Alpha & Gamma Psychology

[@RetroXRicardo]

So interesting! Great videos and I've enjoyed binge watching so far. As an ESFJ, it makes complete se sense that I'm a Diplomatic Ephemeralist! I'm a teacher by profession, but love the abstract world of Astrology Tarot. As an Alpha type, this makes complete sense of my Fe-Si-Ne-Ti stack. I'm an excited and happy subscriber looking forward to more! 👏👏👏

[@junyawang1265]

Well presented and makes a lot of sense! Lots of blogs on the Internet says a lot that alpha are leaders and are driven by external stimuli versus gamma by their own believes...

[@charcoal3855]

what a beatiful way of describing alphas

[@atomnous]

Do you understand that what Jung called "cognitive functions" are not "Fi", "Ti", "Ne", "Ni", etc.? What Jung called "cognitive functions" are Sensation, iNtuition, Feeling, and Thinking. Only these four. So understand that when you say Fi, Ti, Ne, Si, etc. exist, this doesn't mean that these can't be broken down further. And it doesn't mean, just because it is apparent that these 8 phenomena exist, that they're the most basic essences that are placed within the humans' brains. There might be only the 4 Jung mentioned. Even further, they might be able to be broken down further into two domains which are at play here: the perception-modulation domain, and the physical-psychical domain. So the 8 phenomena might not be the most fundamental, which could explain the signal-mixers. How could someone you typed as "Ne" also has "Se"? Of course this doesn't make sense under your framework that 8 functions must be the most fundamental essences. But this is an axiom that isn't necessarily true (or false). And I'm interested in exploring the possibility that they aren't, that they can still be broken down further. This makes more sense than saying that there are 4 breeds of humankind (the quadra) who pass down 4 different genetic knowledge in different types of people on the basis of 8 vultological phenomena that CT grids into existence. It's more sensible that parents pass down Perception, Physical, and Introversion to their kids, which create a certain psychophenomenology within them, which you detected as one of the 8 vultological phenomena. These 8 phenomena don't necessarily have to be the most fundamental. That would explain how humans can still understand each other to some extent, despite having these different vultology signals. Sometimes they're talking about their shared perceptiveness, sometimes about their shared introversion, sometimes about their shared physicality, and so-on, rather than strictly only always talk about their specified "Si" genetic knowledge, or "Ne", "Fe", "Fi", etc.

[@PK-qh7uw]

I'd say Ephemeralist is pretty much spot-on! I thought of Ideologist, considering it conveys a sense of Ti filter/detachment which defines a conceptual perception... But that is more of a Ti > Ne thing than a Ne -> Ti one. Impressionist, which also really nails the memetic Ne aspect, is used elsewhere already, but that is seen as a way less static word than Ideologist. Still more so than Ephemeralist. The issue is that while all Revisers have a dynamic name right now, Ti is more static than Fi in CT so I would try to convey that. Mediator/Impressionist, Unifier/Contestant, Optimizer/Expressionist, Organizer/Essentialist for the quadras? Just brainstorming right now. My favorite pastime :-) Anyway -- There's a question regarding Function Hierarchy that is bothering me for quite a while that I really want to ask you. I know the database is more or less aligned with Harold Grant's version over Carl Meier's.. Yet, I am somewhat used to Socionics's Model G, which keeps the extra/intraversion flowing between J/P functions based on initial energy. I also never felt content with the nilly-willy Socionics dogma and its writing prompt-style personality profiles, hence I am glad CT is here to deliver a sober take using modern resources. Back to Model G: It took Aushra's energy metabolism aspect of typology into account and it kind of makes the Carl Meier model seem reasonable. If I were to deliver stand-up-comedy, for example, would I want to exact Je and Pe on my audience? Or am I recollecting Pi before I continue Je-ing? Dilemmas like this make me consider that perhaps it is best to confine typology to four quadras and function development... But development also does not seem to correlate with usage in my case, as depending on my tiredness, environment or emotional status, I can come across as either of the four energetics: I got myself ready for an interview? No-holds-barred-Je mode. Tired out at the evening? Pi mode, scowling, recollecting events, slumping.. In contact with my brother, who understands my seemingly indiscriminate correlations (basically a lot of shared Pi)? I am the goofy Pe. Am researching something and have a guest? Here I present the Ji. BTW, Gulenko's article on Fi is interesting. It claims a bashfulness of admitting one's preferences.

[@CognitiveTypology]

Your quadra names are interesting and give some food for thought! It's like this right? ALPHA Mediator=Diplomat Impressionist=Ephemeralist BETA Unifier=Sectarian Contestant=Sensationalist GAMMA Optimizer=Meritocrat Expressionist=Sensualist DELTA Organizer=Bureaucrat Essentialist=Etherealist I have no particular problem with these terms, I actually think they're more keen in some ways, like how Expressionist doesn't limit things to libido, but to general self-display. And your Conductor terms avoid affiliation with specific political positions, which may vary. Are you in the Discord server? I'd love to chat with you more on there.

