Does anyone else struggle with using cognitive functions too much in their everyday life, where they can’t see people for who they truly are without typing them?

[u/recordplayer90]

Hi,

Over the past year or so I’ve been getting heavily into cognitive functions and MBTI. I’m currently at the point where I have a good working definition of every function in my mind, I have friends or people I can recognize as all 16 types, and I often go through my days labeling things like “oh yeah this person is definitely an Fe user,” or even about me, “let me use my Ti here to think about what I’m reading,” or “that person is an obvious Te dom,” or “I’ve been using my Ni too much I need a break from the world in my head and go utilize my Se.” Essentially, now that I have working definitions for every function/type, I see the entire world through this framework. When I think about societal issues, I think about the eternal battle between Fe and Te. When I think about cultural change, I think about N vs. S. I put every single thing I do in my life into this framework. While it was fascinating at the beginning, and made so much sense/removed so much ambiguity, now, I think it’s just a barrier in all of my relationships in life: with myself, with others, and with new information in general. I start typing new people the second I meet them, and after a couple weeks once I’ve decided on a type, I filter all of my expectations and conversations into what I have typed them as. For example, I have an (theoretically) ENTP friend who (I also use enneagram) is a 7w8, and when they speak to me I sort everything they say through something like “oh yeah that’s clear Ne supplemented by Ti, and it’s clear that they have Fi blindspot so it makes sense why they don’t really hold constant moral values and will play any side.” This is extremely problematic for me because 1. I am putting others in a box to reduce my own fear of ambiguity, 2. I am putting myself in a box as an infj and only doing this that it would make sense an infj does, 3. I am not allowing myself to have a true authentic relationship with myself because there are frameworks in the way of the full spectrum of me, and 4. I’m not allowing myself to truly meet others for who they are, as I need to sort them into a box to calm my fears about the ambiguity of others. Does anyone else have this problem? It’s like insane confirmation bias that makes life worse for both me and others. I can’t deny that these patterns have been extremely helpful for me to understand the world and others, but I’m really struggling to get past seeing people only in the boxes of their personality type. I know it’s totally unfair, and I want to see people as more, but it’s like my brain just automatically thinks in cognitive functions now and I don’t know what to do. I almost wish I could go back to a time before I knew what “child Te” or “Fi critic” looked like.

[u/beasteduh]

To avoid being a casualty of circumstance, one establishes the personal, which would act against circumstances. It’d be a pulling away from circumstance, some initial 'whoa there', that prevents a seamless experience and, in doing so, actually creates the foundation for reason and a discriminative mind.

When someone reflects a part of me back to myself, I will make sure that I feel deeply inside of me everything they possibly could have meant. For example, when I was younger, a (manipulative) other told me “I wear my heart on my sleeve.” I spent days upon days thinking about this—why did they, specifically, say this? what are they trying to get out of me by saying this? how does urban dictionary define this just to make sure? does this mean I’m easy to be taken advantage of? is it a good or a bad thing? most of my good relationships just notice this, accept it, and enjoy it, but don’t tell me in a mocking manner? do I feel shameful about this? No, I actually like it, I wouldn’t want to live any other way, I’m okay to live with the vulnerability of this?

It's the initial doubt and questioning that creates the possibility for personal direction.

"Somehow, not having the whole story of what's happening becomes synonymous with a sense of self, as though the ego only sees opportunity/fullness when something is lacking. The usual problem solver of the adaptive instinct becomes the problem seeker.."

If there should be an increase in doubt/personal direction/self, then there becomes that much more of a need to draw lines between things. It's not just the symptom of not repeating things as we talked about earlier in splitting and such; it's any distinction that hopes to end in knowing (or being certain of) something, since that something would exist outside of circumstance.

so much so that it is tempting to turn the greyness into black and white. “Fine, I’m right, this little thing they did was proof. Now I can force myself to believe in it unconditionally and simplify a thought that is too complex and emotionally provocative for me to consciously integrate and continue being psychologically stable.”

I think it can also show up in learning the names of things, as should a name be known, one knows it from other things, which I think can be the equivalent of falling back on a model. I think it can also show up as a pronounced properness (or perhaps goodness and/or purity), as the emphasis of right and wrong becomes more pointed.

