Games for the Mind

A functional picture demands we have a network of processes with which to work.  Here is a list of some of the different attitudes that functions may take toward each other.

Dominance (the functional relationship in which one function takes a primary role in orchestrating the other functions in regards to a particular direction [I-E])

Auxiliary (the functional relationship when a secondary, non-interfering function shares some of the orchestrating process, most often by facilitating a relationship to information emerging from a contrary direction [I-E] than that focused upon by the dominant function)

Interference (the functional relationship when two contrary faculties [T-F, S-N] are brought to bear simultaneously, in the same direction [I-E]; results in noise, discord)

Triangulation (the function through which a dominant function accesses the resources of its opposing function through the intermediary of its auxiliary; this usually involves using the auxiliary function to ‘switch’ tracks or access the opposing function in order to address a direction [I – E] that the dominant function does not)

With luck, these will all become more comprehensible in the actually act of describing the different types.  Perhaps a few more will come up.

Most will want to avoid this post—it contains little in the way of practical advice and a lot in the way of high-level theory.  It is my hope that this would be fairly accessible to a broad number of people, but I doubt that will be of interest to them all.

The aim of this post is simple: establish the way in which my model of typology relates to other models.  While I use the MBTI letters throughout, my own model is only partially derived from that system.  This is because mine is more thoroughly functionalist and, strangely enough, more firmly rooted in the work of Carl Jung even as it departs significantly from many Jungian trends.  If you want to connect it to a major trend in post-Jungian Analytic Psychology, than I would look to James Hillman.

So what do I mean by functional?  First and foremost, I mean that my model is concerned with how an individual functions, with the manner through which they interact with the world around and within.  I accept the core division of faculties developed by Jung (Intuition, Sensation, Thinking, Feeling) as well as their directionality (Introversion, Extroversion).  Each faculty is a functional mode of interacting with the world, the directionality indicating the part to which the individual directs that function.  Moreover, I accept that these faculties tend to interact with each other to form functional dyadic or triadic structures.  These structures are not as constrained as traditional MBTI typing would have us believe (for example, that one’s ‘inferior’ function is always the opposite of one’s dominant function).  For this reason (and others), I largely ignore the Judging and Perceiving distinction as essential—it is at best descriptive (which faculty is dominant) and at worst distorting.

Second, by emphasizing how these faculties function, I am shifting emphasis away from how well they function.  The MBTI type is too easily confused for aptitude when it, at best, indicates where an individual will find ‘effortful’ learning most rewarding.  It might indicate what they find enjoyable, not what they are capable of doing.  In fact, by appropriately modulating the reinforcement of many activities to suit the type, I suspect most types are capable of any sort of activity.

How is this more ‘Jungian?’  Let me lay out some more premises.  First and foremost, every function employs every other function.  It is not the case, for example, that an Intuitive cannot access Sensation—in fact, as Jung himself points out, Intuitives are prone to visions, seeing symbolic arrangements in their ‘mind’s eye’ that contain tightly packed information.  That vision incorporates Sensation (the visible elements of the symbol), Thinking (the internal logic according to which the elements of the symbol are arranged), and Feeling (the valence the image possesses for the intuitive).  Each faculty is not a partial element of the entire psyche, but a particular arrangement of the entire of psyche, a functional pattern in which all the faculties are represented.

Even the Introversion-Extroversion distinction develops along this perspective.  An introverted intuitive is not a self-enclosed, self-generating monad.  Quite the contrary, the images they articulate within their mind’s eye are directly extracted from their interactions with the external world, from sensations, thoughts, and feelings derived from them.  Introversion is a particular attitude on Extroversion and vice versa.  An extrovert is not without this internal concatenation, they just more quickly redirect its results back ‘out’ to the external world.

This counters the ‘Hegelian’ trend in much Jungian thought that emphasizes the synthesis of opposites in favor of a ‘Spinozistic’ perspective that emphasizes the interactions of the whole.  This, again, has much to say about how to apply typological insights.  They are not a description of the actions a person should take to become more balanced or enlightened.  A typological profile is a snapshot of how they harness their shared human heritage in distinct and interesting ways.  It is a diagram of forces which may be developed in different and equally valid directions.

Which takes us back to functionalism.  While all types possess all functions, they articulate them differently.  They arrange the distinctive functions differently, producing different products.  Those functions interact with each other in fairly predictable ways and it is only in the total interaction that surprises occur, that dynamic and emergent behaviors are observed.  There are only so many sorts of interactions possible, it is their configuration that matters most.  That configuration of interactions is a type—so a type is not a stable picture but a network of interacting variables.

A total picture of the individual demands identifying the different levels of their personality, the zones of extroversion, the zones of introversion, which functions oversee which zones, which functions articulate zones.  Where articulation does not occur, we can think about the possibilities for future articulation.  In talking about a gaming style I am making only limited claims about the total person, although I think some can surely be made.

Hopefully this will be a brief point about how I view the two ‘wheels‘ of type (‘pure’ and ‘blended’) and how they mesh with my discussion of the two sorts of NF. 

 In short–the more someone tends toward a single functional pole, the more they will resemble the ‘pure’ type description.  The more they tend toward a creative dynamism between the two, the more they will resemble the blended description. 

 These descriptions end up being somewhat artificial thereby–it’s a little like sampling a very narrow portion of a color wheel.  The types they refer to are ‘real’ types, but are not all of the real types.  They are points selected to make clear the directionality and ’shape’ of the field of which they are a part. 

I highlight this because it is one of the real dangers of typology, especially the MBTI.  Its simple portraits of the 16 types can only be really useful as a place to start.  When used as the end of typology, it is guaranteed to apply only to a rare few.  It loses touch with the functional, practical dimension of typology–the dimension in which the concept can only be a rudder that helps guide practice, not a replacement for it.