Bamberg's Possession Theory

[bamberg82]

Te: The trust that anything can only survive when it belongs to you
Fe: The trust that you can only grow when you belong to anything

Ti: The trust that anything can only survive if it does not belong to you
Fi: The trust that you can only grow if anything does not belong to you

Ne: The trust that anything can only grow when it belongs to you
Se: The trust that you can only survive when anything belongs to you

Ni: The trust that anything can only grow if it does not belong to you
Si: The trust that you can only survive if anything does not belong to you


This matrix is meant to be used as a conceptual tool to better understand how others see the world.
Your critiques are welcome, but please do make sure to critique the theory along with critiquing me.
The reason I post this here is to get feedback on the accuracy of my theory, since i'm walking kinda blind on other cognitive function (i'm an introverted feeler)

Also, a disclaimer; This was not built using Myers Briggs, but rather the root philosophy of types based on Jungian philosophy. So i'm kinda selfish and need my incentive to keep working on this. If it turns out i'm right, i fully intent to copyright


Edited: based on feedback




Te: The trust that something can only survive when it depends on you
Fe: The trust that you can only grow when you depend on something

Ti: The trust that anything can only survive if it is independent of you
Fi: The trust that you can only grow if something if independent of you

Ne: The trust that something can only grow when it depends on you
Se: The trust that you can only survive when something depends on you

Ni: The trust that something can only grow if it is independent of you
Si: The trust that you can only survive if something is independent of you

 

[bamberg82]

Also, I had posted this theory in a more primitive form elsewhere. This one should be the revised one as of this date, and i hope this post will serve as a record

 

[stalemate]

I find the wording ambiguous. For example, let's take the Te one...

"The trust that anything can only survive when it belongs to you."


Do you mean that if something belongs to me, the only thing it can do is survive... or, do you mean, the only way something can survive is for it to belong to me? I can read it either way.

 

[bamberg82]

Literally, it means (in the case of Te alone) that for anything to survive, it must belong to you.

Te's in my experience tend to be dominant in this manner

 

[stalemate]

Literally, it means (in the case of Te alone) that for anything to survive, it must belong to you.

Te's in my experience tend to be dominant in this manner

Thanks for the clarification. That's the second one I was trying to say.

 

[bamberg82]

yeah sure

I've personally experienced the Te possessiveness so it made sense to me at least

 

[Infinite Bubble]

Kind of elegant. I quite like it. It does need fleshing out some more though. My opinion:

Fe: The trust that you can only grow when you belong to anything
Ti: The trust that anything can only survive if it does not belong to you
Fi: The trust that you can only grow if anything does not belong to you

These work very well.

Se: The trust that you can only survive when anything belongs to you
Si: The trust that you can only survive if anything does not belong to you
Ni: The trust that anything can only grow if it does not belong to you

Not certain about these. Si doesn't sound right. Si's accumulation of past sensory data means that surely they'd trust that they would only survive if this data belonged to them?

Te: The trust that anything can only survive when it belongs to you
Ne: The trust that anything can only grow when it belongs to you

I don't think these work too well. Te is dependent on exterior logical structures thus by definition it needs to not belong to the individual. Could you give an explanation for the Ne description?

Replacing "anything" with "something" would make it grammatically less strident. Also, please correct me if I'm misunderstanding your theory.

 

[bamberg82]

Hey

Se: The trust that you can only survive when anything belongs to you
Just made sense to me because of the materialist nature of the Se

Ne: The trust that anything can only grow when it belongs to you
Ne is my second function, and the reason i wrote this is because i personally have a need to grow (progress) anything that belongs to me.....ideas for instance

Te: The trust that anything can only survive when it belongs to you
This made the most sense to me; It explains their possessiveness, it explains their need to control, it explains why a Te businessman will make himself relevant to a business in order to save the business.

This can still be analytical

Please note that in all cases thinking and sensing are about the external other, ie, they are external, and feeling and intuition are from the inner self.

The most difficulty i had was with the Ni and Si, but let me argue for it anyway.

