Re: typology

[Guest guest]

A bit belatedly, as I'm behind in my e-mail: My thinking and feeling

scores are very close -- they seesaw depending on what I'm doing at the

time (academic stuff vs. clinical work) . This isn't confusion, it is

development of both over a lifetime -- which is part of the

individuation process, as I understand it. Although my thinking

function is stronger than my feeling function, and more stable, both of

them work well with my dominant introverted intuition. I find that I

can switch from one to the other to better match the clients I am

working with.

Now if I can just figure out how to improve my sensation. I'm thinking

of hiring Cov . . .

Marilyn

[Guest guest]

thanks Marilyn, Merry and Suzanne ..

when i'm working i do find it useful to be able to move between the T

and F, the E and I, etc. so i appreciate the value of this both/and

state .. that i'm not one or the other isn't confusing to me in

itself.

the confusion is the state i'm in now about finding my life work ..

the work that i would bring the most to, with my unique package, for

the greatest benefit to all .. cos i see a horizon now and time for

playing at it (rather than with it) is evaporating. i want to zero

in on something and not feel a jack of all trades, master of none.

i wonder if the more balanced the functions, the easier it is to do

most anything and have less inclination to specialize, which i have

demonstrated so far. when people see me at work in any role, i've

been described as a natural integrator, a catalyst, a systems

thinker, visionary .... but it's hard to market yourself or find a

niche as an integrator!

well, i think that's enough of my troubles, but i did want to explain

where the question is coming from and see if i can find a path out of

my muddle!

cheers,

tess

[Guest guest]

<< Hope this helps, >>

Thanks very much, esp for the last paragraph which clarified the idea for me.

That cultural embeddedness is what artists attempt to shake up periodically,

to get people thinking in different directions, to help them break out of the

box of their lack of personal thought-less-ness. The surrealists come

instantly to mind, of course, but I think in general art attempts to break

down the barriers, and great art accomplishes it.

best,

phoebe

[Guest guest]

Dear Tess,

I am a practitioner of Psychological Type in the Boston area want to

respond (sorry it hasn't been timely) to your question about whether having

" no clear dominance " in the T/F area has negative effects. I would say it

does for the following specific reasons:

One must differentiate dominance in a judging function and in a perceiving

function. Without establishing dominance (differentiation) in both of these

areas, one is at a distinct disadvantage.

At birth, attitudes and functions are fused. As the child develops, their

attitude (extraversion/introversion) and mental functions (thinking/feeling;

sensing/intuition) differentiates in development. Jung said:

" Differentiation consists in the separation of the function from other

functions, and in the separation of its individual parts from each other.

Without differentiation direction is impossible, since the direction of a

function towards a goal depends on the elimination of anything irrelevant.

Fusion with the irrelevant precludes direction; only a differentiated

function is capable of being directed. " (Psychological Type, p. 424)

So good type development requires dominance of one over the other in each of

the areas of extraversion/introversion, thinking/feeling and

sensing/intuition not equal. When a push/pull exists between an attitude or

a function Jung said it usually manifests as a: " lack of self-sufficiency

and consequent dependence on people and circumstances, ... disposing us to

moods and crotchetiness, [and] unreliable use. (Psychological Types, p.

540)

Isabelle Myers wrote in Gifts Differing:

" ...balance does not refer to equality of two processes or of two attitudes;

instead, it means superior skill in one, supplemented by a helpful but not

competitive skill in the other.

The need for such supplementing is obvious. Perception without judgment is

spineless; judgment with no perception is blind. Introversion lacking any

extraversion is impractical; extraversion with no introversion is

superficial.

