Stack theory 101

The "other" ERE. Societal aspects of the ERE philosophy. Emergent change-making, scale-effects,...
daylen
Posts: 2162
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2015 4:17 am
Location: Lawrence, KS

Re: Stack theory 101

Post by daylen »

Potentially mapping back into Kegan as K1: activity, K2: activity cluster, K3: clusters, K4: G1, and K5: G2, along with a shadow cluster or potentially clusters that start at K1 as a counterpoint and grow up to K5 where they start to be consciously integrated.

Going back to Jacob's comment on even Kegan numbers being easier to type, an activity cluster is easily averaged and G1 usually fits a paradigm. K1 activity having no basis, K3 having no agreed upon metric, and K5 having no single scheme.

7Wannabe5
Posts: 7871
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: Stack theory 101

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

@daylen:

So, for instance, "The Renaissance Soul" might be a G1 paradigm?

daylen
Posts: 2162
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2015 4:17 am
Location: Lawrence, KS

Re: Stack theory 101

Post by daylen »

@7w5 If by the renaissance soul we mean a rational T discovery of abstract N goals (roughly matching ERE) then such a paradigm would tend to leave the S and F bridges disconnected (that is, as Fe-Si or Fi-Se shadows). This could be written as NT-SF for conscious NT minus subconscious SF. Other G1 paradigms being ST-NF, SF-NT, and NF-ST. ST-NF taking the external world as more real (correlating to computational paradigm of finite instruments that implement finite identity), and NF-ST taking the internal world as more real (correlating to mystical paradigm of infinite identities matching to infinite instruments).

More paradigmatic granularity can be achieved through shadow function specification. So, perhaps NT-SF with Si-Fe shadow being more in line with "rational T discovery of abstract N goals", and NT-SF with Fi-Se shadow being more in line with "logical T construction of abstract N truths".

daylen
Posts: 2162
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2015 4:17 am
Location: Lawrence, KS

Re: Stack theory 101

Post by daylen »

Attempt at meating the skel: viewtopic.php?p=257140#p257140
Would seem that for most people, they would start off with low-depth dominate functions starting in the mid-states and eventually encounter a situation that didn't go according to plan sending them down in a depressive spiral that may or may not be handled by the dominate functions.. leading eventually to mid-depth dominate functions and low-depth non-dominate functions within their paradigm (functions 1-6). Then perhaps they reach a bottom within their paradigm that alerts them to the far shadow that emerges as low-depth, low-state miseries that if lucky, get integrated back into the self centered somewhere in the mid-states.

7Wannabe5
Posts: 7871
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: Stack theory 101

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

@daylen:

I think you may be right. For example, near the end of my first marriage, I had an encounter with my IXFP ex in which I said "All I want is to have a happy family." (naive Fe-Si), and he replied very matter of factly, "Well, you can't have a happy family, because I am not a happy person." Then I cried for 2 hours, pulled up my big girl pants, did some therapy and strength training, became more differentiated and self-aware, and eventually divorced him.

daylen
Posts: 2162
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2015 4:17 am
Location: Lawrence, KS

Re: Stack theory 101

Post by daylen »

There are also a significant number of people that reach mid-depth dominate functions across mid and high states relatively quickly. The high states tending to slowly improve depth in the paradigmatic functions yet also flattening off complexity (MHC). In contrast, people who reach mid-depth dominate functions across mid and low states tend to go though a longer period of abstracting isolated activities into [artificial] complexity.

Another thought being that given enough time and effort, all the functions can be learned at low-depth across all the mid-states with study, questioning, and experimenting (i.e. downloading new codes). Philosophy then being the history of a few NT's and NF's who took interpretation and analysis off the deep end into a forced hand of developing mid-depth in all the functions all at once. Presuming that all arguments have truth value developing upper depth (towards unity and completed N-centering), and presuming all arguments must be falsified developing lower depth (towards fragmentation and incomplete N-scattering).