[@CognitiveTypology]

Regarding function-hierarchy -- right, there are definitely some research frontiers here to explore, and CT holds a view atm, but it's by no means set in stone. As I see it right now, there are competing hypotheses even in CT - and CT will go where the evidence leads. One good thing about taking an objective approach like CT is that you can actually test different function-hierarchy hypotheses for real-world data match, because otherwise you have a lot of different theories like Gulenko's which can all make sense just as well as another theory, and we don't know which is really right, unless we anchor things down to a set of observable criteria. The question of what function hierarchy is true is going to be a challenging one to "prove" objectively. What we might nickname the "Function-soup" hypothesis suggests that only Quadra is innate, and the four functions have no internal structure to themselves. In this case, a person could be FeSe (literally, not just FeNi l-l-) or a person can be FeTiSe (basically Fe > Ti > Se, where Ti is the auxiliary), and so on. I personally don't think the evidence points in that direction because of how often we see Ji+Pe energetics come together spontaneously, such as in the Reviser musicians, artists, creatives. And also, we see Je+Pi come together very often too, as we see in the series with the politicians and academics. There seems to be a natural affinity between Je+Pi and between Pe+Ji, which suggest Conductor and Reviser may be "real" phenomena in some cognitive-organization sense; like default circuits. For me, the function-soup hypothesis would have to provide an explanation for why we see a bias for Je to show up with Pi, and Ji with Pe, but I haven't seen an argument that's persuaded me yet. Maybe you have some thoughts?

[@PK-qh7uw]

@@CognitiveTypology I just joined, although I have to pardon myself for almost falling asleep while replying - I would love to reply properly, but when I have the energy to not just skim.

[@originaldew1155]

Do you think Aubrey Plaza is FiSe or NiTe?

[@ericnoble5194]

Is it correct to say that the Conductor side of one's type is more intersubjective (between people) and the Reviser side is more intrasubjective (within one's self)?

[@kjournal8550]

No, Conductor side is interactive (both between others and to oneself), Reviser is static and fixative.

[@CognitiveTypology]

Hmm, I think the semantics of intersubjective (for Je+Pi) and intrasubjective (for Pe+Ji) are not *quite* a perfect fit? But I can see where you're going with it. While Fe is quite intersubjective, since it tracks causality between people, Te isn't intersubjective, but is moreso what's regularly meant by objective or empirical. And Ni and Si are quite intrasubjective due to being introverted functions, like Fi and Ti. What I think you're getting at though is how the Conductor types focus on world politics, while the Reviser types focus on what they want to do (free personal expression). But if I had to distill them into single words, my choice might be: Conductor = Political Reviser = Experiential The word "Political" allows space for Te to exist, which focuses on social dynamics yes but *mechanistically*, rather than intersubjectively. And the word "Experiential" honors Ji's self-focus but also allows space for Pe personal extroverted exploration, whereas "intrasubjective" would seem to restrict things to one's head too much for Pe.

[@ericnoble5194]

@@CognitiveTypology Fair enough. I'm looking forward to your metabolism videos, because I'm having a hard time conceptualizing the differences between functions like Te, Fe and the like. I've been reading other books on how we think and use concepts and mental objects. More finding a way to connect them.

[@atomnous]

In my opinion you got it wrong about Gamma NT and Delta ST here. They should be reversed: Gamma NT is bureaucratic while Delta ST is meritocratic. For example, compare between Ben Shapiro and Blaire White. The former is very clear about his views and he definitely supports the government for "coercive compassions", while the latter had been vocal that the reason he was Republican was because he wanted the government to stay as far away as possible from his business (although perhaps he was mistaken about the party).

[@hfortenberry]

I’m confused on the Gammas because I thought Madonna was ESTP, which would put her in the Beta quadra.

[@igormendonca4026]

nope she is a FiSe I--- Unseelie

[@sierrarose6211]

Fascinating stuff, I really enjoyed this video. As an FiNe "etherealist" I can confirm 🤚that eeeeverything is personal! 🙈

[@atomnous]

Well your definitions are personal, so your confirmation indicates nothing true.

[@sierrarose6211]

@@atomnous ok 👍

[@atomnous]

​@@sierrarose6211 dummass.

[@atomnous]

Hey... I'm terribly sorry for my rude comment. That was uncalled for.

[@sierrarose6211]

@@atomnous hey, it's cool. Thank you for the apology 🙏

[@kjournal8550]

Hey, I know you think humanity is divided into animism and axiomatic religions. I think that's mistaken. My proposition is, I'll only give keywords: Hinduism/Abrahamism/Mesopotamic = mainstream beliefs Buddhism/kabbalah/Gnosticism/sufism = antithetical to mainstream beliefs Animism = natural/ancestral (comparable to the undifferentiated type mentioned by Jung) Just thought you might be interested. I uploaded the longer story on my channel if that's of interesr. (And, no ill-feeling, I've never held personal grudge for long in my life--it's tiring. Just a tease on your labelling of unseelie me as vengeful.)

[@kjournal8550]

Luciferian is also part the second group, the antitheticals.

[@kjournal8550]

Animism is also possibly the result of perceiver mentality. This is seen in the non-coordinated vultology of what you say is FiTe (I believe this is mistaken). FiTe should be coordinated, since they're judging functions--they're modulating.

[@WorldSocionics]

Interesting. We have Jair Bolsonaro and Marilyn Monroe as both Betas.

[@m.g.8897]

JAIR BOLSONARO, our great leader, is evidently SEE to me.

[@charcoal3855]

óbvio

[@FIowersInTheGarden]

SEE? Pensei primeiro em SLE.