hiddenglass
Swallow
lay me to rest, take me to sea // read my mind… let me be.
Posts: 179
Enneagram Core Fix: 5⁴
Relationship Status: searching
Occupation(s): idling
Education: ongoing
Interests: growing
Country/Region: chicago
|
Post by hiddenglass on Oct 26, 2020 3:21:24 GMT -5
Auburn's Cognitive Type & Vultology, Dave & Shan's Objective Personality, Aušra Augustinavičiūtė's Model A Socion, Myers & Briggs-Myers' MBTI, even upstarts like Harry and his Cognitive Personality Theory have found quarter with some of our own . . .
what are we to make of these different systems?? are they reconcilable? surely not fully.
are they all more or less direct descendants of Carl Jung's Psychological Type? doubtful.
are CT's "conscious functions" reconcilable with OP's "jumpers"? are OP's "sexual modalities" a thing? CT purports to describe something wholly separate from Socionics. Can the Vultological signals truly be used in conjunction with intertype relations?? MBTI's cognitive functions and Socionics' IMEs have some significant definitional differences.
what is the solution to this mess? what's compatible? what's real?
I've been on a mission to find out. And, just like my mission to find "the true enneagram" led me here, I'm confident I'll eventually find "the true JCT [Jungian Cognitive Typology]", even if it doesn't formally "exist".
what's your opinion on the answers to these, and to related questions? inquiring minds want to know.
|
|
|
|
Post by vincent on Oct 26, 2020 3:59:27 GMT -5
Well, you found the right place already 
fully reconcilable, no, certainly not.
Some stuff in each of those systems are just wrong, or unecessary. But that doesn't mean those systems can't be examined, checked, corrected, streamlined into something that is both more elegant and more robust. That's pretty much what we have been doing here for a while now, and you will see the results (which, i think, speak for themselves) on the forum.
I have to go for a few hours, but i'll give you my take on each system when i come back.
|
|
|
|
Post by Roshan on Oct 26, 2020 5:04:55 GMT -5
This is a good one to look at, I think hiddenglass , to see how we value and place the 'vultological qualia'. I assumed from what poems of his I knew that Eliot would be NiFi jumper like me but as I started adding the older photos the 'vultology' just wasn't adding up...but the 'vultology' is consistent with the socionics slots. Dude's just not Fe PolR and Te tool (yes I think we also got that word from Dave); he looks either Se or Te PolR and he's too emotionally accessible for Fe PolR. Eyebrow arch measuring, no we don't do that. The conflation of Sheldrake,Tolle and Rajneesh as all Ni I because they're all so mystical and isn't that groovy was what made me realize there were...um...problems with that system. It has its place as an adjunct though. (btw that NiFe thread was the first time I committed heresy against this idol, so it led to...quite an interesting 'Ni ramble', Rain I mean Rian...Welcome back to the Addams Family dinner theater).
|
|
|
|
Post by Roshan on Oct 26, 2020 6:51:46 GMT -5
There is actually a better post on my Sheldrake epiphany but it doesn't come up in the search engine so I think I'll finally bite the bullet (and swallow the chewing tobacco) and go to proboards and tell them to fix it now... (EDIT: done, and why we need actual cognitive extraverts here to remind me I'm actually in the world...as it's easy for me to forget...  brilliant, wonderful etc...). |
|
|
|
Post by vincent on Oct 26, 2020 12:37:55 GMT -5
Ok so...
I will start with the most technical and direct questions, then i will elaborate a bit about every systems you mentioned.
#1_________________________________________________________________________
Well, there are major issues with both concepts.
Auburn's definition of "conscious" is a pretty sloppy one, and it's a remarkably non-psychological one too.
It alternatively means strong / developed / visible depending on the context, and it gives him a lot of very convenient leeway to justify his (mis)typings and his bias.
in OP system, "jumpers" are "normal" types who happens to have two introverted or two extraverted functions in their first two ("savior") slots.
For DSP, a NeFe jumper is a Ne dominant who simply uses Fe as his second function..
The irony here, is that OPS jumpers doesn't really jump over anything, strictly speaking.
Our jumpers DO jump. Which is why we kept the word.
Their tertiary is STILL a tertiary function, which developed earlier than "expected" and is strong enough to compete with the first two.
Their auxiliary is still their auxiliary, but it's "jumped over" and subdued, with cascading effects on the whole type.
It's not a separate type among 512 or 1024. It's a specific configuration within a type.
Now what both Auburn and DSP correctly saw is that the dogmatically defined "order of function development" in "orthodox MBTI" wasn't quite right.
Or at least not right for every single member of a type.
But they didn't quite grasp what actually happens when function development doesn't occur in that expected way.
