I've been digesting a lot of feedback lately regarding necessary updates. And I just wanted to let members know what is under revision and what the final output will look like, generally speaking. Feel free to ask questions about any of this. I may add more details to this thread as more things congeal.
But in general, as I mentioned today on Discord:
There is a greater decoupling that needs to happen in the model -- and I'm working on it right now. I don't know how everyone will feel about these clarifications but I will put forth my argument soon.
But basically the Fi & Ti profiles will be rewritten, and the heartitudes articles will be too. The main behaviors being described will remain a thing, but things need to be shuffled around to where they actually belong.
For example the Ti profile will be stripped of any "emotionless" language. And Fi will be stripped of any permeability, as a 'necessity'. These are contingent on other variables that have nothing to do with Ti/Fi metabolically.
The functions, as metabolic processes, really are divorced from emotions, even though every thought we have can lead to an emotional reaction in us. And it seems that Fe and Fi are both Logical processes, as all of "J" is LOGOS. But Fi and Fe process the ontology of the biotic/animate differently, either through Ji ontology or Je ontology. That's really it.
So... it goes without saying that Fe/Fi is not emotions. But now the question of emotion will be put into a different category: into seelie/unseelie/adaptive/directive. F attitude will be renamed Emotional Attitude. And so, Seelie/Unseelie will be an emotional disposition that any Delta or Gamma can have, as a whole person, based on the specific contours of their emotional register.
And so a person's emotional attitude is a non-type related vultology-psychology matchup, existing in parallel to type. However, it remains part of the CT model (but not CT type) because it just so happens that a person's emotional attitude manifests differently in whether a person is Alpha/Beta or Gamma/Delta.
Emotional Attitude describes aspects of a person's emotional state, relying on signals that have crossover with Ekman signals such as joy/sorrow/anger/disgust/contempt -- as expressed in either the Alpha/Beta types or Delta/Gamma types. And we may wonder why the CT model needs to have information about a person's emotional expression within it. And the answer to that is, it doesn't. But it does because of several reasons.
Therefore Emotional Attitude is a non-random addition. It is not inserted into the CT Model arbitrarily but from the sheer fact that it is persistent and objectively measurable, and that it does correspond to certain psychic states, even if they're not type.
However, CT as a model is only interested in accounting for emotional attitude differences in people insofar as those differences relate to, or interfere with, the expression of cognitive type.
Another vultological model, by another party, could conceivably be created that delves more deeply into the question of vultology and the intersection with emotional states/complexes/fixations -- and I've seen some enneagram groups trying to do so. For now this is not part of the CT project.
The main behaviors being described will remain a thing, but things need to be shuffled around to where they actually belong.
An example of this shuffling is that Fi permeability is a seelie emotional feature. Being Fi-lead does not mean you have to be emotionally permeable. Being a Ti lead does not mean you have to be emotionally detached.
Removing the emotional component of Fi vs Ti, a much more clear distinction of the metabolic differences becomes necessary. This is part of what will be elaborated on in the upcoming changes to the profiles, but I wanted to drop off a few notes here for reference, when investigating the question of the FiNe (Unseelie) vs the TiNe type.
These questions cannot be answered without appreciating the fact that the Fi-lead and Ti-lead type are Fi/Te and Ti/Fe users, and the lead function never works in isolation. So we must examine the net effects of the two function axes, but by how the function axes works when the Ji pole is atop of the Je pole.
Within a Cosmic Scale: Questions?
The implicit assumption of Fe is that there is a biotic (often anthropocentric) vector-purpose-meaning (for example a mission, destiny) to is-ness.
Even if no purpose is found, a nihilistic Ti/Fe user would be like Camus, someone who struggles to justify it, but can't seem to reconcile the universe's seeming betrayal of their implicit phenomenological assumption that there ought to be a purpose/mission/aim that is biotic-object(ive) in some fashion.
So far I've found that by comparison Fi/Te users want to know "what is" in a more process-oriented sense (math/physics on one hand, economics on the other), because the abiotic (T) is connected to the causal (Je) function. And the value question is not causal/vector-like, but individual (Fi).
