Thursday, June 15, 2006

INFP Philosophy

Do you have a comment about this page?

28 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm not the strongest P of an INFP, but no featherweight yet, either; and what I feel I've learned in relation to the exercise of will and purposefulness vs. 'flowing with the stream' is a kind of blend between having an inner ultimate destination/end point, as my general Direction, while holding the humility of my smallness and humanity and lack of control in my hands/in my soul, and learning to let go and ride the waves and eddies that will inevitably come to me.

I care so much, that for me it is about conserving my energy (my intense Fi), as well.

If I fight every eddy on the river, with the false belief that I can perfectly dictate every inch of my (own plotted) path, I will exhaust myself in skirmishes, which ultimately DO NOT matter, and not have the energy, concentration, or wisdom when the right time comes, to grab onto the tree branches o'erhanging the river, and meet and engage fate (and my chance) to dramatically hoist myself right back up and onto the 4-lane freeway of my true Path.

The life lesson I believe is that you can't predict the detours, and whether what you believe is in destiny, a sense of universal guidance, or a trust in God- to USE that faith and trust in it when stress, disorganization, detours and chaos enter your life- to regain a sense of calm and peace, knowing that your 'end-values and desires' will create a pinpoint to your trajectory, so that all roads lead to where they're supposed to go [even in the Ni definition of that ;) ], in the end.

It's a controlled, patient abandonment. Watching and waiting in peace for your opportunity, which you know for a certainty deep down inside of you *will* come.

September 16, 2006  
Blogger Vicky Jo said...

I love what you've said here -- it's deeply resonant.

Now I'm going to nitpick!! (It's my job... ;-p)

You said I'm not the strongest P of an INFP, but no featherweight yet, either and that made me hesitate. From over here, with all my years of experience, I immediately think, What does that mean?!

See, whenever you are in a perceiving process, you are "P," and when you are in a judging process, you are "J."

Now there are some type practitioners who endow the J/P scale with all sorts of inappropriate garbage. Agh! Don't perpetuate that junk! There actually very FEW traits related to the J/P scale. The main trait is that J's like to have things *decided* in the outer world, while P's prefer to keep their options open in the outer world. So it's: Options Decided vs. Options Open.

Sometimes I think I must create a whole new website titled, "Unlearning all those J/P Old Wives' Tales." Okay, that's not very snappy, but once I find a catchy title, I swear that's going to become a project I develop. I can't help it -- I get a knot in my stomach every time I attend type events and people start up the J/P ta-ra-ta-ra. And I start to wonder what type planet they are from...

We ALL of us use both judging and perceiving. One of them is in the outer world; one is in the inner. So what is a "weak P"? -- someone with poor perception...?? (Is that something anyone would admit to??)

I apologize for nitpicking -- I love your remark even though it smashed into my introverted Thinking in its inflated puella, and I realize my need for precision can be hard to take sometimes. On the other hand, the way we talk about type informs the way we think about it, and it also influences people who do NOT know the model. So when mistakes about J/P get perpetuated, it sets me off. Will you humor me around my touchiness, maybe even find some room in your heart for sympathy, empathy, understanding? ;-D

September 16, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Same Anonymous, here...

I had no problem with your problem. :)

I understand it.

Let me try my best to elucidate my view and intended meaning:

As for having things decided or open, I feel I do both. My long-term aims, my constant and immovable values, and, in the broad scope, the effect and outcome of my life (I hope)- you might say my "personal mission" - these are firmly decided.

In the details of how I do these things or get there, or what the journey is like, I am very open. A little TOO open, even; to the point of being a wee plan-less or aimless, at my worst.
Okay, I'm softening it way too much: I need a plan.

That is me.

I stymie around not being able to decide on a plan for those "firmly decided" over-arching goals, and this is a little _too_ loose.

And I do not find, or feel, that Js are like that at all.

As far as I understand, they are guilty of over-charting their steps (because that feels 'decided'), even down to the itty bitty particulars.

Conversely though, when I am creating something (say a craft, or a piece of art) that I have an internal image of, I can be incredibly unmoveable on the details of the thing which I want to be. If I am looking for a very particular kind of lace which I've envisioned in my head (or seen before and must acquire), I will hunt it down to the last corners of the earth and won't, and can't, compromise.
-If it doesn't exist, I will create it.
Totally stubborn; intractable.

Go figure.

September 24, 2006  
Blogger Vicky Jo said...

What you are reminding me of is that I keep intending to share some of what Lenore Thomson wrote in her book, "Personality Type: An Owner's Manual" on the topic of J/P. It was something I really resonated to. So let me take this post as a goose that I must get myself a round tuit. ;-D

I'm also noticing how you say that J's "are guilty of over-charting their steps (because that feels 'decided'), even down to the itty bitty particulars." There's an implied extremism about that statement, coupled with a condemning tone it seems.

It brings to mind how Linda Berens often says that if we spend too much time talking about J, we end up talking about SJ (maybe even STJ), and if we spend too much time talking about P, we end up talking about NP (maybe even NFP).

And the reason that comes to mind is because over here I don't personally resonate to that characterization you shared about J. I don't believe I could audition and ever get cast in that role, and neither could my INTJ husband.

Now, it's possible that the shortcomings of email communication are showing up here and I'm reading more between the lines than what you intended. Nevertheless, what comes up on my radar are two things:
Is it possible that...
a) the person I am talking to is making J look very extreme because it is triggering some classic J/P issues for them (and we may be in the realm of Shadow work here);
OR
b) the person I am talking to may be mis-typed, and is relying on a distortion to maintain faith in their choice of type code.

Now, I don't know you from Adam, but I wonder how you might respond to that...? For instance, the question shows up for me that, other than the J/P scale, what gives you confidence about your type code?

Yet another reason why I'm wondering is because I *do* resonate to your phrase, "If I am looking for a very particular kind of lace which I've envisioned in my head (or seen before and must acquire), I will hunt it down to the last corners of the earth and won't, and can't, compromise."

My husband and I call those "Grail Quests." It's when Heroic Ni has us firmly in its grip, and we're trying to actualize a vision. That can be cool when you're getting married at Stonehenge; it can *suck* when it's finding the iris-colored burnout velvet party dress that's entirely a figment of my imagination. (I'm learning to do cost/benefit analyses on those.)

I'm hoping you won't mind this line of inquiry -- I'm trying to carefully lay out my logic for asking. (There's a fine line here that I am dancing on between making somebody wrong about their type because they aren't getting with MY program, versus asking somebody to check it out for their own sake since type is less useful when the pattern doesn't fit.

