For those who scored highest on a function that does not match their lead in vultology, what do you think of the result? - @Auburn
The output surprised me because I said right a few days ago: "I feel like I've been losing Pi and gaining Pe" (this last year). And they said: "a bit of Pe won't hurt you, honey!" ^^"
I've always been more Pi- than Pe-inclined behaviorally (I was, indeed, satisfied with your analysis regarding my video with Candy, as you pointed to our Ne vs Ni dynamics), but fundamentally a Reviser.
The ""low"" Ji wasn't much of a surprise for all I shared in my pvt reply to the Ji I--- profile before my dev was changed. Even though underlying Ji qualities are there, they're toned down due to lifetime adjustments.
>> There is no need to rush into something until one has understood the situation sufficiently.
Words like "need", "rush" and "sufficiently" make me agree, but sometimes I will ""rush"" because I will feel confident enough about my understandings* of the situation and may say "let's see how things unfold" or even act as a catalyst. It can look "risky" from the outside. I won't always judge it necessary to have the same level of microscopic understanding about every problem in order to deal with it (important is to make sure I know my reasons for perspective-shifting). But, generally, I'm the one who says (literally): "no need to rush". *"Sufficiently" is subjective and, even when I'll rush, I'll meet that criterion first (and will feel uncomfortable in case it's not possible + can't run tests). I think timing is crucial, too. No clue what this one scores for.
>> I am nitpicky about what I do, and either put in the time to do something perfectly or not at all.
For me, part of "perfecting" is optimization and there ain't rigid rules. Maybe this question can be tricky as people can have different ideas of perfectionism and sometimes I feel the difference could be relevant to CTypes (e.g.: perfectionism about literal application vs perfectionism about microscopic mechanics).
>> I like to explore uncharted territories, even when that means flirting with danger.
Yes; at my pace, my way. I feel it's more true of me than of Pe-lead friends, and suspect it's due to a drive to understand/know and a generally neutral stance.
>> People come to me for the dependability of my perspective, in order to recieve stable and temperate advice.
My views have been stable yet cautious enough to make me unintentionally become guidance for others (and I don't always like it for reasons I mentioned on video).
>> Out with the old, in with the new.
This will make me appear ridiculous: I can't compute.
>> No compromise is a good compromise.
I think I understand what it should mean, but there could be problems with the specific formulation. Not sure. I'm used to being the only who misunderstands sentences to that point, but who knows.
> We should exercise caution when attempting to discard things that have persisted for a long time.
> I'm not enraptured by the glitter of new ideas, as I think we should be cautious about how we integrate big changes into existing structures.
The first is more no than yes, the second is more yes than no, due to focus. I'd like to know whether they're measuring the same thing or no.
>> I have nurtured a degree of pain tolerance, allowing me to bear through difficult tasks.
Don't know what this should (not) be.
>> I tend to resist using the wrong means, even when it would give me the right ends.
I'm afraid this is too morally shaded.
>> I have a fixation on purity, causing me to struggle to do or say anything that feels impure to me.
Not sure about the term "purity".
>> I know a lot of facts about historical movements, time periods and the evolution of ideas across them.
I am reeeally bad at it! When I studied Literature, Philosophy and History, I knew little facts because I would immediately pulverize them into abstract understanding, but was very focused on the evolution of ideas. I was a jackass in humanistics before I learned to abstract (one day in my 16 it all "clicked"), despite being good at memorizing.
Anyways, I know Pe w/o Pi (Ne, if it's relevant) who know loads of facts (they're like walking Encyclopedias, it's impressive!!) but have less of a grasp on dynamics (similarly to how some Aspies memorize things with no deeper understanding). I mentioned it because the sentence focuses on collection of facts. Not sure about the relevance of what I said.
>> What's been true of the world up to now, will be true of the future
I took it more literally than that and said No, but reminds me of "the only costant is the lack of constancy, which lacks even in the lack of constancy". (Mates would seriously have thoughts like this; don't know whether that's Yes or No).
>> I have an insatiable hunger for what comes next and easily get restless in an environment that offers little opportunities for experimentation.
Weren't it for the "and"... I don't have hunger for what comes next but can suffer from a prolonged lack of room for experimentation (makes me feel like I can't refine understandings).
>> A key focus of my life is entertainment, both in consumption and my personal creation.
Entertainment is just a bonus.
>> I see how every situation I am in is embedded in a broader social, political and global context.
Yes and honestly don't like it so much. I see it, but I don't think I truly understand it and I find myself resisting it despite my rationale.
>> My preoccupation with utopian visions and aspirations makes my own state, and that of the world, pale in comparison.
I never liked utopias, not even as a child. I remember being fascinated and at the same time uncomfortably confused by mates who were capable of utopian thinking; fascinated because it was alien to me, confused because I couldn't see the point of it.
In my case, I feel Ji lead (as per this result) matches my personality better than Pe lead since I take in some data and then end up processing it a lot, in my head (not the other way around)
I'm guessing I failed most of the Se questions because I tend to be pretty focused on winning at whatever I'm doing and don't really bounce around much. Very honed in usually.