Less obvious is the principle that for every person one skill must be

subordinate to the other and that significant skill in any direction will

not be developed until a choice between opposites is made. " [p. 174]

In conclusion, I just wanted to add that this subject has been close to my

heart ever since I realized the central role function development plays in

Jung's Individuation Process. The following is my general concept about it:

" Individuation is an archetypal process of expanding consciousness often

referred to as the spiritual journey. Differentiation, " the sine que non of

consciousness, " is the force piloting that journey. When this archetype

grips our life, its requirement is that we pass out of a state of cultural

embeddedness in which our functions operate passively within us, and move

toward a higher state of consciousness, in which we actively participate in

the development and direction of those same functions. When we are enmeshed

in our cultural embeddedness, we are unconsciously fused with our feelings

and thoughts, with our senses and our intuition, with our values, ideals and

beliefs. They have us. When we move into awareness, we consciously have

feelings and thoughts, and sensory experience and intuition. We have

values, ideals, and beliefs. "

Hope this helps,

Maffeo

typology

>hi .. i have a question about the possible effects of having no clear

dominance, especially in the t/f area, and being nt or nf.

>

>i was infp in the 80's, intp in the 90's (after a decade in corporate

america i figured) .. but all scores were close to the center .. the closest

being t/f ..

>

>a colleague has just suggested that i may be finding it difficult to find

my niche in the workplace and experiencing some confusion about my work

because of this nt/nf thing.

>

>anyone care to comment or point me in a direction for resources in

understanding so i can use to my advantage and not feel i 'cancel myself

out'?!

>

>thanks!

>

>tess

>

> " The greatest problem with communication is the illusion that it has taken

place "

>-- R. Marrotta

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

dear angela: your response was most helpful, containing precisely

the kind of information i was looking for. i appreciate your

bringing this expertise to bear on my question.

your words have given me pause for thought, both in terms of

describing my current confusion and laying out some possible work

ahead of me. i think my first step will be to do the instrument

again for a true current picture.

however, it does present a bit of a paradox. if the process of

individuation is about integration and balance of our full selves,

then it would seem scoring close to the center would be desirable,

indicating the ability to call on any one of the skills as

circumstances dictate. yet, exploring this from the lack of

dominance question seems to indicate the reverse is true (tho i'm not

talking about extremes here,which has the more obvious negative

consequences perhaps).

no doubt this is a both/and thing .. but this bigger picture is

certainly something i want to gain greater understanding of. may i

email you privately about this?

thanks again,

tess (sometimes crotchety, sometimes not)

[Guest guest]

TESS,

>however, it does present a bit of a paradox. if the process of

>individuation is about integration and balance of our full selves,

>then it would seem scoring close to the center would be desirable,

>indicating the ability to call on any one of the skills as

>circumstances dictate. yet, exploring this from the lack of

>dominance question seems to indicate the reverse is true (tho i'm not

talking about extremes here,which has the more obvious negative

>consequences perhaps).

BALANCE OF THE FUNCTIONS REQUIRES DOMINANCE SO THE SCORES SHOULD NOT BE

CLOSE TOGETHER -- JUST THE OPPOSITE. A CLEARLY DIFFERENTIATED FUNCTION

WOULD HAVE A MUCH HIGHER SCORE. IF THEY ARE EVEN OR CLOSE TO EVEN, THE

IMPLICATION IS THAT THE FUNCTION IS UNDIFFERENTIATED -- STILL FUSED

TOGETHER -- AND ONE IS UNABLE TO DIRECT IT.

I USE THE SCORES ONLY TO BEGIN THE DIALOGUE. MANY PEOPLE ANSWER THE

QUESTIONS ON THE INDICATOR FROM VARIOUS STANCES -- NOT ALWAYS WITH MUCH

CONSCIOUSNESS OF THEMSELVES.

THE FOLLOWING CHART MAY HELP:

UNDERSTANDING YOUR SCORES

SCORES ONLY REFLECT THE STRENGTH OF YOUR PREFERENCES

THEY DO NOT MEASURE YOUR SKILLS, ABILITIES OR TYPE DEVELOPMENT

" TYPE " IS A HYPOTHESIS

ONLY YOU CAN VALIDATE IT FOR YOURSELF

Clear preferences (21-39 or 29 for F)

Very clear preferences (41 or higher, or 31 for F)

Moderate preferences (11-19)

Slight preferences (1-9).