My intention is to be on the latter side of the line, of course. ;-D)

September 25, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

(Finally remembered to put my name in, here)

Vicky Jo,

In response: No, I appreciate your honest inquiry and respectfully considered way of stating it. Kudos -(not an easy skill)! :)

Your curiosity is valid.

First, though, I *was* overstating the J case-example in order to make it stand out in relief. Perhaps my feeling the need to do so says something about my own internal unsureness between INFP/J.

What I know is that when reading most INFJ vs INFP type descriptions, I feel I fit the INFP overall picture more. However, I know within myself that I have more J tendencies than many INFPs do.

I think my best way of articulating the way I see the INFJ/P difference is by stating it as the difference between driven, implying almost constant,
'Crusading,' vs _Inhabiting_ the Mission.

I'm going to try to explain that.

I think it's kind of like Doing vs Being. While the Quest or mission might reside 'inside' of INFJs, I get the feeling that it's like a fire that comes from Without, and inhabits or dwells inside of them; it is kind of "Other," as if it's coming from another Source, and getting under the skin like a fire and entering the mind and heart within.

When I read about INFJs and hear them talk about themselves, it always sounds this way to me.

On the other hand, when I read about INFPs and hear us speak about our internal 'Quest,' it is like something that has developed and grown, integrated, to maturity within us; when completely coalesced and solid, it foments _The_ Quest.

That's another part of the difference: _The_ Quest, for INFP, as the theme, vs "Quests," or various "Crusades"- for INFJ.

I feel that for INFPs any individual 'missions' are more hazy, less definite and solid and pointed, than for INFJs. And that for INFPs individual missions only emerge due to the fact of Who We Are. That's what I mean about Being vs. Doing.

We (INFPs) can't _do_ otherwise (other than the heroic act which looks outwardly like we had a pointed, definite goal-mission) because we identify with that as being a part of who we Are.
Wheras how I see INFJs, it is more that the heroic action or mission came to them, as something that they decided _must be done_.

I know, I am struggling here because it is a subtle distinction, but definite. Forgive my lack of finding the best words for it.

Here it is: I think it's the difference between what Fi does to an INF vs what Fe does through an INF.

Notice the "to" and "through." :) That was intentional.

Now maybe that helps with my distinction between INFP 'from within' and INFJ 'from without.' E vs I. Fe vs Fi.


On a final note, separately, it is very valid that you wonder about my potential J-ness because on a cognitive processes development test (http://www.cognitiveprocesses.com - note: I cannot see if the test is still available here), my cognitive process function scores (relative strength) were, in order:

Fi 55.8 -'excellent use'
Ne 47.6 -'excellent use'
Ni 37.3 -'excellent use'
Ti 27.3 -'average use'
Fe 19.1 -'limited use'
Se 18.5 -'limited use'
Te 17.1 -'limited use'
Si 16.9 -'limited use'


It appears to me that I can't find the test any longer, so perhaps it was experimental, for purposes of developing a test they're now requiring payment for...
but anyway I found this quite instructive.

(And for the record, I am slightly insulted; I feel my Fe is/should be higher than that. :) ;) )

Disregarding what order the function strengths 'should' be in, for a certain MBTI type, and actually just testing and measuring a person's Jungian function strengths instead, I think could be a fruitful area of exploration and deeper understanding.

As you can see from my results, I am an atypical INFP.

The relative highness of Ni as a function for me makes me very INFJ-like, I think, in various ways.

I also can relate to ENFP (Dominant Ne, Aux Fi) in many ways because my Ne is so strong.

And I relate somewhat, though much more tenuously, to INTP. (Dominant Ti, Aux Ne)

In raw preference scores on traditional MBTI-like tests, in 4 testings over 3 years these are my averages for results:

I = 94.5
N = 73.5
F = 33.75
P = 80.75

According to that, I am much closer to being a Thinker than I am close to being a Judger.
But I'd flip-flop that.

I think that many tests have some difficulty distinguishing T from J traits, and that they can mimick each other or appear as lookalikes, under certain kinds of conditions.


Oh- and all that being said, in college I did take the officially administered and scored/validated MBTI, receiving "INFP."

:)

Thanks for this discussion!

September 30, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"...for INFPs individual missions only emerge due to the fact of Who We Are."

I wanted to clarify this a little:

When I say 'individual missions,' I mean:
Actions which arise only because of, and out of, the fact that an INFP finds themself in a particular circumstance, which seems to require or dictate a response.

It's a response.


An INFJ Crusade-mission, on the other hand, means what I think is implied in the term 'crusade': It starts with them. They initiate it, more so.

I am thinking particularly in the moral sphere of life, not a matter such as going after lace..haha... :)(as we compared).


To me, Initiating-purposeful activity (prior to finding themself in any particular situation, event, or circumstance) is the particularly J part about INFJs.
Responding-purposeful action (more in-the-moment and as the situation arises) is more INFP.

It's similar to the Directing vs Informing speaking style thing.

September 30, 2006  
Blogger Vicky Jo said...

I'm sort of drowning in data now, and gasping a bit for air.

I like the distinction you make here: it's the difference between what Fi does to an INF vs what Fe does through an INF.

It strikes me that is a GORGEOUS coaching question. I don't know that I agree that it distinguishes INFJ from INFP, but it certainly is a brilliant coaching question. It gets at whether or not a person is on-purpose with their life.

I think Mother Teresa was on-purpose with her life, as was Gandhi, as was Virginia Satir. And those are three different types.

I'm a little cautious when "philosophy" enters the picture around psychological type. Sure, our type can create a frame for a conversation sometimes that makes a given type pattern obvious, but I'm very careful around this distinction. Dario Nardi has done some work in this regard, mostly known through his book, "Character and Personality Type." So not all rebels are Artisans, and not all idealistic people are Idealists, etc., etc.

I ran into this sort of thinking recently with someone who struck me as having ENFP preferences, and yet insisted they had INFJ preferences. And they pronounced to me that their "philosophy" was an "INFJ philosophy," and that's how they knew they had found their best-fit type. And it seemed to me that the letters "INFJ" seemed to represent some kind of "ideal" to this person that they aspired toward, and so they weren't going to give it up, because it meant forfeiting this ideal.