As the B/M emergence of networked machines overlays the noosphere, perhaps the globally emergent super-mind will "listen in" on human brain states to predict what code could be promoted to strategically improve depth across all functions while still retaining healthy paradigmatic boundaries. Whether this will be utopic or dystopic is up for analysis.

daylen
Posts: 2162
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2015 4:17 am
Location: Lawrence, KS

Re: Stack theory 101

Post by daylen »

I would like to share some intuition for function identification and testing. I'll just go through my own stack, so the later functions will perhaps be more prone to error and less detailed. I will try to make this a general, all depth overview of cues. Systematically, we can then start to generate detailed descriptions of functions based upon depth.

Ti
essence: past tracking of external opaqueness
testing: logical deduction and missing generalization

Logical deduction starts with some givens (e.g. if this then that, A or B implies C, etc.) and then demands a resolution to a question that is presumably answerable by what is given.

Givens and question: If some cats are blue and some blue animals eat cheesecake, then do some cats eat cheesecake?
Answer: Not necessarily, because it is conceivable that the set of cats that are blue does not overlap with the set of blue animals that eat cheesecake.

When testing for Ti, other functions can be better factored out by inventing an absurd scenario like above. No cats are blue and usually do not eat cheesecake, so it is less likely that someone would be right based upon real-life inference (Te is especially good at picking up on real-life logical chains). Longer chains will require higher depth Ti as well as higher IQ.

Missing generalizations are deductions in reverse. The givens are not given, instead you start with a statement that makes hidden assumptions.

Statement: Tommy is a cat therefore he eats olives.
Missing generalization: All cats eat olives. OR Animals named "Tommy" eat olives.. etc. (generally an infinite number of solutions can be given through recursion).

Ti being introverted means that it is not usually directly apparent and requires probing a bit below the surface. A strong Ti presence will tend to bring up prior conversations and claims made within a conversation. Inconsistencies may be pointed out, or if Fe is co-developed, Ti-users may ask questions that lead to someone rethinking their position. They may even be able to do this with the other person thinking they changed their own minds on a topic. Yet, from the Ti point of view, these deliberations can go on an entire lifetime as far as I am aware (hence decades long academic debates over subtleties).

Another sign being that Ti-users will tend to make strong claims seemingly out of the blue. Then, if asked why they said or believe that will continue on to give their reasoning, usually in a way that can be followed from prior shared assumptions. Though, sometimes Ne paired with Ti just goes off the rails.

Ne
essence: present creation of internal concreteness
testing: diverging stream of thought

As an extroverted function, Ne will be more readily apparent in loose conversations where creativity is appropriate. Often Ne will not really have a destination or objective and will just be throwing mud at the wall to see what comes of it. On the internet this will often come across as trolling when the respective feeling functions (Fi and Fe) are low depth. It is more challenging to invent a closed procedure for testing the extroverted functions since they diverge out of boxes (that is what they do!), yet for Ne this could perhaps be done by measuring (formally or informally) how unique and random a train of thought is without any clear objective. Simply ask them to tell a story that no one has ever heard before or to rap.

High depth Ne fantasy stories can get pretty weird, fast. I would give an example, but I figure we have all encountered such and I respect the patience of my audience, ha.

Polar or 7th slot Ne will come across as strict speaking of facts in as few words possible. Which is great in a situation with a clear, existential objective that requires a no non-sense solution ASAP. Think of an ISxP firefighter that doesn't hesitate to act in a crisis to save lives.

Si
essence: past tracking of external concreteness
testing: detailed recall of past

This function is by far the easiest to test in a strictly controlled way. The time period of the past is flexible. The further back in time you go inevitably the details will start to become chapters filled with stories that may jumble details. A basic test is to ask about what happened thus far today in as much detail as possible. High Si may be able to go on for an hour about just today if they really wanted to. Low Si or even polar Si (ENxJ's) may just say strait up that they would have to think about it. This isn't because they couldn't do it but because it would take effort and they have learned (or otherwise fell into the pattern) of not recalling the past.