Edit: accidentally left two replies because my internet is being shit.
Firstly, here are my results from my second, well-thought-out responses to the survey. The results are similar to my first go, so I don't feel I skewed anything dramatically. However, I will happily post my old results upon request.
Perhaps it's my long-windedness itching for space, but I feel compelled to make a quick comment on CT as a system and what this step with psychological surveys means (and of course, the introduction of Model 2), and of course, I would love to get more thoughts from both the community and Auburn on this topic.
Cognitive Type is, from my perspective, refreshing. It doesn't concern itself with arbitrary, subjective self-evaluation to assign someone a type. I'm glad that the introduction of the psychological survey come as a separate element of typing, for as it is said on the site, "The survey results won’t be viewed by us until after we have done your visual analysis." This eliminates my concern that CT could revise itself and too-highly prioritize self-evaluation, for I have approached and understood CT as something primarily concerned with vultology as the observable element of cognition (embodied cognition) and then collecting survey data to flesh out the correlations between vultology, behavior, and psychology. I would say the introduction of computational terms and the psychological survey is an incredibly comforting step in the right direction for keying in the research methodology of CT. I'll end my quick reflections with this quote and my response:
The data collection thus far has been imperfect, and suffers from methodological shortcomings. The data has not been collected and processed through all the appropriate scientific practices, nor has there been any formal publications yet supporting this hypothesis. However, preparations are being made to formally test this hypothesis.
I find that last bit incredibly encouraging, and I think that further marching in this direction will add a level of academic rigor to CT that will give it the weight necessary to break the glass ceiling in academia that keeps independent researchers from publishing and making meaningful contributions to a given field.
Alright, as the original disclaimer makes apparent, this survey is a work in progress. I'll offer some comments and thoughts on the survey and the data collection.
First, something with the potential to be a huge problem; however, only Auburn can really confirm whether or not this is a problem. That problem is the definitions of the functions and how those definitions have come about. I'll explain myself at the risk of coming off as pedantic.
As I said in the reflection section of this post, CT concerns itself with the observable element, vultology, as this is the only objective element of cognition (according to the hypothesis behind CT). Here's where I see the potential problems with how functions (Ji, Je, Pe, and Pi. Excuse me if a better term exists, such as "energetics." Just know I refer to these when I say "functions" in this post) are defined. This survey suggests that a firm definition and understanding of the functions exists; however, this is a relatively huge claim. I would argue that CT needs an enormous pool of data in order to distribute this survey and claim a match or mismatch. The survey presumes the correlation between anecdotal accounts of personal experience/behavior and vultological samples is vast and strong enough to give firm definitions of functions. Again, only Auburn can make the call that the data is sufficient to draw that correlation and offer definitions of the functions that are firm enough to implement metrics in this survey to measure their presence in an individual's self-evaluated psychology/behavior. However, I will add, this research could still work by starting with a hypothesis of what each function is and adapting as correlations indicate something else (if indeed anything else is indicated, as there is always the possibility that the initial hypothesis falls through). In fact, I would say this is the approach CT is taking (which is more expedient and practical for independent research of this nature, as it offers enough meat for those first volunteers to cling to and invest in the project); however, I would say that persisting in this fashion could prove messy. What is worse, and prone to happen when a community forms around a project, is that the definitions of functions may careen into sentimental territory as subjects cling to definitions that were hypotheses that have since been deemed defunct, invalid, or even misleading.
Second, I turn my attention to the survey itself. I'm certainly not the ideal person to weigh in on this element, but I have designed a research survey for academic institutions as well as worked with individuals that have designed them. Here's hoping what I have to say carries some value. I took some raw notes here that record my unfiltered thoughts as I worked through the survey, and those can be seen in this Google Doc. However, I prefer you ignore my messy thoughts for the purposes of actual criticism, but I do prefer those messy notes be used for the purpose of contributing to the corpus psychological/behavior data. That said, I'll just knock this out with some bullet points that summarize my observations of shortcomings in the survey and personal experiences that caused me to view these things as short comings (please excuse me for not recording the question numbers. It slipped my mind while taking notes):
I believe that sufficiently lays out my thoughts and concerns spurred on by taking this survey. Perhaps some of my thoughts belong elsewhere; however, it's this survey that brought it all to the forefront of my mind. By all means, I encourage everyone who feels compelled to maintain order to mention me in a reply in the appropriate thread.
@Alexander the Less
A few questions group together two premises that conflict.
Ex. Pairing the voluntary taking on responsibility and holding oneself to high standards as a single indicator of a psychological function.Personal Experience: I do not find myself feeling fulfilled by taking on responsibility, but I do hold myself to higher standards…. However, that is only fulfilling if I manage to meet the higher standards I hold myself to. Holding myself to them in and of itself is not fulfilling without seeing myself live up to them. In some respects, I feel the same about responsibility… I just wouldn’t consciously seek it out.
I totally agree with this one ! I would have said I strongly agree with some statements but then I actually strongly agreed with one part of them and not at all with the other. So I had to say I disagree.
I will give the first example that pops up.
I like to explore uncharted territories, even when that means flirting with danger.
