#j-mbti

[azenta]

So in last answer you asked if i had other questions. And i'm just wondering if you can explain the meanings of seelie/unseelie or adaptive/directive functions, conscious functions, and what II- or I means. Or if you can link me to a place that explains this because what i found on google wasn't really good. Another question is can you be any type on Jungian mbti with a complete unrelated set of functions on CT? Like a SeTi ENTJ or something?

Im pleased you ask xD

Emotional attitude

First, here is an in length and in depth psychological explanation of how emotional attitude works. I cant find the simplified one about why they were lead to establish emotional attitude tho... I know it is somewhere, it might be on the wiki page (linked at the bottom).

Below is the most simple way I have found to explain both dichotomy tho.

Seelie/Unseelie Go toward the end of this article to find the explanation.

Adaptive/Directive Same as above, it is near the end.

I'd also mention the emotional attitude is something observable in the vultology of the person.

Function development and consciousness

First, bear in mind the CT model bases itself on psychodynamic, which is born from psychanalytic. Therefore, most of their reasoning and explanations come from this paradigm (which is my personal favorite as a social worker). J-mbti also was born from it, but there is not many people on tumblr or even on other sites that actually use psychodynamic concepts to explain anything about cognitive functions development.

Function development, how it integrates into one's psychology and therefore becomes conscious.

Another concept (libido) to understand and better grasp their logic of cognitive development. If you've been familiar with psychanalytic/psychodynamic, it won't be something new, but i suggest to read it anyway to see how they use it in CT.

The little sticks (l---, ll--, etc.) is just a way to illustrate which functions are conscious. They corresponds to each function position. The first is the leading/dominant, always conscious obviously, then the auxiliary, tertiary and inferior, which may not forcibly be conscious nor developed in their hierarchical order. Unconscious ones are represented by this -> - little trait, while the conscious ones with a stick -> l (namely the letter "l" lmao).

So it can lead to development such as mine, l-l-, which means Fi lead with Ni conscious. Both Se and Te are unconscious and therefore work from behind the scene. Ni might "appear stronger" simply because I can allocate voluntarily energy to Ni and use it in equal measure to Fi. So, despite auxiliary Se, I prioritize Ni most of the time over Se, tho Se still does its things. It can also lead to development such as the l--l one, named "polarized", or even l-ll, lll-, ll-l, etc. Every developments are possible, and it can change throughout your life (toward more development/ little sticks). Like in my case, my Te is showing itself more than my Se, even vultologically, so I'll hit l-ll development at some point in time, which makes me even more an improbable ISFP in the j-mbti, and even closer to what would be typed as an INxJ. Tho, I suggest reading through the wiki and the many articles to get a grasp on all those stuffs for yourself.

-> Here is the wiki and the summary of all the pages.

For your latest question, yes it could totally be possible to encounter an SeTi that types as ENTJ in J-mbti, that's quite common tbh. Especially when l-l- directive... Directive Fe is fucking frightening

There is a lot of those mix up tbh.

[azenta]

Hello, what is your advice in getting started with cognitive types, for somebody who already knows well about traditional mbti? (cognitive function kind, not dichotomy haha) Also, is your cognitive type necessarily the same as your traditional mbti type? Was wondering, since those are different systems. Your dichotomy type doesn't have to be your tradtional mbti type, for example. So is it like that with cognitive types too?Thanks

My advice to begin with CT is to read those articles on their site, the introduction section particularly when you already mastered another typology system that uses cognitive functions.

And no, your type in jungian mbti, or even in Socionics, won't necessarily be the same in CT. This is in part due to how functions development, consciousness and capacity is conceived differently between both theory. I'm an example of this difference. INFJ explains kinda well how I process in J-mbti, but the NiFe profile, even with developed/conscious Ti, really doesn't in CT. Also, INFJ does not necessarily translates well as NiFe in CT, especially with certain functions consciousness (such as the polarized l--l development), and even the emotional attitude Directive is not expected in INFJs. This is also caused by some differences in how they define cognitive functions, even tho they do agree on the fundamental of the definitions.