I don't even know how to have a converstion with somebody who's gone down that road. It feels like we've moved out of type. And I guess at that point we're in the territory of "complexes." As Dr. Beebe says, "Talking about type touches complexes -- it's a powerhouse of a subject." So I'm noticing when somebody's "complex" gets activated from a discussion about type. When the "detachment" disappears, I know I'm on dangerous turf. =8-O

What I notice over here is that I don't care a whit about MBTI scores, or assessment outcomes, or any of that stuff. It's just meaningless junk to me. When I give somebody an assessment, all those scores indicate is how much clarity an individual seems to have -- but if they believe they must be a "good little ESTJ" to go along with culture dictates, how much validity do those scores reflect? I know people who have "scored" all manner of things: my ISFP brother-in-law always scores as ENFJ.

See, I could have talked about scores all over this site. But you'll notice they aren't here. They aren't here! They're non-existent. The one extraverted Thinking datapoint that nearly every other person relies on to decide what type pattern fits them best is MISSING. And why is that....? Because it doesn't have a place in the conversation. It does us No Good to dwell on that datapoint. It serves no useful purpose. In a nutshell, if that datapoint is WRONG, then what?

This entire site is devoted to finding OTHER ways of discerning INFP/INFJ differences. So the data thing is drowning me. Glug glug glug.

So let's go back to the directing/informing dimension. Or let's take a look at Ni vs. Fi in the Heroic archetype and see what the evidence reveals there. I'm much less likely to drown in that conversation.

October 04, 2006  
Blogger Vicky Jo said...

Okay, okay. I gently cast my eyes back over all that extraverted Thinking data. And I noticed two things: I noticed that introverted Thinking was a little ways up the ladder, and that introverted Sensing was at the very bottom. And I found that intriguing, because Ti would be the tertiary (eternal child) archetype for INFJ and Si would be the tertiary (eternal child) archetype for INFP. AND I know that Si is the most unconscious of all the processes for INFJ. So if we throw out all the upper range scores (along with what we make up about those processes), isn't it interesting how the remaining processes seem to arrange themselves?

Wanna play in that sandbox?

October 04, 2006  
Blogger Vicky Jo said...

Bill...

you got it. All those "facts" and numbers, ulgh. Plus lots of other disparate information. I can't find the "bottom line," the "universal principle," nothing unifying. I feel like I'm walking around a room with all these marbles on the floor pulling me different directions. And all that data seems so ephemeral anyway. Tomorrow (with another assessment, say) everything could be different. So it's a shifting landscape that tells me nothing useful. My intuition is trying to find a "through-line" to play off of.

What gets me is how often I say I don't care about scores (on this and on my other site), and still people email me and sign my guestbook telling me their scores and how many times they came out ABCD, as if beating it to death will make it mean something.

October 05, 2006  
Blogger Vicky Jo said...

LOL! That's an outcome of the dichotomies I think, rather than understanding the cognitive processes. The deeper you move into this model, the more you start to notice the vast differences.

The first time you learn about type, it may seem like all the Idealists are pretty interchangeable. It's only after you sit with it for a while that the distinctions start to become apparent. After a while, it begins to seem ridiculous that you never noticed them before.

That's why I sometimes start rolling in pain when people say INFJs and INFPs aren't all that different, that only the end letter is different (as if that's a separate dichotomy, not an attitude).

Geez I hope this website does something to change that misstaken perception.

October 05, 2006  
Blogger Vicky Jo said...

I was sitting with it tonight, and it popped into my head that I didn't know whether I was overwhelmed by Te, Si, Ne, or Se in that post. I don't know that we should be in a rush to attribute it to Te just because they're numbers or "facts." And I'm not sure where my "overwhelm" came from. (I only know it wasn't from Ni or Fe - and probably not from Ti or Fi!)

October 06, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I've tried to look at that range of cog.process scores & look at various different patterns or possibilities that might explain anything.

Without stopping to think hard, I'm not sure which process I'm about to use here in relaying some of those to you, but, probably you should get ready to be bombarded again. ;)
(I know if the possibilities to consider seem to never stop to me, in my brain, I can't imagine what they're like to process, from the outside perspective.)


The first way you could obviously (and simplistically) try to look at them is that the top 4 scores equal the ego-syntonic functions.

In the case of this arrangement of them, that doesn't work, because no type has (and by that I mean: according to theory is 'supposed' to have) two of the same perceiving functions, such as S+S, or N+N, in the top 4, and no type has the two different judging functions, F and T, occuring in the same attitude in the top 4.


So, second, I try to separate out which functions are the mutually exclusive ones in the top 4, and then, which ones clobber, score-wise, their 'partner' which is mutually excluded.

Using this, I think it's fairly safe to say that Fi is a clear Dominant, but, for the sake of argument, still, that second runner-up for Dominant could be Ne.

Since two attitudes of Intuition in the top 4 is a theoretical no-no, and since there is a healthy 10-point split [I'm rounding] between my Ne and Ni score, the winner for spot #2(Aux) here I feel would have to go to Ne.


Now, here's the deal: I know I am definitely an NF temperament.

So, when I have listed out the functional order of the four NF types side by side, this is what I see emerge for their Dominants and Auxiliaries:
[Dominant is listed first.]

ENFJ = Fe, Ni
INFJ = Ni, Fe
ENFP = Ne, Fi
INFP = Fi, Ne


One thing I can notice right away: For me to be an ENFJ or INFJ, Fe would either have to be my strongest function, or very near it. At least, way up there (one would hope- in the case of Aux).

But instead, I find it 5th. Fifth!
With three other functions beating it out, and by a hefty score margin, for potentially even _2nd_ place.

Now even with that, I'd still be willing to consider INFJ, for instance, IF my Ni score was clearly the top dog. But, even though Ni comes in with an un-bashful score at 3rd, it's just too strong a fact that it's beaten out by 10 points by the next function out-scoring it (Ne), and a whopping 18 points by one above that (Fi).


So that, to me, actually leaves me more with ENFP or INFP.


Now, if you want to argue on the basis of my 'strongest weaknesses,' down at the bottom end, I do think it's a good idea to notice that between my Te and Si lowest scores, there is only a .20 split. That is teensy enough for me to go ahead and say that this could easily be happenstance, and that a re-test could easily turn those up reversed. Perhaps I'm in a different mood or frame of mind that day, and answer 1 question differently, or rate a proclivity more or less strongly. -Boom! Now the order is Si, Te.

And for that matter, all 4 of the bottom ones are actually close enough in score for me to kind of chuck their relative 'order' out, as data worth considering.

