Starshade Ti and Gnosis Ne; Traumatic Development/ Growth of an alternate functn

Home Forums Model 1 Discussions Starshade Ti and Gnosis Ne; Traumatic Development/ Growth of an alternate functn

Viewing 11 posts - 1 through 11 (of 11 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #25672
    Anonymous
    Inactive
    • Type:
    • Development:
    • Attitude:

    Here's some preliminary evidence to justify on why we need to start thinking differently of cognitive functions and development in CT. The current theory/assumption is that cognitive functions are fixed in their cognitive space/architecture to one or the other (Ne or Se), (Fi or Ti), not both and not crossing each other. Meaning we only ever use 4 functions and if there is a mixed signal it is due to some kind of confluence of Se + Ni= Ne.
    Here is @starshade in what I see cognitively using Ti-Fe, not just some confluence of Fi-Te that looks like Ti-Fe. Why? Because of the nature of what he is doing cognitively, he is listening (Fe) for the right (Ti) words for a long period of time (this even fits with the "measured speech" indication of TiFe vultology of Model 2.0.

    And here he is connecting different Ti points together (not Te/Je points together, otherwise we would see different hand movements). Psychology matches what the signal is expressing. Don't forget the signal came from deducing cognitive states/processing and connecting it to a signal of that cognitive processing expression.

    What really tipped me off, is he mentioned ptsd and trauma with his mom. I thought about my past and a recent discovery of my weird Ne eyes in recent photos that made me look back at old photos when I hadn't developed my Ni.
    My theory is that starshade, traumatized by the firm, delusional beliefs of his mother, developed Ji- Ti in contradistinction from her, making him more prone to question his beliefs for accuracy/truth and not view oreality as she obviously had/has done (unquestioningly/faithful to her beliefs= delusional) and which he still expresses frustration over:

    after getting typed, figured out I have struggled my whole life with a delusional mother...She is delusional, with both mental pain, and physical, and, denies help, and lives in her own fantasy world where she is the victim, of an great conspiracy involving agents, people spying, microphones, etc.

    Do I believe he was born with a Ti-Fe axis as his cognitive type. No
    But do I believe and theorize that he developed it out of trauma. Yes
    That makes him NeFi, yes, nataly/at birth. And I can tell he is because of how inconsiderate he is when he delivers his remarks lol. But also his Fi resting tension. And also because I trust CT's typing system for "natal type."
    But it misses the question of development and sharing cognitive space with another function axis due to traumatized developmental growth. The brain is plastic, so it should be of no surprise that it could switch cognition and consistently develop to an alternate function from the natal function due to forced circumstances.
    Can a person switch wholly to another type indistinguishable from it's natal type. Yes. But I would say in very rare, traumatizing circumstances.
    I noticed my eyes recently in a picture. And I saw Ne eyes, because they were so wide, whereas I'm used to seeing my eyes as the hypnotic, piercing Ni eyes. Probably due to me being forced to have more Pe: being homeless, going with the flow day by day, open to uncertainty, imagining I'm in a video game challenge/level or movie sometimes to ease the darkness.
          
    Compare this to my normal Ni eyes. Yes, I switch states depending on my mood, which is random. This is an example of cognitive modulation/alternation.

     
    Anyways, I remember I have always been very childlike in spirit, but due to depression about my past (Pi) in my middle to late 20s, I developed more Ni. This showed itself in my old pictures/vid.

    Ni eyes. 2015.

    Ni eyes, even though I'm perky. Just in case that's an argument that I'm just excited in the GIF. 2016

     
    Anyway, my theory for this is being traumatized by my mother secluding me at home. Due to not being able to properly develop my Pe with the real world input, I developed Ne instead.  Then developing Ni over/during the depression of that past.
    So what I'm also arguing is that I'm double N, NeNi. And what I usually have to do is consciously reflect to correct my perception to what I know to be reality for others so that I stay on track.
    That's it. I'm curious whether other members have similar conclusions/stories of their type and development? ✌
     
     

    #25681
    Auburn
    Keymaster
    • Type: TiNe
    • Development: l--l
    • Attitude: Adaptive

    Here’s some preliminary evidence to justify on why we need to start thinking differently of cognitive functions and development in CT. The current theory/assumption is that cognitive functions are fixed in their cognitive space/architecture to one or the other (Ne or Se), (Fi or Ti), not both and not crossing each other. Meaning we only ever use 4 functions and if there is a mixed signal it is due to some kind of confluence of Se + Ni= Ne.

