningful way? I dunno, somehow I doubt it…

    I feel like there definitely are examples of twin shades who have identical vultologies but markedly different personas and kinds of talent/skill/knowledge. I’m guessing this difference is a result of self-image and ego-association, but expressed in a holistic, longitudinal and deeply-rooted way. Edward Witten and Mr. Rogers are both male SiTe seelie I—‘s, sans flat affect–they’d probably score close to 100% on the matching algorithm. Now, I don’t know too much about either of their biographies, but Mr. Rogers definitely seems to have an F persona, whereas Edward Witten seems a lot more T-ish. George W. Bush is the same shade of SiTe, but comes off as more S. Now, it’s possible I’m just stereotyping. But at the very least, I know that someone doesn’t become a theoretical physicist, like Edward Witten, on the basis of cognitive talent alone–it requires a single-minded and long-lasting devotion to the topic, an overriding sense of “this is who I am and what I do.” In that way, it seems to me like it’s quite connected to the ego. It’s hard to imagine, say, George W. Bush becoming an Edward Witten-like figure because he woke up one morning, took an MBTI test and began identifying strongly with the idea of “T-ness.”

    Finally, I’m definitely not trying to suggest that people cannot credibly identify their own egos or self-images. I actually believe very strongly in the legitimacy, and even sanctity, of self-knowledge. I believe there are always going to be things that people know about themselves that others don’t have access to. I’m not saying that people know themselves better than others know them–it seems like an apple-orange comparison; the two things seem like different sorts of knowledge. However, I don’t believe that self-knowledge lends itself to neat encapsulation within external structures (e.g. typologies). When I consider my own self-image, for example, I could talk on & on about my different traits for hours, but I also recognize myself as someone with many conflicting & paradoxical qualities, making it difficult to sort myself neatly into just one category. So I guess the long & short of it is that I feel like people should be respected as the ultimate arbiters of their own egos/self images, but that it also shouldn’t be immune to questioning–“do they really see themself in that light, or is it possible they’re merely drawn to the label?”

    • This reply was modified 1 year, 6 months ago by Hrafn.
    • This reply was modified 1 year, 6 months ago by Hrafn.
    • This reply was modified 1 year, 6 months ago by Hrafn.
    Hrafn
    Participant
    • Type: SiFe
    • Development: l-ll
    • Attitude: Adaptive

    One more thought on this….In the sense that ego means something like “the overarching story I tell myself about who I am,” I feel like my ego is more like a pattern of relationships to all four of my different functions (or perhaps even to all eight that are floating around in collective consciousness) rather than a fixation on only one of them. I perceive these relationships as complex, nuanced and variable rather than binary or easily quantifiable.

    On the one hand, that’s not to say I don’t associate the attributes of one function with myself more strongly than the others. But on the other, my internal experience is fluid & holistic–it’s not chopped up into blocks of Si, Fe, Ti & Ne. So I feel like the story I tell myself is more context-dependent–in certain situations, I might naturally tend to champion one function’s attributes. But in other situations, maybe I would feel annoyed by that function and seek solace from a different one. If the first function kept nagging at me, perhaps my self-esteem might suffer, or perhaps I might grow to accept it and give it a more deliberate role.

    It just occurred to me–I hope this thread wasn’t specifically meant for talking about NiTe things.

    • This reply was modified 1 year, 6 months ago by Hrafn.
    • This reply was modified 1 year, 6 months ago by Hrafn.
    • This reply was modified 1 year, 6 months ago by Hrafn.
    Elisa Day
    Participant
    • Type: TiSe
    • Development: ll--
    • Attitude: Adaptive

    Her videos are great. She’s so sultry! Her ego video is new to me today, but she basically summed up many of last year’s lessons of mine and covered all the bases. Ego is more than building up personal significance through pride, but also false modesty and tearing others down.