It is obvious that they all fall a far cry below the top 4, and that there's quite a score split starting right there in the middle; so to me, from a statistical relevance type of standpoint, the fact that Fe/Se/Te/Si just fall into the "bottom four" category is about the only viable point that can (and probably should) be made, off those.


I'm not sure if you know, but having been educated in psychology and having had to drudge through a behavioral statistics course, I've had pretty well droned into me what types of margins of statistical relevance are probably telling, and which should probably be thrown out.

So this is an effect of my education, and one of the ways in which I've been trained to think about human measurement data.

This is one of the ways I think when I see _numbers_.

But as you can tell, above, I used several different ways, with process of elimination, mutual exclusivity, knowledge of the types' functional preference order, and knowledge of myself (that my temperament is NF) to put my conclusion together and reason it out.


I was also going to add for you that I would not have listed all of my "test data" as I did unless I was already very sure from the inside out that their results accurately reflected what I feel is 'me.'

I have gone through your criteria for determining your own type on your site, and all of it for me even further confirms INFP.

It's just good to know- but I really don't need confirmation any more that I'm INFP. I've examined it from every new angle I've found over the past 10+ years, and every angle points to it.
And I have entertained other type options, for my own argument's sake. Usually and most seriously, INFJ. But it just doesn't fit as well.

The problem with me I think I'm coming to find, is an over-versatility. I have other (non-Jungian categorizable) balances of opposites within my personality, I've discovered & understood finally, and this has helped me a lot to explain my internal tension and some of my frustrations, to me. It has also helped me to better explain myself to others.


If it helps you, I'll tell you that I also feel I can switch on and off certain 'mentalities' and modes of thinking at will. It's like putting on different hats. Sometimes I will get stuck in one and get really deep into it- taking me far- and that's fascinating; but eventually I hit a roadblock or a dead-end, there, in any ONE modality, and so I take what knowledge and understanding I gleaned there, and cart off to another, sometimes vastly different way of thinking about the world and the information.

But I always take it (the previous understanding) with me. Some people's mental processing gets compartmentalized and isolated, but mine, while I can _choose_ to keep realms separate, most naturally gets integrated. Synthesis.

But then, at the same time I'm synthesizing this information coming from different modes of thinking and understanding, I'm also pulling them apart and comparing and contrasting, to try to get even _more_ information, from THAT.

So it's analagous to nuclear fission and fusion at the same time.

Or, picture a taffy-pulling machine.


I can also switch to non-linear and non-reductionist ways of thinking. Global/gestalt. I do a lot of that; transitioning from whole-to-part and part-to-whole thinking, and switching from a scientist/statistician communication style to a story-telling, analogy & metaphor, picturesque speech-filled style of communication.

I find that I tend to shift or change, both in thinking and communication, according to what I think will fit or _work_ best, in any situation. Or use the style that I think helps explain or illuminate the most; helps us get the most out of it. Whether "it" be our communication, OR the data or information.

But the styles that I prefer to use most, and almost constantly use when I'm relaxed and in my element, the most, are those described under INFP.

It's what fits like graceful, comfy old shoes; and I've as well analyzed it just as hard-core as any good Rational would. ;)

October 08, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh, I forgot:

I am not sure what you were trying to say about seeing where the remaining processes lead me after the upper-range scores were eliminated, but this is what I notice:

3 of those 4 remaining processes are extraverted processes.

That should not be. ('Should not.' I personally am not attached, actually, to the theoretical order of the 8 functions, taken together. At this point I'm even only _barely_ attached to the function order of the top 4. I know that is heresy, for you, Vicky Jo, being as attached as you are to the archetype model, though. <:) )


So, you might have to explain to me what you were seeing, in that (the last 4)- because as far as making any sense, pattern-wise, I can't see it.

I think the way I looked at my scores on all 8 was in a "which is/are competing for 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th spot?" model. So, just a 4-function model.

So, looking in pairs of two:
Fi and Ne possibly competing for top spot;

Either Ne and Ni competing for Auxiliary,
or
Ni and Ti competing for Auxiliary;

Ti as Tertiary, or competing with Fe as Tertiary;

and then Se, Te and Si kind of all potential candidates for Inferior.


Using different 'winners' of those 'competitions,' AND trying to follow function-order rules, I made up as many viable type combinations as possible, out of that, and then considered and weighed those types' probability for me by other criteria (i.e., is it also a temperament type match for me?, etc.)

Sorry to add more 'words' in.

(Is this an Si challenge, really, or Te? for you? I kind of see it as Te.) I am sorry...I've just always been wordy when trying to explain my POV.
I think it's a good chance it's my own immature Te just trying to work too hard.

October 08, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Also, I don't mind going into the Directing/Informing dichotomy at all.

Except to say that it would be an exercise solely for your benefit, and not mine.

Once I read about the two, one of them explained a tremendous lot to me about my experiences communicating, in life.

The "aha" of another piece of the puzzle all coming together.

But I can go through it with you, if you like. (Since you seem to have some question.) ;D

I was going to ask you how I come across on here- but I agree with you that in written communication, it gets vastly mixed up.
This, I *have* experienced. (Some people attempting to 'type' me through my writing, solely. Let me tell you, it brought about some interesting- nay, WACKY -conclusions. Very funny (to me).) :)

October 08, 2006  
Blogger Vicky Jo said...

Hmmm… I'm noticing you've posted EIGHT comments to my blog today. EIGHT. Did I say eight?? Yes, eight. Hmmm..... seems like something got seriously activated there, and some extraverted energy is occurring. Definitely some extraverted energy. How interesting.

So.... Where do we start? Hm. Hm. Hm. I'm noticing some very very interesting things.

For one thing, despite my protests, I notice that Te has returned -- and returned in a big way. It makes me think I am encountering the archetype of the puer. Te in the puer. There seems to be excited energy interacting with all that Te data, pushing it around, trying to get the logic of it. It seems to have a "renewing" effect on you, and a childlike wonder and innocence seems to be evident. How interesting.

Then I'm noticing the "double bind." The double bind that says, "I'm not quite certain of my type, and here's all this data about it, but don't think you can categorize me, no way uh uh." Hmmm... I wonder what that is. Could it be introverted Thinking in a Trickster position? (The Trickster's hallmark is the double bind).

I'm noticing how you write, The problem with me I think I'm coming to find, is an over-versatility. I have other (non-Jungian categorizable) balances of opposites within my personality, I've discovered & understood finally, and this has helped me a lot to explain my internal tension and some of my frustrations, to me. It has also helped me to better explain myself to others. To me it sounds like more Trickster Ti (i.e., "I'm not categorizable," or perhaps it's more like "any categories are shifting sand when it comes to MY personality").