If I had to give some numbers.. for say a mid-aged person (40-60 yo):

High depth Si will remember life in 5+ chapters each with 5+ stories each with 5+ details without much recall effort. Mid depth Si will remember life in less than around 5 chapters with either a dark or light shadow that distorts serial recall and stories/details that are sometimes misremembered or out of order. Low depth Si often seeing the past as one thing without chapters that is scrambled with light and dark shadows (hard to arrange).

Though, don't take my word for it, I have limited evidence (say around 20 high quality data points and 200 much lower quality data points with each point being a human life).

Fe
essence: present creation of internal opaqueness
testing: multiple interfacing styles

Fe may be one of the easiest functions to observe directly in a situation with lots of people interaction. The giveaway is the range and fluidity of facial expressiveness. High depth Fe is often required to sustain being "the life of the party" where contextual switching between both light and dark situations may be warranted. I have also noticed this pattern whereby people with relatively lower Fe (usually conscious but sometimes subconscious) can become allured by a charming, high depth user (especially if they are of opposing sex). Another way to spot or test such is through imitation ability. Fe can pick up on accents, body language, speech patterns, and so forth to convincingly play a role.

Though, this can often backfire in which the role being played is too deep (Fi) to be imitated on short notice and thus comes across as superficial. Hence, a high depth Fi user will see right through the act and write it off as inauthenticity (unless it is all for laughs, of course).

----------------------
The next four will be in my subconscious much of the time and thus should be taken with a grain of salt. I would love to be corrected or given counter evidence as this is also an exercise in honing my own intuition and getting thoughts written down.
----------------------

Te
essence: present control of external opaqueness
testing: problem solving with constraints

Of the extroverted functions, Te may be one of the easiest to formalize or enclose in a "procedure". The basic idea being that Te works well under constrains to solve a problem. This is being done constantly here on the forums. When testing, it would probably be best to invent an unlikely scenario that is still realistic yet never actually happens. The Eric guy on Talking with Famous People likes to give the "troll problem" where a small village is separated by a river from crop fields that are ready to harvest. The problem being that a troll is in the middle of the river and refuses to leave, instead demanding a troll tax to pass the river. What do you do? There are many solutions involving fighting, moving elsewhere, paying the tax, gaining leverage on the troll, and so forth. Eric will then proceed through storytelling to explain what each strategy leads to. The Te test being to basically stumble upon solutions he has not yet anticipated or to cycle quickly and efficiently through the entire solution tree.

Thus, perhaps a pattern with many of the testing techniques is that Ne is quite helpful in creating novel questions and situations that detach enough from reality to avoid familiarity. The opposing force of Ni perhaps helpful in insuring the fantasy isn't so far off as to lead to non-nonsensical typing outcomes.

Ni
essence: future matching of internal concreteness
testing: synchronous perception that fills gaps

Which leads us to Ni as being a rather difficult function to test for. Though, I suspect high-depth Ni users can identify other high-depth Ni users quite reliably given that the universe can be interconnected synergistically such that alternative synergy paradigms will tend to match even if all the details or words are different. People coming from a theoretical physics, an evolutionary biology, a theology, or a meditative background will all have likely pondered many of the same deep existential questions each with their own latticeworks of generally applicable understandings for what the universe is.

As far as testing is concerned, what is being sought is evidence that the person has a vastly applicable web of internal connections. So, a test would generally give some pieces of a puzzle and seek an intuition for what the puzzle is about or looks like. As distinct from Ti missing generalization problems, the puzzle pieces would not presume to know anything and instead be concrete particulars that fit together in only so many ways.

This is a great resource for RAT's or remote associate tests: https://www.remote-associates-test.com/

When testing it is best to do at least 10+ of these as the success variance is quite large even for high-depth Ni users. Ni, along with Ti, also seems to be quite readily tested by IQ, so should be factored in. Interestingly, for longer deduction chains, Si becomes important and tends to counter high Ni (so it's a bit loopy and avoids linear correlations).