[azenta]

I understand j-mbti funcions are poorly defined and rely a lot on self concept. But in the end, if you're a person who relies a lot on their own perception of the world, who tries to not rely on the external world to make moral judgements and decisions, and who understands other people only by imagining how they would personally feel in their situation (which is how CT defines Fi leads, right?) Doesn't that mean you're also a Fi-dom in j-mbti? Because that's how we've always defined IxFPs here..

Rely a lot on their own perception of the world

If I get picky on the semantic, this is a Pi thing. But even relying in general on one's own comprehension of the world is just a Ji thing in general.

Tries not to rely on the external world to make moral judgements and decisions

Also both Ji. Because morals is not exclusively an F thing. In fact, it's not about moral in itself.

Understands people by imagining how they would personally feel in their situation.

This is sympathy, and both Fe and Fi can do that, but with a little twist. Tho, Fi's empathy is concerned in imagining the person in its individuality and how it would feel for them knowing this individual and their concerns. I will presume this is what you meant, or something along those lines, and thus will be the only point I can partially agree with.

But the fact I can be picky even about those points make us talk about different things, and thus, leads us to different conclusions. This is also why nobody concluded ISFP for me in j-mbti. Or at least, nobody tried to argue for that. This is again caused by a lack of objective method, that can't be argued by interpretation, leaving people involved with their own interpretation of the definitions (like us right now) and leading to stupid pickiness like I just did.

Tbh, J-mbti typology could be able to type me as ISFP. Because despite my pickiness, what you mentioned still translates into Ji, Pi and partially Fi, so we do agree it talks about concepts that are shared by both theory. But, the definitions are blurry and without any objective ground, it inevitably leads to inconsistent conclusion. There are solutions to the problems of J-mbti tbh, but it would require some amount of time to consolidate and shape those solutions.

[azenta]

You said in CT you could start becoming conscious of all 4 functions soon and it proves how you're not an ISFP in j-mbti. How so? Is it because in j-mbti you only develope your last functions if you're older but in CT you can be conscious of Se and Te at any age? But doesn't that mean if you develope Se at an earlier age then it can't be your inferior function in j-mbti because it's impossible for it to happen?

It doesn't necessarily prove that I can't be ISFP in j-mbti, but it would be hard to argue I am one with J-mbti's development conception.

So, yes to your second question ; it is because of how development is conceived differently that it also leads to different typing.

And also yes to your third question. As an example, an adaptive NiFe with polarized development (l--l) would probably not be typed as INFJ because they would be able to handle Se matters (rapid shifts, multiplicity of information) and have Se concerns (exploration, awareness) at heart, which would make them come off as much more aware and "definite" than what is conceived of an INFJ in J-mbti. In fact, pretty sure they'd get typed as ISFJ instead, since it would be a fitting translation to one theory to another.

In J-mbti, the lower functions are assumed to be "bad" or worse than your higher ones despite their eventual development, while in CT the developed function becomes as strong as the higher ones. You get good at it, that's why it becomes conscious. This will inevitably lead to disagreements between both theories, and thus to those different typings.

[azenta]

What you're saying seems a little inconsistent.If Fi/Fe are indeed as similar in CT/j-mbti as you've aknowledged them to be, then regardless of mistypes and errors of judgement/self-perception, every person should have one absolute type.For example, you're Fi-lead in one system and Fe aux in another, doen't this mean you were mistyped in j-mbti?

They are stupidly similar, not exactly the same, but contains still differences that creates other inconsistencies as well. One of those things is that Ni dominance is highly confounded with Ji dominance in CT, because Ni is poorly defined I j-mbti, in fact it is the least well defined function of all in j-mbti. Also, Fi is also poorly defined in j-mbti, as it tends to be reduced to morality when it encompasses larger than that. It is an analytical and thinking process of its own. I'd also say Se and Ne are badly differentiated in J-mbti as well, in part because Se also has a limited but blurry definition. In the end, J-mbti has a limited conceptualization of cognitive functions, and it tends to get highly mixed with behaviors in the process. However, some basis of its definitions tend to be aligned with CT ones.