In another one of today's many blog posts, you seem to "take back" something you posted that I experienced as extraverted Feeling. I call this kind of take-back energy "dis-ownership." It's when somebody tries to deny doing something even when it's there for all the world to see. It's a kind of "deny the evidence" energy. That always rubs me as extraverted Sensing in a shadowy archetypal position. Could it even be demonic? I wonder...

But back to the extraverted Feeling thing. First there is dis-ownership, and then all this self-criticism pours out. All these put-downs. You say I sound like a puffed-up, over-sure, self-important, platitudinous parent! Ouch!... what archetype could that be? Could it be... the Witch? After all, the Witch is a major source of self-criticism. She is known for her "coldness." Beebe talks about being "poked" by the "bony finger." You later write more self-criticism, My own stuff came off to me, now, as phony (sounding) and self-important. Hmmm… sounds like the Witch is pricking the inflated balloon. It reminds me of how I said in Beebe's last workshop that I prick an inflated balloon when my husband's Fi is too much for me to cope with. (Fi is my "Witch" archetype.)

So there was perhaps some misleading extraverted Feeling that showed up. It made me wonder about how much you possibly struggle with issues around "connecting." There may be a push/pull energy around this dynamic. Perhaps there are a lot of "shoulds." It might be interesting to look at.

I'm also noticing in this post that you SAY you integrate and synthesize. And that really threw me for a loop, because "integrating" and "synthesizing" are usually associated with Ni. So it didn't make sense. UNTIL the possibility occurred to me that Trickster Ti might be employing the wrong terms.

You write If it helps you, I'll tell you that I also feel I can switch on and off certain 'mentalities' and modes of thinking at will. It's like putting on different hats. Sometimes I will get stuck in one and get really deep into it- taking me far- and that's fascinating; but eventually I hit a roadblock or a dead-end, there, in any ONE modality, and so I take what knowledge and understanding I gleaned there, and cart off to another, sometimes vastly different way of thinking about the world and the information.
But I always take it (the previous understanding) with me. Some people's mental processing gets compartmentalized and isolated, but mine, while I can _choose_ to keep realms separate, most naturally gets integrated. Synthesis.
But then, at the same time I'm synthesizing this information coming from different modes of thinking and understanding, I'm also pulling them apart and comparing and contrasting, to try to get even _more_ information, from THAT.
So it's analagous to nuclear fission and fusion at the same time.
Or, picture a taffy-pulling machine.


What I hear going on in that description is Ne. It has the energy of a "falling off a log" skill. And Ne looks more like...

• Inferring
• Hypothesizing
• Seeing possibilities
• Wondering and brainstorming
• Emergent
"This is what might be."
"It could be this or this or this or . . ."


AND
When Ne is a preferred process...
• Much reading "between the lines" occurs.
• Potential possibilities and meanings are "revealed" and must be explored.
• You feel fully engaged in emerging new approaches to doing things and are energized by discovering other perspectives in an ever-shifting succession of ideas or insights triggered by the particular situation, much like brainstorming.

(My hunch is that this is what you're calling "synthesis.")

• You frequently experience a flight of ideas that brings relevant pieces of information from one context into another.
• "What is" is not seen for what it is but for its relationship to other things.
• Everything is perceived in a context of a web of relationships. Nothing stands alone or is disconnected.

Compare this to what you wrote above (particularly in relationship to the metaphor of the "taffy-pulling machine) and see what you think. Further, my sense is that you're using this process via a Heroic archetype. The way you write about it has a very powerful, ego-identified energy to it. It feels as though you wield this process like a well-practiced and familiar light saber.

I'm also picking up a "get things going" energy from over here. (You even got Bill going!) There's a "stir-the-pot" feeling to your post, and you practically come out and say that's exactly what you're up to! After all, you put all this data out into the space, and things get all stirred up, and then you say you've got it all figured out anyway, so don't bother.

What the.....?

If that's not "get things going" energy, then I don't know anything about interaction styles.

I'm confident there must be evidence for Fi (in the Good Parent archetype) and Si (Aspirational), but I haven't been able to spot those yet. I suspect they show up a bit more in your other posts elsewhere, but they're harder to see since they're introverted processes.

In a nutshell, these archetypal indications add up to a probable type pattern of ENFP.

I confess I'm more inclined to believe all *that* evidence than any sequence of numbers you might share, especially given how Te is my Trickster archetype. So I came at it from an entirely different direction, and arrived at nearly the same spot you did.

I daresay there is more evidence in your other FIVE blog comments today that ENFP is an excellent fit.

And I am further aware that you've done a fair bit of initiating, both on this blog and privately, which is an aspect of the Get Things Going pattern. After all, 8 posts in one day?? All I can think is that you may be one of those who LOOKS introverted but actually has an extraverted dominant (not to mention how ENTPs and ENFPs seem to be among the most introverted-looking of all the extraverted types).

I'm not surprised that you may have been mis-typed by others on the internet. Beyond the fact that email is an awful way to figure out anyone's type, your contributions here on my blog tempt one to consider DomTe or advanced use of Fe (as I did). But the DomTe has the energy of inflated puer, and the Fe may be simple extraversion/initiating. I can see how both emanations would be easily misleading.

The ENFP possibility shouldn't feel nearly as dissonant as a best-fit pattern, since it actually COINCIDES with your beloved Te data. As you yourself write above, So that, to me, actually leaves me more with ENFP or INFP.

October 08, 2006  
Blogger Vicky Jo said...

Oh yeah... just had the insight that it looks like you were probably "parenting" Bill with Fi in your last ADD blog message, which would support my guess that Fi is in the "Good Parent" archetype for you. Now all I need is the Si, and you're pretty circumspect with that one, although I've seen glimpses of it here and there.

October 09, 2006  
Blogger Vicky Jo said...

Bill --

not the "add-on post"; it was the A.D.D. post. ;-D

Also, I hear you about I mean you made it explecitly clear that you don't communicate well in the language of data, yet she proceded to unload even more data on you. Grrrrr. If the goal is to communicate, then why is she continuing to use a language that is hard for you to understand? That to me is intensely inconsiderate, not to mention illogical. So what function is that annoyance revealing?

A lot of thoughts come up for me, some of which are variations on what I've already said. And there are actually two tracks to follow:
Track One: What's going on.
Track Two: Is that good or bad?

