SF Overview August 30, 2006
Posted by Ian in Typology.add a comment
I wanted to get to this stub for a very particular reason–thinking about typology made me realize how often I equate smart with N-type behavior. Not that I think S people are stupid. My error goes the other way: I immediately code smart behavior as N and then expect more N behavior from them. Of course, I don’t actually label them like that in my head, but that is a good way to describe how I deploy my own social schemas.
An eagle’s eye view: The blending of the Sensation and Feeling tends to express itself through actions and concrete projects and responds emotionally to vivid visceral experiences. ’Visceral’ may vary quite widely, but includes how they perceive the tone and tenor of a voice, the shape and color of an image, and the way an activity feels in a kinaesthetic sense.
They understand life in terms of the concrete experiences they have had or may have. The way in which they felt at the time of the experience deeply colors how they approach future experiences of a similar sort.
A great deal of the SF’s preference for action vs. practice rests upon the details of their typological make-up. Those with strong N faculties are likely to develop a preference for new experiences without necessarily focusing on repeating old ones. Those with a stronger T presence will likely focus more on concrete practices which allow them to repeat and sustain feelings they have had.
Introversion and Extraversion tends to be a good indicator for the sorts of experiences they seek. The more introverted, the more they focus upon their own affective response to an experience. In its most extreme expressions, the internal awareness of how they feel becomes less tied to the concrete experiences that motivate it. Extraverts, on the contrary, develop very strong associations between the object that stimulates their feelings and the feelings themselves. They are the most likely to identify the two, ascribing the same subjective experiences to anyone else who has the same concrete experience.
NT Overview August 24, 2006
Posted by Ian in Applied, Theory, Typology.add a comment
Ok, I want to circle a little more at the general level before dipping into the real specific. There are a couple reasons for this. One, I want to avoid getting ‘all about’ NF’s. Two, I want to see how much I like this more generic level of discussion. It may be that I really won’t like it once I have seen a few ’stubs’ like this in the rearview mirror.
An eagle’s eye view: The blending of the Intuition and Thinking tends to express itself through signs and words and respond intellectually to speculative ideas. Like the NF, these do not always relate directly to the content of the signs/words, although the NT is quite likely to offer alternative content. They may use words in unusual ways, but they are also likely to explain how they are using the word and the connections it has to larger, complex ideas.
They tend to produce elaborate intellectual systems in whcih these specific meanings take center stage. However, these systems often have a self-justifying character. The NT develops them in order to support a speculative (intuitive) idea for which they do not have support. In the worst case, this is an exercise in self-delusion (Ben Franklin’s ‘man is a rational animal, he can find a reason for anything’). At best, it is innovative and generative, creating the intellectual background necessary for their speculative idea to develop into a practical concept.
A great deal of the NT’s preference for words vs. signs rests upon the details of their typological make-up. Those with strong S faculties are likely to develop a preference for the visual dimensions of the sign (graphs, mathematical symbols) while those with a stronger F presence will likely focus on words. Both tend to view the external world (and sometimes themselves) as objects to be manipulated, with S-NT types preferring actual, physical objects and F-NT types preferring social objects.
Introversion and Extraversion tend to be a reasonable indicator for how ‘peculiar’ a given NT’s system becomes. The more introverted, the more likely their use of words and images will diverge from common usage, the more likely it develops from narrow personal experience. The more extraverted, the more likely it will depend upon common usage even as they develop innovative applications of it.
Typology as Social Practice August 9, 2006
Posted by Ian in Methodological, Typology.add a comment
Typology may be good for all manner of things, but thinking about typology has been wonderful for reconsidering what I know about people. I am struck by how difficult it is to think through types that are contrary to my own and how easy it is to project my own type onto other people. This isn’t radical stuff–Jung talks about it in terms of transference and counter-transference.
Still, the concrete action of thinking through different typological profiles is very different than the more abstract knowledge that ‘yeah, people can be really different from each other in subtle and significant ways.’ Which is to say, I am finding typology to be a good practice, a tool for breaking through my own hardened wall of built-up expectations and intuitions. It takes work, requires attention, and has the potential to change how I interact with other people, in and out of game.
And, it makes me more sure than ever that the typological process and not its final results are essential to appreciating and applying typology. Reduced to abstract knowledge, it is just a way of slapping down labels, of keeping interaction at bay. Maintained as a practice to be revisited, it is powerful and personal.
I vs. E (big deal?) August 8, 2006
Posted by Ian in Methodological, Theory, Typology.add a comment
Writing this typological model up as a series of blog entries is refreshing. It satisfies the urge to see the idea, here, now, for public consumption. It also means that I am grappling (a vivid metaphor for me) with the ideas at the same time that I am putting then out for pulic consumption. While I’m sure some would (and will) find this a bit unseemly in intellectual discourse, sort of like airing your dirty laundry, it does mean that (ideally) a reader should be able to appreciate the process and not just the product.
Since the process is the means by which someone else can come to terms with their own idea, it might even serve a helpful, educational purpose. If nothing else, knowing that the ideas are out there makes me eager to keep them updated, reflecting my latest and most robust ideas.
What prompts this post: I am unsure how useful it is to talk about broad portraits of type without a clear reference to the Introversion-Extraversion dimension. The function looks almost entirely different depending on the objects that its takes, and any ’summary’ view of a type or set of types will elide this.
Perhaps, again, the summary view has an educational purpose, making it easier to absorb chunks of information which will then be complicated at a later stage. Perhaps. But I look back at Jung’s text on typology and see his break down of the types in terms of extraversion and introversion as insightful. Contrariwise, his presentation ends up being synchronic, without a robust account of how the type he portrays can develop over time.
All this to say: I’m thinking about the presentation of my discussion. It may not change how I present it, but I hope it will change how you read it, process it.