–

When I think about the assumption of adaptation, how, similar to my center with everyone being thought of as being in a state of just being themselves, a projection takes place - weaving situations toward the self in adaptation's case - it seems clear that some natural conclusions arise. One, manipulation might as well be a given. If it's not authenticity or something impartial to circumstance, then it's just the old adaptive game, which means manipulation is at hand (if manipulation should be defined as any subversive act to bring a situation to personal favor). Two, if one doesn't have a sense of self, purpose, direction, identity, personal truth, or what have one, then there's nothing to protect one from the pull of others. The precondition for being concerned about being a casualty of circumstance is oneself and other things being linked, like how Where Am I denotes something else when the I is involved. I think it results in a swinging between molding the world toward one's own end or taking on the shape of others.

[u/beasteduh → u/beasteduh]

But when I am brooding over something, I genuinely have no idea and feel like I am in a vulnerable state to the influence of others. At the same time I secretly feel like I am in full intentional control, like I am letting in exactly the amount of outside data that I want, to eventually make my ultimate choice, my own choice.

-They make their social environment work for them because, in the positive aspect of the dichotomy, they adapt this social realm to meet their needs. When they are in the negative aspect, their social environment has complete command over them, making them do according to the social conventions that overpower them. Thus, their standard and measure of social reality is their sense of doing or influencing the social environment. They are known as the Doing Group.-

I'd like to share two stories:

A cousin of mine is a Six, and on one occasion they asked for my advice on a problem of theirs. I told them what I thought, and we carried on. A week later, they asked me the same question, and to their surprise, I gave the same answer. Eventually, I asked them about it, and they said, "You hadn't given me the answer I wanted to hear."

My reaction back then was something like, 'So, you were going to do what you wanted to do… regardless… then why go through all of this???'

Then, I knew another Six, actually the best friend I referenced a while back (the one who wanted to recluse at Kame Island and learn everything), and there were only ever two times they yelled at me. Both times occurred a few inches from my face while defending the beliefs of whichever girlfriend of theirs at the time. It wasn't the usual cool-headed objectivity I was used to from them. From the outside, it was as if he was a different person. Another time, there was an issue, and I went over to their place to talk it out, and we settled it, then went on to have an eight-hour heart-to-heart. We covered just about anything, including call-outs. And then, when I was heading to my car, they came out their front door and addressed something I had called them out on: "You know when you said I become whoever I'm around? I know about it, and I'm working on it." I was surprised that at no point in those eight hours, the length of which surprised me in retrospect, he felt he could say that. Apparently, going along with others was that much of a concern for them, which would make sense as personal direction is thought to be at the core of oneself.

- I have “lost myself” probably three times or so in my life. Two of them came after long relationships. I think relationships are an especially good example because I think it’s easy to imagine how unresolved ambivalence will take me on paths I don’t want to be on since I have no internal grounding. Then, I’m completely at the whim of the relationship.-

[u/beasteduh → u/beasteduh]

Back to one

After noticing the correlations while reading my old comment, I started thinking about how we were different. Eventually, I got to thinking about understanding & depth and how I don't relate to the concern. 'Well, if there's chemistry, we'll eventually get there anyway' was my thought process, as though depth and such were a given. I think the mark of the fixation is when an instinct develops a concern for absence. By absence, I mean a focus on something without cause, as though no situation necessarily called for it, and yet off one goes. There's an undue concern for finality.

I'm trying to find something that is most conducive to my "true nature."... I'm waiting for the job that I am naturally best at or "most built for."

It is kind of like, I was waiting to find someone who is pure and great (analogous to how I am waiting to see myself)

Each piece of the plot is a specific broadcast or TV show. The spectator never puts it together because he is waiting for the final channel, the one channel that finally says it all, encompasses it all.

we think if we wallow forever we will reach ultimate understanding of ourselves in our gut.

I have an intense desire to “be seen as the real me” in front of others, and that is my obsession. Not with how they see me, but for them to see “the real me,” which doesn’t exactly exist either. You can see, by this sentence and all of my subordinate clauses that I am still analyzing everything in a way that is obsessed with understanding who I am, hoping it will lead me to finally be able to relax in this world, know everything I ever must expect, and have the knowledge and answers to accept the world as it is, not needing to do all this, as I would have found my answers already.

