#mbti types

Before I start, I want to say that I am not trying to shit on anybody in this post, nor am I trying to call anyone out. Actually, this was my fault because I posted a post that was misleading. This has led to a lot of confusion from council members. This is also why am I am making this post to hopefully provide some guidance and 'fix' the issue.

For context, I posted a post earlier in the year that gave different interpretations of the use of Se. A lot of people have related to it, which is great, however it has also made a lot of people doubt their own type. I just want to reaffirm that those "signs" do not inherently mean that you are an Se dominant. Actually, I'm going to update that post, and potentially delete it altogether, as it is simply misleading.

Now for the clarification: every single person uses every single cognitive function. Cognitive functions work hand-in-hand with each other to process information completely. The MBTI simply tries to organize these functions by which one you use the most to the one you use the least. Just because a function is at the bottom of your stack does not mean you do not use it at all, it simply means you use it the least. You may still show signs of that function being used when it is used, but it doesn't mean that that function is a top function for you. To add context, if you didn't use a specific cognitive function at all, you wouldn't be able to process information thoroughly. Every function works hand-in-hand and if we didn't use any given function, the process would be incomplete.

If you find yourself wondering if you are a certain function dominant, ask yourself when you use this function and how often you use it. If you only use a function in certain, specific situations, or you use it inconsistently, it's pretty safe to say that you don't use that function in a dominant position. For example, if you find yourself saying:

"Well, I use it, but only like this..."

"Well, I used it in this one time where this really traumatic thing happened..."

"Well, I only use it around this specific group of people..."

"Well, I use this function, but only in this specific place..."

Then you might want to reconsider that function being at the height of your stack.

Your dominant function will always stay with you. It is the function you will rely on consistently, to the point where it can sometimes appear "unconscious" (it isn't, you've just gotten so used to relying on it that it's a second nature). Even when you go through moments of stress, you will go back to this function. You will try to use it. Likewise, every function can present negatively, and you if you are constantly under stress, you will present more of these negative traits. For example, if you consider yourself an Fi dominant but you notice that you act like an unhealthy Te dominant almost all of the time and that the Fi only really comes out in stressful situations, well, it's time to double check the accuracy of your conclusions.

Finally, just to reiterate, even though tests are fun, they are ultimately unreliable. A test cannot look at your past, see how you actually participate in the world, or watch you actively process information. If you are really, genuinely interested in understanding "what" you are for what you are, then you have to do your research.

Once again, council, I apologize for the misinformation. I hope that this post will help clear up some confusion I've created. Likewise, remember that my inbox is always open and if you have any questions, please feel free to ask! Not only is it a learning process for you, but it is also a learning process for me.

Sparkle on the day with whimsy,

Description

MBTI stands for Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. The test was created by a mother daughter duo, Katharine Cook Briggs and Isabel Briggs Myers. They developed this test during World War ll, basing their work on the psychological theories of Carl Jung, a Swiss psychiatrist. The goal of the Myers-Briggs test was made to enhance self-awareness and understanding of others and oneself, making the process of Jung's "individuation" easier.

Each MBTI personality type is made up of four letters. The first letter is either an I or E, the second is either an S or an N, the third either a T or an F, and the last letter will either be a J or a P.

The first letter in your MBTI personality type is how you get your energy; extraversion (E) or introversion (I). The second letter in your MBTI type is how you learn; sensing (S) or intuition (N). The third letter in your MBTI is how you make decisions; thinking (T) or feeling (F). The fourth letter in your MBTI personality type indicates how you organize your life; judging (J) or perceiving (P).

The way to find out your MBTI is to go through questions that assess and individuals tendencies that lean toward one end of a spectrum within 4 categories: energy, perceiving, judging, and orientation.

Energy refers to the spectrum of extraversion to introversion. People leaning more toward extraversion focus their attention on external experiences, drawing energy from their interactions with others. In comparison, those leaning toward introversion concentrate on their inner thoughts and ideas, gaining their energy from solitude.

Perceiving describes how people prefer to take in information, ranging from sensing scales to intuitive types. Sensing types prefer gathering information through their 5 senses and collecting facts before undersranding general ideas. In contrast, intuitive types rely on their instincts and approach problems from a "big picture" perspective, recognizing general patterns before identifying constituent facts.

Judging categorizes how individuals prefer to make decisions, ranging from thinking to feeling. Thinkers base their decisions on logic and facts, while feelers prioritize harmony in solivng issues.

Orientation refers to a person's preferred lifestyle on the spectrum between judging and perceiving. Those who lean toward judgment tend to like a structured and decisive lifestyle, while those who prefer a more flexible and unpredictable life align with the perceiving type.