When preference scores are 1-9, a change of one or two questions could

change the letter designation. The respondent has essentially " split the

vote. "

LOW SCORES MAY OCCUR BECAUSE:

of conditions in your environment (family expectations, cultural pressures,

etc.);

you are in change, stress relative to career, personal or other issues;

your preference is not valued in the " mainstream " of your life, job or

school;

self-deception: you want to be more like your opposite preferences;

you are protecting yourself because do you not " trust " the system and are

concerned that this information could

be used against you;

you are playing games with or trying to beat the MBTI;

they may be relative to your stage in life;

OR IT MAY MEAN NOTHING AT ALL.

Tess, yes, you may email me privately.

Re: typology

>dear angela: your response was most helpful, containing precisely

>the kind of information i was looking for. i appreciate your

>bringing this expertise to bear on my question.

>

>your words have given me pause for thought, both in terms of

>describing my current confusion and laying out some possible work

>ahead of me. i think my first step will be to do the instrument

>again for a true current picture.

>

>

>no doubt this is a both/and thing .. but this bigger picture is

>certainly something i want to gain greater understanding of. may i

>email you privately about this?

>

>thanks again,

>

>tess (sometimes crotchety, sometimes not)

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

> " Individuation is an archetypal process of expanding consciousness

often

> referred to as the spiritual journey. Differentiation, " the sine

que non of

> consciousness, " is the force piloting that journey. When this

archetype

> grips our life, its requirement is that we pass out of a state of

cultural

> embeddedness in which our functions operate passively within us, and

move

> toward a higher state of consciousness, in which we actively

participate in

> the development and direction of those same functions. When we are

enmeshed

> in our cultural embeddedness, we are unconsciously fused with our

feelings

> and thoughts, with our senses and our intuition, with our values,

ideals and

> beliefs. They have us. When we move into awareness, we consciously

have

> feelings and thoughts, and sensory experience and intuition. We

have

> values, ideals, and beliefs. "

>

> Hope this helps,

>

> Maffeo

Morning All,

Normally, I find this conversation on typology superficial ... but

this above is very to the point. An example is Gloria Steinem, she

has individuated her Artemis archetype and lives it, subordinating

other archetypes to it such that she has become exceptionally

effective, being able to accomplish her goals. Venusian archetypes

are in abundance, Arnold Schwarzenegger (sp?) another, Athena, and so

on.

Developing consciously doesn't mean one abandons intuition or thinking

for example. What it does mean is that one is conscious of whether

one is applying the tool of intuition or thinking. Then either and

both become like diamonds, and shine light. Like a talent, the skills

need to be developed, like music, harmonized, and then like tools

applied. It is like learning an instrument, first one applies

thinking, and after one masters the instrument, one may move into

intuition -- mastery is key.

Different types apply better in different circumstances so that one

uses which one is effective then. In a business meeting, Athena is

effective, but one can subordinate that to Venus (a la

Brockovitch) so that the art of distraction becomes a tool. The point

is to accomplish the goal, to be effective, but if one doesn't decide,

" okay, today, I'm using this " then one doesn't know where one stands.

And, it is a full character development, it goes to body language,

clothing, hair, how one makes a point, communicates, the sound of the

voice, the inflections and the nuances.

There is a great French saying, " it's not what you say, it's how you

say it. " Nothing new here, just new ways of saying old things that

have been around for centuries, which some learn and some don't.

Much Love,

~ bo

P.S. I think I have two separate entities competing to finance the

screenplay written by the Mayan Chief. For my own typology, I decided

if I couldn't create, life was a bore (for me), I've tried everything

else, now it's time to create and manifest :-). Right now I have to

rewrite pa

[Guest guest]

<<

By the way, as long as I painted realistic landscapes, I sold well. Now

in my abstract expressionism, I am lucky if anyone even wants to buy one

of my paintings. So, I know that what I do is purely for self

expression, and am concerned with process not product. (that does tend

to clutter up one's studio, I admit) >>

And the artist must be true to the vision. I can imagine your landscapes

selling -- the way, say, Phantom of the Opera is a megahit -- but when you

say it is for self-expression, do you also consider that someone would buy

it?

