TE DOMINANTS - READ THIS NOW AND TELL ME WHAT YOU THINK!

[Ezra]

DOES IT APPLY TO YOU?

I was reading Berlin's Two Concepts of Liberty and I came across a passage:

One way of making this clear is in terms of the independent momentum which the, initially perhaps quite harmless, metaphor of self-mastery acquired. 'I am my own master'; 'I am slave to no man'; but may I not (as Platonists or Hegelians tend to say) be a slave to nature? Or to my own 'unbridled' passions? Are these not so many species of the identical genus 'slave' - some political or legal, others moral or spiritual? Have not men had the experience of liberating themselves from spiritual slavery, or slavery to nature, and do they not in the course of it become aware, on the one hand, of a self which dominates, and, on the other, of something in them which is brought to heel? This dominant self is then variously identified with reason, with my 'higher nature', with the self which calculates and aims at what will satisfy it in the long run, with my 'real', or 'ideal', or 'autonomous' self, or with my self 'at its best'; which is then contrasted with irrational impulse, uncontrolled desires, my 'lower' nature, the pursuit of immediate pleasures, my 'empirical' or 'heteronomous' self, swept by every gust of desire and passion, needing to be rigidly disciplined if it is ever to rise to the full height of its 'real' nature. Presently the two selves may be represented as divided by an even larger gap; the real self may be conceived as something wider than the individual (as the term is normally understood), as a social 'whole' of which the individual is an element or aspect: a tribe, a race, a Church, a State, the great society of the living and the dead and the yet unborn. This entity is then identified as being the 'true' self which, by imposing its collective, or 'organic', single will upon its recalcitrant 'members', achieves its own, and therefore their, 'higher' freedom. The perils of using organic metaphors to justify the coercion of some men by others in order to raise them to a 'higher' level of freedom have often been pointed out. But what gives such plausibility as it has to this kind of language is that we recognise that it is possible, and at times justifiable, to coerce men in the name of some goal (let us say, justice or public health) which they would, if they were more enlightened, themselves pursue, but do not, because they are blind or ignorant or corrupt. This renders it easy for me to conceive of myself as coercing others for their own sake, in their, not my, they would not resist me if they were rational and as wise as I and understood their interests as I do. But I may go on to claim a good deal more than this. I may declare that they are actually aiming at what in their benighted state they consciously resist, because there exists within them an occult entity - their latent rational will, or their 'true' purpose - and that this entity, although it is belied by all that they overtly feel and do and say, is their 'real' self, of which the poor empirical self in space and time may know nothing or little; and that this inner spirit is the only self that deserves to have its wishes taken into account. Once I take this view, I am in a position to ignore the actual wishes of men or societies, to bully, oppress, torture them in the name, and on behalf, of their 'real' selves, in the secure knowledge that whatever is the true goal of man (happiness, performance of duty, wisdom, a just society, self-fulfilment) must be identical with his freedom - the free choice of his 'true', albeit often submerged and inarticulate, self.

I thought it was very reminiscent of the way Jung describes Te dominance in Psychological Types. Unfortunately I don't have that book any more so if you don't have it I can't give you a comparison. However, the basic idea is that Te dominants (probably extends somewhat to Te auxiliary) like to keep their passions under control, and value their rational self above their animalistic, whimsical and impulsive self (which is a part of the self that everyone has).

The implications of this I guess are that most people who like positive liberty over negative liberty (if you believe in such a dichotomy of freedom) tend to be Te dominant types. And also dictators - mainly ENTJs but probably a few ESTJs. These are the types who believe in individual willpower, strength and autonomy. They value self-determination, just as advocates of positive liberty do.

Thoughts?

 

[Ezra]

Wow guys, really responsive of you.

 

[Ezra]

Oh my GOD!

You lot are RUBBISHHHH

I'm gonna change the title.

 

[figsfiggyfigs]

LOL I enjoyed you're comments on your own thread. They were comedic to me for some reason.

Anyways.. This totally makes sense. We do become self obsessed with having things done a certain way, we forget that others see things differently; when we have a position of power, we use it to do things our way, you either listen, or pay for doing the opposite.
We rationalize everything, and it IS an issue when we are rationalizing peoples beliefs, opinion, feelings, etc; because we can not see the logic of their " process" and we feel like correcting it/ fixing the illogical bits.
A healthy ENTJs should, and most likely, would do their best to not oppress others and force their opinions on them, and respect them.


Gosh, I hope that made sense, and that I understood the article correctly. It's like 330 am here, and I'm dosing off!

Good luck!

 

[ThatGirl]

Nice title change. Got my attention.

I am not exactly sure I completely agree with the excerpt. On the one hand it is true that there is a discipline beyond natural law that can be harnessed to create an effect. I also do govern myself in this way.

Though to rationalize that my intention is to help people help themselves, is ludicrous. A very immature perspective. I have a very good sense of clarity and know that many of the things I do will not be the best for everyone. You win some you lose some.

Also I never really contemplate the true self, as I do not believe in a disconnection of consciousness. I believe that people are continuous in themselves, and take measures of personal growth when they are open to the prospect.

Last said, I agree with the point about if people do not oppose they aren't aware. However this contradicts the rationality of influence I stated above.

