What I've learned after being mistyped for four years
June 20, 2021

Home Forums Model 1 Discussions What I've learned after being mistyped for four years

Tagged: 

Viewing 8 posts - 1 through 8 (of 8 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #26725
    Hrafn
    Participant
    • Type: SiTe
    • Development: l-ll
    • Attitude: Seelie

    @Auburn, I was originally going to write this as a message to you, but I feel that much of my feedback concerns the community as a whole, so I’ve decided to write it as a post, instead (hope you don't mind). It’s gotten a bit tl;dr, but I hope someone will read it.
    I was recently retyped as SiTe after four years of being considered SiFe. I know many others here have been mistyped at some point or another during their CT journey...but four years is a long time!
    Auburn wrote:

    If you happen to agree with this revised analysis, I want to personally apologize for getting your J functions wrong. I know how much this affects our personal journey, and how our personal journey can be stunted by not having the most accurate explanation for ourselves, and I hope that this all fits better with your subjective experience, rather than worse.

    I’ve wanted to say that apology is really not necessary: after all, my personal journey is my own & noöne else’s, typing errors happen, and I bear no ill will toward you about it. It would have been easier to retype me during the interim years if I’d been submitting videos, participating in the Discord, etc. But I wasn’t doing those things, and I’m the only one who decided that. And anyway, it sorta seems like you've been bearing the weight of the world on your shoulders.
    On the other hand, being mistyped was a painful experience at times, and some of my feedback here takes a critical tone. I don't want to be disingenuous. So I can accept an apology, even if I don't feel it necessary.
    But the real point & tone of what I’m trying to do here is not to blame anyone, but to learn as much as I can from the experience.
     
    Background: On being mistyped
    When I submitted my first video, back in 2017, Auburn originally guessed TiNe, but to his credit he quickly recognized it didn’t fit my psychology at all. So we went with SiFe.
    But a few weeks later, I began to suspect that I was actually Delta. I knew next to nothing about vultology at the time, but at a generalized level, a lot Delta traits described me in a very obvious way: quirky, individualistic, offbeat, socially uncoordinated, etc. Stuff like, when I’m talking about something I’m excited about, my voice will gradually get louder & louder until I’m practically yelling without even realizing it. None of my reasons for believing myself Delta were remotely conclusive, but there were a lot of traits that seemed uncannily accurate, as opposed to Alpha psychology, some of which just didn’t quite fit.
    So, about a month after the original video, I posted a second one and said I thought I was Delta. A few people thought it seemed likely, but mostly I was met with a vaguely-disapproving silence. Auburn expressed skepticism.
    At first, I had a lot of confidence that I really was a Delta. But after about a month or so, I began reminding myself I knew nothing about vultology, and little about the theory. I began feeling shame, as I’m prone to doing—I was making a fool out of myself by insisting I knew my type better than Auburn & other experts.
    So, I slunk back from my earlier insistence, and gradually settled on being an Alpha.
     
    Legacy effects & confirmation bias
    So, why did nobody believe me when I tried to say I was a Delta? I can see a few reasons, but the most obvious one relates to the legacy of the first video I ever made. This was the one where Auburn originally thought I was TiNe. It was a terrible video, it was much too “scripted”—and so, came across as one giant momentum-halt of a neutralization.
    While I know it’s often counterproductive to make assumptions other people’s motivations, I can’t help but suspect that this video clearly established me as Alpha in the minds of Auburn & others. By the time I made subsequent videos, like the one I made for my official vultology report, perhaps it was just assumed that I was obviously Alpha. Short of a smoking gun, it might have genuinely been difficult for vultology team members to see anything that contradicted the Alpha assumption.
    Something similar has happened with my posts on the forum. I said a lot of things about how I didn’t relate to this or that aspect of Fe/Ti. But everyone still interpreted what I said through the lens of Fe/Ti. After my failed attempt to retype myself as Delta, everyone assumed, a priori, that they knew my judgment oscillation.

