Subjective Orientation of Introverted Functions

Home Forums Model 1 Discussions Subjective Orientation of Introverted Functions

Viewing 25 posts - 1 through 25 (of 26 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #8553
    Supah Protist
    Participant
    • Type: SeTi
    • Development: ll-l
    • Attitude: Directive

    I’m noticing a pattern in my own cognition that I’d like to find a CT based explanation of. Most of the time when I’m thinking, I’m thinking about myself. The content of my thoughts is subjective. I know that, metabolically, functions aren’t supposed to be content as much as processing, but nonetheless, this is a persistent pattern that I’d like to understand. I remember from the CT book, perception and judgement were described as input and processing respectively. Is it possible that by processing myself, I’m processing Pi?
     
    To put it another way, I’m trying to understand myself as a subject. I’m not trying to necessarily understand typology or other people, those are more byproducts of the core goal of self knowledge.
     
    I also think that that the Pi description may be biased towards Pe. While it’s supposed to be an introverted function, it seems very focused on the external world. Is it possible that the current Pi behavioral description is biased towards reviser Pi? Reviser Pi would be more focused on the external world because it’s serving a Pe agenda, right?
     
    This is less related, but I know I am currently typed as SeTi, however I wonder if I could potentially be NiFe. Like I said before, my focus on typology is less about understanding a theory or other people and more about understanding how my inner world works (Pi?). I can definitely understand why I’m a P-Lead vultologically and psychologically, but I think I’m more interested in internal perception than external perception. I know Pi leads are supposed to be more settled and certain about things, but I think I may be pretty settled about my perceptions of myself. The patterns I notice in my own behavior are pretty self evident and I can’t see myself being convinced of their inaccuracy, also maybe part of my lack of externally visible certainty is a result of unconscious Fe.
     
    A possible explanation of my inward focus on myself may be explained through a Ji function, but if Ji is best described as a compass, I don’t see how I’m aiming for self alignment as much as self discovery. As far as I can tell, the goal is solely to understand myself, not to direct myself.
     
    I guess to summarize, I’m wondering if Pi may be more focused on the subject itself than initially surmised. Also, if P = input and J = processing, then does P = content?

    #8554
    Faeruss
    Participant
    • Type: FeNi
    • Development: llll
    • Attitude: Directive

    You say you are focused on self-discovery, and that sounds like Pe to me. Also, Pi is not the sum of Perception + Introversion, which seems to be your confusion, and a Pe-lead with an introverted bent can focus plenty on so-called internal perception. Overall, my sense is that what you are describing is a combination of Se and introversion, you want to discover new information about yourself, how you inner world works.

    #8572
    Supah Protist
    Participant
    • Type: SeTi
    • Development: ll-l
    • Attitude: Directive

    Hey @faeruss,
     
    My confusion results from the description of Pe as necessarily proactive or oriented towards the object.I know I'm engaged in Pe exploration when I'm asking questions like the one in the original post or reading information about typology, I'm exploring objective content, but these activities don't seem to fit with having Pe in a primary position in my hierarchy. I don't seem to be exploring objective content for its own sake. The exploration seems to be serving a higher agenda, as a function lower in the hierarchy serves the agenda of a function higher in the hierarchy. My conception is that if I were a Pe-Lead, then I would be primary interested in discovery in general as opposed to self-discovery. I would agree that I seem to be dealing with Pe plus introversion, but as far as I can tell, exploration in the sole service of introversion is atypical of a Pe-Lead. I'm definitely using Pe to discover information, but as I said earlier, it seems to be serving the agenda of another function and since I'm pretty convinced I am a P-Lead, I surmise that it may serving a Pi agenda.
     
    Following from this, I understand that Pi isn't perception plus introversion, but I do wonder if it could potentially be more stereotypically introverted in reality than it is currently conceptualized. Another way I conceptualize my current introspective tendencies is that I'm trying to form a model of myself. A worldview is a model of the world, so perhaps Pi is in play here. Another possibility is that this is Pe in service of Ji and I have Pe polar and Ji tertiary. That may be a more plausible explanation then saying that I'm experiencing Pe in service of Pi and that Pi is more introspective than originally thought. Yeah. I think that would make more sense. I think what I can take away from this at present is that I'm definitely not an extraverted type. For extraverted types, Ji is lower than Pe and thus serves Pe. What I'm observing is the other way around. I'm only exploring (Pe) in order to better understand myself (Ji).
     