So, Track One. I say I'm drowning in data, and yet here it comes again. So what's going on? Well, from what I know of the archetypes, I wonder if I'm dealing with a "child." That would be the endless energy that naively doesn't understand why everyone doesn't want to play in the same sandbox. It's the child that throws a temper tantrum in the grocery store and doesn't care who's looking. It's the child that wants to make sand castles even though the surf is going to wash them all away when the tide comes in. It's an inexhaustible, can't-help-itself energy. So that's the first thing I'm noticing.

TRACK TWO: what a thoughtless person! It's *wrong* for her to keep talking about data -- why can't she do something else instead?

SO, Bill.... which one of these tracks will serve me better?

TRACK ONE: If I want to communicate effectively with this person, I have to take them as they are, OR I have to negotiate a common ground for dialogue. So what do I know about a person who is using Te in the puer? Which type patterns does that match to?

TRACK TWO: Dear Person. You are bad. You are wrong. Drop dead.

TRACK ONE: The type patterns that match this geography are ENFP and ESFP. So what other evidence is available? Hmmm... I notice some Idealist temperament stuff, so there may be common ground around identity.

TRACK TWO: Leave me alone. I don't want you here. How dare you give me the finger!

TRACK ONE: Maybe if I discuss identity, share what I know about the type model, risk her rejecting my Ti analysis, and contribute to the "common pool of information," which is usually supportive to ENFPs, perhaps that will allow us to stay in relationship and find common ground. Perhaps illuminating what I see in her pattern will allow us to acknowledge and respect our differences. Maybe she will notice that my participation in the conversation is intended to support her, and she will appreciate that. After all, this whole site is designed to help people discover their best-fit type pattern, and I am fulfilling that mission. So even though I don't speak the language of Te very fluently, perhaps she will be able to switch gears and "dance" with me through another process.

TRACK TWO: Aren't you dead yet?

+++++++++++++
I hope you're laughing! I'm clumsily trying to show how it isn't productive just to make somebody else "wrong," and it terminates the conversation pretty quickly. And yet I know that Fi makes value judgments pretty reflexively. So is my example making YOU wrong?

I wonder, is there a Third Way here that I haven't thought of? How could you, an INFP, have stayed in relationship and continued dialoguing in spite of your inability to use the same process effectively? Hmmm??

According to Dr. Beebe, "any psychology that makes you right and others wrong is not a very good psychology." So enlighten me. What tools might you have used to stay engaged in the conversation??

October 09, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hi Vicky Jo and Bill,

Well, my head is kind of swimming from your responses (not in an upset way, in just a dizzy way)...so I'll have to give all that time and thought.

But a couple of things about my "8 posts"-

1) It was Sunday (I have 'normal weekends' off), and I had plenty of time on my hands;

2) I had been awake for more than 24 hours straight, by Sunday afternoon;

3) When I pull all-nighters and do that, I typically have messed up my med schedule, so I am pretty sure all of my A.D.D. meds had worn off (plus the no sleep = SUPER A.D.D.!)

4) Reading and conversing online is my 'socialization' and my hobby, mostly, which I pretty much save for my weekends. I do not get to have engaging conversation over my favorite topics - psychology and personality - in my day job, Mon-Fri, and I don't work amongst a body of people who are typically interested in the same kinds of topics I am, nor have been educated in similar fields.


When I am intellectually stimulated (plus those additional factors above), I can get REAL chatty. Hyper, almost.

Consider that I'm kind of starved in that arena 99% of my life, in the 'Real' world, and perhaps some of these things might make different sense?


:)

I did not mean to be rude at all by responding back to you with more "Te"-type reply, Vicky Jo (and Bill)- I kind of realized that I was doing that as I replied, but part of it was sort of unconscious, and the other part, believe it or not, was that I thought perhaps I was breaking down my communication for you, so that it did not *seem* like just a throwing of raw numbers and data.

At best, I thought I was converting what you had received as Te, to what I thought explained what those numbers meant to me, and what my mind said to me about them- so, maybe kind of giving you my internal Ti?

I also thought, when mentioning that I wouldn't post numbers and that they didn't mean anything to me at all unless they 'represented' the internal-feeling stuff, and matched congruently for me, there, that I was revealing this "Te" as just an interaction style.

I find I use it a lot when discussing anything remotely academic.

Anyway...when communicating, I've just always found it hard to 'TALK' my Fi. I always feel that describing it (my experience) is redundant, as it just sounds like a regurgitation of the 'INFP' type descriptions- so I feel it's pointless.
I have a real beef against regurgitated story "proofs." I could sit here and recount and regurgitate to you type-picture-perfect language and experiences [representing it as my own] of almost any type I'd read sufficiently about.

What makes me sad is, that would fool most people, too.

Honestly, in my own experience and to the core of myself, I believe this to be true, too: You can not, can NOT, 'know' someone other than through _in_person, with time.

This means seeing them, hearing them, being in their physical presence, experiencing them in all different kinds of situations and emotions, and having opportunities to observe them when they didn't know you were looking, too.

And seeing them when they were in moments of growth, as well as in moments of fall-down.

My .02 cents.


Final thought: Interesting; you *voiced* your out-of-element feelings when I spoke Te, and because they were publicized, both you and Bill had a reaction when it seemed I maintained that style.

I *experienced* a similar awkwardness and out-of-element (and out-of-understanding) feeling about your approach with the archetypes paradigm, again [what you would probably call Ni- though I'm not sure if it is (iconic or representative of Ni)]- but I did not say anything.

One says, the other doesn't say. But behaves.

And one set judges.

I found that very Fe of both of you. Very interesting. (I am not being snide or sarcastic, here. I mean it that I'm really gaining some kind of interesting observation about what Fe "rules" are, here. Insight hasn't come yet; I'm still sitting at the "huh" stage.)

I probably won't post again until the weekend.

Thanks for listening.

October 09, 2006  
Blogger Vicky Jo said...

Hiya Emily! Welcome back.

A buncha things to say now, of course.

First, that I didn't find it "rude" that you came at me again with Te. Bill was the one who got ruffled over that. I found it interesting data. I noticed there was a bit of "can't help myself" about it. And that made me suppose I was probably encountering a slightly less-conscious but still very powerful energy.

In my world, these energies are starting to have names, so I shared the name that energy felt like in my little world: "eternal child." I don't consider that negative or positive; it's just naming the energy. (That's what I tried to explain to Bill.)

