Hello! I’ve been meaning to make this post for a while, but I keep putting it off because I haven’t been able to ~perfectly~ express what I’m trying to express, so I’m just gonna wing it. Apologies in advance if this is difficult to understand or disorganized in it’s points!
Basically, the general idea is this – I’ve been thinking a lot about the possibilities that a system like CT holds for psychotherapy in a humanistic, Rogersian sense. The possibility that one can know conclusively one’s own cognitive architecture and tendencies is pretty groundbreaking. If CT is real, scientifically provable, and routinely observable in everyday life, the implications for that are really quite large, probably larger than any of us could really speculate. One could speak to other people of their type, compare and contrast the arcs of their lives, and gain insight from one another. One could learn definitively about the people in their lives, about their own functions, and the functions of others that they don’t share. Deeper and mutual understanding of each other could be made more possible, at least in a broad way.
The key possibility though, I think, would be that each person who know’s their own type will have a clearer path to self-integration. Carl Rogers, one of the most influential psychologists in the humanistic psychology movement of the 1950s, posits this as his main hypothesis for psychotherapy:
“If I can create a relationship characterized on my part: by a genuineness and transparency, in which I am my real feelings; by a warm acceptance of and prizing of the other person as a separate individual; by a sensitive ability to see his world and himself as he sees them;
Then the other individual in the relationship: will experience and understand aspects of himself which previously he has repressed; will find himself becoming better integrated, more able to function effectively; will become more similar to the person he would like to be; will be more self-directing and self-confident; will become more of a person, more unique and more self-expressive; will be more understanding, more acceptant of others; will be able to cope with the problems of life more adequately and more comfortably.”
The practice of integration is somewhat analogous to bringing a function into consciousness, but it isn’t quite the same. Rogers, Maslow, and other humanistic thinkers were great proponents of the power one has in acceptance. If one can accept something, one can integrate that thing into their idea of reality whether it is a good, bad, or otherwise neutral thing. The more one integrates aspects of themselves or previously rejected aspects of reality, the more one is living in a rich, realistic, and holistic reality that can be shared with others. We all have constructs and ideas about reality that are base to our personalities, and their general idea was that through therapy we can begin to untie those constructs and falsehoods and begin to not only live in a clearer Reality shared with others, but also begin to live as our true selves. Integration of our own rejected functions would mean something similar – we wouldn’t have to rise them all the up out of unconsciousness, we would only need to accept that they are a part of us.
In CT terms, this would mean that we would only need to bring our rejected functions (stage -1 of integration) into a neutral state (stage 0) in order to begin integrating them into our lives. I have no idea what the process would be here, but I imagine it’s already been developed: psychotherapy. Therapy has a very similar effect to what I am describing, in that it usually allows people to access previously rejected parts of themselves when they want to, but they can also leave those parts rejected until they are ready to integrate them. It is a fairly intuitive process, one that is highly documented and diverse, and one that is very powerful when willingly experienced. If the systems outlined in CT were integrated into therapeutic practices, I don’t know what it would look like, but it would probably be similar to what Carl Jung was trying to come up with when he created his functions – a fairly specific representation of a human being that allows the client to understand themselves much more deeply with specific limits and possibilities.
How has CT enabled you to grow? What aspects of yourself have you been able to recognize now that you are able to clearly see the architecture of your personality, and have you been able to integrate the aspects of yourself you previously werent aware of? What was that like?
- Type: TiSe
- Development: llll
- Attitude: Directive
So what I know of therapy is that the person is meant to slowly divulge their feelings (to process them (basically to cry and let their heart speak) to the therapist. The therapist is there as an mediator and investigator, finding where those pain points might be that need to be released(the mother, father etc. usually family or life event). Another aspect to therapy is accepting reality, which I think is harder to do. I suppose, from personal experience, that as people accept reality and release painful emotions, whatever was fragmented in the self comes back together from those knots or pain points that before were blocking growth and disfigured the person’s self.
This means that the most important aspects of CT are the F and T axis firstly and whether it is Ji or Je. Ji “higher self/authentic self” and Je “persona.” The F function (whether Ji or Je) is the most important because it is there where, I theorize, our heart and soul communicates and grows. It is life itself, our body and feelings and the cite of soul alchemy. So a person would benefit from knowing where this is placed in their cognitive priority (lead or last) and in what context (persona or self). Also whether their attitude suggest a blocked heart/access to this place, because if blocked, it’s going to be much harder to be open to process pain (probably a backlog of unprocessed pain) (which I think just means, the person needs to feel more comfortable, feel more trusting of the therapist and slowly get into memories/individuals/events/guilt that is being ignored. High T lead will be similar, though there is more possibility for variance. They could have an open heart and have not had any painful emotions (but they would still need to access and become aware of their sensitivity (to themselves and others) over time and get the ego to be dislodged from its routine cognitive T priority). But this is for therapy, which usually involves some kind of life problem that needs fixing (therefore an F issue).