Value vs Value-giver
For Ti/Fe, the objective (E) is the value-giver(F)/holder, and Ti's purpose is in some sense to chisel away at what isn't the essential nature and truth of that value-giver. That is what we've found anyway, looking at many philosophers with Ti/Fe vultology in various hierarchies.
And for me, even though I am a nihilist, I've realized that my transhumanistic philosophy stems from an implicit assumption to the effect of Yuval Harari's "Homo Deus" book-- the notion that we are 'becoming' a divinity of sorts.
I suppose if the objective nature of the universe is a deus-generation machine, using evolution as the vehicle by which it happens, then it could be called purposeful. But I'm aware of the metaphor here and I generally side with thinking we are "creating our own purpose." Except, if we're part of a larger design, then maybe it isn't so much us individually doing this... but the algorithm we're a part of.. and it playing out? So by creating our own purpose, and believing in self-meaning, over time we participate in the emergent purpose of the universe. ;p
Within a Local Scale: Questions?
For Fe, purpose/value is found in object-to-object relations. I'm just taking this at a cosmic scale above, and showing how it manifests in myself philosophically. But a much more plain Jane Fe value can arise from communal participation for example. A person might find meaning within the interaction of objects (people) together around her vicinity, and knowing that her role in that context is what gives that meaning. Knowing you're a part of a biotic system bigger than oneself, is what gives meaning in Fe. But the key note here is:
Fe/Ti implicit belief: value is not something I can self-decide, even if I wanted to.
Implicit belief is not the same as conscious belief, so some Fe/Ti users may think they are self-deciding but their actions, when investigated more closely, will see the object-dependence of it. And this doesn't have to lead to any sort of philosophical view that has god at the top. Even if a Ti user thinks that the universe is inanimate, and that the physical universe itself is not the meaning-provider, whatever is the value-giver in their lives will be something that has a dependency on other-ness.
It's difficult to describe this in every possible manifestation, as there are infinite ways it could congeal into ground-level beliefs. For example, wanting to measure up to one's father. The integration of values, for Fe users, is something I'll have to talk about more in another post, as Fe users can feel their values are self-decided when instead they are internalizations of object-relation conclusions, or extracted from a philosophy/theology that makes the meaning & object(universe) synonymous in some fashion.
Oppositely, for the Fi/Te user, the implicit belief is that value is something that is self-decided. Once again this differs from explicit belief, and when a deeper investigation is done, we see that the Fi/Te user will reveal a phenomenology that considers value as only capable of being decided/delegated by the self. There may be far less trouble in Fi/Te users, with believing in a mechanical universe, for this reason.
Clarity on the question of Ti vs Te, and Theory ("Ti?") vs Application ("Te?"):
The question of theory versus application is not one I see as a true binary. But insofar as we can pivot the two terms together, theory belongs more to Ji or Pi and application more to Je. The operation of Te in service to Ji or Pi will lead it to be used theoretically, thus developing theories of objective causality. Likewise the operation of Fe, in service to Je or Pi will lead it to be used theoretically, thus developing theories of biotic-object causality.
A few notes:
Regarding a Ji lead (with no Je conscious) -- in both cases (Fi/Ti) a Ji lead with no Je development will be focused on essential questions and theory.
However, this theorizing, for an Fi/Te user, will either be:
And for a Ji lead who is a Ti/Fe user, this will be either:
Te in a high-Te user is likely to be focused on application, but Te by itself is an abiotic causality calculator. This abiotic causality-process can run conceptually too, as happens in the high-Fi type. Which is my current explanation as to why high Fi's are so often theoretical physicists, while we don't see high-Ti's in that domain. Instead high-Ti's tend to be conceptual/theoretical modelers of human dynamics (Fe). The two functions always work in tandem, in some way, but if Ji or Je is on top, the other is used in a different style.
The four uses of Je
^ These four don't account for development of lower functions. When that happens, both corresponding avenues of the axis are accessible to the person.
These are some important insights, and most make a lot of sense methinks 🙂
The implicit assumption of Fe is that there is a biotic (often anthropocentric) vector-purpose-meaning (for example a mission, destiny) to is-ness.
