Four Energetics & Function Hierarchy

[@sippxn]

And these lectures are free? Amazing Juan, I’m grateful👏

[@kevinolmedo675]

Man, this is some quality content.

[@rowanjoy419]

I think, Pe signal are NE and Se. Pi signal are Ni and Si. Je is Fe and Te and Ji is Fi and Ti.

[@philliplockhart5853]

I got 18 out of 20 correct. U r a VERY good teacher, Juan!!!

[@CognitiveTypology]

awesome! :D im glad it makes sense.

[@Roger593961]

I'm so excited about this Juan! I love seeing these educational videos being made! I'm thinking about taking the course to learn how to type in CT like a pro!

[@jaycee6689]

I cant get enough of this content :D pure quality

[@dexmickbear7916]

How close are you/we to having reliable AI for this?

[@INTJosh]

Love this, great work, need more of this. Question. Where do you talk now about the nature of (what it means to have) a function being conscious or individuated, and why mannerisms reflect conscious functions? Isn't it just as likely that mannerisms show unconscious functions? We don't think about them as we do them, for the most part, after all.

[@RetroXRicardo]

Wonderful video! This is helping my to type people better for OPS, combined with your vultology knowledge. My middle functions Si-Ne are putting everything together 👏👏👏

[@atomnous]

So, I think there are two types of pairings that can happen with individual cognitive function attitudes. 1. Fundamental Pairing The pairing of one perception and one judgement/modulation function, within the *same* attitude. This is the minimum requirement for any consciousness to emerge. For instance, if sensation is extraverted, then it tends to detect positive objects, which are objects that tend to energize the subject. Then it might be connected to objective feeling/force, which is a set of modulatory instincts to deal with the positive object, let's say maybe it takes and consumes the object. This is the minimum requirement for a conscious action, there has to be one perception and one modulatory function that are active and working synergically, while other functions are suppressed to the unconscious. This happens in each second consciousness emerges. Either perception or modulation can lead each other. 2. Switch Pairings Now when we're talking about types, we're talking about how a person switch between one fundamental pairing to another. Let's say, in one moment, Sam leads with Fe in his consciousness assisted by Se. This would be the Fe(Se) pairing, and let's say this is his most frequent arrangement. The second most preferred arrangement for Sam is to lead his psyche with Ni, assisted by Ti. This means the secondary preference is Ni(Ti). Now you can say that Sam's type is FeNi ll--, because he most frequently uses Fe(Se), and alternatively switches into Ni(Ti). However, all four functions always activate, just in different levels of consciousness.

[@atomnous]

The example in section 1 with Sam actually represents when Perception leads Judgment. When Fe leads Se on the other hand, the subject would transfer its own energy into the object -- which means Fe-led psyche is injecting/giving, and Se-led psyche is taking/consuming. More accurately, Je and Pe since the same applies to Te and Ne. In introverted attitude, the subject would feel aversive to the object, so it acts almost like a passive subject. It only receives (Pi) and releases (Ji) energy indirectly, forever at the mercy of the objects in its environment.

[@Mindbend88]

Great explanations and examples so far

[@mysterical-]

So interesting, and it makes sense! I see the Pi traits and the milder version of Je I do.

[@sierrarose6211]

Thank you, this was so fascinating!

[@raghna]

Amazing work Juan. So are you saying that auxiliary and tertiary preferences are impacted by our environment, and while we have a natural preference for Grant's auxiliary, through nurture we can instead swap auxiliary and tertiary (and in rare cases even possibly inferior)?

[@fetuseater]

How to tell apart viscous inertia from Ji stiff posture? And what does it means when someone show both strong Ji and Pi signals ? (As well as some Pe)

[@AmyMarie1992]

It IS exciting!

[@samplans]

This was helpful!

[@aoeuable]

I think it's a bit rash to equate signal strength with signal count, there's at least another dimension, and that is the intensity of execution itself. E.g. very frequent, but only small-scale Je head nods might in principle not signify a Je-lead but an influential auxiliary process. Also, how many nods equal one body sway in terms of final score?

[@CognitiveTypology]

Right! You're thinking like a vultologist. :) Signal frequency alone is not a good show of signal strength. This wasn't covered in the video but the way we do this in practice is we have "Low, Medium, High" designations that we give to each signal, based on how strong/clear the signals is displayed. So for example, a person may only do four/five Je Head Nods per minute, but if they are bold/strong/forceful in that Je-lead way... they will score "High." Inversely, a person who displays maybe 20 small, compulsive head nods in a minute, may only get a score of Low or Medium because it lacks the force of a real Je-lead. More detailed breakdown at: cognitivetypology.com/index.php?title=Codifier#Weighting

[@christineschreiber5073]

thank you!👍

[@aeonalucia6466]

Does CT address Jung’s work on individuation. I’ve found this to me an issue in many other systems where “type” is rigid and doesn’t allow for fluidity or make room for individuation. For instance, I was professionally typed as an ENTJ in CPT (Cognitive Personality Theory), yet my particular subtype is individuated. I have fluid axis between Te and Fi. Fi is considered my second dominant because I use it a great deal, and it is a function I’ve brought into the light or activated when going through several existential shifts. I was never able to identify or relate to this idea that the “inferior” function is intrinsically inferior in everyone, although it does start that way. But if individuation is the goal, there would need to be a process to achieve this, as cognitive flexibility should be the ultimate goal.