    “An “F” ego will focus on their own characteristics as an ethical person, and repress their own moments of insensitivity and interpersonal neglect. A “T” ego person will see themselves as someone capable of making decisions unencumbered by the befuddling appendage that is the human heart, able to retain a level head in all situations. An “N” ego person will see themselves as a harbinger of unknown wisdom from the unconscious, deriving rapport and a sense of value from viewing themselves as such. An “S” ego person will see themselves as realistic, practical, not lost in la-la-land and therefore wiser than those who allow themselves to be swept away by the unseen.”

    Based on this it would be difficult for me to relate to “F” ego because my identity is fixated on perceptions of lifelong relationship challenges, conflict, alienation, ostracization, and isolation. However, I’m beginning to realize that these ego perceptions have lead to an overcompensation in accommodation, self-sacrifice, and consideration.

    There’s no way I would have ever ego identified with “T.” Perhaps this is a false modesty mask, but one thing I was always certain about is that I don’t make level-headed, logical decisions. Everyone around me made that abundantly clear. It’s possible that being female caused people to assume this about me and made me see it as an acceptable ego choice, but I also used to judge “T” people harshly for what I perceived as being heartless at the time.

    As a kid I would have definitely chosen the “S” ego as my preferred identity. By the age of 5 I would argue with my religious peers against the idea of the existence of God Sam Harris style. Yet I would also wear worry doll pouches around my neck, make wishes upon them, and put them under my pillow at night to carry my wishes into my subconscious. My parents bought me pendulum crystals and Ouija boards, but this was just typical parent stuff that I had to rebel against. ISFP was the first type I ever chose for myself based on Kiersey temperaments because I thought the N descriptions sounded nerdy and pretentious. Later on I changed to N after being told my art was mystical and shamanistic. This came as a shock to me, but I began noticing this side of myself and synchronicities were happening everywhere. Celebrities were showing up in my dreams and sending me personal messages through lyrics that sent me on uniquely significant spiritual quests. Recently I realized this was all just ego, and the danger of art school is they use narcissistic supply to trap those most vulnerable to its seductive promises of fame. Now I think I bounce back and forth between “S” and “N” ego depending on the day, but I see the value in “N” more than ever and no longer think of it as nerdy parent stuff. In fact I see value in all of the functions and can see a place for them all within my ego, but without the help of typology that probably would have been more difficult.

    • This reply was modified 1 year, 6 months ago by Elisa Day.
    Animal
    Participant
    • Type: SeFi
    • Development: lll-
    • Attitude: Unseelie

    Lay typologists often have an “N” ego and find refuge in typology for the validation it gives that ego image. It allows them to preserve a self-concept of higher importance by weaving together a story of “Why I was not understood in the world.” The reason, they infer, is that they are intuitive and others aren’t, and so they see things in a way others don’t, which is why they are outcast and misunderstood.

     

    I’m definitely N ego, but I have never fallen prey to this type of thinking. The idea that 1/4 of the world is N first, means right away it isn’t special.  Same with enneagram types.  My ego tells me 😉 that being special involves something way beyond embodying a type in a system invented by a third party.

    The problem lies with the definitions of Se and Si – which are not always so great. Jung’s Si was a bit better and more abstract, but his Se was not something most people would pin on someone like me.

    When I first got into typology, I was focused on learning enneagram and allowed others to type my functions if they wanted.  I was advised right away that I had to be “N dom.” People argued whether I was Ne or Ni; I went with “tentatively NFP” although I never related to a Ne description, but Fi seemed better.

    The minute I looked into functions myself, I said “Nope, Se. I’m ISFP.”  I typed as ISFP for a couple years, only to be told by others that I had a false conception of myself, that I was such an obvious intuitor.  The pressure became so great that I started wondering: what if I really am seeing myself wrongly?  By the time I got here, I was considering both FeNi and FiSe.