    Spoiler

    For instance, notice this thread from a few years back. I begin with a long explanation of why I objected to the notion that my own self-knowledge was more indirect than that of Te/Fi folks. Looking at this explanation now, it does seem pretty Te/Fi, but Auburn quickly tried to explain it away, and I begrudgingly accepted his explanation. Lower down in the same thread, FiNe III- Cedar remarked, “I feel like Hrafn described how I function more than the folks that have Fi as a first or second function. (Things would perhaps be easier if I had their gifts).”

    [collapse]

    Gradually, I stopped questioning whether I had Fe/Ti—I just assumed that I had it. I still posted about not relating to Fe/Ti, but not for the purpose of suggesting I might be Te/Fi. Instead, I often expressed irritation at how Fe/Ti was defined in a way that was too narrow & limiting—a way that didn’t line up with my lived experience. I would even say that at times, the dread of being defined into an oppressive, ill-fitting box was a significant driver of my participation in CT.
    Ironically, if any of my comments hit home, it means my own perspectives contaminated Fe/Ti with my not-really-FeTi perspectives.
     
    Addressing confirmation bias in the CT community?
    OK, so my broader point with this is that I see confirmation bias as a huge issue within the CT community. At this point, I don’t know of any easy solutions. I wish I did, but I suspect the problem stems from the structure of the community itself. From what I’ve seen, a healthy majority of participants here 1) have “seen” the different types with their own eyes, and 2) genuinely want the theory to succeed. There’s nothing wrong with either of those things, in and of themselves, but the trouble is, it’s not a recipe for the kind of healthy skepticism & adversity that CT needs. I’ve given a fair amount of critical feedback in my posts, and sometimes feel self-conscious that I’m being too negative compared to most others here. But I remind myself that critical feedback is exactly what the community needs—not only for its own survival, but also to ensure that it’s not flattening anyone’s experience by incorrectly generalizing it (i.e. what's happened to me & others).
    At the very least, if anyone is expressing persistent issues about their typing (or about their EQ’s or CFQ’s), Auburn and other members of the community should always strive to openly acknowledge this, welcome it, and take it seriously. And this brings me to my next point.
     
    On the role of self-knowledge in typing
    There is a whole variety of reasons why people might feel that CT has mistyped them. A lot of folks who are new to CT simply don’t understand the theory that well. Perhaps they would fully relate to Se, for instance, if they knew what Se meant in CT terms. Other folks bring in baggage from other Jungian-based systems and want to quibble with how the functions are defined.
    In general, neither of these seem like particularly good reasons for disputing a CT typing.
    On the other hand, someone who’s immersed themselves in CT theory, and still has issues with their type, needs to be taken very seriously. And this is an area where I disagree something more general about CT’s attitude.
    Multiple times before, Auburn has expressed general skepticism toward the role of self-knowledge and self-perception in typing. (I’m too lazy to find a reference but I know it talked about it in the book). While he’s acknowledged that he can’t ignore peoples’ self-perception completely (that would make the theory unfalsifiable), my impression is that CT actively seeks to minimize the role of self-perception & self-knowledge in determining type. I fear that this may be a mistake.
    Of course, there are good reasons for not taking self-knowledge & self-perception at face value. People have complexes. The need for a certain self-image can give us a distorted picture of ourselves. It can be very challenging to tease all these apart from genuine intuition & self-insight.
    Yet it is the height of arrogance to assume that we can know more about an individual than they know about themselves, based only on a five-minute video and some fallow online interaction. The internet is not real life. “Seeing” someone on Discord is not the same as actually seeing them in reality. For these reasons, if someone says “I don’t relate to how FiNe is described,” CT should at least start off giving them the benefit of the doubt. This is not the same as being completely unskeptical. Rather, it’s approaching the topic with a genuine curiosity. It’s holding onto the assumption that both the theory and the individual’s experiences are valid, but that we haven’t yet found the exact point at which the two meet.
    At a minimum, this has to start with some kind of acknowledgment. In my case, if someone had ever said, “it sounds like you are having a lot of challenges relating to the Fe/Ti functions,” it would have at least made me feel more validated, and might have started me down the right path a little bit sooner. Instead, I sometimes felt like nobody really believed I actually truly meant the things I said.
    Including questionnaires with the type assessments (as you’re doing in model 2) is a step in the right direction. But like all quantitative assessments, Likert-scale questionnaires tend to produce fairly superficial data at the individual level. For people who suspect they’ve been mistyped, I feel like what’s needed is something more holistic and qualitative. For instance, if I am having a lot of trouble relating to Fe/Ti, there could be a series of three or four long-answer questions that I’m invited to answer, either as a post or a video—questions that are carefully constructed to drill down to some of the base-level differences, and to tease apart self-image complexes from genuine self-knowledge. Connecting these questions to the proper judgment oscillation might then become a process in which both the typer and the typed are active participants.