    Edit: Thinking back on prior material, I realize that the inner oscillation serves the outer oscillation. At the very least, I can say that my exploration has no practical agenda (Pe over Je and thus P-Lead) and I can less confidently assume that if Pi has any introspective qualities that I have Pi over Pe.

    #8618
    Faeruss
    Participant
    • Type: FeNi
    • Development: llll
    • Attitude: Directive

    First, I would say that any type is capable of introspection, so let's get that out of the way. Addressing more specifically some of your concerns, the word "object" seems to be the problem here. Quoting the metabolism article on energetics, we see that "Object = An object refers to any dataset that can be entertained conceptually as a standalone entity", and this seems to me to be precisely what is going on: you have made your own qualities and characteristics an object of analysis, and you spend time exploring such qualities and forming an axiomatic understanding and map of them - I won't get into the hierarchy question, but this is consistent with being a Pe-lead. Or, if you want to flip your argument on its head:
    Theorem: Every person is a dominant introverted perceiver
    Proof: Any thought a person has happens inside the subject (I), and involves the perception of such mental states (P).  QED

    #8619
    Bera
    Moderator
    • Type: SeFi
    • Development: ll--
    • Attitude: Seelie

    I am also an Se lead and I focus a lot on understanding myself. And I think I do this primarily using Se and Fi. I perceive something, an object (and ideas or theories are also considered objects), by exploring the world, and then I try to discern if this object is aligned to my values/feelings/interests or not and after that, if I am successful, I know more about the object and about myself.
    For example, I saw some interesting collages today and after taking the images in, I tried to determine how much they were aligned to my beliefs. Which is basically the same as self discovery, isn't it? Because in order to discover something about yourself, you need to take information from the world and evaluate it compared to yourself. Or maybe you could do this another way but I can't see it right now. 🙂
    This could be more confusing because you also have Ni developed. But self discovery sounds to me like a mixture of Pe and Ji.
    I believe you think you are just looking inside yourself because this is what I would also believe in the first place. But this can't be so. I think you need to seek many objects and compare them to yourself to discover yourself. Because by just looking inside, if there is no input, you don't have anything to compare to and can't determine anything about yourself.
    And I think you can also use Ni to make a tapestry of yourself or of everything, including yourself. But self discovery would be something you do before building this model you are talking about.
    I actually think the mixture of Se, Ti and Ni conscious would leave to this being a major interest for you. But I see it as being Pe and Ji in the first place.
    I'm curious what others think about this. It's a very interesting topic and I think most of us are very much into self discovery, so it's very important to everyone.
     

    #8621
    Supah Protist
    Participant
    • Type: SeTi
    • Development: ll-l
    • Attitude: Directive

    I would agree that any type is capable of introspection, but different types will introspect for different reasons and about different things, right? What I'm noticing is that my introspection (more accurately self exploration) doesn't have an object-oriented (proactive) agenda, which I think one would expect from a proactive type. So I guess when I say object, I'm using it to contrast it with the subject, more like proactive vs. reactive or object-oriented vs. subject-oriented.
     
    Based on this, I'm not entirely sure that I have made myself into an object. Also, if I have, then what would be left to be designated as the subject? Looking at the definitions of proactive vs. reactive I do see that a reactive or subjective-orientation denotes a focus on preexisting content. My proposal is that reactive functions focus on subjective content while proactive functions focus on objective content. This definition would include preexisting content under the umbrella of subjective content or anything with its origin within the subject. What I'm trying to do is understand the presence of my introspective, reactive or subject-oriented agenda and the relative absence of any proactive or object-oriented in the context of CT.
     
    My hierarchical argument wasn't quite that any introspection at all is only possible for Pi-Leads as much as that a P-Lead with an entirely subject-oriented focus and a relative lack of an object-oriented focus is likely a Pi-Lead.