Se
essence: present control of external concreteness
testing: smooth engagement in unpredictable tasks

This function is most easily seen when someone is in an alpha(*) flow state. As when they are engaged on a familiar yet challenged task, the ability to improvise will be telling of Se depth. I suspect Se users will likely enter into many of these flow states throughout the day/week for a variety of tasks. In contrast with Si, these tasks will require non-linearity of movement and execution whereas Si will tend to be habitual and linear. Se crosses items off a list as quickly as can be potentiated, whereas Si would rather generate a list to be done sequentially.

(*) That is, a frequency of brain waves.

A sure tell being a generalist doer with little hesitation to try novel concrete tasks, especially in the presence of a challenging yet rapid feedback cycle for learning.

This being my polar function, I have had to slowly build it up in constrained contexts over long periods of practice. Though, I can readily use Se consciously when cooking, cleaning, dancing, some sports, computer navigation, and gaming. 8-)

Fi
essence: future matching of internal opaqueness
testing: peeling back onion of why's

I feel/think :? that Fi is future oriented, though it may not seem like it when it is indirectly expressed as an introverted function. Surely enough though, it seems to be focused on the internal harmony of emotions into the future. Part of this involves not being blindsided by faulty assumptions and hence high-depth Fi users will tend to have answers (expressed or not) for why they are saying what they say or do the things they do. Fi, like Ti, is very deliberate and tends to speak about principles, but the primary distinction is that Fi principles are highly personal and the assumptions underlying them are not arbitrary. If Ti users derive logical trees in the sky, then Fi users peel back like an onion towards the heart.

Hence, Fi is probably the least testable function in that peeling the onion may lead to unexpected triggers. Fi users will tend to have a boundary at which questions become too personal. Though, in my experience, high-depth Fi users will tend to have explored their own depths enough to feel perfectly comfortable letting loose with the right people (those they trust).

-------------
Probably one of the best, if not the best (i.e. most consistent) typist in the world is Eric Strauss. Here is a playlist with nearly 100 of his typing sessions: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=P ... BCQX6cF-IF
Last edited by daylen on Sat May 07, 2022 6:37 pm, edited 9 times in total.

daylen
Posts: 2162
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2015 4:17 am
Location: Lawrence, KS

Re: Stack theory 101

Post by daylen »

Here is a more specific way to section off the stack that aligns with quadras (conscious and subconscious divides) and paradigms (prime, work, and shadow divides).

Image

Seems that the words "subconscious" and "shadow" are used as synonyms much of the time, so I figured this might be a slight yet useful distinction. Prime could also be replaced with dominate, but I figured that may trigger some into framing the system as a dominance-repression kind of dynamic. When in practice I think we are trying to provide an equalizing way of referring to human differences that anyone can at least partially identify or sympathize with and feel as if they are being partially understood.

Interesting potential for layering with the "working" functions sandwiched between the primary and shadowed functions. The primary functions being natural and giving life ultimate meaning, the working functions being semi-natural while getting things done and achieving goals within a paradigm, and the shadowed functions being a source of deep personal growth as well as not very natural.

In particular, the middle two function being either an extroverted or introverted bridge between the conscious and subconscious that pivots sharply on your own aspirations or dreams.

The prime or primary functions also having a "priming" effect on what paradigms and ideologies an agent tends to fall towards in the adaptive cultural landscape.
Last edited by daylen on Sat May 07, 2022 8:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.

daylen
Posts: 2162
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2015 4:17 am
Location: Lawrence, KS

Re: Stack theory 101

Post by daylen »

Along with the following match that Eric likes to pivot on, (I/E)xx(P/J) can be seen in a parallel light to how Jacob started at the beginning of the thread.