As for the accepting “reality” part of therapy. Because reality is so vast and , for me, includes the “intuitive mystery”, I think what the person would need to accept about reality would be very specific. For example, accepting and delving into one’s unconscious is a crazy experience, and the way I see it, it is traumatic, and I imagine accepting reality (to heal) more and more will include one’s exploration into the unconscious. I don’t think a creature is supposed to see their own “programming” background for their life, though. Imagine a robot becoming aware of it’s own programming, no wonder there is existential dread. But due to the conditions of life (cruelty) and our capacity to be aware beyond what other animals can be aware of, I feel the human brain at some point, under certain stressful conditions, will dive you right into the unconscious to figure out what’s wrong despite your protest or readiness; and because barely anyone talks of this experience or survives this harrowing experience (they snap and become crazy), it is still a terrifying unexplored area, though I think the future will be one of more easily accessing our unconscious in a safe way (some people already do through drugs, with weed being the safest in my opinion, therapeutically). Basically, I’ll say it depends what of “reality” they have to accept; and its not easy because I think it includes a model of reality that is sufficient for them, for the person, to accept in their current life stage. Accepting a dead relative, for example, in a more common model of reality, that their lifeless body is still here is S domain but also whether that they/their soul is in afterlife beyond this one I would say is encroaching on the N domain of “reality”. I don’t know how much a person would need to know about their S or N priority to “accept” reality, therefore, and it would depend on the trouble the person has. I had to accept an N reality beyond this S world to accept my life as meaningful, because I was too S you see? So it really depends on the person and their models of reality (to be explored by them Pe and which molds into a worldview Pi they ultimately can accept).
This is what I think so far, but it’s something I’ve been thinking about and which I’ll keep mulling over. One thing I’ll say is that CT is first and foremost a typological theory of cognition. And ,perhaps, a potential psychological therapeutic device. There is a lot to be revealed yet in our depths😉
Some of the larger ideas you are presenting here may be lost on me! I think I am having some trouble understanding some of it. But in response to your saying that there are more important functions that others, I think I disagree. The thing I’m trying to get across here, perhaps poorly, is that in order to function wholly as a human being, we have to accept and integrate every and all aspects of ourselves. For example, I hated authority and organization as a child. Classic Fi stuff, I was very anti-Te. Antiauthoritarian in every aspect of my life. I had to eventually accept that I have Te in myself too. Speaking in archetypal terms, I had to accept that I have a wise king, and a dictator, and a wrathful parent, and any and all kinds of authority in me – they are only sitting in my unconscious, meeting their own needs beyond the scope of my awareness. I had to accept that control over other entities is necessary in order to not have my Te run amok in my life. I realized that I wasn’t living in reality when I realized that all sorts of authoritarian behaviors were coming out sideways. I’m sure there are an infinite number of other examples of this kind of thing in my life, and in all of our lives, and I’m not sure if it’s ever really possible to live in a True Reality, or what that would even mean. But (admittedly in a very Ji way), I believe that is an unattainable ideal that is worth chasing. Fostering a tolerance for ambiguity and self-contradiction in our personalities gets us closer to some kind of balance I think. I can be anti-authoritarian in constructive ways without just rejecting the idea of authority and control altogether. There are times when it is important to have someone with a grasp on a situation be able to offer a course of action, etc. The same goes for my Se when it meets my Ni, my I and E, and all other aspects of my being.
We are only living in something close to a true reality when we are able to value and recognize each and all of our aspects, at least that is what I believe, and that is the general hypothesis of humanistic psychology. I cannot speak for psychoanalytical forms of psychology like Freudian or Jungian practices, because I’m less versed in those, but they probably posit something similar in a different sort of way. The practice of humanistic psych, or Rogersian therapy, usually just involves a client and a therapist talking to one another. The therapist tries their best to see things from the client’s point of view, and offers something Rogers calls “unconditional positive regard” while they basically just rephrase whatever the client is saying back to them from their own perspective. It’s more complicated that what I’m describing, but the jist is that the therapist acts as a mirror for the client, and the client is then able to recognize themselves as maybe different than they thought they were. This happens innumerably over possibly years, or a lifetime, of work, and the client is able to integrate more and more of what they weren’t aware of in themselves with the therapist’s help. The therapist never attempts to alter the client in any way, and attempts to keep guidance to a minimum. Roger’s describes it as being a midwife instead of a teacher. The client is able to peek at their unconsciousness by observing themselves as they go about their lives, and interrogating their motivations and behaviors. I guess it’s sort of similar to a kind of mindfulness!
- This reply was modified 1 month, 3 weeks ago by Alice.
