Is There a Pattern?

[EyeSeeCold]

You have been ignoring me from the start, it would make no difference.

http://intpforum.com/showthread.php?t=9291

 

[Agent Intellect]

Very good question, I actually expected that one to come up much earlier. The Physiological cues that each configuration is based on are not simply cues that have nothing to do with anything, they are actually indications of what is coming most naturally to the person. The cues can tell you how a person is cognitively "wired" so to speak. For example, we can not only see what cognitive functions a person is using, but actually observe what cognitive functions a person is being energized by using, or that they are having more difficulty using. We can even take that further and actually see how developed a person is, how well they are using certain functions, or how confidently they are using them, how much mastery has gone into their own cognitive function configuration.

Not just that, we can actually see stress lock* and also which functions are "locked". When other models type a person with stress lock, or who is very well developed, they almost certainly type them incorrectly, because their understanding of said type was not ready to account for this kind of variation (Also the MBTI tests are not equipped to handle it).

So this theory is taking the assumption that two people of a different type will have the same physiological cues? Does Pod'lair take personality as genetically determined or socially constructed?

One thing I noticed a lot with conversations about MBTI is that the functions were talked about almost as if they were represented by a sort of homunculus inside peoples heads - people talked about their Ne making them do such-and-such and their Ti keeping them from doing this or that.

So, I'm curious about Pod'lair and it's view of how it's models are expressed in everyday activities and decisions. I never agreed with the idea that functions cause someone to do something (like a homunculus pulling all the strings) but that a function was the empirical assessment of how someone responded to situations.

And I don't mean this in a purely behaviorist way. For instance, I read a study about MBTI types being compared by EEG scans which showed that iNtuitive types have greater beta 1 bandwidth during sensory deprivation while Sensors had greater theta bandwidth during sensory deprivation, meaning that sensors were able to "clear their mind" while looking at a blank wall while intuitives had more mental activity. This means that sensors and intuitives respond mentally to sensory deprivation.

I'm inclined to think that personality is highly determined by genetics (but that may just be my own bias since I'm a biologist) and therefore that someones personality has some immutable grounding. I always viewed the type functions as being the expression of this immutable grounding - two people can be Ti-Ne-Si-Fe but simply use these tools in different ways - like two people with the same hammer, one might use it to pound nails while someone else uses it to murder people.

From what I gather, this seems to be the case for Pod'lair. I'm curious what you mean about a function being developed, though. I proposed a theory in a different thread:

Spoiler

I'm not thinking this would work like Freud's psychosexual development (which I don't believe has any basis in reality). I don't think there would be any fixed levels of development. It would be more like personality differentiation, like a cell going from a stem cell to a liver cell, or kidney cell, or bone cell etc. I might call this psychogenesis, similar to morphogenesis. But, instead of hormones and cell signaling driving the differentiation, it would be external stimuli.

The initial setting (the way the world is experienced) would be determined by genetics, and therefore would strongly influence the way the persons personality develops, but ultimately the psychogenesis would be directed by upbringing - genetics determines the shape of the container, but upbringing determines what gets put inside.

Off the top of my head, I might propose this as a model:

Newborns (maybe late term fetus): Core consciousness emerges. The newborn develops a proto-mental model of it's own internal milieu (the state of it's body and homeostasis). The state of it's internal milieu changes due to various external stimuli. Different newborns, depending on genetics, will have different bodily reactions to the same stimuli, which shapes the way the brain develops. The way the body reacts to these stimuli could be called a rudimentary personality, as each newborn reacts in it's own personal way to the same stimuli.

Infants: they begin developing their own personal way of interacting with the world. They no longer simply react in a behavioralist way to stimuli, but have now developed enough of a brain to begin experiencing rudimentary self-object relationship models - they start to become self aware by developing a knowing that there is an external world that is different from their self. Their personality is the way in which they choose to interact with the world in this self-object relationship. The hypothesized way I talked about above was a directive-adaptive dichotomy, where the directive infant would be sort of a proto-extroverted judging function, while adaptive would be a proto-introverted judging function. Essentially a directive personality would be concerned with changing and utilizing it's environment, while an adaptive personality would be concerned with exploring and understanding it's environment.

The first thing to really differentiate, in this case, would be the judging function. A directive infant would differentiate into either Te or Fe, while an adaptive infant would differentiate into either Ti or Fi. Whether they are directive or adaptive would be based on genetics, but whether it became a feeling or thinking function would have more to do with environmental factors.