    I do have some reasons for reconsidering Se.  I’m more about inner passions, music etc – than anything worldly.  I’m more in my heart and art than in my body.  I don’t care for food or “hookups” without romance and connection.  I’m no good at sports, I suck at drawing and dancing no matter how hard I try, and I am not cut out for stunts either. Cars, physical items etc; don’t hold power for me.  I need my living space  and clothes to reflect my inner world so that my lifestyle is conducive to my creative and spiritual endeavors, but I don’t need to “have expensive items” or collect nick nacks. Nothing material or body-oriented is my focus; I don’t even like to cook, or wear makeup or heels.

    But I figured I was a sensor because I’m a kinetic learner. I learn by doing, I think with my hands.  I’m a vessel through which passion emerges. When I’m playing or listening to music, I am the song.  My body is a canvas through which to express my inner self. Aesthetics are essential to my being.  For most of my life, I obsessed over tangible projects that I poured my soul into – albums, novels, videos.  I find music, art, and anecdotal stories much more natural than describing anything in words.  Socially, I’m much more natural in person than online. I talk much less, but communicate much more. I read people through body language, feel their feelings and sense their state of mind and inner life.

    I thought for these reasons I’d be a sensor, but the reason I didn’t type as Se first is because of being told (many times, correctly) that I suck at anything physical or visual. My parents make fun of me for being clumsy, awkward in my body and not knowing what looks good on me, and I internalized this, even though many others have appreciated my style. My mother did point out that when I would invent a certain style and wear it to school, others would copy; I was a trendsetter. But from my pov, I wasn’t noticing trends; I was simply expressing my inner self. So I figured, FiSe; based on how I’ve acted in my life.

    The only reason I considered N is because I was bullied and wrankled on several forums 😀  and I eventually caved into the idea that maybe I wasn’t seeing myself correctly and ought to consider other options.  I understood too well that it’s difficult to see yourself objectively, since so many people mistyped – and I did not see myself as ‘above’ mistyping; as it’s unrealistic.

    Perhaps my Se-Te ‘realism’ plays into my typing process too. “Why would N make someone special if 1/4 of the world is N dominant?” and “Real life experience has shown me people have trouble seeing themselves clearly” – are part of my thinking pattern when typing myself.   Also, S types have a better chance of being noticeably ‘special’ because at least, that archetype would give us the edge on expressing our inner uniqueness through our appearance 🙂  And this is why I personally don’t fall prey to such trains of thought, even if I can still be wrong.  I’ll ask myself, how do these functions and categories play out in the real world?

    • This reply was modified 1 year, 6 months ago by Animal.
    • This reply was modified 1 year, 6 months ago by Animal.
    • This reply was modified 1 year, 6 months ago by Animal.
    • This reply was modified 1 year, 6 months ago by Animal.
    • This reply was modified 1 year, 6 months ago by Animal.
    • This reply was modified 1 year, 6 months ago by Animal.
    • This reply was modified 1 year, 6 months ago by Animal.
    • This reply was modified 1 year, 6 months ago by Animal.
    • This reply was modified 1 year, 6 months ago by Animal.
    • This reply was modified 1 year, 6 months ago by Animal.
    • This reply was modified 1 year, 6 months ago by Animal.
    • This reply was modified 1 year, 6 months ago by Animal.
    Animal
    Participant
    • Type: SeFi
    • Development: lll-
    • Attitude: Unseelie

    From another thread:
    I’m SeFi with Ni ego, and my father is NiFe with Se ego.  His Se is developed. My Ni is versatile, and shows up a little, but not yet fully conscious.

    The basic implication is that he values being a realist, and doesn’t care about that which isn’t evident to the senses; yet he picks up all the underlying trends in the world and can articulate them with tremendous depth.

    I value spirituality, cosmic rhythm and the underlying trends in the world, but I pick them up kinetically and experientially, by being part of movements (whether it be online or irl) and extrapolating trends correctly from the patterns that occur thereof.

    I learn kinetically, by being ‘immersed’ in the rhythm of the world, he learns more through observation and collecting information. At the same time, both of us equally value information that we experience with our own eyes. For instance he is not the type to get caught up on academic bullshit that he hasn’t experienced himself; he always sees trends as they apply to reality that he has personally experienced.