Se, Ne being active
Si, Ni being passive (aka knowing)
Te, Fe being interfacing
Ti, Fi being deliberative

Where the following stacks can be generated with unique work bridges between the conscious and subconscious.

ExxJ
interfacing
passive
active
DELIBERATIVE
active
passive
interfacing

IxxJ
passive
interfacing
deliberative
ACTIVE
deliberative
interfacing
passive

ExxP
active
deliberative
interfacing
PASSIVE
interfacing
deliberative
active

IxxP
deliberative
active
passive
INTERFACING
passive
active
deliberative

Hence, ExxJ's tending not to hesitate, IxxJ's looking before they leap, ExxP's off chasing butterfly's, and IxxP's avoiding confrontation. (I/E)xx(P/J) then crosses orthogonal to the paradigms x(S/N)(F/T)x. Thus, within each paradigm there exist a type that is deliberative, active, passive, and interfacing. With each avoiding work associated with the opposite (e.g. active avoids passive and deliberative avoids interfacing).

daylen
Posts: 2162
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2015 4:17 am
Location: Lawrence, KS

Re: Stack theory 101

Post by daylen »

In parallel to the "Drawing Agency" thread, functions on an agent tile can be represented as partitioned into (perception, judgement) or (active, passive, deliberative, interfacing) like so..

Image

Where the what (concretes) is linked up to the how (opacity). Activity externalizing from the internal point; passivity internalizing from the external structure; deliberation internalizing from the external maps; and interfacing externalizing from the internal frames.

jacob
Site Admin
Posts: 14000
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 73
Contact:

Re: Stack theory 101

Post by jacob »

daylen wrote:
Sat May 07, 2022 12:00 pm
I would like to share some intuition for function identification and testing. I'll just go through my own stack, so the later functions will perhaps be more prone to error and less detailed. I will try to make this a general, all depth overview of cues. Systematically, we can then start to generate detailed descriptions of functions based upon depth.
Here's mine. Obviously this is somewhat idiosyncratic and also reflective of a certain developmental stage. I wouldn't always have self-described like below. For what it's worth ...

Ni:
Whereas the Ti will internally represent information as 10 blackboards side-by-side, Ni will represent it with 10 glass panes that Ni simultaneously sees through for similarities and insight. Ni assumes that "when A is approximately structurally equivalent to B, then A approxmiately behaves like B". Ni is a machine that generates metaphors.

Ni takes in structural information via representative examples. This pane is then filed along with similar panes. There are maybe 100 types of panes in total (latticework of models with ~100 models) insofar they have been named as mental models.

A well-functioning Ni has the panes filed correctly (analogous to external reality). This collection of panes is built up slowly starting from a young age. It is difficult to refile a pane. This would correspond to deliberately changing (editing) one's intuition. I don't see how to do this directly. However, panes can be addended with exceptions/additions to the structure which in turn can establish connections to other sets of panes. This is when the scientist goes: "Hey, that's weird ... and interesting."

A badly-functioning (e.g. not dominant or auxiliary) or immature (e.g. young or arrested development) Ni has the panes filed incorrectly (not corresponding to reality). It is prone to conspiracy theories or becoming rather stuck in an ideological reality, that is, instead of changing Ni to match the world, it will try to change the world to match Ni. Since Ni can in principle believe in anything, this makes the Ni capable of both great evil and great good.

The panes do not exist as independent sets. They are somewhat interconnected as panes may also be gathered [partially] in metasets of similarly structured panes. Doing this allows meta-systemic thinking or "leaps of intuition". These in turn may be arranged cross-paradigmatically. As the Ni-construct gets bigger and bigger (wider and wider), these cross wirings increase. The overall structure of depth is fractal in nature. This is how Ni climbs MHC. I believe this process is ultimately space(*)-filling via a kind of correspondence principle in that everything ultimately relates to everything. The universe is holographic and Ni being somewhat isomorphic is well-suited for mapping it.