^I can vouch for this from my own experience. I'm essentially a nihilist as well, absurdist to be precise, but still have this underlying sense of a purpose 'larger than myself' that I just can't shake 😛 The way I've come to see things is that we are part of something bigger, namely the collective of all humanity and life on this planet. Having seen a lot of evidence for the existence of the collective unconscious as well, and for the fact that we have a 'psychic' effect on each other, I see it that much of what we do is in a sense guided by the overall flow and direction present in the grand scheme of things (what I call the Order of Things). To me, we do each have a potential 'purpose' to fulfill as the particular aspect of humanity that we are. And alignment to this purpose/order is the highest ethical calling because it's how we can support the overall direction and well being of humanity. If we each play our part then humanity will be whole, and I see it that there is a universal (human-created) narrative taking place that aims to restore balance and wellness to this world.
This isn't to say that I believe there to be intrinsic 'meaning' in anything. I see meaning as something human beings generate as a method of coping with reality and motivating certain behaviors that lead to survival. But we are in a sense a collective super-organism which does indeed have overarching goals which aren't necessarily comprehended by the individuals that make up the system. You can call this the 'will of god' if you like, but it's more a coalescing of the collective wills of all living things. At least that's how I've come to understand it.
To me, we do each have a potential ‘purpose’ to fulfill as the particular aspect of humanity that we are. And alignment to this purpose/order is the highest ethical calling because it’s how we can support the overall direction and well being of humanity.
This is actually a central theme in my book. There's a whole system of lessons and spiritual awakening that is used for self discovery & training to take on a purpose --- and the idea of finding the right category or order for yourself (similar to typology, enneagram, etc) --- is central. I've always thought this way, and I've had these themes since before I studied typology. I was working on my own symbols for different types of people in highschool. In fact, a highschool friend wrote to me the other day and she remembered when we used to categorize ourselves as foods or animals (lol) and then I would talk about what that said about them and how that type of person might find the right path in life. So I wonder why? I guess I have some pseudo Fe going on.. I wonder if other gammas relate? Strange.
Great, I'm glad that got cut out! I wish I saw this thread earlier; I'm only checking the news once a week now - including this forum. You can expect further passivity, though; since my eyes were opened in January I've been sinking deeper into Si mode. So, I appreciate the social distancing...
Anyway, not only is all judgement logical, all judgement is also ethical. You stereotypist will take this as speculation anyway, so here are just the conclusions:
Deontological ethics is mainly concerned with moral dilemma's => Ti
Virtue ethics is mainly concerned with moral character => Fi
Consequentialism is mainly concerned with moral "games" => Te
Relativism is mainly concerned with social contracts => Fe
To trade precision for accuracy, this generalizes to: must do (Ti), may do (Fi), have todo (Te), should do (Fe). Moving to the vultological level, we see that Fi's variable muscle tension around the mouth suggest some weighing activity while hesitating. Hence, some intuition pumps for @auburn: Fi is about proportionality (in contrast to Fe's hyperbole), about the ratio (the "/" in contrast to Ti's "-").
Hope this helps, and I'm looking forward to your Fi corrections 🙂
Hey! I know there hasn't been anyone on this thread for a while, but a relevant question: I'm trying to characterize the difference between Ti/Fe and Fi/Te. Would it be correct to say that the Ti/Fe has a disposition toward eliminating one's own subjective experience from one's judgments, while the Fi/Te has a disposition toward analyzing that same experience? This would push Ti/Fe philosophers in a more Rationalist (Descartes, Kant) direction, while perhaps Fi/Te's would lean more towards Phenomenology (Husserl, Heidegger)?
Heya! I think the sentiment of your post is going in the right direction, though I'd frame it a bit different. Both Ti and Fi often examine subjective experience -- and they can be directed toward the examination of anything, in principle. The difference isn't in what domain is or is not analyzed, but in how it is analyzed.
Ti/Fe analyzes the subjective experience as if it were an example of a macro-object (humans) -- tending/wishing to generalize from this what is inter-subjectively real across all human phenomenology. A person is an example of the whole, not really of itself. Fi/Te analyzes the subjective experience with an acute focus on what is specifically the phenomenology of the subject in question, its contours and realities. Fe/Ti looks for what is general across all instances of human consciousnesses, Fi/Te looks for what is specific and most true about [this] consciousness.