    Right!
    And this is one of the things that has changed in Model 2. One thing you'll see is that Model 2 is not a closed-system type-wise --and scientifically it really can't be. So heavy signal mixing cases are treated very differently. When completed, the new vultology approach will measure Measured ("Ti/Fe"), Candid ("Fi/Te"), Grounded ("Se/Ni") and Suspended ("Ne/Si") as four spectra that a person can be high or low on at the same time, down to a specific percentage that is unique to their signature. So for instance, it's possible to show a lot of Measured signals and few or no Candid signals. Or it's possible to show high amounts of both Measured and Candid signals. Or low amounts of both.
    If there's high amounts in one and not the other, then you'd fit squarely into the common types already known. But for people who have high signal representation in Measured+Candid at the same time, or Grounded+Suspended at the same time, more investigation is needed. The new vultology website is currently under development precisely because of this necessary reworking -- and it's the reason why submissions are closed.
    New reports will look differently in the future and instead give you something more like a percentage bar for each metric, showing how much you have, rather than coming down hard on one axis or another, and explaining away the mixing as noise. I think that was a bit of a stubborn structure and not the most honest way to parse the data, and I contributed to that rigidity before. Took a while to break out of that binary mode of thought, but I think it's for the better.
    I was saying on Discord the other day that I believe CT is describing some biological phenomenon, but believing it to be rigidly binary doesn't make much sense in the end. Because even the most literal and physical "binary"we have -- i.e. sex -- is not so straightforward. A percentage of people are hermaphroditic - showing properties of both, sexual orientation is different in 5%+ of people, and we know that genetic heredity is also complicated. So a person having one axis while never having the other would be quite a biological claim to make. It may be that a percentage of people do show visibility of both even though most people tend to side with one. That would be a more normal scenario, I think, from a biological perspective.
    What that means, psychologically, is still an open question. Maybe high signal mixers are a different breed, or maybe they do have both circuits. My prior speculations of its "impossibility in principle" does not seem to be supported by the evidence anymore, since we do see some people that are almost 50-50 in signals. It just doesn't seem the norm, and that's still also true. The majority of people do land on one side or the other, and the reality of those 16 types is not really put into jeopardy by the presence of the mixers. The need to think in rigid binaries is unnecessary, since the acknowledgement of signal mixers doesn't invalidate what we do know of the non signal mixers.
    Anyhow, to answer your question-- yes, this is one of the key adjustments in the new model.
    We don't yet know what it means psychologically, but at least in terms of vultology classification, that will be a change.
    edit: Starshade is a candidate for an uncommon type, in terms of vultology, yes. I think he may be a prime examine of an edge case that represents a frontier. Our member Puffed is another one too.
    I would like to review Starshade's type videos after the new codifier works and is able to give a more accurate reading of what percentage of each bar he has. Right now it doesn't work very well for that, so I have to do that first. I still think he sides more on Pe and Ne, but I would love to have harder evidence of each variable.

    #25689
    Anonymous
    Inactive
    • Type:
    • Development:
    • Attitude:

    And this is one of the things that has changed in Model 2. One thing you’ll see is that Model 2 is not a closed-system type-wise –and scientifically it really can’t be. So heavy signal mixing cases are treated very differently. When completed, the new vultology approach will measure Measured (“Ti/Fe”), Candid (“Fi/Te”), Grounded (“Se/Ni”) and Suspended (“Ne/Si”) as four spectra that a person can be high or low on at the same time, down to a specific percentage that is unique to their signature. So for instance, it’s possible to show a lot of Measured signals and few or no Candid signals. Or it’s possible to show high amounts of both Measured and Candid signals. Or low amounts of both.If there’s high amounts in one and not the other, then you’d fit squarely into the common types already known. But for people who have high signal representation in Measured+Candid at the same time, or Grounded+Suspended at the same time, more investigation is needed.
     