Ni: The trust that anything can only grow if it does not belong to you

Example, an idea that does not belong to you. The idea cannot be personal to you. A trust is involved that 'Something' can only grow if it is given its independence, ie, if it does not belong to you


Si was the most difficult for me to really believe, but i included that definition only because it made the theory elegant and structured.

But i'll try to argue for it.

Si: The trust that you can only survive if anything does not belong to you

I'm trying to understand this, yet find it hard since i'm not at all an Si

So i tried to imagine why that should be true, and i assume its because The Si feels she can only survive if the 'Something' or 'Anything' is allowed to be objective, that it does not belong to her, independent of her, and that because of this, she can see it for what it is.

 

[bamberg82]

i edited in the first post based on your feedback to make it more sensible to every type

 

[Infinite Bubble]

Okay, I see where you are coming from with Se and Te now. Would it then be accurate to say that these connections are created from the resulting behavioural characteristics of the cognitive functions, rather than from the functions per se?

Ne: The trust that anything can only grow when it belongs to you
Ne is my second function, and the reason i wrote this is because i personally have a need to grow (progress) anything that belongs to me.....ideas for instance

I still don't know about this. It seems too subjective. More like Ni actually.

Ni: The trust that anything can only grow if it does not belong to you

Example, an idea that does not belong to you. The idea cannot be personal to you. A trust is involved that 'Something' can only grow if it is given its independence, ie, if it does not belong to you

And that is probably more applicable to Ne, haha. Ni is about subjective interpretation by definition, and has more inherently subjective ideas than does Ne. Perhaps you mean the way Ni users try and look underneath for the "true" meaning.

Si: The trust that you can only survive if anything does not belong to you

I'm trying to understand this, yet find it hard since i'm not at all an Si

So i tried to imagine why that should be true, and i assume its because The Si feels she can only survive if the 'Something' or 'Anything' is allowed to be objective, that it does not belong to her, independent of her, and that because of this, she can see it for what it is.

But Si isn't about objectivity in the least; collection of subjective sensory data. I can see how having it like this is the only way to preserve the symmetry. But maybe that will have to be sacrificed.

Finally, I'm curious to know about T & S being external, and F & N being internal.

i edited in the first post based on your feedback to make it more sensible to every type

Yeah that looks much better now.

 

[bamberg82]

"Yeah that looks much better now."

So did the edit really clear everything? Without sacrificing the symmetry?

You wanna collaborate on this to make sure this theory doesn't come back to haunt me, and that I got it perfectly right? Your free to do so and add your name to this theory, if you want, lol

Otherwise, i can understand you would want to enjoy your privacy without the controversies that come with creating and selling a new theory


Anyway the more important question........ Is the edit enough, and do i need to keep working on it?

 

[bamberg82]

I've always seen T and S as being more objective and N and F as being subjective

 

[INTP]

I really dont get the Ti thing. It kinda implies that if Ti user everything a Ti user own, will be ruined if its not handed to someone else. Ti uses logic and thats not really logical thing to say, if you are using logic more than others on average, it is more likely that the thing will only survive if it belongs to you because someone else might not be able to handle it as rationally as you would.

 

[INTP]

if you want some understanding on the functions read this:

In Jung’s model of typology, a thinking attitude is oriented by the principle of logic; a sensation attitude is oriented by the direct perception of concrete facts; intuition orients itself to future possibilities; and feeling is governed by subjective worth. Each of these attitudes may operate in an introverted or extraverted way.

Extraversion = You are collecting the contents by which the function works based on from the external world and they are based either on sensations or on common knowledge/values of society/group of friends etc. In other words what you process is somehow dictated by something external.

Introversion= Opposite of that, instead of using concrete perceptions/external facts/values etc, you are using subjective processing to for example determine what is the ultimate logic behind something or some value you are using in decision making.

But you must remember that all functions use this objective and subjective side of things, its just that extraversion means that the objective stuff is the determining and more trusted factor in your psyche and introversion is the tendency to lean to the subjective. And the subjective factor can be the same as the objective, in which case the introverted function can trust external logic/perceptions/values/possibilities.