Because of this there are plenty of Fe/Ti & Fi/Te phenomenologists. But the Fe/Ti ones tend to neglect specificity in favor of universality, almost seeming to gloss over themselves. They certainly have a sense of themselves, but their metabolic method of "finding truths about living beings" is outside-in, rather than inside-out. Oppositely, Fi tends to conclude/extract truths about being-ness by their direct experience as one, and the direct experience of others from their inside-out-ness too.
(You can arrive at very close to the same places or conclusions, from both angles. And at the highest level they can both see the other's side as valid, because the highest truth includes both the Fi and Fe angles, into a meta-view of what humans are.)
edit: I was being far too loose with my use of the words 'truth' and 'universal' above. No function has any more privilege to these words, and each treats universality differently. By 'universal' I meant moreso a notion that is "aggregated across the data."
I understand that Fi can find "universals" of human beings too, via its inside-out-ness -- landing on irrevocable aspects present in us all. Being 'in it' can aide Fi in discovering realities about subjects that do span across everyone, even if they're deduced not statistically or collectively (Je), but by Ji in an essential manner. You can say that I mean to say Fe works almost via social statistics, when it comes to grasping human nature.
One thing that I find interesting is that though the correlations you outline seem mainly sound (regarding the orientation that lower Je types might have towards being "theorists" and higher Je types might have towards being "pragmatists), I think the manifestations of this are very likely to be rather different for conductors and revisors - and by enumerating these manifestations, it is possible to arrive at a more precise terminology for this difference (because I don't think "theorist" and "pragmatist" captures it quite that well, as of yet).
The conductor, too, is often a highly theoretical individual. Though it's true that some types and some quadras seem more susceptible to this kind of orientation in general, the combination of Je and Pi (especially when both are conscious) often means that the conductor type applies Je's causal deductions to Pi's big-picture, synthetic scope. Pi is a function that I see as aphorismic; it generalizes not only discrete patterns, but layers these generalizations unto each other to come to what I call "meta-generalizations", or generalizations of generalizations. The scope of these meta-generalizations are therefore often much more than the sum of their parts (let's say that each individual generalization encompasses one dataset, but the synthesis or generalization of one generalization unto another generates a generalization that is more than just the sum of those two generalizations; because there is an extra layer of abstraction involved in translated the datasets to one another; this is somewhat analogous to performing operations on two variables of different data types in a programming language, a discrete and emergent type is needed to store the result). Though this orientation is much less likely when one has Pi unconscious, it still being high in the psyche, it is reasonable to state that the conductor is usually a global and rather general (as opposed to specific) individual. This means that conductors often do think about and have answers to the "big questions" - they are and can be "theoretical", forming theories about all that piques their interests - this can at times, lead them away from a "pragmatic" orientation.
The core distinction to make here is that conductors, being proficient in Je and Pi, will naturally have a very wide and big-picture scope approach to theorizing; and Je being high and prominent in the psyche gives them an element of formality that you do not see in the revisor types. We often see that revisor types are more exploratory; perhaps instead of writing philosophical treatises in a line-by-line geometric format (as is the case of Baruch Spinoza's Ethics, I believe he was SiTe) or rigorously attempting to mathematically frame the basic axioms of logic to demonstrate the conceptual isomorphism between the two domains (like you see with FeNi Bertrand Russell) the expression for revisors is often more indirect - low Je allows for a greater tolerance of externalized ambiguity, and so more freedom in terms of expressive medium - this is why you see far more revisors attempt to express their theories indirectly through music, art or poetry; because Ji's sanctity is best preserved by not formally phrasing it (as is the Je approach) but by transmitting the qualia by means of an experience (Pe). This is what NiFe Martin Heidegger understood with his Ti consciousness.
Thus, both conductors and revisors can be theoretical (or pragmatic). I would phrase this more precisely as a general tendency to say conductors are more formal and perhaps certain in their explicitly demonstrable and consistent theoretical views, whereas revisors allude to them by reconfiguring them into perhaps more indirect modes of expression (art) to transmit an experience - they are not formal, but speculative and exploratory.
I agree generally with these proposals or plans. However, there is another thing that I think needs to be clarified. Well, I'm a bit hesitant to address it since it's a heavy topic, but it might be important. And this is purely based from my anecdotal experience and some idealistic thinking, so correct me if I'm wrong.