    Ok, good. Thanks for explaining, I appreciate it. Sorry I went hard, but I felt you were explaining away his Ti signals by just saying it was due to his perfectionist Ji (which pissed me off), because it was so obvious that he was using Ti perfectionism of speech Fe and not whatever Fi purity/perfectionism is, which in speech would be straightforward/blunt (Te) . And I hadn't seen a post at all about how you have changed your mind about the rigidity that you had in your system to only 4 fixed functions.
    The comparison to sex is a good one, because, yes there are people who are born with both sex organs at birth. So you are theorizing, then, that a person's type might also be a hybrid at birth, not just traumatic/adaptive development?
    Also, what did you think of my argument that I am double intuitive, did you check the pictures? My eyes are obviously changing from wide eyed  (2011) to that droopy stare into the beyond then back to a mix between the two in recent pictures? I'd love to get your take on this.
    On model 2: I want to strangle you for creating more notation (which is unnecessary!) and convoluted, all we are going to do is translate that back to JiJe or FiFe. It's torture and it seems it doesn't even connect to your new vultology designating signals of expression for each axis. Those new notations are good, because my mind tells me your separating vultology and cognitive type into their own domains and vultology becomes more about measuring people's expression/movements/facial features.

    So then, here is another question. Why phase out model 1, which is the original cognitive type? It should be its own domain in a typical psychological domain (because it keeps the archetypes and psychological behaviorism/myths/morality) outside of technical metaphors.
    And instead of model 2 update taking over model 1, split model 2's computational cognitive dynamics to a separate domain focused on theoretical computational cognitive/neural architecture (like formal logic vs philosophy), because psychology is not computational, I don't think the evidence shows this. So this separate domain is more of a theoretical metaphor of cognition for the purposes of computational theories of the mind and cognition, that might serve as a abstract and technical metaphorical extrapolation of biological cognition, helpful for AI and other domains (beware of someone from the future trying to kill you for this lol). But to replace model 1 with it sounds like blindly ignoring biology and the brain's (and therefore cognition's)organismal origins and complexity.
    Use whatever is in model 2 that refers to the new psychological aspects to restructure model 1, therefore, as well. Cuz this is too complicated and all over the place, am I the only one who thinks this? My moon in virgo (Ti) is unsettled and pissed by this organized mess.

     

     
    Anyway, the differnt domains would then be CT (psychology, type, behavior, myth, archetype, unconscious, spirit); Archistructural Computational Cognition (computational neural metaphors for the brain, formal logical cognitive architecture, algorithmic axial computing type functions); Vultology (measuring and aligning signals of expression to cognition/psychology; subjective reports from vultologically typed volunteers; type database; type app/codifier); and finally, the statistical accumulation of social analytical data based of cognition and type (you can call this domain Socio-Cognitive Research).
    Anyway, Thas it. I admire your work. ✌
     

    #25693
    Bera
    Moderator
    • Type: SeFi
    • Development: ll--
    • Attitude: Seelie

    Use whatever is in model 2 that refers to the new psychological aspects to restructure model 1, therefore, as well. Cuz this is too complicated and all over the place, am I the only one who thinks this? My moon in virgo (Ti) is unsettled and pissed by this organized mess.

    My Moon in Taurus is not the happiest either. But I think the root of seeing it this way is that we are Se-Ni users. And this is a modular way of organizing information very far away from our comfort zone. Isn't it?
    I appreciate your input and I am curious what Auburn will think.
    I would have personally also integrated the directly usable information from Model 2 into Model 1 and left the Computational Model be a separate project. I don't claim I know for sure the mind is NOT computational, I just don't understand the computational model and see it as very difficult to understand by most people. I could be wrong, of course, it is just my impression.
    I have been trying to attract new people to CT, I really have my eyes on a bunch of folks who would benefit from it psychologically, artistically and in another major way and I struggle to explain this stuff to them, it's hard anyway but if I am saying "this is Model 1". There is also Model 2 that I don't understand - this isn't a great way to make them listen, you know?
    So, you are not the only one who struggles with the functions being renamed or the new structure of the theory, you just have conscious Fe. :)))
    But I do think this is at least in part an issue coming from the Se-Ni vs. Ne-Si perspective and I hope in the end it will be solved.
    Also about your eyes, I think what is happening is the brow area is getting more elevated due to heavy Ni use. Then if you don't do a proper Pi gaze but for example raise your brows a little in surprise, the look will be superficially close to Ne-Si. This happens in time for high Se users who develop Ni. It's a new signal in the Codifier - Elevated Brow Area :