    #8622
    Supah Protist
    Participant
    • Type: SeTi
    • Development: ll-l
    • Attitude: Directive

    Hey @bera,
     
    I would agree that I'm using Pe in service of self discovery, but I think that my self discovery process differs from the process you described.  I am comparing subjective content with objective content in order to facilitate self discovery, but as far as I can tell, my self discovery is more intentional. It's not a side effect of my exploration of the world. Instead, I explore the world pretty much solely in order to understand myself.

    #8624
    Tea
    Participant
    • Type: NeFi
    • Development: l--l
    • Attitude: Seelie

    SupahProtist, thank you for sharing this. I've thought about this in the past and feel similarly. Am I sure all processes are slave and subordinate to Pe, or does my Pe serve a grander agenda? It often feels it does. 

    #8641
    Bera
    Moderator
    • Type: SeFi
    • Development: ll--
    • Attitude: Seelie

    @supahprotist - the main issue I see is that self discovery seems to be a pretty big theme in everyone's life.
    I doubt you can have a meaningful life and not seek self discovery. I can't see how you could get around it as a human. There is this old gate covered by moss and ivy with the word "Know thyself !" written on it. I don't think it's there only for some types. I think it is there for everyone, that it's a general human experience.
    And if there is a reason for us to be here, this is it. You can't get around it, no matter what functions you have, in what hierarchy they are and which ones are developed.
    I may be wrong but I don't think any outside object could have greater meaning. Not even the people you love or something you are fighting for.
    Basically life seems to be an oscillation between the desire to know yourself and the things that distract you from it or that you use as a distraction. Because, in the end, anything could be behind that door. So, is it really wise to open it? If you feel it might not be wise, the focus goes more to the distractions. But even if it does, your main aims are still not the distractions. You are just taking another route that at some point will lead you to the same door.
    I am not entirely sure if what I said here is what everyone feels or if I just described what I feel.
    There is another thing. I don't fully understand it but I tend to believe that if you open the door, you find the world. The real world. I can't explain it though, I am just peeking. 🙂
    Anyway, basically my questions are :
    - is self discovery something inherently human and not related to functions?
    - is it a process similar to discovering the world and therefore a Pe thing ?
    - is it more probable for revisers to be more into self discovery than conductors, like I suggested earlier?
    - is it more probable for Pi leads to focus on it because Pi would be building a tapestry where everything fits together?
    - is self discovery a process that involves all functions and more likely if they are all developed? Or do they become developed because of it?
     
    @tea - same here, my Se seems to serve a different agenda though it's my first function. It seems to serve Fi's agenda. 🙂

    #8648
    Supah Protist
    Participant
    • Type: SeTi
    • Development: ll-l
    • Attitude: Directive

    I would agree that the self discovery trend is present in everyone, but I’m not sure that it’s a major part of everyone’s life. As far as I can tell, most people I know aren’t interested in self discovery, at least not to the same extent that I am. That’s an anecdotal example, but even if you look at society at large, there aren’t that many resources being spent on developing self knowledge. I’d even say that people spend more money on self development resources (personal growth, self help etc.) than they do on trying to understand themselves. Most people aren’t even aware of areas like typology that could develop their self knowledge.
     
    I think self discovery may be an essential ingredient for living the most meaningful life, but I don’t think everyone is actually pursuing that ingredient. I’m not saying that self knowledge is the only or even the key ingredient for living a meaningful life, I think it’s just one part of the picture that may need to be balanced with other aspects. I think for some people, self discovery may be more of a tool they use to facilitate other objectives. I just think there are tons of people who don’t put as high a premium on self knowledge as others.

    #8652
    Elisa Day
    Participant
    • Type: TiSe
    • Development: ll--
    • Attitude: Adaptive

    I don’t really have a CT theory based explanation, but recently I heard from someone who is more of a Jungian purist that Si cannot introspect and Si leads try to stay busy to avoid it like the plague. I’m curious to hear from Si leads in this system on how hard they go inward.
    If it’s the case that Si avoids introspection then it would make sense to me that its opposition would be to embrace it.
    It seems to me that I spend a lot more time analyzing other people than I do myself.

    #8658
    Hrafn
    Participant
    • Type: SiTe
    • Development: l-ll
    • Attitude: Seelie

    I don’t really have a CT theory based explanation, but recently I heard from someone who is more of a Jungian purist that Si cannot introspect and Si leads try to stay busy to avoid it like the plague. I’m curious to hear from Si leads in this system on how hard they go inward.