I perhaps mis-spoke to say artists want to shake up people's thinking. It's

peoples *view of the world* that many artists attempt to reach and make hum

with new meanings. The thinking part comes AFTER the feeling part as a

response to any kind of art, I think.

And I was, of course, a bit generic. I wouldn't include the

made-purely-for-commercial purposes kind of art in my frame. That's just

product. It is flushable.

I was trying to attach it to Jung, and what had written about our

deep-rooted culture-conditioning and thinking that many art movements and

single artists have meant to shake up that kind of conditioning, hoping that

people would then see everything in a new light. The maxim is: you cannot do

just one thing. If a piece of art touches a person, or if a person thinks a

thought they have never thought before, the whole web vibrates and new

connections are made. To some artists, doing that is part of their palette.

Thanks for your thoughts.

lightly, lightly,

phoebe

[Guest guest]

Phoebe,

I wonder about your statements about artistic motivation. I do not see

an artist trying to shake up anyone, but perhaps him/herself. I for one

am not concerned to get people thinking. I want a visceral reaction to

my vision which seems to come out of my unconscious..

Yes, I know originally art was also used to illustrate a common belief

system,enliven faith and to be 'beautiful " (which is where the artist

used creativity.)

Modern, or recent art, seems really not to care what the viewer thinks.

It is my personal belief that what passes for " art " often today is an

effort to shock, dismay, and sell. Beauty or truth seem not to be in the

artist's mind. But there is other art today which is called widely

" expressionism " or " abstract expressionism " which seems to be more a

" stream of unconsciousness "

If it makes the viewer think, all the better, but it is to express

himself, that makes the artist sweat.I speak for painting as I see it,

and practice it especially, but also poetry and writing. In music I am

in the classical mode, so I hear very little modern " up to date " music.

The last that " grabbed " me was " Jesus Christ Superstar " so you see how

out of the mainstream I am.Much of what is loud, louder and loudest is a

constant beat to my ears, and I prefer not to be assaulted by sound.(So,

sue me, you lovers of whatever is popular. This is purely a personal opinion)

I guess what I am trying to say is that breaking down barriers is not in

my mind when I paint. When I view other works of art, I try to put my

rational mind on hold. With much classical work, my heart sings, but

also with much modern. Only " pop " art seems to me to be yelling at me,

to change my thinking.

I am sorry, I did not associate this with the post you were answering. I

just got humg up on the motivation of artists from my point of view.

By the way, as long as I painted realistic landscapes, I sold well. Now

in my abstract expressionism, I am lucky if anyone even wants to buy one

of my paintings. So, I know that what I do is purely for self

expression, and am concerned with process not product. (that does tend

to clutter up one's studio, I admit)

Just one point of view from one painter.

Toni

zozie@... wrote:

>

>

>

> << Hope this helps, >>

>

> Thanks very much, esp for the last paragraph which clarified the idea for me.

> That cultural embeddedness is what artists attempt to shake up periodically,

> to get people thinking in different directions, to help them break out of the

> box of their lack of personal thought-less-ness. The surrealists come

> instantly to mind, of course, but I think in general art attempts to break

> down the barriers, and great art accomplishes it.

>

> best,

> phoebe

>

[Guest guest]

Tess,

Apologies, your question was not superficial ... the categorization

is what turns me off. For example, " he is black. " Or, " he is

intuitive. " You see? The methodology is a pointer, often taken

as an end all, which is not what you did.

