Thoughts on types, psychology

[onemoretime]

First, I want to apologize if I restate the obvious here - I'll admit, I haven't read the more "scholarly" material, and have neither the time nor desire to. With that being said:

It occurred to me today that some of the concepts we discuss regularly on here are things that I define in a different fashion, and that some of the concepts are fairly well-known ones arranged in a particular manner. It was with this concept that I started thinking about what the connections between these things are, and thus, came up with this expanded analysis of what I think MBTI is doing. Most of this is thinking out loud, so there's your warning on that one.

So to start -

THE RECOGNITION/BUILDING FUNCTIONS

Most studies of human psychology determined that the brain, particularly in its response to its evolutionary pressures, developed two primary cognitive functions - the recognition and building of patterns, and the desire for and maintenance of social cohesion. It's these two that are actually the psychological processes that go on inside people's heads, other than the instinctive/neurochemical relays (what we qualify as emotions or instinctual reactions). In the MBTI parlance, the recognition/building of patterns is called T (which is why "thinking" may be a bit of a misnomer), while the desire for and maintenance of social cohesion is F (same thing with "feeling" being imprecise). In a large sense, these are the only actual procedural functions that occur in one's cognition, and define most of the base personality, as it is these two that define how a person relates to the world. In a large sense, a person doesn't have a personality in relation to themselves; they are who they are. The existence of a personality comes distinctly by comparison to others. Introversion and extraversion in these functions indicate whether the person is more inclined toward building (e) or recognition (i). Everyone does both; it's just the inclination that's different.

The two cognitions:

T (patterns): This seeks to recognize and create patterns in the world at large. It's one of Homo sapiens greatest advantages, as it's the function that allowed us to create tools, and it's also the one that gives us a conceptualization of time, recognizing the patterns between the past, present and future. It also has its drawbacks, particularly in the social areas. Examples are stereotyping, constant authoritarianism and inclination toward radical individualism (particularly to the neglect or offense of others), which is a big loser as far as our overall evolutionary strategy is concerned. The building manifestation is precisely what is implied; the desire for creation of patterns is primary, and as such is the main concern of a xxTJ. The recognition manifestation, the xxTP, seeks the patterns in the information that is brought in by the information systems (to be described below), usually resulting in a logical demeanor. Logic simply is a recognition of the objective patterns of the universe and causality, anyway.

F (social): This seeks to maintain social cohesion and promote the well-being of the group. This is by far the most important strategy for survival that humans ever developed, and is the basis for the great success we've achieved as a species. The biggest drawback is the tribalistic nature of this function, which leads to no end of human suffering, particularly when the pattern-oriented members of the group attempt to fix the problem by eliminating the offending other, or expression is suppressed as being unrepresentative of the group. Along with this, the tendency to interpret all communication as having a socially oriented meaning can cause much confusion. The building manifestation is concerned with the cohesion and increase of the group, as most xxFJs are. The recognition manifestation acutely understands the stimuli that affect social cohesion, which is what the xxFPs understand.

Neither group is more intelligent as a whole, as it's what the person picks up on that is the key difference, rather than how capable of picking up on it a person is. Likewise, neither have a more developed emotional system, as the same emotions are felt by all. The difference is that pattern-oriented thinking is not as intimately tied to human survival as group-oriented thinking, and consequently, the former have fewer emotional triggers in their thought processes (since emotions are separate from cognition, as they are neurochemical reactions for the most part).


Thoughts on the information processors (induction and deduction; conscious and subconscious) to come later.

 

[Cimarron]

Very interesting way of putting things. Nothing sounds wildly off-mark. Ready to read more if you decide to go on.

Uniting MBTI and Typology with more general and broad interpretations of personality is something that seems natural to try, in some sense, but also seems a tricky task.

 

[Athenian200]

It sounds like you've mixed N with T. I don't really see T as recognizing patterns by itself. To a lesser extent, you seem to be defining F as mostly Si and Fe specifically.

 

[onemoretime]

It sounds like you've mixed N with T. I don't really see T as recognizing patterns by itself. To a lesser extent, you seem to be defining F as mostly Si and Fe specifically.

I can see where it might look that way. Waiting for that next creative burst to refine and redefine further and add the second part. It may make more sense when the info-gathering processes (which I'm now beginning to conceive of more as a information reconciliation process) are described.

 

[onemoretime]

OK, for part 2:

THE INFORMATION PROCESSING/RECONCILIATION COMPLEXES

I hesitated to call these functions at first, because as most of these theories point out, they work in tandem with the recognition/building functions in somewhat of an auxiliary role. This somewhat explains why those whose primary Jungian function is an information processing/reconciliation complex (ENxP, INxJ, ESxP, ISxJ) can sometimes seem the opposite of their supposed E/I role, if the auxiliary is in full swing (i.e. they're "thinking"). This is much more pronounced for the N than S, as they often need the aux to be in full function for their N to fully work. I'll use the term "complex" instead, since as I assert before, there are two distinct activities that are involved in each person's information processing/reconciliation complex.

The way I describe the split is once again between four different descriptions. Strangely enough, it seems that there may be an equal difference among all four of the qualifications, rather than two major classifications with introversion and extraversion, as Jung proposed. I am going to tie the letters together with what their closest representation with this in mind, as I particularly think that introversion and extraversion is a bit imprecise, and perhaps were included more in the interest of elegance than accuracy.