In general, I think there are some different queer qualities attached to both of the axes. For Ti, I don't think it necessarily fits to the stereotypical gender roles either as implied by the description of Fi. But in contrast to Fi, which either tends to appear off-shooting to the more masculine or feminine side (depends on the emotionality), Ti could make someone rather appearing... neutral? The stereotypical gender roles would fit Fe better imo, in both women and men. You know, those stereotypical motherly and fatherly figures? While Fi in women (and men) could appear youthful or childlike, rather than feminine per se I would say. And there's only one other thing that I think we're left off for Te... I think Te could probably give an effect of someone appearing either hypermasculine or hyperfeminine. These are largely just a matter of perception, but we're talking about stereotypically. And the rough appearance of some guys with Te, especially those with Unseelie emotionality, I honestly don't see how their signals are feminine? And what's interesting for me, I think I have seen just as much Fe/Ti who are transgendered if not more than the Te/Fi ones (if my understanding of vultology is correct and my samples are representative enough, so take that with a grain of salt).
Which begs me the question of sexual orientation. The proportion probably seems more balanced in transgender community because someone going through gender reassignment would inevitably be more visible in the eyes of the public. But when we often see LGBs in media who are Fi/Te, this is probably related more to the psychology rather than the orientation itself, which I think might be related to the theme of self-expression prevalent in those with Fi/Te psychology. It's an interesting phenomenon to me when addressed by Auburn in the profile descriptions and I can confirm that I do see the signals in many public LGBT personas and youtubers. However, I still don't think Fe/Ti are necessarily less prone to behave in sexually unconventional manners. Although indeed, they might not necessarily identify with the labels or prefer to keep their orientation discreet--or probably don't feel the desire to express them (even if they're already out) the way that fellas with Fi/Te do. Especially regarding bisexuality, but there's too much on this topic to be covered here. From what I know though, they're the ones who are the least likely to ever come out, probably because of the stigma.
Anyway, I just think these are some possibilities on why Fi/Te seems to be prevalent in LGBT community. I might be wrong and it might be true that Fi/Te is more predisposed to explore this potentials within themselves and advocate for it, however that still leaves a little room for Ti/Fe to at least be mentioned in comparison to Fi/Te in this regard, if this matter needs to be addressed at all, don't ya think? Just for the sake of fair comparison haha.
For Fe, purpose/value is found in object-to-object relations. I’m just taking this at a cosmic scale above, and showing how it manifests in myself philosophically. But a much more plain Jane Fe value can arise from communal participation for example. A person might find meaning within the interaction of objects (people) together around her vicinity, and knowing that her role in that context is what gives that meaning. Knowing you’re a part of a biotic system bigger than oneself, is what gives meaning in Fe. But the key note here is:
Fe/Ti implicit belief: value is not something I can self-decide, even if I wanted to.
The thing is value IS indeed not something one can self decide. Values - as in "principles or standards of behavior" can not be self determined, they are being built since we are little by input from others - our parents, siblings, teachers, classmates... I can't think of any value I have that I came up with completely on my own. I did not simply look at a classmates' colored pencils and thought stealing is wrong. I learned from my parents, who learned from their parents and so on that stealing is wrong. Everyone saying stealing is wrong will automatically quote the Bible or the religious text they believe in or that is most appropriate from a cultural point of view. It seems to me that most of our current values are directly adopted from those close to us and constantly shaped by society and cultural trends.
So, there is more that needs to be dug out here, because despite having some tendencies for idiosyncrasies, Fi-Te users do have a value system that is also pretty heavily influenced by society.
The same is true of situations like this example you gave - "wanting to measure up to one’s father."
I can not measure up to my father, in all honesty, he is very hard to measure up to. But I do feel a duty to maintain a good image in the eyes of my parents and this is more important to me than living my own dreams, which are not even very clear to me. At the very least, I am trying to learn more about my interests while keeping an image my parents would not be ashamed of. And I also think our output and our influence on other people's lives is basically our purpose.
So, how do we properly discern between issues which are pretty much covered by Enneagram image types and Fe-Ti? Could someone be a 2 or 3 who self determines her values?