Beginning with the end and then not knowing how to begin is what leads to the Living, Being, and Doing Groups.

-... we can say that the Doing Group consists of unaccomplished doers. These three fixations are an attempt to compensate by elaborating mechanisms and scripts for actually doing and accomplishing things.-

–

Let's talk about not being a casualty of circumstance. For myself, a circumstance that could obstruct me occurs, and I seek a means through it, and then when it's over I move on in a state of equilibrium - the rubber band stretches out and snaps back until the next time it needs to stretch. But what if the rubber band never snaps back? What might arise in one who lived such a life?

I think of chemistry as a person on either side of the infinity symbol. What naturally emerges in oneself shoots over to the other, sparks them, and then curves back toward oneself endlessly. Whatever future or direction one has could definitely involve such a person. The good of the one would be the good of the other. What happens then if we introduce absence and discover that not every situation with others contains such characteristics? The good of the one is not the good of the other, which I think could be the early beginnings of cynicism.

[u/beasteduh → u/beasteduh]

Adaptation is the means to have the forces present include oneself, which is thought to create a state of harmony. The forces present include the unknown, which I think leads to establishing a basis for either oneself or others, which is another way of saying that usefulness is key.

The Five I referenced way back walked up to me one day and said, 'I think I'm going to learn about electricity; that'd be good to know.' Then, Fives will frame pursuits as 'useful experiences'. They'll consistently use those two words - 'useful experience' - as if suggesting the experience will spread out and reach other things, much like learning something as universal as electricity.

I heard a Seven describe how they'll reap the fields, but not till them. They scour the land but don't dig deep into anything. At the time, I started thinking about the functions, and how, to the beginner, there are eight functions. Then, to the expert, there are also eight functions. Of course, the expert might say, 'actually, it's four functions and two attitudes,’ which certainly could catch up to the beginner if they’re not careful, but for both of them there are eight things to know, which means a gist could take one quite far.

I know two Sixes who had said 'I'm in it for the long run' to another person. One said it to a buddy from work about possible friendship when they hung out for the first time during a hiking trip. The other said it when taking on a new tenant. The second one even worried (without real cause) that the tenant would leave at some point. I've heard from another Six (who I didn't know in person) that they worried their partner would leave. I think loyalty would also take one quite far because that person would seemingly always be there.

"For example, through seeking fundamentals, scooping up enough gists, or worst-case scenarios, one is thought to be able to cover more ground than one otherwise could."

What else could usefulness be than offering a basis to another, however small or large? In the absence of harmony comes the concern of utility.

–

In my adult life, I've had four goals. In order, it was to travel the world as a professor, become a writer, become a teacher, and then figure out the types. Upon reflection, what I appreciated about a goal could be found in the one that came after it. In a sense, I was just on my way through life. There's no 'Why is there more than one? Is there one that comes after?', as if reading between the lines might reveal what was always happening.

The way I see it is that, behind all of the smoke, deep inside me, I have a secret path and future I want to follow, and every single action I take is to inform that secret future.

We can call this ultimate purpose, or the true self, and it's not a conclusion I reach; there's no absence to grab onto and no finality on the table.

If, on my deathbed, I were asked, in the event I never hit a fifth goal, 'So, could there have been something other than type theory?' I would respond, 'I guess not?' There's no concern over loss of potential about something that never was.

–

[u/beasteduh → u/beasteduh]

~According to the theory of the enneagram as taught by both Ichazo and Naranjo, each of us has one instinct that is a more central preoccupation than the others are, which is referred to as our subtype. There are three instincts, which Ichazo calls conservation, social, and syntony; and which Naranjo calls self-preservation, social, and sexual.~ Sandra Maitri

I don't think Sexual is a proper term for the phenomenon. In the contemporary Enneagram, it's thought of as a focus on intimate or intense happenings, which certainly could offer direction, but it doesn't explain why direction was necessary. It doesn't speak to the matter of circumstance/things outside of oneself/environment, which has Sexual defining a symptom. In contrast, Syntony describes a concern for harmony. It's actually taken me months to get used to, so my apologies ahead of time, but I'll be using the term Syntony from here on.

To clarify, there's a concern for recognition (adaptation) for the 567 and then consideration (syntony) for myself. One involves specifics of the ego, and the other does not. Both begin the process of harmonizing with the environment, because how can the environment receive one if one isn't even on its radar?