    It's hard for me to imagine this is true...I would say I'm quite self-reflexive, and it's one of the main ways I've been able to bring about positive change in my life. But on the other hand, I believe any type can be introspective, and I also have other functions besides Si that I could be drawing from.
    Maybe it's more that the boundary between inner and outer seem kind of blurry with Si. By accessing Si, I'm looking inward at myself-as-subject, but I'm looking inward at the imprint my past experiences of the outer world have left on me. So it's like looking inward at a mirror that points outward, one where the objects in the mirror move more slowly than realtime. In doing so, I can certainly focus my attention on the qualities of the glass itself, but I suppose it would also be easy to get entranced by all the moving objects and forget to pay any attention to the glass.

    #8753
    Supah Protist
    Participant
    • Type: SeTi
    • Development: ll-l
    • Attitude: Directive

    I guess part of this question for me arises from an attempt to reconcile my own observations with CT theory. If Pe essentially receives information about the outside world and Pi consolidates and recollects this information internally, then where is there room for receiving information about the internal world? A possible solution to this issue may be that Pe isn’t necessarily concerned with the external world as much as it is with new information. Ideally, wouldn’t there be a function that receives new information from the inner world, one that receives new information from the outer world, (more shaky on this next part) one that forms a model of the internal world out of external information and one that forms a model of the external world out of internal information?

    #8764
    Tea
    Participant
    • Type: NeFi
    • Development: l--l
    • Attitude: Seelie

    I've been thinking that perhaps the idea of Pe being the in-taker of information is too narrow. I think it's more accurate to say it searches for information. I think all functions may, in fact, deal with information intake. I'm unsure at this point. But I do know that Pe can explore any information, internal or external. The difference is that it treats the self as the object rather than the subject. The self is then both subject and object.
    The functions are ultimately about the subject's relationship to objects, be that object the self or others.

    #8765
    Supah Protist
    Participant
    • Type: SeTi
    • Development: ll-l
    • Attitude: Directive

    @teatime, do you think that Ne could be focused on exploration of internal information while Se is focused on the exploration of external information? What I’m observing in my own life is an obsessive exploration of internal reality to the near complete exclusion of any exploration of external reality.

    #8957
    Tea
    Participant
    • Type: NeFi
    • Development: l--l
    • Attitude: Seelie

    I do think Ne is inherently anchored to existing conclusions in a way Se seems not to be, and I suspect this has to do with intrusion from the inside. Whereas Se has more of an ability to "empty the cup" and construct a new and unique understanding of the information in front of it.
    But I wouldn't say Ne is any more focused on internal reality than Se can be, just that the nature of the exploration may be different. When I was a small child, I'd go backwards and examine my thoughts, see how one string lead to another. It was linear. But I did not group my thoughts supraordinally according to theme, if that makes any sense. I didn't do that until maybe junior high. Maybe this is the area of "things all people do," but I so get a sense that Se it thematic by nature since is must coordinate all details in front of it into a whole, which is no small task since the details may not be intrinsically related. For that, you have Ni to stitch them together. Whereas NeSi has more of an etiological/causal taxonomic system, and things group according to kind.
    Dang, this was a Ne ramble. Sorry!

    #9198
    Supah Protist
    Participant
    • Type: SeTi
    • Development: ll-l
    • Attitude: Directive

    I guess I realize now that I’m asking a content question as opposed to a process question. I’m asking why the content of my metabolism is my own self, not whether or not the metabolism itself is proactive or reactive. Does anyone know if CT has anything to say regarding subjective vs. objective content?

