Upcoming Changes to Fi/Ti, and F Attitudes

Home Page Forums General Psychology Upcoming Changes to Fi/Ti, and F Attitudes

  • Auburn
    Keymaster
    • Type: TiNe
    • Development: l--l
    • F Attitude: Adaptive

    Hello,

    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:



    Changes:

    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.

    • This topic was modified 2 months ago by Auburn.
    Auburn
    Keymaster
    • Type: TiNe
    • Development: l--l
    • F Attitude: Adaptive

    Why include vultology on Emotional Attitude?

    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.

    • The CT model is tracking vultology more generally and any signal clusters that have strong presence and relevance to psychology are documented. And emotional attitude is prominent enough, visible enough, and a sufficient variable that not tracking it would interfere with the reading of type. The same is true of Flat Affect, which is a non-type-related signal that creates noise variables when it is not described and accounted for. So we track Flat affect because:
      • It’s a visible phenomenon
      • It has a consistent parallel with a certain psychic state
      • Not tracking it obscures the investigation into cognitive type

    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.

    • This reply was modified 2 months ago by Auburn.
    Auburn
    Keymaster
    • Type: TiNe
    • Development: l--l
    • F Attitude: Adaptive

    Random Notes:

    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.

    Philosophical Notes

    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.

    • This reply was modified 2 months ago by Auburn.
    • This reply was modified 2 months ago by Auburn.
    • This reply was modified 2 months ago by Auburn.
    • This reply was modified 2 months ago by Auburn.
    Auburn
    Keymaster
    • Type: TiNe
    • Development: l--l
    • F Attitude: Adaptive

    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:

    • – Towards a theoretical understanding of objective dynamics/causal processes (Te), so for example a conceptual inquiry on the nature of objective reality (i.e. theoretical physics, mathematics, etc)
    • – Or towards questions of meaning/value as derived from an introspective self-alignment (Fi), and non-contingent on object-relations/biotic-causality/other-ness.

    And for a Ji lead who is a Ti/Fe user, this will be either:

    • – A theoretical investigation of biotic object-dynamics/human-emotional-economies (i.e. theories of human behavior, the systematizing of the causal relations between hearts, etc)
    • – Or towards questions of reality, “is-ness” questions that are non-causal, but platonic in nature. (i.e. what is “being”? “what is nothingness?”)

    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.

    TL;DR

    The four uses of Je

    • High-Ti uses Je as: a theorist of human-causality
    • High-Fi uses Je as: a theorist of objective-causality
    • High-Te uses Je as: a pragmatist operating within objective-causality
    • High-Fe uses Je as: a pragmatist operating within human causality

    ^ These four don’t account for development of lower functions. When that happens, both corresponding avenues of the axis are accessible to the person.

    • This reply was modified 2 months ago by Auburn.
    • This reply was modified 2 months ago by Auburn.
    • This reply was modified 2 months ago by Auburn.
    • This reply was modified 2 months ago by Auburn.
    Alerith
    Participant
    • Type: TiNe
    • Development: ll-l
    • F Attitude: Adaptive

    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.

    • This reply was modified 2 months ago by Alerith.
    Animal
    Participant
    • Type: SeFi
    • Development: lll-
    • F Attitude: Unseelie

    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.

    Sander
    Participant
    • Type: NeFi
    • Development: lll-
    • F Attitude: Seelie

    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 🙂

    • This reply was modified 1 month, 3 weeks ago by Sander.
    • This reply was modified 1 month, 3 weeks ago by Sander.
Viewing 7 posts - 1 through 7 (of 7 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
© Copyright 2012-2020 | CognitiveType.com
This website's articles, its reading methodology and practices are the intellectual property of J.E. Sandoval.
Animaged GIFs, images and videos belong to their respective owners.