    Codifier


    The sample used looks hypnotic but picture a high Se user with elevated brow area while NOT in pure Ni mode and here you have your  answer or my opinion at least, haha. 🙂

    #25698
    Auburn
    Keymaster
    • Type: TiNe
    • Development: l--l
    • Attitude: Adaptive

    Heh, gnosis I feel your pain. 🙂 Believe me when I say the decision to move to the new notation was not born of convenience or desire, but of necessity. I hope to wrote more about this later, but for now I wanna say that you needn't worry about the psychological and mythological dimension and their richness vanishing, that has simply been renamed psychodynamics-- which, as I understand it, is the proper name for the field that includes analytical psychology, freudian psychoanalysis, Adler, and others:

    Gnosis I think your interest will probably be strongest in psychodynamics, and that's wonderful. Different members can specialize in different aspects. I am not eliminating this dimension in Model 2. It has actually been given more room than before, not less. This presents a good introduction of what I mean: https://cognitivetypology.com/index.php?title=Psychodynamics
    The full implications of Model 2 will not mature immediately. And I think its design will pave the way for a rich expansion of research and thought-- but it's such a large undertaking that right now it only looks like an empty shell with excessive and repetitive labeling. As these labels are fleshed out and as each dimension/facet of a cognitive function is properly parsed-out, I think it will be feel cumbersome to go back to the old nomenclature.
    Right now CT is moving into a bigger house, and right now many of the rooms are empty. But over time they'll be filled -- leading to a far richer theory than what could have ever fit in the old scaffold. But I don't expect members to believe in that without seeing it, so I know I have to deliver on that promise first before expecting any support. Again I hope to write more on all of this soon.
    (p.s. Sorry I can't get into your vultology questions atm. Like with Starshade I'm planning to devote my full attention to vultology matters once the new code is up.)

    #25722
    a.k.a.Janie
    Participant
    • Type: FiSe
    • Development: ll--
    • Attitude: Unseelie

    I feel like now that this thread has been started, it might be a good place to throw a thought I've wondered about for a long time--ever since I originally got typed and my result was something I didn't expect, but with signal mixing with the type I did expect.
    I've noticed that anecdotally, people often belong to the same quadra as a parent or parents. And it is of course still unknown what our genes might say about type. I wonder if it's also possible to be primarily one quadra, but then either develop signal mixing as a result of copying a parent's mannerisms, and/or a heredity effect such as incomplete dominance, or polygenic traits.

    #25724
    Anonymous
    Inactive
    • Type:
    • Development:
    • Attitude:

    Yea, I'm not sure what it is. Moon in Taurus means you think it's aesthetically unpleasing lol I see, I thought that too. I think it's the amount of loosely connected information forced to then be understood and assimilated into a compact area. So what I said does sound like a visual and data compression thing, to my eyes loosely connected and convoluted(Ni-Se probs perhaps, not sure, like you said ). Maybe because it looks like a manual is why I hate it too. But then I think what Auburn is doing is that he is collecting information form his new book into a wiki, you know, like reference, without explaining (PiJe) the narrative, which would be in the book. I've always thought Auburn doesn't have Ti that developed, because Ti would look for the essence of information and therefore, like an equation, only leave the essential key points, but I see divergently connected domains of information, which is more high Ne and Si. So I think he has had Si developed since forever and hasn't noticed it, mistaking it for Ti. I also think he is Ne lead, but shiiyy.
    I agree with you about my high brow area for when I bald and perky and I have Ni, but my old 2011 GIF doesn't show Ni development yet,  and still it shows Ne naive eyes and wide eyes (and I must say that I was pretty naive then, still am sometimes lol you got to keep you child alive, you know).
     