I don't know what the phrase "internal Ti" means -- there's no relation to that with the type model in any form that I know. I noticed I couldn't connect with any Ti in your messages, outside of encountering a double bind. The double bind got my attention. It said, "Here's data about me, but don't categorize me." I noticed it set me up so I couldn't "win."

Trickster energy is usually meant to nullify too much inflation. Given your later (may I say) "soapbox" remarks about people being unique and not types, it seems to have a useful intent. It seems to say, "don't force people into boxes." So I see it serving a worthwhile purpose.

But then you call Te an "interaction style." Is that Trickster energy once again? Invoking a phrase that means a particular model to me doesn't contribute to "clarity," which leads me to think a Shadowy process has again manifested. (Shadows don't like the light.)

I'm not surprised your Te manifests when discussing things "academic." Te is the language of academia! (That and Ti, of course.) It reminds me of an ENFP writer friend of mine who was a college professor. He wrote a book detailing one of the last Western manhunts in 1909, when a Native American kills his girlfriend's father in self defense, and the two go on the run, pursued by a search posse. The book is based in fact. So if the author says this fugitive drank at a particular well, you can bet your life he drank at that well. It's thoroughly documented and historically accurate. In fact, that's one of my complaints about the book -- I would have liked a bit more imaginativeness.

I often turn to this as an example of how ENFPs can lean into Te and truly relish using this function. They can out-Te an ISTJ when they get inflated around this process. ;-D

As far as Fi goes -- well yes it's hard to "talk it." It's an introverted process, and introverted Feeling values are particularly difficult to articulate. You seemed to use it well in your A.D.D. post addressed to Bill though, advising him, "parenting" him. It had a lovely caring energy. However, if you're leaning into it for "describing your story," that's not the process you'd use to do that with. The process you'd use to do that with would be introverted Sensing (that's the aspirational process I'm still looking for).

I fully appreciate your belief that you could pretend to be any type you wish and fool almost anyone. Over here I like to think I'm not just "anyone." In fact, I was a little insulted when you called me "hard core" in another comment you made on my blog. It sounded like a putdown. After all, I've been studying this model for ten years, I've chased John Beebe all over the country to hear him speak, I attend APT conferences, and even paid my own ticket to Australia last summer to have the privilege of presenting John's model in my husband's homeland. I have 3 websites and a number of photo galleries online around the topic of psychological types. I pay for them out of my own pocket, no advertising, no other means of support. Yes, I am HARD CORE. And my introverted Feeling feels a little hurt that maybe you think that's dumb or something.

Anyway, that's my introverted Feeling -- it's pretty hard for me to express over here since it's the way MY witch criticizes me.

Here's your Fi showing up (much more gracefully than mine): Honestly, in my own experience and to the core of myself, I believe this to be true, too: You can not, can NOT, 'know' someone other than through _in_person, with time.
This means seeing them, hearing them, being in their physical presence, experiencing them in all different kinds of situations and emotions, and having opportunities to observe them when they didn't know you were looking, too.
And seeing them when they were in moments of growth, as well as in moments of fall-down.


I don't think it's far-fetched to suggest there's more caring energy there -- what I get is that you earnestly want me to understand this and live by it the way you do. You're saying "this is important." Obviously you're naming a value.

What I think you've missed is that I ALREADY DO. Here's what I know: every human being is so unique as to practically have their own LANGUAGE. And why not? Each of us has a thumbprint unique to us, and a psyche unique to us, and a life history unique to us. Of course. Of course!

My use of type is NOT intended to wipe out individuality or uniqueness. Sure, lots of other people use it that way -- they use it to limit people and put them down. They use type to predict behavior and describe what's "wrong" with people.

I'm not one of them. That's not what I'm about.

I believe I can use type models AND honor individual differences at the same time. These are not mutually exclusive beliefs in my world.

There are behavior PATTERNS (not traits!) that describe human beings which I find extraordinarily USEFUL and HELPFUL and SUPPORTIVE for people to know about, including me. The cool thing is I don't know have to know you for a hundred years before I grasp what your pattern is. Type patterns are systemic.

When I drill into these neutral, non-judgmental models, they help me understand myself and others better. They help me notice boxes I'm living in that I wasn't even aware of. They let me see when -- for instance -- someone is using a process that makes me uncomfortable because it's not something I'm good at. Rather than ending the conversation, I get to speak up about how I can't dance that dance. Not that I'm a bad person, not that they're a bad person, it's just not a tune I can dance to. Nobody has to be "wrong."

That's the new me. That's the more type-aware me. That's different from the old me who would start defending or attacking because I can't do this dance and I don't want to admit it.

As Isabel said, "an INFP is like all other INFPs, like some other INFPs, and like no other INFP." And that's true for each one of the type codes, not just INFPs.

The challenge I've set for myself is to observe and identify a whole type pattern (pattern!) with as few clues as possible. And not only guess -- but to nail it accurately. (And I'm not talking about that "speed-reading" people garbage.)

If you don't care to be "nailed," then this isn't a good place to hang out. Because MY puer is introverted Thinking, which is about identifying and categorizing -- and I am actively striving to categorize psychological *material* the same way Jung went about it. There's no part of this site that isn't about that in some fashion.

Right now I "can't help myself," it's what I enjoy doing, it gives me inexhaustible pleasure, and I don't pretend otherwise. That's what MY eternal child is up to. It's the sandbox she wants to play in.

I make the assumption you're here and you're commenting because you want to be scrutinized, since I make no bones about what I'm up to. People who do NOT want to be scrutinized either a) don't come here; or b) don't post comments.

Only a Trickster would visit here, post comments, and then protest when those comments were scrutinized for evidence of type patterns.

That's my .02 cents. ;-D

Maybe I have to ask you the same question I asked the last ENFP I danced with: if you aren't interested in hearing my wisdom, why are you writing to me? Why are you here?

What will the next dance be?

October 09, 2006  
Blogger Vicky Jo said...

Bill

Great question! I dunno! ;-D

I'm spinning it around and round in my mind, trying to see how it fits. It was so impatient and critical. Certainly some "button" got pushed and you were "triggered." Hmm hm hm.

October 10, 2006  
Blogger Vicky Jo said...

While I'm pondering that, just want to say I woke up this morning and it dawned on me that I may also have seen the aspirational Si.

According to Beebe, Si is about what's "real." He likes to say that Si knows when something is "fool's gold" and doesn't fall for it (whereas Se would fall for it in a second).