And WE aren't done with this yet either btw.
Nah.
Sure, functions exists on a spectrum and it's always possible to express this kind of spectrum in dichotomous "ying/yang-ish" terms.
But separate and ontologically pertinent "masculine" vs "feminine" functions ? nope. not a thing.
This (just like their "animal" concept), is an example of OPS tendency to "categorical inflation".
Well, Auburn will say stuff like "i don't know much about sioconics, i haven't learned it in depth, i can't comment on it"
And yet you will find "quadra descriptions" on his website...
So i guess that separation is geometrically non-euclidian. Or something like that.
Well, not only they can be used in conjunction, but they SHOULD.
It's simply absurd to pretend to type people accurately using only one of them.
Intertype behaviors and energetic signals are all legitimate clues pointing toward the underlying cognitive matrix.
but none of those clues are sufficient in themselves.
Yeah.
MBTI definitions have a tendency to be too broad and blurry. (and the online community has been broadening and blurrying them even more)
Socionics definitions have the opposite tendency. Too Si heavy and entomological, leaving no room to overlaps and losing sight of the fact that, at this end of the day, N is N, F is F, and so on.
Still, Jung was definitely onto something with those 8 functions. And so were the mutiple people, on both sides of the Iron Curtain, who semi-separately discovered the 8 slot system.
|
|
|
|
Post by vincent on Oct 26, 2020 13:22:23 GMT -5
#2___________________________________________
Now about the "systems" themselves :
I don't know much about this one.
When i looked into him, briefly and months ago, i failed to see what was so new and different in what he was doing.
If i recall correctly, he was insisting on the fact that a type is a serie of limitations to overcome, rather than a set of traits and strength.
And yeah sure.
But how is that half-empy glass different from the half-full one ?
Anyway (and unless i'm mistaken) this guy is doing something that i wouldn't do, and something i think no one in his right mind should do :
he is doing his OWN thing. Solo.
|
|
|
|
Post by vincent on Oct 26, 2020 13:30:13 GMT -5
Well, there is so many MBTIs now... Some still works with 4 functions only.
Some works with 8. With significant differences in their understanding of slots.
Some borrow socionics stuff. Some don't.
Some use it for "human ressource managment".
Some uses it to type fictional characters.
Some use it as an inspiration for memes and tiktok videos.
And yet... someone like Michael Pierce will still get amazing results with it, just by very insightfully sticking to the barebone basics.
The main virtue of MBTi is also is biggest flaw : it's very simple and elegant.
And because of this, everybody and his mother-in-law think they can master it after they read a few portraits and descriptions.
And well, as simple as it seemingly is, it's still a taxonomic system.
And not everybody is going to be Linné and Buffon with it overnight.
Let alone the next Darwin.
|
|
|
|
Post by vincent on Oct 26, 2020 19:00:46 GMT -5
This one has a lot of major flaws and problems in my opinion :
First of all, their claim that their method is "objective" because they type people separately "in a double blind way" is bogus already.
Yeah, they type people in the same way because they learned and trained themselves to type according to the same subjective biases.
It's closer from "folie a deux" than from objective scientific truth.
Then, of all the systems you mentioned, OPS is the one that is the less compatible with the others.
OPS works on a set of customized definitions that often doesn't have much to do with jungian ones anymore.
And it should be noted that their definitions are now way more "behavioral" than cognitive per se.
For example, their perceiving functions "controls" or "gathers". Their judging functions are about positioning : "self above the tribe" or "tribe above self". Even Auburn's phrenology is more authentically cognitive than this at this point. At least his definitions are still cognitive ones.
Most of the concepts OPS added like the "animals" and the "sexual modalities" allow them to multiply the number of types in a way that doesn't really add anything in term of explanatory power, and give way too much excuses and plausible deniability for mistypes.
In other words : that whole bloated apparatus of labels sounds like artificial "granularity" to me. At best.
And then there is the issue that... how are we supposed to use that granularity anyway ?
OPS is a four function system that turns our 3rd and 4th functions into "demons", but doesn't offer any understanding of the "shadow", and has no concept of polr function. While polr function is certainly the single most important thing one should know and understand about his/her type.
I honestly don't think we borrowed much from them except the word "jumpers". And i pretty much doubt that will change much in the future.
( Roshan "tool" function as an alternate name for auxiliary comes from Eric Strauss, not from Dave).
|
|
hiddenglass
Swallow
lay me to rest, take me to sea // read my mind… let me be.