(*) Not physical space but conceptual space. The actual number of mental models is infinite, but we can group them under a certain resolution set by language limits for communication---not for intuiting where the number is larger and one doesn't care to count as such anyway.

Summary: Knowledge is arranged in stacked sets of panes with similar structure. It is very easy to see through the panes. It is much harder to see across from one set of panes to another set of panes. Only structural details are remembered.

Te:
Extroverted thinking or rather "explicit thinking" is used for communication. As such Te is rather mechanical in nature. It is a tool used to communicate. Ni constructs are NOT arranged by formal words or formal equations. Ni does not think in words (at least mine doesn't). This means that communication is not a matter of picking a starting point on the 10 blackboards and "copying the idea in the mind down on paper". Te thus has to thread a narrative through the panes, all while complaining about "the limits of one-dimensional communication channels".
The first difficulty here is in choosing what NOT to say. The second difficulty is in how to arrange how to say what to say. The challenge is roughly that of describing a photograph of a complex situation and figuring out where to begin and where to end the story.
The mental cost of this is high. Maintaining a narrative is like keeping a number of balls airborne while juggling. The balls don't just sit there but require active effort to maintain. Meanwhile, Ni has to be actively shunted so as not to eagerly come up with "additional interesting metaphors and examples", while Te is busy communicating.
As such asking NiTe for brevity is a big ask. Asking NiTe to repeat themselves because you weren't paying attention is an even bigger ask. Asking for both is disrespectfully insulting.
To reduce mental load, Te is tempted to take short cuts using metaphors: "The Y I'm talking about is just like X" under the presumption that this is all explanation the listener would ever need. This may be dialed up another notch to "It's like X and Y and Z together". An example may be using three different idioms to make a point: "A burned child living in a glass house should not use his tools like rocks".
If an idea is particularly complex (too many balls to juggle) the internal discipline on "what not to say" may also be dropped leading to providing additional examples and analogies. This risks losing "the narrative thread". Insofar it comes across as rambling, you can be sure that the Ni already rambles far wider internally. There's always the frustration that "this is so much more complex than what I'm saying here".

Fi:
If Ni is the What and Te is the How, Fi is the Why. The Ni eventually becomes this vast internal representation of reality. This representation, which unlike the real world, allows for future predictions (the internal world does not experience time; it does not have to wait and see before knowing how something develops) and unless the Ni is screwed up (see above), it does it well (correct more often than not). When the internal world and the external world don't line up, the situation feels quite disagreeable to Fi. Basically the external world is not "right"; or more accurately it would run better insofar Te managed to add some future guidance to it.
This sets up a conflict where Fi is telling Te to "get to work" whenever |Ni-world| > Fi disagreement tolerance. You can tell that Fi cares by how much Te-energy is spent on a correcting a mismatch. An obvious downside here is that the more I know (Ni) relative to what I can do (Te), the more frustration is felt. An easy way to tell whether the INTJ no longer cares about something or someone is that the INTJ will stop fixing or optimizing it.
For my part, I don't recall ever having associated Fi with humans or human behavior. As such, I find Plotkin's subpersonalities unrelatable. My Ni is not comprised of conflicting subpersonalities (which to me sounds like an Fe/Kegan3 conflict #pane #warning). This likely relates to how I grew up in the countryside without a lot of humans around but rather by ideas from books and thus was socialized by books (a lot of science and philosophy) rather than people. Insofar I have a subpersonality, it is "the Ni system" as the world could be, but unfortunately is not. My subpersonality is a holographic library.