The two processing distinctions:

The subconscious process (N): is precisely that - the integration of sensory information is done through processes that do not lie within the realm of conscious cognition. Connections that are made "seemingly from the ether" are not as such, as many times a conscious processor will see the exact same connection once this is presented to them (for example, an ESTP will often quickly "get" an ENTPs invention, perhaps why they're good at selling them). It's just that these connections are made through a much "faster" subconscious process, and thus, Ns seem "smarter", depending on what one's definition of intelligence is. The "abstraction" of the subconscious process comes less from the process itself as much as it does the seeming absence of the processing in conscious cognition, leading the recognition/building function to do its "work" within a seemingly-boundless conscious realm.

The conscious process (S): This process is done through active cognition, where the sensory input is integrated. This also would explain why sensors seem to be more immune to the "E/I inversion" described above, as the nature of this process demands cognition in that conscious realm. The advantage is that while this conscious process can seem slower, it is also much more thorough and detail-oriented than the subconscious process, and likewise will be more naturally attuned to finer distinctions. Through this, it is tied to the "concrete" realm, as the recognition/building functions are constantly informed by the concurrent sensory information being processed in the conscious cognition. Abstract thought, while possible, is not as natural as it is to the Ns, since the apparent logicality of remaining in the concrete realm (either through pattern-based or social reasoning) predominates.

The two reconciliation distinctions:

Inductive reconciliation: This is noted as being the "i" in the Jungian functions, but I am not sure introversion is exactly the best way of putting things - Si users tend to be fairly outwardly-oriented in the implementation of this reconciliation, as it's meant to be universal. After the information is processed either consciously or subconsciously, reconciliation and conclusions are made from computing the discrete data into a cohesive whole.

To explain further, a conscious induction user (Si) processes concrete information about how things have worked in the past, and uses that information to come to the conclusion that this is the way things will work in the future. This may account for the supposed conservatism of conscious induction users, as there is no reason to believe that change for the sake of change is a good thing - however, once the tried-and-true is attempted and fails, the inclination for new approaches suggested by others arises, if the opportunity is still there. The key phrase is "We should"

Likewise, a subconscious induction user (Ni) take information in, and through the filter of the particular recognition/building process, establishes potentialities and possibilities. This can create a single-minded focus once these are established, as the associated recognition/building functions are usually of the building variety, and thus require some sort of proof of concept. Thus, subconscious induction users can often be the most inclined toward the sort of building that their pattern-oriented or social-oriented functions embody. The key phrase is "I will"

Deductive reconciliation: the "e" of the Jungian functions, but once again, not necessarily tied to extraversion - Ne users can be seemingly introverted when information is not being processed and reconciled, particularly if it is in the realm of pattern functions. This reconciliation occurs via the storage of past information, and through this information coming to conclusions about present situations or potential outcomes.

The conscious deduction user (Se) is inclined to take the present situation, and through their deductions based on past experiences, make a decision on the course of action to take. That makes it a very flexible process, and often explains why conscious deduction users seem to know exactly what to say at all times, or how to make the best of a situation - they go with what they know, based on the context. The key phrase is "We can".

The subconscious deduction user (Ne) comes up with new connections seemingly de novo, based on the present situation and past knowledge, through near-instantaneous, subconscious deduction. While subconscious deduction users and subconscious induction users may both be scientists, the latter is more inclined toward the satisfaction of toughing the problems around their conclusions out, while the former lives in a state of punctuated equilibrium - waiting for the periodic "Eureka!" moment. While others may see the subconscious deduction user's connections to be random, if probed further (through conscious use of the recognition/building function), there is almost always a sound logical rationale backing it up. The key phrase is "I know"

Analysis

The reason for the splits, in my opinion, is a product of evolution once again. I'll try to demonstrate some speculation when it comes to the hunter-gatherer dichotomy. In the hunter role, the conscious inductive sets the rules for the hunt, guaranteeing the party's cohesion through established expectations in routine situations, leading to greater success in those circumstances, while taking precautions in ominous situations. The unconscious inductive takes notice of an opportunity, such as a natural occurrence, carefully and persistently following it through until it reaps rewards. The conscious deductive takes notice of the surrounding environment and either points out opportunities based on surrounding clues, or imminent danger which needs to be dealt with. The unconscious deductive picks up on trends and information, and given this information, develops new strategies or tools to assist the group in achieving their goals.

In the gathering context, the conscious inductive is cognizant of the healthful and poisonous plants that are selected from, and makes sure the process runs as smoothly as it can. The unconscious inductive once again notices potential opportunities through observation of surroundings, leading to new sources of food. The conscious deductive smooths over the potential tensions of this process, while also excelling at the gathering techniques. The unconscious deductive unfortunately finds gathering incredibly dull and wishes to be hunting, but often can come up with new skills for gathering given access to enough information.

So that's my thoughts on the functions and complexes, and at least in my mind, reconciles some of the differences between how I see people functioning and what the Jungian types indicate. Through this, I've begun to come around to the opinion that it's the first two function letters that are by far the most important, and that the aux/inf are possibly not developments in and of themselves, but rather extensions of the first function/complex pairing.

Feel free to critique!

 

[Costrin]

The unconscious deductive unfortunately finds gathering incredibly dull and wishes to be hunting, but often can come up with new skills for gathering given access to enough information.

I lol'd.

K you win typology.