- Type: TiSe
- Development: llll
- Attitude: Directive
Hmm, when you said self-integration I thought you meant developing functions (aka them becoming conscious and having some form of control). But I think what you are saying is rather becoming aware of oneself wholly in one’s current state (knowing that you have unconscious Te and becoming aware of what that means in your life and how it contradicts with your Fi. I think. Yes an I see I missed that part: “We all have constructs and ideas about reality that are base to our personalities, and their general idea was that through therapy we can begin to untie those constructs and falsehoods and begin to not only live in a clearer Reality shared with others, but also begin to live as our true selves. Integration of our own rejected functions would mean something similar – we wouldn’t have to rise them all the up out of unconsciousness, we would only need to accept that they are a part of us.”
Hmm I thought you were using CT cognition demarcation too, because I would say Ji is your “true self” process, your compass, that’s what it signifies as a process in the psyche theoretically. But you include “true self” as the whole human experience, not just the process of one’s identity process (Ji) but you include your unconscious Je process too because its part of your whole experience as a human and you are saying that to be self- integrated means to be aware of every part of that experience.
You also see therapy as a self-ware process, where it does not indicate any psychological issues, but as you say it is “mindfulness.” While I thought you meant therapy as in where people go to therapy to heal life problems and therefore need help navigating their psyche.
I would say that what you describe sounds like heavy Fi self-reflection of human experience; it’s very Ji, searching for self.
My experience as a Ti user is different. It’s hard for me to have a sense of self without interacting with other people and mimicking or comparing their behavior to mine(Fe) I ask myself, did I do something wrong, should I have done this instead, should I have smiled, should I be more nice? (I guess this is Fe self-reflection). Otherwise, I’m just analyzing my experience in my head. It’s very calculated, but once I established boundaries with people and became aware of myself as a person through relationships, with self-analysis of my behavior and my response to my emotions, I have a better feeling of who I am.
I guess we still have a long way to go to understand what type is and its experiential/phenomenological differences.
I didn’t consider that my very viewpoint may have been a product of my typology! I suppose that is inevitable! Hahaha
Another cool implication of knowing our separate types is this type of interaction – where we are able to compare and contrast our own perspectives and learn from each other! It’s really wild to think that we may both process information in totally different ways, but that we may share those patterns with others of the same type. I realize that this is the very foundation of the CT theory, but it has some very cool possibilities of it ever makes it to the stage where it can be used in commonplace therapies. Group work could facilitate this type of perspective sharing interaction, and mediating techniques would probably greatly benefit as well.
Of course, I guess it could work the other way as well. Instead of inviting a deeper possibility for mutual understanding, a commonplace knowledge of the basics of CT could invite stereotyping and writing people’s behaviors off as trivial examples of such and such function, or such and such type. The integration work I mentioned before would be important for us if we ever got to the the point when a typology system was commonplace knowledge, because we would have to accept our more rejected aspects in order to trust and value people who we know to have those aspects in themselves.
Auburn’s recent post on libido got me thinking on something else not quite expressed in the original post – that every aspect of the personality has a pull, a need, a libido, that needs to be fed and met, and our lives will be less confusing and difficult if we can acknowledge the needs of our various functions. This is easier thought about and said than done, as rejected functions (dev stage -1) have a strong negative connotation in our moment to moment thoughts. It requires a sustained effort to actively engaged in or just consider and contemplate aspects of life that are maybe antithetical to your core philosophy or lifestyle. Bringing a function to a neutral level though (stage 0), may help you understand what needs your lesser-understood aspects have, and we may even learn new things about ourselves as we explore these libidos. If we don’t, they will meet their own needs in ways outside of our control and awareness, and we may be surprised to learn that we act in ways that are different than how we think of and know ourselves.FiNeParticipant
- Type: Unknown
- Attitude: Unknown
involves a client and a therapist talking to one another. The therapist tries their best to see things from the client’s point of view, and offers something Rogers calls “unconditional positive regard” while they basically just rephrase whatever the client is saying back to them from their own perspective. It’s more complicated that what I’m describing, but the jist is that the therapist acts as a mirror for the client, and the client is then able to recognize themselves as maybe different than they thought they were.
Sounds like trening of mentalization.
Here is interesting document about theraphy: https://icpla.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Adolescent-MBT.pdf
I am interested in typology for self-therapy purpose in the first place. CT is another useful framework to look at psyche. But I am at beginner phase of learning CT yet (I am learning a lot of stuff beside that). I am happy that model 1 is almost finished. I prefer to grasp whole picture at the once.
one can know conclusively one’s own cognitive architecture and tendencies is pretty groundbreaking
It helps a lot. I like idea to surround my knowledge around model of functions. I always looked for base for my reflections and I think I found.
It’s really wild to think that we may both process information in totally different ways, but that we may share those patterns with others of the same type. I realize that this is the very foundation of the CT theory, but it has some very cool possibilities of it ever makes it to the stage where it can be used in commonplace therapies
Knowing cogitive processes can add nessesary details and can help to customize theraphy, speed up whole work. I understand myself better now. It takes a months for my psychotherapist to find out things that I knew a lot faster from JCF theory.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.