    #9252
    Auburn
    Keymaster
    • Type: TiNe
    • Development: l--l
    • Attitude: Adaptive

    Metabolically, introversion is the process by which information is evaluated statically rather than dynamically. The subject of thoughts turns in on the information rather than branching out, and focuses on the content in-itself.
    So the activity of introversion is a bit like how a cow digests its food using four stomachs. The same limited information is re-evaluated from different angles using the introspective instrument whether for inner consistency (Ji) or cohesion with prior trends. Introversion consists of a pause, a removal from the situation, and a distance from it.
    Subjectively, I find that the experience of cognitive introversion is not very noisy, but almost anti-noise. Less thoughts are floating around, but those that are... are crisper. There may only be one idea being mulled over at a time, with a focus on quality over quantity.
    There are other tangential elements to introversion that may be worth noting:

    • Restraint: Introversion will restrain. Whether that means restraining a person back from talking, from acting, or from asserting. This is due to the "not done processing" aspect, and again to the quality > quantity approach. So this restraint is rather accidental. More viscerally, it may even restrain the body from touching the outside. The hands may withdraw to the torso, objects may not be dabble with, etc.
    • Deprivation: This is not the right word for what I mean, but comes close enough. I find it curious that the Big Five model treats introversion/extroversion as a spectrum of positive emotion. Although I think this is not central, I think there is something to it. Introversion is a form of deprivation, and thus has a level of self-denial to it, of what the world offers. It's sobering. Again this happens incidentally, by the resistance of objects.

    So in summary a highly cognitively introverted person will tend not to interface very much, remove themselves from objects, hold only a few ideas in thought at a time, go over those few ideas a lot, checking them for inner consistency and structure with some level of isolation, etc.
    For example, all the double-introverted members I've typed so far are rather non-participatory on the forum. When they do they come out with one post, which they may have sat on for days. Now I must say that this deeper contemplation says nothing about the possible accuracy/inaccuracy of their thoughts compared to other methodologies. But at the least, in doing so, they usually reflect their views to their highest level of inner fidelity; coming from the entirety of their paradigm/worldview due to having been digested for so long.
    This is what introversion is. It's not so much about the content being you, or someone else, etc. It's about how information is treated.
    p.s. I'm doubly extroverted, so I feel like I spew out posts like popcorn. I'm definitely not a good example of introversion. More like a Pe+Je combo filtered through a lead Ji, with an unholy level of error-allowance which I'd crucify myself for when I was younger, but I've internally decided to compromise on for the lucidity now offered.
    A double introverted Se-lead (whether that's you or not) would have the opposite problem. I want to go more into you, as a case study, tomorrow, and present my thoughts more fully. But I felt this post was a necessary preamble.

    #9313
    Supah Protist
    Participant
    • Type: SeTi
    • Development: ll-l
    • Attitude: Directive

    That’s what I was thinking. I’m asking a question about content as opposed to processing. CT measures processing as opposed to content. I do wonder though, if there’s space in the theory for content.
     
    This conects back to earlier in this thread when I was asking about whether or not Pi could be more introspective than currently conceptualized. I always found it odd that Pi only forms an internal model of the external world. My idea is that this is the case in situations where Pi serves the agenda of another extroverted function higher in the hierarchy. So maybe when Pi is the lead function, there is a necessary degree of self discovery that results. This would be because I think P may be akin to a stimulus and J to a response. Following from this P would be akin to content and J would be akin to processing. This would mean that either J function can activate in response to either P function. So somebody can be processing internal (Pi) or external (Pe) input internally (Ji) or externally (Je).
     
    I think this would still preserve the current definitions of introverted and extraverted functions while also accounting for content in a certain way. This isn’t me saying that Pi is solely introspective or that Pe is solely externally exploratory, rather that they can be depending on their position in the hierarchy. Je isn’t solely focused on affecting the world and Ji isn’t solely focused on affecting the self, but they can be, once again, depending on their position.
     
    Anyway, these are just my own ideas. Looking forward to the case study!

    #9456
    Auburn
    Keymaster
    • Type: TiNe
    • Development: l--l
    • Attitude: Adaptive

    Actually before your case study, a few more notes... going back to your OP:

    I’m noticing a pattern in my own cognition that I’d like to find a CT based explanation of. Most of the time when I’m thinking, I’m thinking about myself. The content of my thoughts is subjective. I know that, metabolically, functions aren’t supposed to be content as much as processing, but nonetheless, this is a persistent pattern that I’d like to understand. I remember from the CT book, perception and judgement were described as input and processing respectively. Is it possible that by processing myself, I’m processing Pi?
    To put it another way, I’m trying to understand myself as a subject. I’m not trying to necessarily understand typology or other people, those are more byproducts of the core goal of self knowledge.