I would guess that all young children are extroverted sensors (or some early developmental flavor of the function, which I might call Sd for developmental sensing), simply because this is the best way for a child to explore the world. I think there would have to be some genetic factor that determines whether they ultimately turn out to be Se, Si, Ne, or Ni, simply because the way the brain wires itself would have to be quite different for these functions (the papers I've read have always demonstrated that the largest difference in personality type according to fMRI and PET scans is the N-S dichotomy).

So, I might propose that at an early age everyone is Sd dominant (and either directive or adaptive auxiliary), but with something else acting like an inferior perceiving function (sort of "lying dormant" as the instructions for how the brain is wiring itself) that will eventually become the auxiliary function and take the place of this Sd function (Se, Si, Ne, Ni) as they develop. Obviously this happens gradually - nobody just wakes up one day suddenly Ni dominant or something.

Just like with the judging function, different environmental factors will cause the child to become introverted or extroverted in their perceiving function - the genetic factor has more to do with whether they will have a more connective (intuition) perception or concrete (sensing) perception. Environmental factors will determine whether the connective perception will be divergent (Ne) or convergent (Ni); or whether the concrete perception will be external (Se) or internal (Si).

At this point, "normal" function development will proceed (dominant -> auxiliary -> tertiary -> inferior).

But I've always been curious what it means to have a function 'developed' (I think my theory shows my bias towards biology again).

So essentially we can make far more accurate predictions than any other model, because we can customize our read of a person to that specific person. Not just their Type, but how they have developed, how they use their configuration, and how the world has treated them.

So, instead of making predictions based on the abstract, theoretical type, you are attempting to make predictions based on the individual?

In other words, instead of saying "Agent Intellect is an INTP, so Agent Intellect will behave in such-and-such a way" you are trying to say that "Agent Intellect has this-and-that physiological cues, therefore Agent Intellect will act in such-and-such way, which is how INTP's behave?"

When you make a typology system based on tests and descriptions like MBTI and Socionics, then you are really only testing a person on what the believe they are. Humans are really not equipped to know their own cognitive nature in this way for many reasons. When a person begins to develop their lower and less preferred functions, they will begin to become more consciously aware of these functions. Essentially the functions will take up more "space" in the conscious mind than they had before, and they actually become closer to one's identity. This change shifts your perception of who you are, and who you are not.

So for example, an INFJ with a very well developed Ti would take an MBTI test or read a description, and then answer questions or relate to types that have a thinking preference, because this INFJ actually does use their Ti very often and very well. You really can't blame them, they are actually telling the truth. However, Ti is still not coming as naturally to them as Fe is, but when this INFJ uses Ti then he or she is very successful, so to him or her it seems like a preference. Then there is also the case of cultural or genderal Memes getting in the way, and again screwing the results of the test or how a person sees themselves based on these Memes. For instance, "I am a woman, therefor I am a feeler" or something like that.

How is personality defined? If the way someone thinks (their 'less preferred' functions becoming more consciously present) and the way they behave (based on their developing functions) then what is it that makes them a different personality than what they think and do - if what we think and do does not determine what our personality is, then what is it that makes our personality?

From what I gather, I'm assuming that Pod'lair says our personality is determined by where we draw our energy - if someone is an INFJ they draw energy from Ni, which, if I understand correctly, Pod'lair says is their worldview, which they enact via their Fe. But, if someone develops Ti to be more comfortable, wouldn't it be reasonable to think that this could supplant Fe if they become more consciously aware of it and begin expressing Ti tendencies more often than Fe?

This is where Pod'lair's people reading methodology comes in, we can physically see when a cognitive functions are coming more or less naturally to a person, even if they are really good at using it, or even really bad at using it, our methodology is not fooled by any of this.

You may have posted this somewhere else before (and you can link to it if you have), but what methodology is used?

So the predictions we can make with this theory are quite staggering.

I'm still curious as to any behavioral predictions that could be made. For instance, if a laboratory experiment was run with a sampling of each personality type where they had to complete a specific task, could Pod'lair make any statistically significant predictions about how each type would complete the task?

One of the reasons I would guess for MBTI seeming very rigid is because it's attempting to make predictions based on type - if someone is an INTP, the MBTI theory will attempt to say that this person will behave in such-and-such way and be likely to have such-and-such lifestyle (eg type and career choice).