So I was thinking about Emily's post, and how she wrote,
Honestly, in my own experience and to the core of myself, I believe this to be true, too: You can not, can NOT, 'know' someone other than through _in_person, with time.
This means seeing them, hearing them, being in their physical presence, experiencing them in all different kinds of situations and emotions, and having opportunities to observe them when they didn't know you were looking, too.
And seeing them when they were in moments of growth, as well as in moments of fall-down.


So I'm seeing this longing for what's "real," and I'm noticing how this "real-ness" has a timeframe around it, it's based on a "past history together." And she's saying a history like that is golden, and you can't step over that and "know somebody" with little tricks and shortcuts. It reminds me of when Beebe talks about how Si knows the "natural order of things."

So I'm noticing a blend of Si and Fi in that. Does that seem to fit?

October 10, 2006  
Blogger Vicky Jo said...

Bill, you wrote, what shadow function was my annoyance revealing?

and I confess I'm still stumped. Over here I've turned it over and over. I'm relating it to extraverted Feeling -- it sounds like you are criticizing Emily for being *inconsiderate*. Now in your pattern, extraverted Feeling would be channeled via the One-Dimensional Opposing Personality archetype (ODOP). That archetype describes when you behave in ways that aren't in your own best interests.

I'm also noticing that you appear to have awareness that your remark didn't support the way you want to show up in the world. It "undermined" you. And sometimes that's evidence of the ODOP archetype. Notice how it was "ego-dystonic" (not "me").

I'm still turning it around in my mind, worrying it, checking to see whether it fits the model accurately. So that's a first pass at it for now.

October 11, 2006  
Blogger Vicky Jo said...

I fully get that you're empathizing. That's a typical Idealist talent-- we hardly CAN'T empathize. But somewhere along the line that hardened into a judgment and you "took sides." That's the piece I'm trying to get at.

There was a "self-righteous" (as in "self-right") element to the criticism. As a pure technicality, you made Emily "wrong." So... wrong on the basis of what? What were the criteria for this *judgment*? What were the precise messages going on in your head there? (Fe/Fi/Te/Ti?)

And... I'd rather you didn't share a related anecdote to tell me. That has the impact of deflecting the inquiry and suggests "dis-ownership." ;-)

October 11, 2006  
Blogger Vicky Jo said...

Over here I wonder if you're dancing in your Shadow. :-D

Some of that sounds like Trickster extraverted Sensing, doesn't it? After all, extraverted Sensing is the opposite of extraverted iNtuiting, which *interprets*.

I guess you'd have to really practice Reflective Listening in order to compensate for that, wouldn't you? You'd have to keep "checking out" what you heard....? Right?

I know that's a coaching technique many of us use -- we might say "This is what I'm hearing: xxx. Is that right?" so then we get to hear if we're on track or not.

Is that anything you do in order to increase confidence?

(It's lousy for email though. :-P)

October 12, 2006  
Blogger Vicky Jo said...

Uhhh... what do you think John's pet peeve is?? :-O

I don't want to get all focused on "solving the problem" (that's my achilles heel), but I wonder if you did more reflective listening that you might get more graceful with it. And in times where you can't do that, just admit it. Say upfront something like, "If I'm following this correctly, what I think they said was xxx. And based on that, I think xxx." That way you're expressing the premise you're operating off of ahead of time, and if you've got the premise wrong, your course correction can occur there instead of two miles down the road.

What dya think?

Last but not least, I can't help but notice something. (You'll love this.) According to Beebe, it's through the Trickster that our sense of humor shows up sometimes. For instance, I make fun of extraverted Thinking sometimes.

So notice that when I started talking to you about Se, you got "giddy" and your "funny bone" showed up (you said).

By the same token, Emily got silly when I was deeply analyzing her posts for type clues -- which might have been Trickster Ti humor.

Coincidence???

October 13, 2006  
Blogger Vicky Jo said...

What a great example! What I'm noticing is how you're making reference to something that amuses you, and I have no way of making the same connection without a few more clues from you. No matter how much Si I may be able to use, it's unlikely I will come up with this particular combination without a little more support from you. It's just not possible if you think about it.

And I appreciate this example, because I remember someone with NFP preferences once telling the story of standing up at a networking event and talking, and she noticed everyone's eyes glazing over. So she said "everyone at this event must be S's" -- because that's how she chose to blame everybody else for her inability to communicate effectively. And "S" stands for "stupid" with some people, ya know... (Of course, this is me getting on my soapbox about that kind of finger-pointing.)

I wonder if you find your Se showing up in your humor if you look for it. I didn't realize I made fun of Te until I got help from the President of the San Francisco Jung Institute, who also has INFJ preferences. Once I made the connection, it opened up a whole new perspective for me.

Here's a piece of humor I came across recently. I thought it was Se humor, but maybe it's more Te humor? Hmmm... Enjoy!

A bus carrying only ugly people crashes into an oncoming truck, and everyone inside dies.

As they stand at the Pearly Gates waiting to enter Paradise and meet their maker, God decides to grant each person one wish because of the grief they have experienced.

They're all lined up, and God asks the first one what the wish is. "I want to be gorgeous," and so God snaps His fingers, and it is done.

The second one in line hears this and says, "I want to be gorgeous too."

Another snap of His fingers and the wish is granted.

This goes on for a while with each one asking to be gorgeous, but when God is halfway down the line, the last guy in the line starts laughing.

When there are only ten people left, this guy is rolling on the floor, laughing his head off. Finally, God reaches this last guy and asks him what his wish will be.

The guy eventually calms down and says: "Make 'em all ugly again".

October 16, 2006  
Blogger Vicky Jo said...

The joke makes you feel yucky, or Te makes you feel yucky? (Because Te is supposed to be aspirational for you, but channelling it through my Trickster archetype might explain the yuckiness.)

October 17, 2006  
Blogger Vicky Jo said...

That's what I'm telling you -- humor shows up in the Trickster archetype, and is often experienced as humor around that function.

I found it interesting that an INTJ bought my CD and was playing it in the car with her husband. Right after the Fe portion, she stopped the CD, turned to her husband, and said, "Doesn't that sound like hell?" and they both laughed a blue streak. It seemed to me that Fe was showing up in her Trickster as something to make fun of.

The joke I shared with you -- I couldn't decide if that had to do with Se because it was all about appearances, or Te. I'm thinking now it was Te, because he used his power to make *everybody else* have a particular result. It seemed like a metaphor to me of the draconian measures I've been encountering lately in airport security. Those guys seem to have the power to "make 'em all terrorists."

The purpose of Trickster energy is to neutralize something that's "too much."

October 18, 2006  

Post a Comment

<< Home