    For Se/Ni, there’s a sense of ‘as above, so below.’  What occurs here, is a pattern; and that same pattern occurs ‘out there’ – in another culture, another species, another dimension etc, ad nauseum. My father has more nuance in breaking down the trends whereas I have more nuance in being a vessel through which they emerge – representing them moment to moment through clothes, music, anecdotal stories like fiction writing and characters; “showing” not  telling.  My father can “tell you” how it works with tremendous nuance, and I can show you with tremendous nuance.  Yet he values doing & producing & creating, and I value the observation and contemplation of underlying trends, and applying them in a more cosmic/spiritual way.

    • This reply was modified 1 year, 6 months ago by Animal.
    • This reply was modified 1 year, 6 months ago by Animal.
    • This reply was modified 1 year, 6 months ago by Animal.
    Animal
    Participant
    • Type: SeFi
    • Development: lll-
    • Attitude: Unseelie

    As a third point: Teal Swan is full of ego. She’s a false prophet. She runs a cult, worships her own beauty and encouraged clients to kill themselves in the past.  She is not beyond her ego, and telling others to transcend theirs is just nonsense.

    A lot of people have an ‘ego in having no ego.’  In enneagram there are two types that do this most often: 5 and 9.  Enneagram 5 has an ego wrapped up in non-attachment, and 9 has an ‘ego in no-ego,’ the idea of ‘premature enlightenment.’

    In my experience, typology attracts more 5s and 9s than other types, and I hypothesize this may be one reason why.  Typology gives them a structure through which they can convince themselves that they’ve transcended their ego or become detached from their emotions.  Other types have egos in other places; fours like me, have ego in having a unique expression or pov, being deep and having our own identity and separate personal mythology.  Fours can be attracted to the idea of mythologizing their suffering through tales related to type, but it’s less attractive to some unhealthy fours, arguably, because the typologies aim toward dismantling any identity construct.  For fives and nines, they can feel superior in this arena, as they convince themselves they’ve “transcended” the entrapments of the heart, the flesh, the ego.

    Teal Swan is operating under these type of delusions. We had a long discussion about her on my forum, looking deep into her history – she is a self-promoter (3 influence) with an ‘ego in no ego,’ (9 influence), premature enlightenment. Regardless how you see her type, you can see her delusion of ‘premature enlightenment’ as ‘the 9 in all of us.’ She has fallen asleep to herself.

    She sees herself as transcendent, yet if you look at her actions she has not transcended anything. She is very self-important, struggles with relationships, obsesses over her appearance openly, has bad run-ins with clients who are hurt by her practices, is tied up in lawsuits and anxious about it. She is living in a dream world, but the difference between her dream world and ours is that hers has been marketed to many people as a reality.

    I do enjoy many of her videos, still. She’s articulate and she presents ideas that are helpful and evidently true, even if she herself is not perfect. Who is?

    Sometimes it’s easier to channel wisdom from ‘beyond yourself’ than it is to embody it. In my opinion, that does not necessarily need to stop us from imparting it but, rather, provide a path for us that we strive to follow. At the same time, there is some advice (like ‘transcending ego’ ) which is rooted in an egotistical delusion that one has transcended themselves.  So then it becomes dangerous to send people down paths you’re not willing to follow yourself  – like, advising someone to commit suicide and ‘start over’ in a new life, because they’re not attached to their ego or their life; as Teal apparently advised her follower.

    In conclusion, ego can inspire beautiful work, but can also become dangerous if we fail to understand the nature of its entrapments.