The problem with having too loose of a theory, which could be a criticism of Pod'lair, is that it wouldn't make any predictions, just simply describe what's being observed. I think one of the reasons people are interested in personality type, aside from having a sense that there are others who think like them, is what it means for them - if it's concluded that I'm an INTP, what does that mean about my strengths and weaknesses? What sort of job will I be good at? What sort of people will I get along with? What sort of hobbies will I enjoy?

A personality type theory attempts to predict these sort of things, which allows me to pursue them. I'm an MBTI skeptic, but I can attest somewhat to it's strength in it's ability to make predictions. Before I knew I was an INTP, I didn't pay much attention to science (and in fact I did terrible at it in high school, but that's a different story). When I found out I was INTP, and that INTP's are often good at science, I actually pursued science and found that I was actually very interested in it, and now I'm majoring in biology and minoring in chemistry.

So, I guess I'm wondering what sorts of predictions Pod'lair could make of this sort? If someone is a certain type (I'm not sure what sort of typology Pod'lair uses) would it be able to predict that one type is good at certain things, get's along with certain people, and that they might behave in some statistically significant way in a particular situation?

 

[Saoshyant]

Socionics is not based on anything real, Pod'lair is. You cannot prove a damn thing you say, pod'lair can.

This seems to be the main point of disagreement. What do you mean Socionics is not based on anything "real"? It is based on human observation. Are you implying that Jung/Socionists are just guessing and making stuff up?

And frankly, does it even matter if you can prove it, and does it make the system less accurate if you can't?

 

[Adymus]

So this theory is taking the assumption that two people of a different type will have the same physiological cues? Does Pod'lair take personality as genetically determined or socially constructed?

Yes. Although we don't use the word "Personality." Personality is the end result of many factors, your configuration, your influences, your culture, your life, etc. So we would not say "Personality" is genetic, but we would say Cognitive configuration is.

One thing I noticed a lot with conversations about MBTI is that the functions were talked about almost as if they were represented by a sort of homunculus inside peoples heads - people talked about their Ne making them do such-and-such and their Ti keeping them from doing this or that.

So, I'm curious about Pod'lair and it's view of how it's models are expressed in everyday activities and decisions. I never agreed with the idea that functions cause someone to do something (like a homunculus pulling all the strings) but that a function was the empirical assessment of how someone responded to situations.

It is not the Cognitive functions that are "pulling the strings", it is much more than that. They are also not defined by the end result like they are in MBTI. What I mean by that is MBTI defines cognitive functions based on the results of certain activities, like brainstorming = Ne, or planning/organizing = Te for instance.
Cognitive functions go much deeper than simply activities people do, and humans are designed to do pretty much anything most other humans can do simply with the four conscious cognitive functions alone. Furthermore there is never a time when a cognitive function is working alone, so every activity is actually a combination pretty much all four cognitive functions you have.

Cognitive functions "Lobby" for you to do a certain thing, pay attention to something, or see something in some way. They don't "make" you do anything, but they can lobby for you to do something, and you can dismiss that or listen to it.

Now of course depending on what your type is, you will identify with some of these functions more than others, and you will take the lobby of some of them with more importance than the lobby of others.

I'm inclined to think that personality is highly determined by genetics (but that may just be my own bias since I'm a biologist) and therefore that someones personality has some immutable grounding. I always viewed the type functions as being the expression of this immutable grounding - two people can be Ti-Ne-Si-Fe but simply use these tools in different ways - like two people with the same hammer, one might use it to pound nails while someone else uses it to murder people.

From what I gather, this seems to be the case for Pod'lair. I'm curious what you mean about a function being developed, though. I proposed a theory in a different thread:

Yes, we would agree with your conjecture.

And as for your theory on the genetics of type:
We have observed that the same Physiological Manifestations that indicate a person's type are present from the day they are born till they day a person dies. So from that we have reason to believe that one is born a certain type, and that the Physiological cues are not learned behavior.

But I've always been curious what it means to have a function 'developed' (I think my theory shows my bias towards biology again).

That is actually a very complex question that requires a very complex answer.