    Spoiler

    I’m sure it would be challenging to design good questions, and I don’t have the answer to this, but just to throw out an example, here’s the kind of question I mean: “Think about a value that  you hold deeply in your life. Have you always held it? How did it arise? Are there other, similar values you hold that developed in a similar way?”

    [collapse]

    Of course, all this would take time, depending on the number of people who felt they’d been mistyped. But is CT after quality or quantity?
     
    Becoming more comfortable with ambiguity & uncertainty
    At some level, I’d say CT is oriented toward minimizing ambiguity. Its goal is to connect each person with a type—ideally one type, and only one. Its main goal is NOT holding multiple possibilities in juxtaposition without driving toward resolution.
    Some of this probably relates to the fact that Auburn’s a J-heavy J-lead. But let’s be honest, even as a P-lead myself, I, too, love a crisp solution. I, too, was drawn to CT partly because my type felt so ambiguous in other systems, and the ambiguity drove me a bit crazy.
    So for everyone, including myself, I feel there’s a lot of work to be done in becoming more comfortable with the fact that CT, like everything else, has some gray areas. Trying to flatten or minimize these will just make the theory less honest & accurate.
    My impression of the current typing system (at least model 1) is that it tries to minimize potential signal- or qualia-mixing. For instance, looking back at my official typing video where I was typed SiFe, I look like I’m dripping with seelie energy (which was a signal back then). It seems fairly obvious now, but was never mentioned to me back then. Why?
    Perhaps nobody noticed any seelie energy at all. Perhaps this was interpreted as “high Fe adaptive energy” or something like that. But if so, it’s likely because everyone already had Alpha drilled into their heads before they had a look at my video (again, legacy effects & confirmation bias). In other words, there was too little openness to ambiguity to even see alternative information. On the other hand, perhaps someone in the vultology team did note the seelie energy. If that’s the case, then it was probably explained away before the final conclusion of SiFe was reached. In my case, it was never even presented or explained to me. Slightly better is when it’s presented, but here too, it tends to be explained/interpreted away: “well, you do some heavy eye-toggling and parodies, but your energy is grounded, so you must be an Se with a faux-Ne-bent.”
    So my suggestion is instead of ignoring or explaining away contradictory information, actively present it as part of vultology reports, etc. Maybe sorta like this (yes I know some of these signals are obsolete, but this is just for an example):

    Spoiler
    Suspected signal Alternative interpretation
    Adaptive emulation Seelie energy
    On-point emphasis (when accounting for anatomical features, lips seem generally symmetric) Some asymmetric movement, pushing boundaries of what can be explained anatomically
    Neutralization Heavy momentum-halting
    Most likely oscillation: Fe/Ti
    Approximate level of confidence: 80%
    Needed for better assessment:

    • More footage to determine if asymmetries are on both sides of face
    • A few more video clips fin different settings (for better context)
    • More questions that engage judgment processes (too much narrative in earlier videos)
    [collapse]

    The idea would be to lay out all the evidence and the deductive process, without altogether foreclosing less-likely possibilities. That way, if a person began to doubt or question their own type, they’d have a clear sense of whether there seemed to be much vultological ambiguity. It would also help to preserve the specific uncertainties the vultologists overcame as part of the deductive process. That way, if vultologists were to later learn that neutralizations had been overcounted (i.e. many neutralizations had just been heavy momentum-halting), they could look back and fairly easily see where their deductive process might have run into potential problems. They’d likely be able to recognize that potential hiccup just by looking back at an old vultology report.
     