Posts: 179
Enneagram Core Fix: 5⁴
Relationship Status: searching
Occupation(s): idling
Education: ongoing
Interests: growing
Country/Region: chicago
|
Post by hiddenglass on Oct 26, 2020 23:37:41 GMT -5
This is a good one to look at, I think hiddenglass , to see how we value and place the 'vultological qualia'. I assumed from what poems of his I knew that Eliot would be NiFi jumper like me but as I started adding the older photos the 'vultology' just wasn't adding up...but the 'vultology' is consistent with the socionics slots. Dude's just not Fe PolR and Te tool (yes I think we also got that word from Dave); he looks either Se or Te PolR and he's too emotionally accessible for Fe PolR. Eyebrow arch measuring, no we don't do that. The conflation of Sheldrake,Tolle and Rajneesh as all Ni I because they're all so mystical and isn't that groovy was what made me realize there were...um...problems with that system. It has its place as an adjunct though. (btw that NiFe thread was the first time I committed heresy against this idol, so it led to...quite an interesting 'Ni ramble', Rain I mean Rian...Welcome back to the Addams Family dinner theater). |
|
hiddenglass
Swallow
lay me to rest, take me to sea // read my mind… let me be.
Posts: 179
Enneagram Core Fix: 5⁴
Relationship Status: searching
Occupation(s): idling
Education: ongoing
Interests: growing
Country/Region: chicago
|
Post by hiddenglass on Oct 26, 2020 23:49:15 GMT -5
First of all, their claim that their method is "objective" because they type people separately "in a double blind way" is bogus already.
Yeah, they type people in the same way because they learned and trained themselves to type according to the same subjective biases.
It's closer from "folie a deux" than from objective scientific truth.
Or, have you written out an overarching explanation for the system you use anywhere? TwFP, yet another JCT scene… 😵 |
|
|
|
Post by Roshan on Oct 27, 2020 15:46:23 GMT -5
Oh, that's the gamma couple, right?  |
|
|
|
Post by Roshan on Oct 27, 2020 15:50:57 GMT -5
For example, their perceiving functions "controls" or "gathers". Their judging functions are about positioning : "self above the tribe" or "tribe above self".
Yup, that Ni first and Ni second gamma couple.  |
|
|
|
Post by Roshan on Oct 27, 2020 16:05:42 GMT -5
Why is that a mark against them? Why should PoLR even be considered, presupposing it's even "a thing"?
Or, have you written out an overarching explanation for the system you use anywhere? Of course we haven't. If we had it would be in the Study Hall. But it 's pretty much all contained in that Eliot thread I linked for you. If you want I can illustrate it with a concise example. It's a mark against them because Dave and his Japanese smile mask syndrome glued on juvenile ingratiating perma-grin interpreting everything in relation to 'tribe' is not not not not not not not not not not not not Fe Polr. Why even learn socionics if you don't accept there's a PolR function? |
|
|
|
Post by Roshan on Oct 27, 2020 16:38:48 GMT -5
TwFP, yet another JCT scene… 😵 What's JCT? |
|
|
|
Post by vincent on Oct 27, 2020 17:14:01 GMT -5
I initially intended to cover Auburn and Socionics today, but... stuff happened.
I'll do that tomorrow though. And i'll add Eric Strauss to the list
Now about this :
The thing is their stance on this set them apart from pretty much everybody else.
Most 4 functions (no shadow/no polr) systems are mostly descriptive systems, with little to no normative / prescriptive ambitions. People take tests, or get typed.
They relate to it, or they don't.
Maybe they get some ego boost out of it. Maybe an useful insight or two.
Maybe an excuse to keep (not) doing whatever they are already (not) doing.
But that's it.
Not very useful, but not very dangerous either.
OPS on the other hand is a 4 functions system with lots of normative / prescriptive ambitions. You'll see people in their (many) facebook groups posting endless and very heady screeds about the "demons" at play in their lives.
See, that word "demon" is probably the last thing they kept from Jung legacy, after they emptied it of all its substance.
The only thing left in it is the potential toxicity of its connotations.
If i was an OPS true believer, and if i had been (un)lucky enough to have been correctly typed by them, i would be going in circle about how my "demon Fe" and my "missing play animal" are ruining my life.
Utter nonsense. And unhealthy as fuck.
Nothing in your conscious stack is going to be a "demon". Not even your inferior function.
The issue here is that OPS people are doing shadow work without an actual shadow theory.
At mass scale.
And that's just insane.
It goes against the most basic principles.
"At least do no harm".
Not everyone should be "dabbling" with this stuff anyway.
But if they are going to do it, it's better and safer to do it within a system that is seriously considering the shadow, instead of self-servingly half-assing it.
It's fine, more than fine even, to not consider polr.
As long as you're typing your in-laws at marriages or the Walking Dead characters. But if you're going to do ANY kind of applied psychology with this stuff, that's where you should start, and that's where you should stay for a while too.
|
|
brilliant, wonderful etc...).