    This would be Ji, according to our current definitions. It's part of the question of identity, even though "identity" in this case doesn't mean the floral decoration of one's inner world, but nonetheless the focus is turned on oneself as a subject.

    I also think that that the Pi description may be biased towards Pe. While it’s supposed to be an introverted function, it seems very focused on the external world. Is it possible that the current Pi behavioral description is biased towards reviser Pi? Reviser Pi would be more focused on the external world because it’s serving a Pe agenda, right?

    I think I see what you're getting at. Presently, the definition of Pi is not focused on the external world but it also isn't focused "on the self." I would frame it by saying that this is a Ji vs Pi difference, where Ji focuses on the self-identity question (a kind of introversion) while Pi focuses on more thematic and broad questions (what is the landscape of the cosmos?) The latter does appear more externally oriented in comparison to Ji (which is very explicitly self-focused).
    But looking at it more closely I don't think that's quite what is happening. Lets take for example Pi's proclivity towards philosophy. This is clearly a type of introspection; an attempt to bring about narrative structure from an internal and convergent place. The subject stitches together information reactively, and almost soliptically --as some philosophies can be quite insular. Yet it requires a "broader" context than the self, so Pi does have a wider aperture of information it draws from than the self, but I don't think that's the same as it being externally oriented. The metabolism is still directed inward.
    Now, as for your case study...
    You clearly appear to be introspecting to me, more than anything else. So I would like to propose a few side-by-side hypotheses and you can let me know what you think of this:

    • Failed Prediction by the Model? It's healthy to remain open to the possibility that CT is just wrong here. One of the most direct answers might be that your vultology does not reflect your psychology. This would mean the model may need further refinement in the particular visual niche you fall into. We've had gaps before that have pressed us to seek out more data, in order to make sense of it. You may be [x] type and that is not being reflected in your vultology according to our current metrics, due to external noise factors, lack of CT resolution, etc.
    • SeTi + Affect + Ti + Ni: The next possibility is that you may indeed be a P-lead and a reviser (as seems to be the case) (but which means "Pe-lead" and that seems misleading at first), but the combined effect of all other factors is sufficient to generate the deviations we are seeing in you from the standard Pe Beta. For example (heresy is another similar case) the effects of flat affect may be more significant than previously thought in immersing a person into introspection regardless of type. It could be that Affect+Double-Introversion is enough net introverted energy to make even a Pe-lead into a powerhouse of subjective reflection. This doesn't violate CT technically, since we don't use a binary E-I dichotomy, so there is no need to remain faithful to the "introvert" versus "extrovert" designations typically used. From what we've seen so far, a double-introverted E type is, for all practical purposes, an introvert. But their energetics will still suffer modulation strains. And this appears to be precisely what we see in you. As I mentioned in your report, the clamping you feel suggests some tug-of-war going on in you where something is being inhibited. It would make sense that Pe was being inhibited, leading to these responses of excessive doubt, while lacking J decisiveness, or Pi narrative.
    • NiFe: I actually have the hardest time thinking of this as your type. Not only are the signals not there, but the psychology also is not there. You seem much closer to TiSe, psychologically. Your excessive revising, questioning, subject-focus (in the Ji way) and lack of anchoring... would highly conflict with NiFe as defined in CT. You don't appear to have the psychological qualities of episodic continuity, a panoramic philosophy, a steadiness and temperance, etc.
    • TiSe: This type I see as more likely than NiFe, for the reasons mentioned above. But I still find it less likely due to a total lack of Ji rigidity, despite what seems like super heavy Ji use. If you were TiSe, your Ji-lead-ness would be so obvious. But instead, what it seems like to me is a lot of Ji energy, without the Ji poised spine. And again I don't get much Pi energy from you, if we're defining Pi according to CT which is:  https://cognitivetype.com/metabolism-energetics/


    More than just "content" being subject or object, Pi in CT is all the above qualities ^
    Without these qualities, it isn't Pi. And I really don't see most of these qualities in you. But I do see lots of Pe+Ji qualities in you. So Beta Reviser seems solid to me.
     