     

    #25729
    Anonymous
    Inactive
    • Type:
    • Development:
    • Attitude:

    Auburn, thank you for replying. Hmm I think I saw more stuff before you edited the post and I didn't get to reply. I had a lot of thoughts, but I forgot them, I was hoping to refresh them reading your post again.
    Anyway, I will take a look at model 2 and how you flesh it out, hoping to see your new vision, which is I think is related to a kind of proto-mechanical model of cognitive dynamics, hoping to use this model to connect it to some future advancement in neuroscience that would allow a convergent science, like a neuro-cognitive physics?
    That was what my Ni told me after trying to figure it out all night lol cuz I was pissed, like "this is a dead end" "wth"! "where is he going with this, he could publish a paper right now! in psycho-biology! with a relatively cheap test that I proposed already (collective typing: get 100 people to type 16 different people (for each type  according to the model) individually and blindly with the codifier and collect the data to show, beyond chance, that there are "objective" signals that are matching with each disparate person (16 different types) signifying a phenomenal pattern of "type" through visual expression!!!").
    on a side not, I was, still am, into physics and neuroscience, I went to undergrad for it (hoping to unite it into a kind of neuro-physics), including philosophy as well, but I was too naïve and slow majoring in three subjects and working near-full time so I never got to finish it and stuck to the broadest subject ever to satisfy my broad curiosity of everything: philosophy/humanities.
    Anyway, we'll see where it goes, i"ll be watching closely 👁
    😊✌
     

    #25989
    Robert Mitchell
    Participant
    • Type: NeFi
    • Development: l-l-
    • Attitude: Seelie

    Good to see you've branched out into 8 function land as well!
    You should add myself to the wierdo collection. NeFi on one side of face, beta on the other.
    I'd expect lots of people with emotional and sensory overexcitabilities (HSP types) to show up.

    #26287
    Animal
    Participant
    • Type: SeFi
    • Development: lll-
    • Attitude: Seelie

    Interesting.
    My father showed NiTe and NiFe in his report. This is pretty congruent with his psychology. In the end, he fits Beta best overall, and his video also fit NiFe the best. But he has some personality traits that cross over with Te, and a general Gamma mindset.
    I actually experience the same thing - Beta traits and mindset, mixed with Gamma.  I am not saying this based on a few descriptions, but based on interacting extensively with people in my own forum who were typed through reports on CT.  When I order another report I guess I'll find out if this shows in my signals.

    #26300
    Peter
    Participant
    • Type: FiNe
    • Development: l---
    • Attitude: Unseelie

    Beautiful conversation. I like it very much.
    I think there is a tention between different concepts and research/usage dimentions of this field. This is propably good thing.

    The current theory/assumption is that cognitive functions are fixed in their cognitive space/architecture to one or the other (Ne or Se), (Fi or Ti), not both and not crossing each other. Meaning we only ever use 4 functions and if there is a mixed signal it is due to some kind of confluence of Se + Ni= Ne.

    I used to think that we know almost nothing about the functions. The way we conceptualize them is a way we want to use theory in our practice. I share your view on complexity of this phenomenon and human psyche and I see your approach as attitude to think in bottom-up category. I like it too.
    I think the concept of excusively usage of one axis can be interpret in one more way and this way may be not technical but pragmatic. I think in the brain there is capacity for two axis becouse the brain features that serve as a ground for functions are there but brain have preferance in his activity. The features of brain must be always synchronized - and this necessity is origin of functions and types I think. Synchronicity (followed by personallity) means patterns and order. I think if we talk about "personality" then there is a possibility that we are fixed in these patterns but that doesn't mean we are fixed in use of features of our brain. That's why there is a need to separete cognition (the way our personality works) and behaviours (the way we use our brain features when situation demand it).
    I have a question.
    Does @Starshade has an inner conflict to determine him to develop another axis which we see in his behaviour?
     
    Or
     
    Does he develop habit of behaviour that looks like Ti but contradict his original axis pattern/order and in consequence caused feelings and symptoms of inner conflict in his psychology?
     
    In another words does he really developed Ti? or developed features corresponded to Ti were displayed as Ti-like behaviour?  (Which in consequence distort his personallity and coused inner conflicts)

Viewing 11 posts - 1 through 11 (of 11 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
© Copyright 2012-2021 Juan E. Sandoval - Use Policy
searchhomecommentsenvelope