Developing a function comes from more than just using it frequently, but from using it frequently and successfully. We are constantly being validated and invalidated by our environment, in how we use our functions. This validation and Invalidation is not necessarily only coming from other people, that is just one source, it is also coming from yourself, we are validated whenever we see ourselves succeed, and we are invalidated when we see ourselves fail. This is both a good thing and a bad thing. It is a good thing because Validation of good use of your functions helps give you confidence in your ability to use them, and encourages you to use them more and increases your mastery over your abilities. Invalidation of how you use your functions can actually be a good thing as well, because it can allow you to recognize what is working and not working in how you use your functions, and thus help you fix these mistakes and therefor improve yourself. An Example of this the relationship between Fi and Fe; Fi Poignancy can show Fe when it has done something wrong, but Fi does it in such a way that Fe recognizes the heroism in wanting to fix this problem. Instead of stopping Fe dead in it's tracks, it gives it another opening to reach out and turn Fi's frown upside down, and the end result is an improvement in the Fe user's "game."
Invalidation is not so good on the other hand when a person is invalided simply for using one of their abilities. Not using them poorly necessarily, but just using them in general. For example, Ne is a super awesome power, but it's super-awesomeness is unfortunately not readily appreciated by everyone else in the world. Ne is often seen as too whimsy, irresponsible, ungrounded, weird, etc, and because of this it can sometimes be invalidated and under-appreciated. This might cause an Ne dominant to lose confidence in the value of their Ne and have to reign it in by Modulating with their Si, because their Si is being validated more than their Ne is. This is not a helpful form of validation/invalidation because it is suppressive of the Ne dom's source and natural abilities (which are awesome), and can lead to over-modulation and stress lock.

Now then, in the latter example, you can see how over-modulation, while not ideal, is still technically developing a person's Tertiary or Inferior functions, because they are using them frequently and successfully, which actually does increase their confidence and mastery of use. You can have a poor work-out routine, but never the less you are still working out. But are the using their powers efficiently? To that I say nay. Efficient use of Tertiary or Inferior functions means beginning with the Dominant, and moving on downward in the peaking process. We should be gaining momentum with our Source, and using that initial push to give us a boost of energy and confidence when reaching out to the far sides of our psyche. The rewards for doing so are actually far greater, because in the end you had to use maneuvers that might have been very draining for you, but the end result will be stimulating, and help improve all of your functions . Your functions will be best mastered and understood when they are utilized in your peak pathway.

This mastery of the far-side of your psyche also unveils it, the more you use your Tertiary or Inferior functions successfully, the more you will become consciously aware of them. Essentially these previously subconscious and unconscious functions start moving closer to your identity, as you begin to recognize them as not just a part of yourself, but very important and necessary parts of yourself. This is also another reason why MBTI sucks, because all of our functions can technically a part of our identity, and identifying with one of your powers to a point where you believe that it's use is highly important does not indicate what priority that function takes in your hierarchy.

So, instead of making predictions based on the abstract, theoretical type, you are attempting to make predictions based on the individual?

In other words, instead of saying "Agent Intellect is an INTP, so Agent Intellect will behave in such-and-such a way" you are trying to say that "Agent Intellect has this-and-that physiological cues, therefore Agent Intellect will act in such-and-such way, which is how INTP's behave?"

Actually both are correct. We are reading your cognitive configuration, so we can zoom out to the Macro of how you will behave based on your type, or we can zoom into the micro of how you in particular developed, and make predictions based on your particular variation. Think of it this way, anything MBTI could predict, we can predict with far more accuracy and precision.

How is personality defined? If the way someone thinks (their 'less preferred' functions becoming more consciously present) and the way they behave (based on their developing functions) then what is it that makes them a different personality than what they think and do - if what we think and do does not determine what our personality is, then what is it that makes our personality?

Your personality is the end result of many different factors, your Cognitive configuration/Personality type/Mojo, what ever you'd like to call it, all of the cultural and genderal memes that have effected you, the way that you have developed, they way that you use your configuration, your current mental state.

When we read you, are are not actually telling you your personality, we are telling you one of the many factors that make up your personality. There are an infinite amount of personalities, but there are only 16 configurations.

From what I gather, I'm assuming that Pod'lair says our personality is determined by where we draw our energy - if someone is an INFJ they draw energy from Ni, which, if I understand correctly, Pod'lair says is their worldview, which they enact via their Fe. But, if someone develops Ti to be more comfortable, wouldn't it be reasonable to think that this could supplant Fe if they become more consciously aware of it and begin expressing Ti tendencies more often than Fe?

No. As I said before, it does not matter how many times you use a function, we are design in such a way that higher functions will be used more readily, and efficiently. Even when a lower function is used a lot, they are still putting more energy into it than someone with that same function who is using it higher in their hierarchy. This is actually one of the cues we can read, we can see how readily a function is being used, or how much energy is going into using it.