    Personal lessons
    Being mistyped meant four years of trying to align my personal experience with something that didn’t quite fit. But it is also shaping up as an important learning experience for my life in general. One of the most important things I learned is that I should have trusted my intuition, when I thought I was a Delta to begin with. This connects with my earlier point about the role of self-knowledge.
    But here’s the big catch: from my end of things, there’s a very fine line between what I believe about myself and what I want to believe about myself. Between self-knowledge and self-image. Between insight & vanity. So when it comes to something with direct bearing on my identity (i.e. which type am I), I can easily get enamored of one outcome and repulsed by another.
    Now that I’ve been retyped, it’s clear to me that a good chunk of my ego & identity has long been invested in Fi (Auburn recently remarked how my personal mythology seems to align Edin). My attraction to Fi values & myths was never lost on me, even before I knew I had Fi….in fact, it grated against me to see how so many of the values I held dear were imbued into a function I was told I didn’t even possess. Why was that, I wondered? Was it because Fe & other functions were defined in an incomplete way, a way that didn’t leave room for my experience? Or was it because my personal narrative merely reflected some self-image that I vainly clung to, rather than being a solid portrait of who I actually was? (Even now, I suspect there’s grains of truth in both of these...)
    The fact that I really do have Te & Fi, after all that fuss, makes me think of the section on attunement from the Fi profile:

    But the human interior is multi-dimensional and prone to express emotions that are distorted and thus misshape our view of reality. Like ripples on an ocean surface, or the static noise of a crowded room, the complexity can be overwhelming and obstruct even the most basic truths. In order to abate this inner confusion, the strong Fi user is forced to spend a great deal of time teasing apart emotions in order to see the reality of being, and of other beings. They will constantly ask “am I seeing the truth of them? am I seeing myself?” — focusing on clarifying motivations, intentions and the meaning of sentiments.

    While it’s true that the Fe & Ti profiles never really fit me very well, it’s also true that I never really wanted them to fit me. Instead, I resented them because they invalidated the stories I told myself. Recognizing this resentment, it was more difficult for me to trust my own intuition, as I felt my distaste for some of the Fe/Ti traits might be clouding my judgment.
    So, one of the biggest things I've learned, personally, is that messy identity issues don’t necessarily invalidate genuine intuition & insight—the two can easily coexist.
     
    Edit: I guess I never mentioned how refreshing it is to be finally typed correctly (or at least, I assume I’m finally there!). It has already opened up a lot of insight about my life history, the challenges i face, etc., that I just didn’t have before. So in spite of the criticism, I really appreciate that we’ve circled back and gotten it right!

    #26707
    Hrafn
    Participant
    • Type: SiTe
    • Development: l-ll
    • Attitude: Seelie

    I’m curious to hear from anyone else who has been mistyped--or whose type has changed over time--within the CT system:
     

    What did you type as before? What do you type as now?

    Do you feel satisfied that you’ve arrived at your ‘true type’? What was the process of finding it like?

    Are there specific ways that your personal growth has been enabled by being typed accurately (and/or that it was hindered by being typed inaccurately) ?

    Did you learn any personal lessons from the process? What about suggestions for the broader CT community?