 

[Venom]

Te dominants (probably extends somewhat to Te auxiliary) like to keep their passions under control, and value their rational self above their animalistic, whimsical and impulsive self (which is a part of the self that everyone has).

I completely disagree. This actually sounds more like an enneagram 1 thing. They are the type that wish to "repress" and "control" their anger (emotion). I'm going to anticipate that you will disagree with me by saying, "no but Im an enneagram 8 and I still relate to this passage!!!". And then that's when I'll call bullshit because 8s revel in mobilizing their anger (though in their head, they think they are controlling it)!

Te minds like thinking in "cause/effect", causal processes, flow chart thinking (even if they arent aware of it themselves), and often don't care about the 'unconscionables' as long as the results speak for themselves... Nothing about repressed emotions ...I've definitely witnessed Te/Ni and Te/Si people get emotional over adherence to their Te thinking!

 

[SolitaryWalker]

I thought it was very reminiscent of the way Jung describes Te dominance in Psychological Types. Unfortunately I don't have that book any more so if you don't have it I can't give you a comparison. However, the basic idea is that Te dominants (probably extends somewhat to Te auxiliary) like to keep their passions under control, and value their rational self above their animalistic, whimsical and impulsive self (which is a part of the self that everyone has).?

No, that's not how Jung describes Te dominants. In fact, most of his disquisitions on type profiles dealt with mental processes rather than with personality traits. You've been confused by countless folk typological testimonials and MBTI brochures that frame types as skill-sets or personal beliefs people have.

The implications of this I guess are that most people who like positive liberty over negative liberty (if you believe in such a dichotomy of freedom) tend to be Te dominant types. And also dictators - mainly ENTJs but probably a few ESTJs. These are the types who believe in individual willpower, strength and autonomy. They value self-determination, just as advocates of positive liberty do.).?

Type has little to do with what people believe in. A person's beliefs are heavily influenced by his social surrounding, upbringing and personal ambitions. No, you don't need to be an ENTJ to be a dictator, nor is it the case that most dictators are ENTJs. No eminent autocratic leader has been 'typed' by a competent Jungian typologist and those who assume that do so retrospectively. They start with the premise that people who have totalitarian tendencies or impose order on others are Te types and once they see famous dictators display such qualities, they immediately label them as ENTJs. This does nothing at all to support the premise that being a dictator or liking negative liberty is caused by Te or that a person who has such personality features is necessarily of this type.

Wow guys, really responsive of you.

What kind of a response can you expect after you post such rubbish? The whole OP contains a quote from Berlin supplemented by a discussion of typology that is based on folk typological definitions of Te.

I completely disagree. This actually sounds more like an enneagram 1 thing.:

Don't even bother debating the question of what folk typological categories you want to place human behaviors into. On the Internet you'll find dozens of incompatible definitions of Te and of enneagram one, EZRA is just using a combination of several folk characterizations of Te. Its useless to tell him that what he is describing is not Te or more like Enneagram 1 because you're just making an appeal to a different set of definitions of Te or Enneagram. In itself this does not show why your definition is more appropriate than his because they are all virtually substanceless as online personality descriptions just state their conclusions without making any arguments or citing scholarly authority. The conclusions are typically based on vague hunches and personal experiences that are virtually never critically scrutinized.

In order to avoid this problem, one would need to have a personality trait definition based on an empirical study of how people behave. Another option is defining a type as a cognitive tendencies rather than as a clear-cut personality feature, an empirical inquiry would be less needed to comment on the subject-matter of typology. None of the common accounts of Te or Enneagram one do this and if you also do not, the wise thing to do would be to abandon the exchange.

 

[Eric B]

Type has little to do with what people believe in. A person's beliefs are heavily influenced by his social surrounding, upbringing and personal ambitions. No, you don't need to be an ENTJ to be a dictator, nor is it the case that most dictators are ENTJs. No eminent autocratic leader has been 'typed' by a competent Jungian typologist and those who assume that do so retrospectively. They start with the premise that people who have totalitarian tendencies or impose order on others are Te types and once they see famous dictators display such qualities, they immediately label them as ENTJs. This does nothing at all to support the premise that being a dictator or liking negative liberty is caused by Te or that a person who has such personality features is necessarily of this type.

Actually, the perennial "dictator" people refer to is generally Hitler, and most people say he is INFJ. Some of us do say ENTJ instead. I go that way, because I have looked at the claims of him being an Fe user, and it seems that whatever Fe he used was very unhealthy, and likely what Beebe would term "shadow". (I have not seen the full type Beebe suggests for him, but I have seen him somewhere claim he was an introverted Sensing type with a demonic Ni. He didn't explain why, in that place however, or whether the aux. function was Te or Fe). So with many of these leaders, at least from outward behavior, Te dominant, which yields so-called "choleric" behavior (expressive, task-focused) seems to fit.
I believe the whole hasty INFJ thing is derived from the more "folk-typological" means; looking at certain behaviors and associating them with certain functions, but not looking at the contexts the functions are being used in (such as the archetypes). Others will claim some SJ type because of his use of an organizational structure.

I myself realize the hypothesis of a type for any given figure like that (who we don't even know personally, and don't know all the inner details behind their behavior) is not certain. Especially when they're obviously not healthy for any type.