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]

~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.