    #26708
    Rua
    Moderator
    • Type: NeTi
    • Development: ll-l
    • Attitude: Adaptive

    @hrafn
    Thank you for taking the time to post this. It was admittedly painful for me to read at some points, because you expressed your troubles so clearly and sincerely, and because I can empathize with doubting your own instincts and intuition, with feeling shame because how you've experienced yourself doesn't line up with what you're being told about who you are and how you behave.
    I think that your suggestions for improving the typing process make a lot of sense. I know that I have personally downplayed the role of self-perception in CT typing (at the very least I held that position in mind and that's certainly influenced my behavior in a measurable way). The absence of self-knowledge in the typing process I saw as the correct path to take. In hindsight, I was putting the cart before the horse; I wanted CT to be at a more precise and scientific state than it was actually in. Maybe one day self-knowledge won't be a vital part of the process, but I don't believe we are there yet. In my personal life I can react very harshly when someone starts trying to force an interpretation of my personality onto me that is diametrically opposed to who I know myself to be, and there's hypocrisy in my devaluing self-knowledge as part of CT's process. I don't practice vultology much at all, and never dedicated the hours necessary to gain a respectable degree of mastery over it, so I can't speak much on the specifics (and quite certainly Auburn will have a lot more useful things to say on that front).
    I intend to respond to your second post tomorrow, as I've run out of time atm. And again, thank you for taking the time and energy to start a healthy conversation here. I'm happy that you're still engaged and seeking ways to improve yourself and this community. Embracing the positive impacts that can come from painful experiences is also something I can relate to.

    #26712
    Animal
    Participant
    • Type: SeFi
    • Development: lll-
    • Attitude: Seelie

    @Hrafn
    First of all, great thread. I think you covered many bases thoughtfully, such as having a healthy level of skepticism when someone doesn't relate to a type, vs. throwing out their self-assessment completely.
    When you brought this up in the past, I didn't realize you had thought originally you could be a Delta, and related more to Fi/Te. I would have responded differently. I clicked on one thread that you had linked, and I re-read my own comment, which was to say that - if the description doesn't match the individuals who are typed at that type, then either they are typed incorrectly or the description needs to be reconsidered. Of course, I agree with you that this feedback needs to be taken more seriously when there are members of the community who put in time and effort to understand the meaning of functions and the CT model.
    Since I first arrived here, I collected a lot of data from various Se users, and many of them agreed with my troubles with the description. Eventually Auburn updated some of it according to our feedback, and it was much better - as in, closer to our lived experience.  I would not have made this effort if I felt like I was the only Se user who had these issues, but it became clear to me over months that many others also responded to the descriptions in this way.
    Overall, my mindset is somewhere between Gamma and Beta.  Many people here see me as a clear-cut Gamma examplar, and I partially agree. But looking back at the people I've been closest with in my life, most are clear Betas. My husband is Beta, my two best friends growing up are Betas, and between my parents, one is FiSe and the other NiFe, and I always felt the NiFe parent understood me but not the FiSe one.  This dynamic is well established in my family. Also, I've worked on a fantasy series with a co-author who is an obvious Alpha, for 20 years. While we have "opposite quadra" style disagreements, and - while I can admit my TiSe husband helps to close the communication gap between us at times - I find it interesting that I worked most closely with him and another Alpha creatively, but never with a Delta or a Gamma. I am also tribalistic like Betas tend to be.  I don't cater to someone's "good intentions" if they don't fit with the energy dynamic.  Frankly, I find many Fi-oriented concerns and critiques to be narrow-minded, even if I appreciate someone as a whole person. Regardless of what I express on my own, I find more truth in Ti-style "impersonal" axioms. And I had a long history of studying and relating to Eastern religions, emptying the mind, and other stuff in the Ti mythology since childhood. Even the main characters in my fantasy novel ended up as fairly clear Betas, at least in Book 1!
    I have very bad TMJ - my entire smile is crooked, whereas it used to be straight. One side of my face droops, if you look closely enough, because of TMJ -- but it didn't before I was about 32 which is when my jaw snapped.  So I considered the possibility that this affected my typing, but decided against it.  SeFi is a better psychological fit, even though I match some parts of the Fe description when taken at face value. Socionics communities insisted up and down that I was Beta because I had "beta values" and supposedly aesthetic, but I insisted I was Gamma, because I could see the difference. I discussed some of it on that thread you linked, but to name a few points: I'm not socially smooth. I see the individual as an example of the bigger picture.  (If you get deep enough, the personal is universal.) Etc.  Also my straight forward Te "get-it-doneness" is quite different from the warm engagement of Fe.  And, on the whole, the SeFi's related to my interpretation of Se, while the SeTi's were okay with some parts of Auburn's old description. (Before encouraging him to change it, both groups discussed which parts applied to SeFi and SeTi both.). I'm an animist to the bone, feeling the lifeblood of animals, nature, and the elements, and bringing it to life. I can see someone's personal colors, spirit animals, natural elements - and I interpret "who they are" through such a lens.  These metaphors run through all of my fiction writing, photography and music; and often come out conversationally too.
    So when I commented on your thread, I thought you were coming from the angle of "the descriptions need to be more carefully considered if they don't match the individual" - which I strongly agree with. I had no idea you were reconsidering your type at any time, so if I ever overlooked that I apologize too!  Having been a leader of an enneagram-oriented community for many years, I understand too well the ever-changing knowledge that comes in as one's understanding of typology becomes more refined. So we also retype our members at times. The more knowledge we gain, the more we can afford to pay attention when people feel off about their typing. Sometimes they just lack knowledge of the system and sometimes they are self-deluded owing to ego, while other times their gut feelings are there for a reason. We had to learn to distinguish these things, and it took time, and we are always striving to understand where to prioritize our attention. We always strive to recognize better -- when someone simply doesn't know enough or is fooling themselves about who they are, vs. when there is a problem with the typing or the current understanding of that type. So I've always presumed the same would be true of CT as well.