[@marioordonez8135]

So, maybe I still don't get the twins example, but are you insinuating that twins for general rule have the same lead-process? Please, someone who has understood already, make me understand. This is very consistent though, I just want to understand that point.

[@raghna]

Genetically identical twins, yes.

[@lauraschleifer4721]

Hmmm, this is odd, because I definitely feel like my two strongest suits are Pe followed by Pi, but apparently Pe would usually have Pi as its lowest function? If I were to guess, I'd say my stack goes something like this: Pe, Pi, Ji, Je. But since the typical pattern is Pe, Ji, Je, Pi, I guess that would make me a Pe I- -I? For the record, I test as an INFP on mbti, but occasionally I can also test as an ENFP and my vultology is far more NeFi than FiNe.

[@genesis5887]

Yeah u can be NeFi I- -I . Some call this development 'polarization'.

[@igormendonca4026]

got 16 out of 20 on the test

[@_VISION.]

Perfect

[@atomnous]

Beautiful breakdown. I like that you seem to have taken into account gravity, momentum, inertia, and energy since from the beginning. I previously believed in Maier's stack, but now I gotta revise it, damn.. 😅 But I believe these four energetics are actually the cognitive functions. (Je=F, Ji=T, Pe=S, Pi=N). The reason is, proactive and reactive, in my view, and from what I gathered also your view, are not specifically referring to external-internal duality, but rather pleasure pursuit (energy gathering and spending) and displeasure avoidance (energy keeping and prudence), as shown in CT wiki. I believe that definition is the correct one.. I'm not sure your exact position on this. Externality has nothing to do with it. Externalization, or basically physical excitation, must be related to S and F, while internalization/inhibition to N and T. Imagine a brake and a gas pedal. Those are inhibition (NT) and excitation (SF). Extraversion is the triggering of any of those pedal, while introversion is the releasing of them.

[@atomnous]

The hypothesis is, if that's true, people who have been typed as Je would be more likely to be ego-identified with psychological traits commonly attributed to Feeling/Control/Force, Ji to Thinking, Pe to Sensation, while Pi to iNtuition. Especially pure types (l---). I personally have renamed the labels [F]orce, [T]ack, [S]tate, and [N]oise. I think these labels more accurately convey their core functionalities. Force, or excitatory coordination, manipulates physics to actualize an object into the present moment. Cognate: vultological Je. State, or excitatory perception, adapts to physics to detect an object in the present moment. Cognate: vultological Pe. Tack, or inhibitory coordination, manipulates psychic tendencies to potentialize an object in the non-present moment (perhaps more in the future than in the past). Cognate: vultological Ji. Noise, or inhibitory perception, adapts to psychic tendencies to consolidate an object in the non-present moment (perhaps more in the past than in the future). Cognate: vultological Pi. There's also passive forms of these four. For example, when State or Noise is initiated, Force or Tack is also activated, but passively. It manifests as habitual actions/thoughts, or autonomic responses. All vultological signals of State or Noise can only be the passive manifestations. Also, there's a switch between waking and dreaming states. In waking states, all inhibitory functions (NT) can only be halfway activated. In dreaming state, the opposite happens. I suspect they operate based on different principles. For example, when in the waking state, the person has already gotten rid of all of their problems, the dreaming state will actively try to create problems for them. Or if they have too many problems in waking state, in dreaming state they will be minimized. It might not be the priority of CT to investigate this, but it's relevant because if it's true, the waking state wouldn't describe the full range of phenomena that inhibitory functions are covering.

[@atomnous]

We need to figure out what's universal and what's typological in human traits. I predict when we've done so, one will find that the only thing that is typological is related to (1) what the individuals *want* for their life, in relation to their instincts, and (2) their innate temperaments. Ideologies, occupations, and skill can change.

[@atomnous]

I have a commentary on the Grant's stack. I still think Maier's interpretation is not completely mistaken. Both of them are probably right. The problem is, we sometimes refer to different things when we talk about function combinations. Well, it's clear that all functions are in some ways activated at all times, but one is always leading. In this sense, I tend towards Maier's interpretation. When one function is activated, its conscious working is coupled with another function with the same orientation. So, there are eight couplings: SF+, SF-, ST+, ST-, NF+, NF-, NT+, and NT- (where S is excitatory perception, N is inhibitory perception, F is excitatory coordination, T is inhibitory coordination, "+" is appetitive-extraversion, "-" is aversive-introversion.) This is because only perception on its own wouldn't do anything to the individual. Perception needs to always, all the time, be coupled with coordination. And it doesn't make sense for appetitive perception to cause an aversive coordination... at least not autonomically. This means, at any time, both perception and coordination must have the same orientation. While when we talk about Grant's stack, it is in the case of function switching. So it's measured second per second. We can understand Maier's couplings as better equipped to identify the axes, while Grant's stack to identify the leading function hierarchy. (I mention Maier's model very flexibly, in this context I don't mean hierarchy, but the coupling of functions precisely.)

[@ramonbril]

That data looks sexy.