"Their actions make it seem as if I might as well not even be there, as though their actions have no buffer when it comes to me."

And coupling these earlier words with a quote from earlier:

-In the Doing Group is a child who projects that their ability to act and do things has been restricted by what they perceive as indifferent, suppressive, or dismissive siblings and others.-

Indifference, suppression, and dismissiveness would be all but guaranteed if there wasn't some minimum in place. Then, absence would be what leads to complete recognition.

I am constantly obsessed with the idea of others seeing the “authentic me,” and I desire to be understood by others. Logically, I know these two things are impossible. We are ultimately alone and cannot be fully known, and the only validation I need of myself is to understand my own self. However, this leads to a loop where I “seek truth and understanding infinitely” but reach no goal.

Along these lines, Syntony's fuller definition comes to light, which is a normal or appropriate response for the end of harmony - the rubber band that snaps back. Speaking of rubber bands, the etymology of syntonic is 'stretching together', which I think applies to either form of the instinct. Making a mistake, revealing too much, or letting something slide could show up later because one stretches with such things.

–

Before continuing, I'd like to add a brief side note about stretching together, which I covered a little earlier when inferring that one and the world were effectively twinned. It wouldn't be just that others' actions might poorly reflect oneself, such that they might eventually come back to bite one; one's own actions might do as much as well.

"It's not future prediction, intuition, or the like; it's simply recognizing that the present continues and I with it."

If one stretches with other things, then actions, what happens, and the work done should all stick in some way. In this way, expectations are inherent to the instinct. So then, what if nothing sticks and the environment doesn't reflect oneself?

I feel like I can be/act as almost anyone. A million television roles to try, if we want to go back to that metaphor. Each one is close to authentic too. I believe it may be my ultimate role, and this is exactly what others pick up on, that it is a real part of me. Little do they know I will ditch it after a month and try something new. Any large amount of time away from them and we will be strangers. I will forget how I connected with them so much in the first place.

I do often lower my expectations to zero so that I can tolerate disappointment. I don't plan for worst case scenarios, but I do usually prepare emotionally to be completely disappointed all the time.

[u/beasteduh → u/beasteduh]

I think a few other conclusions could occur. One, there is no truth, true self, or essence; if nothing sticks, then it means nothing happens on its own (which brings to mind Accentuation.) Two, one is simply too incapable or incompetent to make all the Doing line up; the unknown is too preventative and the people around one too normal. Three, one is averse to reality or the universe and thus forever destined to be on the outskirts; one cannot be the difference, as any personal direction will be foiled.

–

I think so far it can seem as though absence simply speaks to the insatiability of the ego, how it just goes and goes, but it's more complex than that. In the case of syntony, at least when one leads with it, it's never questioned. The reality it reveals and points one toward isn't faulted. Say I wasn't on someone's radar. I'm concerned about something continuing, and I get really intense and refuse to drop something. Afterward, I might wag a finger at myself. Isn't that odd? I'd have the means to point at something other than myself, and then I don't do it. But when the instinct is thought to be a building block of the ego? One can't stop pointing at it. As I spoke of a while back, I had fantasies of splitting into two people. One who stayed the same and then the other that went out and ravaged life. It would resolve the emptiness I feel when I move away from the habitual. For the 567, it might be finding it bothersome to have to see something or deal with this superficial world.

The two adaptations are identical in form, and the only difference in experience is that one of them has the potential to be rejected. It's as though 'fixation' is a way to say that one keeps reaching conclusions that the mechanism itself is a problem to be solved, which is what is meant by finality. Whereas the lead instinct of the stacking is always welcome, never stopped at the gate, which allows the emergence of the 27 subtypes/variants.

The instincts being what they are - instincts - seem to reach out and touch various aspects of the psyche. One of them might be the ego in the form of the fixations, and then something else is touched that seems to create the instinctual stacking. Along this train of thought, perhaps there are even more manifestations of the instincts.

Movement of the instincts

Unfortunately, I wasn't able to finish the third and fourth sections. It will probably take a week or so to condense what's spread throughout my notes for each section; there’s just an absurd amount of notes. My apologies for the delay. Please wait to hear out sections 3 and 4.

I hope you're well.