Also, the way to conceive development is also different enough to create other inconsistencies between types. Like I said, having a conscious function in CT means it has as much incidence than the leading one, in fact it can be independent of the leading view, while in J-mbti lower functions are still considered subordinated to the higher ones.

The only reason why I still fit INFJ is because how much it is also poorly defined lmao. Ni dominance is not well understood by a majority like I complained above, it gets shit upon because of this ignorance, and Fe has been twisted around because of some people who glorified it and because some other people just blindly believed that (me first). Ti is also reduced as an "analytical process that sticks on consistency and accuracy", when this is just a freaking Ji thing. INFJ is the category for people that just don't seem to fit anywhere else very well.

In the end, J-mbti is overall inconsistent because there are as many perception and definition of the concept that there is of people abiding to it on tumblr. Even tho there are still common grounds with certain functions, what defines the beginning and the end of each one of them is lost between all those subjective interpretations. J-mbti gets the core of the concepts but can't decide on where the concept start and ends.

In the end, my personal biggest complaint and what leads me to turn to CT is that J-mbti lacks definition, on top of lacking a way to spot them efficiently and objectively. And again, CT is not perfect either, but it has a solidity j-mbti doesn't have.

[azenta]

What i don't understand is how you can be two completely different types in different systems when the functions are still similar. Fe in CT may sound more like soc variant but it still says Fe users make moral judgements based on universal normality and generalities while Fi users make their own personal moral compass and unseelies especially try to not get their morality influenced by their environment. They say Fe users feel empathy because they know how people usually feel in that (1/2)

Fi users feel empathy because they put themselves in other people's shoes and project how they would personally feel in that situation. Aren't these the same differences that have always been used in J-mbti for Fi vs Fe? So how can you be Fe in one system and Fi in the other? (2/2)

You are totally correct to notice the definitions are actually stupidly similar. But the reason why it leads to such different typing is because one has an objective methodology (CT) and the other doesnt, leading to astounding amount of biases, due to very subjective interpretation of the concepts and its manifestation particularly, therefore leading to distortion of the actual concepts, and thus, shit loads of mistypes, which reinforces the distorted definition/perception of the concepts since it is based in part on those (mis)typings.

We are poor judge of ourselves, and j-mbti relies heavily on one's self perception which is a major mistake. Cognitive function is hard to observe in oneself objectively, without any external method to do so, in part because this process is so internal and intricate this same functioning biases the perception you have of it. And others own perception is also very unreliable, because their comprehension is also biased in part by their own typing, or even their friends typing, and insidious beliefs about each functions and how it should manifest.

Tho, CT is not infallible, but it is much more coherent, consistent and overall reliable for typing than J-mbti ever will be (until an actual reliable methodology is created). And therefore, their definition will be much more reliable as well, as their typing will have accuracy to begin with.

[azenta]

imo the cognitive type description of the functions seem like a way of simplifying everything. the fi description seems like a mix of the most common enneagrams for fi types mixed with jungian theory. and the fe description seems like a mix of jungian theory and enneagram 3, 1 and 2 with social variant. while it's possible to describe the functions using jung's system without mixing it with other personality systems like enneagram and ivs.

Well, it is synplifying everything. To me, it actually brings much more clarity, and of course, simplicity. So, it feels much tangible instead of remaining a pure theoretical pseudo-scientific mess. Even tho CT isn't yet scientific either.

You're also right that j-mbti can describe cognitive functions on their own without the need of enneagram to support it. The problem that remains and annoys me is, again, it lacks a method to consolidate its theory and so, its definitions. So, due to this lack of defined traits, it tends to get mixed up with behavioral attitudes, which makes it loses its core purpose ; cognition.

Tho, I am not saying j-mbti is all crap, it does speak of some truths. It's just that this lack of any solidity makes those truths unreachable, always just in front of you, yet unseizable. They are playing hard to get and I fucking hate it >:d

And well, also, CT Fe is just Soc tbh lmao. Or well, I still think a distinction could be possible, but I will need to dig it... But I do think there is one, since I think I did follow a potential FeNi l--l soc blind on here some years ago. Anyway, nothing sure tho.