    • This reply was modified 1 year, 6 months ago by Animal.
    • This reply was modified 1 year, 6 months ago by Animal.
    • This reply was modified 1 year, 6 months ago by Animal.
    • This reply was modified 1 year, 6 months ago by Animal.
    • This reply was modified 1 year, 6 months ago by Animal.
    • This reply was modified 1 year, 6 months ago by Animal.
    • This reply was modified 1 year, 6 months ago by Animal.
    • This reply was modified 1 year, 6 months ago by Animal.
    • This reply was modified 1 year, 6 months ago by Animal.
    • This reply was modified 1 year, 6 months ago by Animal.
    • This reply was modified 1 year, 6 months ago by Animal.
    • This reply was modified 1 year, 6 months ago by Animal.
    Ivory
    Participant
    • Type: TiSe
    • Development: ll--
    • Attitude: Adaptive

    What has been your ego journey?
    What attitude has felt most like you, and why do you think you may have come to affiliate with it so heavily?

    I suspect that I had my ego invested in Sensation as a child. I just wanted to play, be a pirate and use this giant cherry tree as my ship, or be Spider-man and swing from branch to branch… I was outside a lot. I also liked to build awesome anything-at-all with Lego’s and K’nex – never following any manual, no cages for me. I wished life was more playful and adventurous, just like my imagination. Boredom was my hell.

    Come teenage years, I grew exceedingly socially anxious, and started noticing that I noticed more than others. ‘More’ or.. different things, at the least. I learned that I was less interested in what people had to say as much as how they said it; this revealed a trove of information to me about people’s fears and motives. Everybody wants something, and it usually isn’t what they say it is. Myself included. Slowly I would become more interested in ‘types’ of people and I began to observe these patterns, unaware of the field of typology. People’s reactions became predictable and my past issue of boredom got aggravated, so I ran away into video games and into online reality, whatever-the-hell-it-is-I-do-there (I don’t even know most of the time). I started to actively look for archetypal patterns in stories, mostly via fantasy and mythology, primarily with the aim to find my own archetypal role in this world. This projection of the human psyche onto stories and our collective escape from our fears began to fascinate me more and more, and it wouldn’t take long before I found the Enneagram and the MBTI and… Now I am in college, studying psychology. I have become predictable myself, at last.

    • This reply was modified 1 year, 6 months ago by Ivory.
    • This reply was modified 1 year, 6 months ago by Ivory.
    Animal
    Participant
    • Type: SeFi
    • Development: lll-
    • Attitude: Unseelie

    What has been your ego journey? What attitude has felt most like you, and why do you think you may have come to affiliate with it so heavily?

    When I was a child, I refused to watch television and didn’t have much interest in fun.  My parents told me at age 5 I was “King of the Playground” 😀 because I would come up with a fantasy story and tell all the other kids what roles to play. That fantasy world was what I really cared about.

    I couldn’t sleep at night and would tell myself long stories on my way to bed, which continued for years.  I tried to act these out with other friends as long as possible, but once I was 10 or so and too old to do this with others, I started writing them into books.

    I had symbolic dreams in childhood about fire and flying, as well as psychic dreams, which prompted my interest in reading Hermann Hesse and Carlos Casteneda.  In second grade I met a TeNi who wa invested in this stuff, so we built a magic world together.  My other friend liked watching tv and gossiping; I had no interest.

    I used music as a form of catharsis, to survive all the intensity inside me, and started writing full songs by age 8.  I became obsessed with Les Misérables, Phantom of the Opera, Miss Saigon – and the deep emotional themes thereof.  By my early teens, all I wanted to do was write and play music. I wrote two 400 page books and part of a musical featuring a prostitute and her emotional journey, contemplating the spiritual toll of beauty.

    In these early years I believe I was something between Fi and Ni ego. The psychic stuff was a ‘happenstance,’ but I was most interested in the emotional journeys of people – how they became prostitutes, if this could happen to me, what beauty really meant, how people survived in stifling societies and arranged marriages. I started writing books because I found myself more interested in experiencing these worlds and really “putting myself through them” than in participating with the relatively bland emotional experiences on Earth.  By my early teens, I had a serious music career and many songs written. I was well on my way to “making it” when my illness hit, at age 16.