    #26715
    Auburn
    Keymaster
    • Type: TiNe
    • Development: l--l
    • Attitude: Adaptive

    So much to say here. Lots of agreement, and shared vision for the future.
    So...
    Jumping right into the pragmatics of  solving this---
    Reports:
    The reports from now on do show the degrees of confidences, which was a much needed addition. Now, even if the report came down on X axis, you can see by just how much it did so. Like so:

    But what I can do is calculate a percentage of confidence, based on how large the gap is. And put that information next to the bars, like so...

    ^ here for example the Ne/Si vs Ni/Se distinction is not as clear, so the confidence is low, whereas the confidence in Te/Fi over Fe/Ti is very high. (I'm sure there's a technical name for this, rather than "margin of confidence" - I'll look it up, but if anyone knows, please feel free to pitch in)
    Self-assessments
    We definitely do need more psychological input to compare against visual data. I remember Fayest brought this up before, and it's still a need now. We have the energetics survey but that doesn't distinguish function axes, and questionnaires have their own problems. I may have to look for inspiration in Socionics for this since that system has put a lot of time into trying to tease out metabolic processes by self-reflection. The combination of that approach, with vultology, will augment both - I think, and produce an even more airtight methodology.
    If anyone knows any good tools to this effect, which can be used as inspiration from which CT can craft their own versions, please feel free to share.
    These resources, when completed, can then be pinned/stickied and maybe even linked to with the vultology  report as a sort of psychological followup, to make sure the visual evaluation was correct.

    #26720
    Rua
    Moderator
    • Type: NeTi
    • Development: ll-l
    • Attitude: Adaptive

    What did you type as before? What do you type as now?

    2+ years ago I was initially typed as NeTi II-I (Directive), and I agreed (and continue to agree) with that assessment. There was a brief period in which I was typed as NeTi IIII, but that was a result of over-modulation (https://cognitivetype.com/forums/topic/development-levels-stages-of-consciousness/), and in a matter of weeks/months it course-corrected back to NeTi II-I. The only difference between the initial typing and now is that Directive was changed to Adaptive (which I also agree with).

    Do you feel satisfied that you’ve arrived at your ‘true type’? What was the process of finding it like?

    I do indeed feel satisfied in this regard. The framework of function development and identification offered by CT was instrumental in helping me begin to tackle aspects of myself and my experiences that had been haunting me for a long time. My process involved reaching outward from my current development to change a repressed relationship with Fe to a healthy one.