    #9522
    Supah Protist
    Participant
    • Type: SeTi
    • Development: ll-l
    • Attitude: Directive

    I think what’s going on may be a combination of the first two bullet points. I’m borrowing a concept from OPS called activation, which occurs when an individual has the two oscilations present for a single function. CT and OPS have different function oscilations, but I’m applying the concept to CT with the CT oscilations. So as a SeTi with only Fe unconscious, I have consciousness SeNi and SeTi oscilations. This would essentially double activate Se and theoretically we should see more Se activity than Ni or Ti activity. However, what we’re observing is increased Ti activity. This would result if the actual oscilations were SeTi and NiTi. This would mean that JP oscilations are fundamental as opposed to EI oscilations.
     
    Edit: Techinically, this might also allow for NiFe, depending on whether or not reviser signals are present in NiFe’s with l-ll development.

    #9533
    Anonymous
    Inactive
    • Type:
    • Development:
    • Attitude:

    As a double-introverted person with (Ji-Pi), the content of my psyche is usually not about understanding myself but trying to understand the world (universe) and humanity, building up a model and making sure it "right". When I think about myself and my identity it is usually in envisioning my "self" in the world, in what way I will exist and "arrive." That is, it is not "who am I" or "what am I" it is more what do I have to do to "be" in a way that aligns with what I already "am," but in an external way. Also, this carries with it in bringing my whole model of understanding in an external way as well, since this is what associate myself with. This is very different from what you describe @SupahProtist since it seems you are trying to understand your own self, from the world that is a given to you already.

    #9534
    Supah Protist
    Participant
    • Type: SeTi
    • Development: ll-l
    • Attitude: Directive

    Hey @adrian-g-correa
     
    I wonder if what you’re noticing is a J-Lead vs. P-Lead thing or an extravert vs. introvert thing. It makes me think of the accepting producing and Exterior Interior dichotomies in Socionics. Basically, accepting functions are what the producing functions work off of and exterior functions are taken for granted while interior functions are seen as changeable.
     
    We do seem to be operating in opposite directions when it comes to what we’re trying to understand and what we’re using to facilitate understanding. Sometimes I think of my own introspection as trying to form an objective model of the subject. I’m taking all of these external ideas and trying to build something out of them that corresponds to myself.
     
    Do you feel like your understanding of the world serves your envisioning of how you should be in the world or vice versa or are they independent drives? Your description of figuring out how to “be” in the world in a way that accords with your identity reminds me of the JeJi oscilation. How do I act (Je?) in accordance with my standards (Ji?)?
     
    I’d describe my main preoccupation as building a model as well although my model is of myself as opposed to of the world. I’m not as much exploring myself because I’m compiling the experiences into a coherent explanatatory framework. It’s exploration in the interest of knowledge, not the other way around.

    #9539
    Anonymous
    Inactive
    • Type:
    • Development:
    • Attitude:

    I think there might be a difference in how we understand "self" vs "identity." Identity I see as something external and constructed, in "being" and therefore as you say Je and probably Pe. But the "self" is more complicated because there is a part of myself at the "core" of my psyche that is just "seeking truth" (Ji) and therefore it is simple. But it gets complicated when the layers of "self" have to be defined. I am a human and so, therefore, my understanding of humanity oscillates with the understanding of my own experience as one human back and forth. So it is hard to distinguish my "self" when I am using a subject (a human, which is me) to understand humanity and vice versa trying to understand the subject (a human, which is me) by studying humanity. I think this whole process uses Ji,Pi,Pe and Je. Not to mention that this, in the end, ties in with the whole model (framework) of the world and universe as well that is in "me". So in the end, even this post is difficult to answer and write because you are asking me to divulge/define (Je) everything that is "me" which in a way is everything that I have processed so far of what is external.

    #9545
    Supah Protist
    Participant
    • Type: SeTi
    • Development: ll-l
    • Attitude: Directive

    I think what I’m after nowadays is more an understanding of the self as you described it, but a better way to phrase it is as figuring out why I do what I do. What are the reasons behind why I think about what I think about and why I act how I act? I think I’m after the whole picture as opposed to a piece of it. Another way to phrase it is figuring out how I work. It seems a bit causal, so maybe I’m after some sort of Je explanation of my behavior.

Viewing 25 posts - 1 through 25 (of 26 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
© Copyright 2012-2021 Juan E. Sandoval - Use Policy
searchhomecommentsenvelope