    I was struck, then, with an illness that almost killed me and left me speaking in a whisper. I was left to ask myself what is the purpose of my life, if not to sing?  It’s one thing to write books, but where do I fit in on Earth?  My pipeline to humanity had been cut. I was a shitty writer despite depth of ideas; music was how I communicated with humans. My voice was the only thing that made me beautiful and helped me to share my emotions with others in a way that wouldn’t overwhelm them. Now, I was isolated, alone, condemned to be misunderstood and rejected; worse, with no way to understand myself, since my songs revealed my inner world to me bare.  And the absolute worst part was that I now lacked a sense of purpose; without the human dignity of purpose, I was nothing more than an animal.

    This prompted a deeper spiritual journey.  I studied Eastern Religion and Jung, and used much LSD and other practices to try to ‘hack into’ my subconscious and my dreams.  My interest in these studies was partly about myself, and partly about a vision that I had for fantasy novels; but I was a shitty writer and wasn’t ready to sacrifice everything to master a craft, as I had done before.  After having lost everything, the prospect of being that passionate again was too harrowing; yet nothing less would do.

    I dug deep down into my unconscious. I learned to continue dreams after waking up, to decide what to dream, to control the dreams, to replay dreams and try again to mend a situation.  I tried desperately to meet a guy I was obsessed with in my dreams, as he requested, but any time we were about to kiss I woke up in neurotic fear. I was traumatized and could not handle having anything I wanted again; for fear it would slip from my grasp. I had a lot of spiritual work to do.

    There was a deep need to explore a larger context.  What is my ‘role in the world?’ – as @Ivory phrased it.  What is the point of it all – not just my existence, but all of it.  Life, death, the cosmos?  It’s easy to say I’m a singer, more advanced to say I’m a vessel through which passion emerges, but…. so what?  Did God want me to do this, or does my ego hunger to be seen?  Will humanity benefit from it?  Will I channel something worth channeling?  What am ‘I’ anyway?

    And thus, my Ni ego was born.

    • This reply was modified 1 year, 6 months ago by Animal.
    • This reply was modified 1 year, 6 months ago by Animal.
    • This reply was modified 1 year, 6 months ago by Animal.
    Faex
    Participant
    • Type: NeFi
    • Development: ll--
    • Attitude: Seelie

    I agree, Aub, but I think the Ego is a composite, it doesn’t choose just one function. I agree with you about this:

    This video about the ego is quite interesting to me. I see the ego having other vital functions in the psyche aside from self-protection, so I find her a bit more condemning of it than is necessary, but I do think she’s generally right about the negative consequences it can have.

    The tendency to condemn the ego is I think because of the influence of Eastern thinking. As I understand it, the goal of a ton of Eastern spirituality is to annihilate all individuality. Individuality in all its degrees is something kinda ‘off’.

    I don’t subscribe to that thinking and I think Jung didn’t either. For him, the ego is simply consciousness. All in you that you can see and identify as ‘you’ is included in ego. All you can’t is the unconscious. (But we can distinguish self-concept from energetic investments, which latter is I think what you’re referring to for the most part.)

    That’s why, more and more, I’m convinced the ego is not attached to any one function but is simply the totality of what ‘feels like me’, and excludes what ‘doesn’t feel like me’, in a type. It’s a matter of awareness vs unawareness.

    I think the idea of everyone choosing their ego type is a good one. The only problem is it assumes there are no misunderstandings about the type descriptions in the first place. Sometimes a ton of ‘Not me’ complaints are more about an erroneous understanding of the descriptions/functions/types etc than a genuine ‘not-me’ scenario.

    • This reply was modified 1 year, 6 months ago by Faex.
    • This reply was modified 1 year, 6 months ago by Faex.
    Hrafn
    Participant
    • Type: SiFe
    • Development: l-ll
    • Attitude: Adaptive

    I couldn’t agree more with this!:

    I think the Ego is a composite, it doesn’t choose just one function.