Warm Regards,

~ bo

[Guest guest]

> Normally, I find this conversation on typology superficial ...

dear anna .. not sure what you mean but i trust my raising a question

looking for some expertise isn't viewed or judged by you to be

superficial. there was nothing superficial in my questioning and

trying to examine and understand myself vis a vis my type results and

present dilemmas, and i wanted no superficial response. i get the

theory, and the ideal situation, but i was looking for a pointer, or

an informed response to something else .. i.e. what happens if xyz,

the deviation, the experience vs theory, etc.

i am now getting an appreciation that i've done amazingly well for

someone who is still in the primordial soup phase of development,

lol.

thanks to angela's response, i can now take this offline and delve

further into my particular rabbithole, troubling the rest of you no

longer on the topic. i do beg for tolerance for learners here tho ..

barring a small number here, tis not an environment friendly to

beginners with jungian theory and application, and i'm sure i'm

neither the first to notice nor to comment on it. i didn't notice

any prerequisites to participation so i anticipated more inclusive

than exclusive behavior.

i am without a mother on this day, and extend a greeting to any

mothers here .. a job that should have a salary commensurate with the

importance and size of the role, surely.

tess

[Guest guest]

Differentiation vs. development? It seems to me that one can do both.

I have superior introverted intuition and auxiliary extroverted thinking

-- my analyst of 11 years has extroverted sensation and introverted

feeling (a fairly rare combination for a Jungian). Once I recovered

from my initial shock (what do you mean, what color is the carpet in my

office? what carpet?), it has been an auspicious match that has pushed

me to develop in new and unexpected ways.

Although my thinking and feeling scores are very close on the MBTI (an

instrument I don't like all that much, to be honest), this does not mean

that my thinking and feeling are an amorphous mass. On the contrary, my

(auxiliary) thinking function is polished within an inch of its life.

It has served me well throughout my life (I signed my 1st grade papers

Marilyn Easy), but it urgently needs balancing -- especially now that I

am in the crone years. Thus the work on my quite fragile, young feeling

function (which fits Beebe's observation that the wounded child is

carried by the third function).

Marilyn

[Guest guest]

Phoebe,

Some have bought my weird ones, but in general, like my husband, people

usually ask when I am going to paint something they understand or can recognize.

The most interesting thing I have learned about recent " art making' is

that mistakes are welcome and left on the canvas.

My classical painting teacher would have died quietly if he had lived to

see that. I am now used to it, but admit I do not always leave the

errors alone.

I supposes every one who paints would like someone who likes their work

well enough to pay for it. I have a few hanging in my house that I would

never sell, and some I have purposely destroyed and then been sorry.

Some abstract realism (oxymoron) or expressive abstraction does seem to

be bought by the avant garde, though i doubt many understand exactly

what the artist was about. But if it speaks to them, even if it is not

the artists subject, well, that's good enough. I guess.

Thanks for your ideas.

Toni

zozie@... wrote:

>

>

>

> <<

> By the way, as long as I painted realistic landscapes, I sold well. Now

> in my abstract expressionism, I am lucky if anyone even wants to buy one

> of my paintings. So, I know that what I do is purely for self

> expression, and am concerned with process not product. (that does tend

> to clutter up one's studio, I admit) >>

>

> And the artist must be true to the vision. I can imagine your landscapes

> selling -- the way, say, Phantom of the Opera is a megahit -- but when you

> say it is for self-expression, do you also consider that someone would buy

> it?

>

> I perhaps mis-spoke to say artists want to shake up people's thinking. It's

> peoples *view of the world* that many artists attempt to reach and make hum

> with new meanings. The thinking part comes AFTER the feeling part as a

> response to any kind of art, I think.

>

> And I was, of course, a bit generic. I wouldn't include the

> made-purely-for-commercial purposes kind of art in my frame. That's just

> product. It is flushable.

>

> I was trying to attach it to Jung, and what had written about our

> deep-rooted culture-conditioning and thinking that many art movements and

> single artists have meant to shake up that kind of conditioning, hoping that

> people would then see everything in a new light. The maxim is: you cannot do

> just one thing. If a piece of art touches a person, or if a person thinks a

> thought they have never thought before, the whole web vibrates and new

> connections are made. To some artists, doing that is part of their palette.

>

> Thanks for your thoughts.

>

> lightly, lightly,

> phoebe

>

>