Se:
I see Se as the second-How (HowII?). I associate Se with the concrete experience at a local point in the universe as opposed to the formal or the intuitive experience. Se is basically how Ni is embodied in the universe. This means human body, triune brain, and 5 senses, which is somewhat limiting. I wish there was more possibility than that. These "Se-services" exist in service of Ni and Te. I'm not very interested in variations of experiences I've had before. If I already collected the pane, I no longer care.
Note: Mindfulness is THE hot thing for Se-perspectives/retreat/ground themselves. However, my supposed 3-year old find myself wondering how it's even possible that people can't be aware of their own internal sensory state at all times. (Maybe my 3-year old is more like 30-years old). Perhaps it follows from doing a lot of "sports" or physical activity growing up. The idea of not knowing how basic states like being tired, hungry, excited, angry, ..., changes one's mindset and ultimate behavior seems rather OMGWTFBBQ-humans to me. I suspect my Se is either quite naive or quite advanced #pre/trans-fallacy. For example, many don't seem to kenn the difference between physical pain and injury. They can't tell. It's just "uncomfortable", so they presume injured and act as such.

7Wannabe5
Posts: 7871
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: Stack theory 101

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

jacob wrote:Whereas the Ti will internally represent information as 10 blackboards side-by-side
I'd say it's more like a relational database consolidating an expanding map. I recently learned about the process of database normalization in a grad class I am taking, and this process is pretty close to what my secondary Ti does with all the data my primary Ne is always gathering through exploration. The process is towards reducing redundancy and improving integrity.
As such, I find Plotkin's subpersonalities unrelatable. My Ni is not comprised of conflicting subpersonalities (which to me sounds like an Fe/Kegan3 conflict #pane #warning).
I find it easily relatable, and actually invented my own similar model independently. It doesn't have to be about conflict. It can be more like gaining competence at different recipes for social identities/functioning can you put together given the components of your personality to which you have most self-aware, free or fluid access. For example, different humans might have more or less difficulty telling themselves to "lighten up and have fun", "be calm and take charge", "open up and reveal your emotions", or "focus and get it done", because they have more or less easy access to the components of their personalities necessary to inhabit these perspectives or engage these abilities. Sometimes it takes extreme experiences to bring out the more repressed or less developed aspects of our personalities. We're all "not the sort of person who...." until we are.

jacob
Site Admin
Posts: 14000
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 73
Contact:

Re: Stack theory 101

Post by jacob »

jacob wrote: As such, I find Plotkin's subpersonalities unrelatable.
7Wannabe5 wrote:
Thu May 12, 2022 9:10 am
I find it easily relatable, and actually invented my own similar model independently. It doesn't have to be about conflict. It can be more like gaining competence at different recipes for social identities/functioning can you put together given the components of your personality to which you have most self-aware, free or fluid access.
As an ENTP you have Fe, which deals with feeling-based human-on-human interaction, in the third position (CAR model 10yo), so it's not surprising that expressing different personas in a playful manner comes naturally easy to you.

Whereas for an INTJ, Fe is in the seventh position. This is far behind the preferred Te way (position 2) of interacting with the world. In addition, Fe exists on the shadow side which the INTJ naturally doesn't trust very well. From the INTJ perspective, changing Fe ("putting on a different face") to fit the circumstance is something that to Fi (position 3) appears inauthentic at best and manipulative at worst.

I plan to deal with the shadow functions in a follow-up. Just haven't gotten around to it.

7Wannabe5
Posts: 7871
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: Stack theory 101

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

“jacob” wrote: As an ENTP you have Fe, which deals with feeling-based human-on-human interaction, in the third position (CAR model 10yo), so it's not surprising that expressing different personas in a playful manner comes naturally easy to you
Well, an ENTP is still on the nerdy side of social. The truly socially gifted types wouldn’t even need a model. Tertiary Fe is naive social functioning akin to thinking if I give somebody a cookie that will make them happy then they will want to make me happy by giving me a cookie too!
From the INTJ perspective, changing Fe ("putting on a different face") to fit the circumstance is something that to Fi (position 3) appears inauthentic at best and manipulative at worst.
Yeah, I grok this, but it’s almost exactly like thinking that money is evil. You either have to remove yourself completely from the economy or society, or you have to gain some more sophisticated skills, or you are going to go down like a dodo bird. IOW, it’s a variation on what Hanzi refers to as “game denial.”

jacob
Site Admin
Posts: 14000
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 73
Contact:

Re: Stack theory 101

Post by jacob »

@7wb5 - This is why stack theory is useful when it comes to breaking out of the simplest kind of "theory of mind" where it's presumed that everybody else must be "similar to me while allowing for a few individual variations".