Sources

The shape and nature of imagery

This leads me to the intuition via Plato of imagery as its own realm. Imagery is not a flight of fantasy, it is not passive wishing, nor sexual fantasies. Imagery is rather an observational process wherein our soul peers into another reality, which has its own objects and inhabitants. This reality is not a mental reality, for it has space and extension the same as our reality has, hence its relation to Plato. To bring up an older view of this sort of thing I will refer to Norse mythology: In norse mythology the spirit of a person resides in the chest, literally through the breath, wherein we have the essence of our mental life, deemed as Hugr. Hugr has a sight to it as well, because Hugr can leave the shell, which is the body, also called Hamr, which is a term that essentially means skin, in order to either travel elsewhere, or to enter animals to travel and see things through their eyes. In this respect the imagination would literally just denote a means to travel through the physical world via our spirit/hugr, and in this view when you imagine something that does not exist, what you are imagining is not a creatio ex nihilio, but rather something that either exists physically outside the border of Midgård, or literally a crafting of Ymirs body into something that now actually exists within the world of Yggdrasil. I bring this type of intuition up to contrast the older physicalist view to the Platonic spiritualist view, wherein this world of the imagination is properly differentiated and given its own dignity. We see this with the separation from both intellectual substances and the perpectual experiences as in Ibn Arabis Barzakh. Imagery then is its own autonomous realm of perception, which it shares in common with sensation as purely perceptual and observational.This realm therefore has strong connections to prophets, mystics, artists and generally to spiritual phenomena. Imagery is therefore an observation of the autonomy of the world of spirit, one might say, or the ”inner eye” with which one perceives the ”inner” world. But how does one distinguish this from what is just fantasy? Because there is such an attitude towards imagination where it is just fantasy. The just fantasy, in my view, comes from the intellect, the thinking lens, or from intuition itself, which either tries to force an image via pushing it out, via language, or which has an incomplete image that is hazy and fades quickly. The intuition comes from a feeling of an image which lacks the perceptive nature of imagery, which just observes, lending this imagery an element of simply ”knowing”. Actual perception through imagery feels the same as observing through sense perception, though without physiological tension, with the sense that you are observing something and can see its details and shape. The intellect forces this faculty into submission via concepts and via will, but imagery can also relate to thinking via infusion of words with images, which one might call disolving the sterile and dead concepts into their fluid energetic forms which can be apprehended by imagery as spiritual substances. With imagery there is also an involvement of the body, which comes from embodiment itself; the extent to which you can feel yourself being inside of the spiritual world. So to finalize this, I want to say that imagery is that ability where we feel that we are observing something which is not physical, and not with our eyes, but rather with our ”minds”, which might be felt to be inside of you (based on modern intuitions), but which in some intuitions is really a spiritual reality, or actually physical if you go by the Norse intuition. The latter are more empowering.

Part 1/2

Imagery and its components

part 2

But enough of these kinds of examples, I can also demonstrate through photography. There is a particular one I took on one of my trips in high school when we went to watch a play in a small but cozy theater. This is one of my favorite photos ever took and it was taken by an old phone and has one of those filters that were popular ten or so years ago. The quality does not matter, beauty is in the vibe. The mood. The atmosphere.

Perhaps, looking through a Jungian lens, you could call this Participation mystique, blending of the subject with the object, the line between conscious and unconscious disintegrating. I would argue that this is simply what feeling does best – unites people. It unites us for common causes and into revolutions, it unites as in singing together at concerts, it unites as with our family and friends and lovers. It can also unite us in negative feelings, because that is the full spectrum of feeling.

It is not only a perception of the nice but also of the ugly and painful. Feeling does not discriminate. And if the vibe is strong enough feelings will arise, whether they be pretty or ugly, comfortable or unnerving, joyful or tearful.

To be someone who orients themselves by their feelings means to be someone who seeks out feelings in the world and goes with the flow of them. Someone who creates art in order to transfer moods. Someone who will trust what their feeling tells them – you feel like there is a bad vibe in the place you visited therefore you leave the place. You feel you should go left, not right? Then you better go left.

I think this scene from the movie ‘Her’ is a good example of feeling. Heck, the whole movie is a good example of feeling, even the movie itself has a ‘vibe’, you know, one of those specific feeling vibes I explored at the beginning of this essay. Anyway in this scene he looks at people and he tries to guess their background. How does he know? It is in the way they move, the way they interact with each other, the way they look, maybe the way they are dressed. He is moved by this and he says he likes to see everyone as an individual with their own past and stories. This is what feeling is really good at. Seeing humanity in the world and feeling both its sorrow and beauty, maybe even both at once. It grasps the nuance of emotions and moods that are all around us, in the objects, in the people, in the nature.