    That’s why, more and more, I’m convinced the ego is not attached to any one function but is simply the totality of what ‘feels like me’, and excludes what ‘doesn’t feel like me’, in a type.

     

    … and this:

    I think the idea of everyone choosing their ego type is a good one. The only problem is it assumes there are no misunderstandings about the type descriptions in the first place. Sometimes a ton of ‘Not me’ complaints are more about an erroneous understanding of the descriptions/functions/types etc than a genuine ‘not-me’ scenario.

     

    • This reply was modified 1 year, 6 months ago by Hrafn.
    Auburn
    Keymaster
    • Type: TiNe
    • Development: l--l
    • Attitude: Adaptive

    ^ Right.
    That was part of my recent rationality for removing ‘ego’ from the matching system equation.
    It seems far more complex a matter than a preference for just one function.

    Some people have their ego in their T/F/N/S abilities, but others have in on their ethnicity, height, job, etc. It can be anything, it seems. And not everyone has an ego fix on a function.

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

    Does this mean we are viewing “ego” as an equivalent to “sense of identity?”
    As in, ego is the idea that “This is what makes me who I am?”
    Including people who feel that they “aren’t” anything because they have an ego in “no ego” or an idea of no-self as an “identity?”

    Is ‘ego’ identity?

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

    I don’t think it’s right to say that, for instance, some of my own protests to the Se description simply “Don’t feel like me.”
    I am not actually good at physical feats, never was. My mother had to explain to me in words how to tie my shoes, and I left every dance class crying because I could not copy the moves. These are facts.  I still see myself as a warrior of sorts; this is ‘ego.’  But the facts are that my actual life circumstances and talents did not match parts of the description.

    I don’t personally tend to protest to descriptions because my “feels” don’t match. I actually have always despised those methods of typing, which is why I’ve had higher accuracy at placing people in this system before vultology than some other people have had. I ignore most of what people ‘feel’ about whether they ‘relate’ to a description and pay attention to what behaviors they show and what manifests realistically in their life. Including myself, though I’m realistic about the idea that I can’t get a birdseye view on myself, so it’s obviously harder to type myself than someone else.

    But the whole “I relate to this but not that” in descriptions is often petty and based on nothing but ideals. “Relate” means nothing. Saying that I genuinely do not have ability in copying movements and went through trouble as a child for failing in this department , is not the same as “feeling like I don’t relate” (to use myself as an example).

    This is why on my thread where I asked people if they relate to their type’s description, I worded it very carefully:

     

    We’ve had a lot of threads about the technical underpinnings of functions, but I’m after something different here; something closer to these descriptions:

    cognitivetype.com/8-functions/

    cognitivetype.com/arcane-series/

    1) Do the themes associated with your first function resonate with your personality and role in the world?  How does that function manifest, and which themes of the descriptions are ‘not you?’
    2) Do other people see you in the themes associated with your first function?  Have you received feedback about these qualities from others?
    3) Is there another function theme – aside from that of your first function – that resonates more with your personality and role in the world? If so, how does it manifest?
    4) Is there a certain “shade” of your type that you match?  If so, which one and why?
    5) How does your personality and role in the world compare to the other people in your type category?  (Note: this comparison works best if you find people with a similar profession or set of interests.)

    To be clear on why I phrased things as ‘role in the world,’ and why the second question is important:
    I’m not asking which description you like or “relate to” in some abstract way. I’m looking for what actually manifests in your real life.  For instance, I ‘relate’ to Ni because I’m Ni ego, and I’m always seeking those connections, and the topics in my novels look very similar to the Ni description; but I don’t think other people in my life would describe me in those terms.

    If you step back from how you “want to be” and how you see your ideal self in your dreams, and evaluate how you have actually been and how others respond to you — then how would you answer these questions?

    Thanks a bunch!

    • This reply was modified 1 year, 6 months ago by Animal.
    • This reply was modified 1 year, 6 months ago by Animal.
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 16 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.
Animated GIFs, images and videos belong to their respective owners.