For example an underdeveloped INTJ will think that all humans should have a logically self-consistent value-system derived from certain fundamental beliefs. As such any disagreement with other humans must be either due to a failure on logic or some fundamental difference in assumption. The "obvious" (to the INTJ) way to resolve this is via debating in the form of point and counterpoint. This debugs the logical tree, that everybody must surely be operating from. How naive! But how could anyone know otherwise? What would it take to break through that assumption?

Similarly, an underdeveloped ESFJ will think that all humans should find meaning in celebrating existing traditions or starting new traditions. Next week is the Smith's baby shower and this week we're collecting donations to the most recent "Support Our Side"-cause. Exciting! Don't forget to dress up. Also RandomCountry-festival is coming up and I'd like everybody to cook a dish from RandomCountry. It's inconceivable how everybody is not into this. If only living would be a continuous celebration in order to get people together and continuously remind each other how the food is "soooo good", we could work out all the ills of the world. We need to double down and turn the future into an ongoing carnival! But that's also rather quite naive. How to reach such a mind?

And so on ...

Since I'm still "bothered" by the subpersonality thing---but realizing that the above can be thought of personalities---perhaps a useful exercise for stack theory101 would be to describe the subpersonalities for the 8 dominant stack functions. Extra bonus for all 16 pairs.

I covered 2 of them above.

7Wannabe5
Posts: 7871
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: Stack theory 101

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

Underdeveloped ENTJs think that all humans should take charge of their life and environment or prepare to be taken charge of.

Underdeveloped ESTJs think that all humans should get in line with the conventional regulations or prepare to suffer under their micro-management.

Underdeveloped INFPs think that all humans should share the deep passionate despair they experience while purposefully choosing to stare endlessly into the abyss.

Underdeveloped eNTPs very much don’t like the word “should”, but imagine, or blithely assume, that all other humans mostly just want to get well-fed, well-laid and then left to their own creative devices. They don’t understand and hate it when other underdeveloped types bother them with their needs to exert leadership, enforce regulations, or share despair. When in low-functioning mode they are like bad, lazy, rude scientists who just toss stuff and people into categorical specimen boxes.

grundomatic
Posts: 46
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 9:04 am

Re: Stack theory 101

Post by grundomatic »

Acknowledging that I am very much a student here, I still want to raise my hand and participate.

An underdeveloped ENFP might feel that all humans should really lighten up on their single-minded, individual pursuits in order to participate in whatever human-focused pursuit they value. "Why are you studying on a Friday night? You should be out socializing.", "Why are you at work late? You should be at your kid's ball game.", or "Why have you never left your hometown? You should see the world and meet new people."

AnalyticalEngine
Posts: 503
Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2018 11:57 am

Re: Stack theory 101

Post by AnalyticalEngine »

WRT the subpersonalities, it might help not to view them as subpersonalities (Fe) but more like state dependent schema. What I mean by this is that everyone acts differently in different situations anyway. "Work-you" might behave differently than "home-you" because "work-you" is responding to different environmental cues and different cultural expectations. "Work-you" has to behave inside a different schema than "home-you," and what this schema is/how it impacts "work-you" might be something "home-you" isn't always thinking about because of state dependent memory. Critically, this isn't just Kegan3 because "work-you" might have to do things like write computer code, which is an activity that "home-you" avoids. The state dependence is both other people (Fe) and the physical environment (Se).

I can either model this as my north subpersonality being too focused on work (Fe) or I could frame it like the work-schema has brought out certain conditioned behaviors that are so entrenched I'm not noticing I'm doing them (Te).

Post Reply