I do love to explore new places/ideas. But I don't like to flirt with danger. I think Pe is simply shown by the first part. I don't think disagreeing with the second part makes you less of a high Pe user,
Let's see another one...
I'm a natural born leader and often find myself in management positions.
I actually was and somewhat still am in a management position at work (counseling/managerial, let's say, it's not very clearly cut but counseling itself would be seen as JePi ground anyway) and I also have a small and unprofitable etsy business. I would have answered agree to the second part but I am obviously not a natural born leader, I worked a lot to improve these qualities and am still working to improve them.
So, here the issue is people who developed Je in time may not feel they are "natural born leaders" at all. Because they were not born with it, they developed it. They can remember being bullied as kids or being treated badly by bosses and coworkers for years without knowing how to deal with it BEFORE they did reach a management position. So, they will answer strongly disagree even though maybe at this point they do have conscious Je and even have a management position !
Next, since I am at it :
My pursuit for a personal identity that matches me best has taken me far from my starting culture and background.
Here I can say :
- I do care about my personal identity;
- I am right now pretty far from my starting culture and background. My lifestyle and interests are far from it, at least.
- I have been pursuing something that led me here, but that something is not necessarily my identity. It is knowledge, understanding. I wanted to understand what's going on, how the world works, what is truly valuable, what isn't.
So I can't answer "strongly agree" to this question, because my pursuit appears to not be primarily for identity, but I would need to examine myself a lot to be able to tell if this is perfectly correct, since the inner and outer world mirror each other, hence every pursuit could be seen as a pursuit for identity. Seeing how the world works implies seeing how you work, as you are part of the world and the image of the world is inside your mind. The opposite too, since what you perceive is pretty much influenced by your inner world. Hence knowing yourself will make you know the world. Then when I say I wanted to know what is truly valuable, this implies I wanted to know what is truly valuable to me. Hence, even if it is all put in a general and open way, it could be argued I am talking about a search for identity.
But at a first glimpse, you can't see these nuances. And even if you did, some ambiguity remains.
How could an Si lead with conscious Fi answer this one, just to give an example. What if you both value background and identity? What if you find identity IN your background?
I also agree with the point about asking what others think.
People come to me for the dependability of my perspective, in order to recieve stable and temperate advice.
They do come but I am not sure why they come. 🙂 I think I agreed with this one, because I believe my advice is stable and temperate. BUT I don't know if others come for this reason. Maybe they think the advice I give is revolutionary and original. :)) I can't know why they come for advice, really.
Just some ideas, maybe I have more later. 🙂
I like these notes @alexandertheless !
I think they summarize the core issues with wording quite well, and give me a sense of direction for how to tweak the questions. 🙂
Especially the part about making sure the questions are only targeting one thing, and also the part about removing "People say I..." wordings.
I'm really enjoying this feedback from everyone, and learning a lot about proper survey structures.
Thanks so much for these notes.
edit: I have to switch gears to another project for the time being, so I won't be able to implement these changes right away. But in the meantime, if anyone with spare time wanted to put together a word doc with these 40 questions, and their updated versions, according to the input of this thread, that would be amazing and so helpful. If not that's okay too. 🙂 I just gotta tend to other matters + aspects of the theory before returning to this.
I took the test again, after a few days, and this result lines up, perfectly with classic MBTI scores for me, and is quite typical of me. So it fits.
Just popped in to post my survey results. (They line up with my official MBTI scores for me too: INFP).
Reporting in (for science)
I doubt Ji being so low, tho. Others are on point.
I couldn't figure out how to screenshot stuff on my chromebook, but here's the results in text format -
Pe: 6.5 / 12.5 [++++++------]
Ji: 4.75 / 12.5 [+++++------- ]
Je: 4 / 12.5 [++++-------- ]
Pi: 3.75 / 12.5 [++++-------- ]
Did the test to see if it holds up after a time, and.. While I think I answered accurate, while not what I want to be, It's, looking quite introverted..
Normally, they are all pretty balanced, but I can modulate to focus my Je.
This question I answered neutral because it is not mutually exclusive to me. What is right in principle is also what is necessary and practical, it's the consideration of both holistically that makes a higher principle more true. Otherwise, the "right principle" ideal stays at a low level of conscious manifestation, a blueprint without material. Its manifestation is a process, not an end it itself for itself. Sadly, principles usually stay at low level bickering over the blueprint and from that we get philosophy, rather than a kind of scientific-instrumental testing of principles beyond physical phenomena. Isn't about time people trust Ti-Fe users with testing out their principles of social collective governance? We are so behind in this respect, that our nations, especially the U.S. , lack any social cohesion. It seems the argument against this is overstepping on someone's individuality, yet we see individuals get depressed at the loneliness when such disasters, like the pandemic, occur; or over generational issues like the millennials and their lack of purpose, dealing with their suffering individually with no help. Animals in the animal kingdom do better than us lol as a natural, collective helpful group. Our systems are so Te cold, many people end up alone, suffering in silence their existence. This is not sustainable for our evolutionary growth, people are just going to keep wanting to give up on life the harder we "Te" expect more of ourselves individually and fail to meet those expectations more and more.