strain002 - Tumblr blog

strain002 · 1 year

Note

Is there such a thing as a TP with strong morals? I swear almost every character typed as such is a mercenary, a sociopath or just so apathetic you can't tell if they even have any values. I got curious about it because I noticed that the most popular typology blog here would always describe TJs as being shit with people, but having some hard lines it wouldn't cross and many times very strong morals they just didn't feel the need to discuss. But TPs were straight up always said to be amoral, which doesn't make sense following their own logic that stated ethical/moral values were deciced by Fi/Fe: if all these types have low feeling then why do TJs get to keep their morals while TPs never had any to begin with? It also never made sense to me why high Fi is equated to virtuosity when there are so many terrible people, even famous criminals, who are FP. I guess that equating good character with functional prefference just seems illogical to me.

Yes, equating good characters with functional preferences is illogical and a theoretical mistake.

Ti is not an amoral function, but it's true that xxTPs often come across as people with weak moral values. Ti is concerned about logical principles, and this is the main approach to morals for Ti doms.

A TiFe approach to values includes an understanding of those values, and that, overall, those make sense for the Ti users. Ti in its understanding of moral values as logical principles, creates a personal principle out of them: most Ti users don't even realise that there's an analytical thinking behind their values.

As Ti has Fe deep in the unconscious, Ti has its moral values inside its logical framework with the ultimate intention and will of universalizing them into the external world (Fe universal ethics).

I'll use a good example of an INTP with strong moral values that uses Ti while theorizing about ethics: Immanuel Kant.

Kant's work is basically based on rational principles that obey a subjective logic - and thus, those don't have any reliable applicability in external structures and his detractors always got him through empirical traps. His categorical imperatives only made sense on paper, but they were flawed in practical meanings.

Kant created the "categorical imperatives" in order to tie reason with ethics. The categorical imperative are logical rules that may make all rational beings act in a certain way. Kant was convinced that those logical principle, while having their origin on reason, will make everyone be on the same moral level. That's TiFe. Kant created three principles of absolute moral values with a logical correlation between them.

40 notes · View notes

strain002 · 1 year

Text

I'm starting with the dominant irrational perceiving functions.

286 notes · View notes

strain002 · 1 year

Text

Dominant rational functions

145 notes · View notes

strain002 · 1 year

Note

Whar's the difference between a 4w3 sp vs sx?

When E4 leans towards the 3 wing, it becomes more "out there" and attuned to the differences between themselves and the world. When the E4 leans towards the 5 wing, it becomes more inward oriented and even more withdrawn, having that vibe of an alien that doesn't belong and doesn't want to belong.

The sx4 is intense in a way that the sp4 isn't. The sp4 is stoic, the sx4 is demanding. The sp4 is more blind to what related them to the world, the sx4 amplifies their feelings of frustration towards a shallow world.

The sp4 hides their feelings and avoids to share the own suffering in favour of appearing resilient in their uniqueness. The sx4 is explosive about their feelings as an unconscious way to get rid of their sense of inferiority.

The sp4 redirects the envy through working hard to get what others have and they lack. The sx4 redirects the envy towards ambition and competitivity, covering it and turning the pain and shame into anger.

13 notes · View notes

strain002 · 1 year

Text

I'm starting with the dominant irrational perceiving functions.

286 notes · View notes

strain002 · 1 year

Text

modern typology has naturally evolved from strict jungian definition. It’s fallacious to rely on old theory, and try to bring it into the new world; to try to shoehorn an old paradigm into a current one.

Would I, for example, rely on Freud to explain modern, CURRENT psychology? No. Was Freud instrumental in paving the way and setting the foundations for modern psychology? Absolutely. But we have moved on from our founder Freud, and moved on from our founder Jung. Freud was the foundation, the rock that psychology was built upon. But that’s all he was. Jung was the foundation of functions and typology, but strict Jungian understanding is vastly outdated. Using outdated paradigms is regressive, not progressive. Knowledge and theory evolve organically for a reason.

98 notes · View notes

strain002 · 1 year

Note

Why do you prefer IEIE/EIEI model over EEII/IIEE (and IEEE/EIII, if you want make it broader)? And what are your thoughts on this model?

The Grant Stack has always been more theoretically solid than the nucleus stack. Both are just two different interpretations of Jung’s work – both of them make pretty good points, but overall the Grant Stack solves the explanation of the ego/personality better than the nucleus.

In my opinion, the nucleus stack fails at providing theoretically coherence to the dualism of the cognitive functions (I’m not gonna talk about the myersian stack because the IEEE/EIII model doesn’t make any sense if we take into account that cognitive functions are meant to be understood in tandems – f.e you can’t understand Fi without Te).

The problem with this issue being brought out now by typologytok remains in the arguments made against the Grant Stack, which usually show a lack of understanding of what the Grant Stack is really about (this debate has been going on for like 6 years on the typologycafe forum? typologytok hasn’t invented anything here). The Grant Stack contemplates the idea of you developing and relating to two functions with the same extroverted or introverted attitude, and the auxiliary function isn’t the “second one you relate the most to” – which is an argument I’ve seen a lot to discredit the EIEI – IEIE stack.

The Grant Stack is, nowadays, the most accurate, effective and realistic stack to define the flexibility of the cognitive functions usage. It’s also more theoretically precise while allowing people to understand that they’re a unique example of their type. Have you ever read any book that actually explains the dynamic of the nucleus stack? There aren’t many of them, and I’m yet to come across a solid essay that defends what’s the actual applicability of a pure ego conducted by two functions with the same attitude.

People talk about the nucleus stack like it is a Jungian stack. Jung didn’t care about a stack; for him there are 8 personality types, as the dominant function is what creates them. In any case, if Jung were to read about a stack he will probably agree with the Grant stack as many of his books imply that the dominant function requires a function with a different attitude to deal with the inferior one (check Jung 1925 seminars and “los complejos y el inconsciente” (1933) – sorry I don’t know the title in English)

To finish my brief argumentation… I’ve seen on the Internet people trying to say that – following the nucleus stack – an INTP can be TiNi and TiNe. If that’s the case, what actually means to be an INTP? This proposed typology destroys the essential difference between functions with two different attitudes.

PD: Daryl Sharp makes a pretty solid take when he says that there isn’t a tertiary function, but that there are actually two auxiliary functions. So, if you are NiFeTiSe, you are dom NI (aux Fe-Ti) and inf Se. That’s interesting.

53 notes · View notes

strain002 · 6 years

Photo