    Are there specific ways that your personal growth has been enabled by being typed accurately (and/or that it was hindered by being typed inaccurately) ?

    My personal growth absolutely benefited from my being typed accurately. The thread linked above has more details, but by being typed accurately and knowing that my Fe was undeveloped/unconscious I was able to start down a path of integration/healing I would not have had access to otherwise. Although my CT type is still the same as it was at the beginning, I am a significantly different person now, and so much happier and accepting of myself and others. My own choices led me to this state, but I'll always be grateful I joined this community and found so much understanding and support from Auburn and so many others (and you're very much included here Hrafn)!

    Did you learn any personal lessons from the process? What about suggestions for the broader CT community?

    Mm. The biggest lesson I learned was **not** to identify with any one psychological perspective or aspect or belief about myself. Attaching my ego to my CT typing and then learning to let that go was quite a useful lesson. So much transformation and humanity can take place without any change in CT type, but I do believe the framework can be valuable on the journey. I spent most of my life attempting to self-negate and meet others' expectations at the expense of my health and sanity, and realizing that I didn't want or need to be anything but the fullest version of myself was a revelation.
    I think the only suggestion I'd recommend for community members is to communicate as openly and honestly as you feel comfortable with. The personal journeys and experiences shared by members here were vital to my forming meaningful connections with other people at a time when I was increasingly isolated, and they helped me to change and grow for the better. Someone's sharing the negative experiences or criticisms found in CT and/or its community is no less valid or worthy of consideration than sharing praise.

    #26721
    Peter
    Participant
    • Type: FiNe
    • Development: l---
    • Attitude: Unseelie

    Typology is full of typing mistakes, misinterpretations and wrong hypothesis. For me this is training ground for art of critical thinking. 😉
    My motto is this quote:

    Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it. - Budda Siddhartha

    Btw. Great posts 👌
    Introspection has value on its own. And knowing own type without understanding of own psychology is meaningless.
     

    #26722
    Septimus Rosa Chalier
    Participant
    • Type: FiNe
    • Development: l---
    • Attitude: Unseelie

    Oh, it makes a lot of sense… Your posts, @hrafn, were always the ones i found the most relatable.
    At one point i even wondered how i could relate so much given that we only had 1 axis in common… I also considered the possibility of being an alpha (it doesn’t fit, though)… The irony…
    So, yes, you being a delta seems right and i’m glad you’ve finally found a description/explanation that suits what you know about yourself.
    As for the questions you asked :
    1) i typed myself as TiNe at first. I was typed FiNe and i still think that’s accurate.
    2) About my ‘true type’ : In the framework of CT theory, i think i am indeed an FiNe. But i also think over-identification is dangerous. Theories are good tools to help you navigate the world and understand it roughly, understand your own position and the positions of others in this world in a
    schematic way. But there is something ahead of it, and a good theory necessarily collapse in front of all the nuances, the layers, the complexity of reality. Grasping is also simplifying.
    About the process : It was alright, I don’t really know what to say about it. I think the desire of knowing our true type can become an urge and turn into an obsession when we go through
    uncertain times… Trying to have a stronger sense of ourselves, trying to know who we are in order to find out where we are…
    3) I think it allowed me to accept emotions better.
    4) Suggestion : Well, i would advise people to not over-rely on any framework of understanding.
    CT is a very exciting quest, Auburn is really dedicated to it and i admire is efforts to uncover some
    aspects of reality. But, first : this is a theory in the making, so nothing should be taken at face value,
    and it’s also ‘only’ a theory. By that i don’t mean to undermine the project, i just wish people to be
    aware that, as for any theory, this is not the key of everything, the true way to see reality, the super￾theory that will encompass everything. The world is too nuanced, too thick, too ambiguous and paradoxical, and if you push a theory far enough, categories blur and melt.

Viewing 8 posts - 1 through 8 (of 8 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
© Copyright 2012-2021 Juan E. Sandoval - Use Policy