This becomes even trickier if we say we do not determine our value system by pinging our emotional register because then...if we don't adopt values from the outside, nor do we determine them by pinging our emotional register for each one (emotional register which would anyway be attuned corresponding at least in part with the societal general views) - I can't see how we would be determining those values.
Another issue is how much perception functions play into this, as, typically, as Saf mentioned above, conductors do tend to look at things from a rather global or general perspective, which can play into adopting a role which impacts more people in a more direct way...which in itself might come into conflict with self deciding values even more. To give an example, as a politician or as a priest, you need a high degree of inter-subjectivity with large groups of people. Or else they will not relate to what you are telling them, while your purpose is to get them to relate and to take significant changes towards your agenda. Then the question is how would a TeNi do this differently from an FeNi ? As both may very well want to live up to their family values and to their people's values.
I think this is all a problem of wording, but it should be addressed anyway.
One of the issues here is the idea of self determining values might appeal more to Fi's perspective than Te's. From Te's perspective your output (and implicitly your influence on others) is that which is most valuable and you are aiming at measuring up to some general standards when evaluating that output. I think you might say those standards are rather abiotic but they are still seen as "general" or "objective", for lack of better words. A value could be "working hard" and you might determine this means working for 9 hours or submitting a certain number of products or services of a specific quality. And then maybe this looks like "self determination" but you determine those standards by comparing your work to the industry you are in or to some pre - existing rules. The standards might lack much warmth (let's all remember our favorite Te quote), but they are not determined by personal preference either. If the standard is make 6 green pillows with white polka dots per day, at the standards of health and safety applicable to pillow industry - these standards are not determined by preference, but by the applicable norms of health and safety and by numbers you came up with when checking the market and your competition. Which is all pretty abiotic, but it's not really self determined, at least according to my understanding of self determination. I guess this example might not be seen by everyone as a manifestation of a value, but I'd say it still is based on values like efficiency, reliability, seriousness, care towards your clients' well being and for your general image. You might be building a cute pillow business, which is your dream, but the part of expressing yourself will be only one side of the coin. (and even that mixed up with a lot of inspiration taken from other sources, your personal style being maybe observable as a small contribution to the end product). Still - good work or efficiency or punctuality or health/environment protection or work safety are all measurable objectively.
Maybe I am actually not disagreeing with you ! I just mean Te has values and Te values are not really self determined or independent of outside norms.
It's also hard to properly discern how much of this is purely Te or Fi. I am sure one could say "but the values are determined by Fi and only implemented by Te." I personally don't agree with this view, but some of these values look like a combination of Fi and Te. Especially "health/environment protection". But I mean...there are standards to them !! Objective standards !! (and in the end many of these standards were also established by society, which makes the whole discussion a little tricky for me at least).
Over time I've gotten a better grasp of what Ti/Fe and Fi/Te look like in a person. Damn it's difficult to articulate! I was trying to explain to a friend, who is waiting for a report, why she may be Gamma instead of Beta (in my mind) -- I will post it here. I used politics as an example - but I tried to edit out as much political fuel as I can so we can keep the focus on CT, lol...
Thinking about it, the archiving is Te and also [your specific manifestation of the] libertarian attitude is very Gamma, and not just superficially
Betas are more group oriented so even if they are a libertarian, they're talking about it like Peterson
[our friend who is beta] is always talking about this group and that. he loves politics
he hates politicians lol but he likes seeing all the movement of groups against each other
he finds [members of an activist group] and asks them specific questions to try to define their principles as a whole
and he tells them he keeps hearing the same things
and he's looking for an answer on X or Y, and they all won't give one
he does that rather than chat here like the gammas about how it affects him personally
and he gets mad at me if i include him in under privileged groups in conversation
[if i bring up his lack of privilege to make a point about politics] he will say, "I'm not a loser"
he'd rather just give a middle finger to the system rather than own some personal suffering
and i know you and i are not quick to be pathetic losers either
but we're like, here's my personal trials
at least among friends
and here's how the system fucks ME (or someone else in particular)
which is a gamma focus, because we see that as an example of the collective reason of why it's wrong
but [the Beta] is much more focused on defining the various forces on the chess board
he was focused always on "the system" and how it was fucked up
[we all may notice various types of brainwashing, oppression, and group dynamics, but his *first* and automatic focus is the play between groups]