You may have posted this somewhere else before (and you can link to it if you have), but what methodology is used?

See for yourself

I'm still curious as to any behavioral predictions that could be made. For instance, if a laboratory experiment was run with a sampling of each personality type where they had to complete a specific task, could Pod'lair make any statistically significant predictions about how each type would complete the task?

We have the ability to inductively observe that, so yes, we could.

The problem with having too loose of a theory, which could be a criticism of Pod'lair, is that it wouldn't make any predictions, just simply describe what's being observed. I think one of the reasons people are interested in personality type, aside from having a sense that there are others who think like them, is what it means for them - if it's concluded that I'm an INTP, what does that mean about my strengths and weaknesses? What sort of job will I be good at? What sort of people will I get along with? What sort of hobbies will I enjoy?

Pod'lair is as loose as it needs to be to truly understand all of the different variations of each configuration, no more and no less.

We can prescribe how a person can develop their abilities, how they can begin using them in ways that are more efficient and effective, how they can structure their social environments to be more conducive and energy generating. You can learn how to build teams that will be perfectly calibrated for accomplishing certain tasks because we have a very strong understanding on how the different configurations amplify, augment, inspire, and even surpress each other.
What careers they will enjoy, what work environments will be conducive to them, what romantic partner will have the best chemistry with them (a critical prediction MBTI has never gotten right), why their current relationship is not working out and what can be done to help it, and much much much much more. Pretty much we can make anything that involves people, your life, and your environment, better.

 

[Dreamweaver]

We can prescribe how a person can develop their abilities, how they can begin using them in ways that are more efficient and effective, how they can structure their social environments to be more conducive and energy generating. You can learn how to build teams that will be perfectly calibrated for accomplishing certain tasks because we have a very strong understanding on how the different configurations amplify, augment, inspire, and even surpress each other.
What careers they will enjoy, what work environments will be conducive to them, what romantic partner will have the best chemistry with them (a critical prediction MBTI has never gotten right), why their current relationship is not working out and what can be done to help it, and much much much much more. Pretty much we can make anything that involves people, your life, and your environment, better.

I would love seeing this.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

We can prescribe how a person can develop their abilities, how they can begin using them in ways that are more efficient and effective, how they can structure their social environments to be more conducive and energy generating. You can learn how to build teams that will be perfectly calibrated for accomplishing certain tasks because we have a very strong understanding on how the different configurations amplify, augment, inspire, and even surpress each other.
What careers they will enjoy, what work environments will be conducive to them, what romantic partner will have the best chemistry with them (a critical prediction MBTI has never gotten right), why their current relationship is not working out and what can be done to help it, and much much much much more. Pretty much we can make anything that involves people, your life, and your environment, better.

Socionics does the same thing. I'm 100% sure Pod'Lair ripped this off from it.

 

[Adymus]

Socionics does the same thing. I'm 100% sure Pod'Lair ripped this off from it.

Why don't you go see for yourself instead of being a lazy prick who just makes assumptions about what other models are doing?

PS: Socionics tries to do it. MBTI also tries to do it.

Where both models fail, we have succeeded.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Fail? All that needs to be stated is how the relationships work. How can it fail?

 

[Dreamweaver]

Why don't you go see for yourself instead of being a lazy prick who just makes assumptions about what other models are doing?

PS: Socionics tries to do it. MBTI also tries to do it.

Where both models fail, we have succeeded.

I was hoping my previous message would open up the possibility of showing an example of some kind... *hint, hint*

Some of us like it quick and to the point.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.php?title=Intertype_relations

 

[Fukyo]

Why don't you go see for yourself instead of being a lazy prick who just makes assumptions about what other models are doing?

PS: Socionics tries to do it. MBTI also tries to do it.

lol, ironically enough...

There are lots of theories regarding romantic partnership within the MBTI. One actually makes the same preposition as Pod'lair.

http://www.personalitypage.com/html/partners.html

 

[Adymus]

Eyeseecold: Cool Story

Fukyo: This is very true. The problem with MBTI though is the amount of Chaos that you have to deal with, there is little agreement in these differing romantic partnership ideals, some say same types work best (INTP+INTP), some say opposite types work best (INTP+ESFJ), some agree with Pod'lair's inspirational (INTP+ENTJ), and then you have socionics' shit (INTP+ESFP).
There is an even bigger problem than the disagreement though, it is the fact that none of those models can type people to save their life. That is exactly why there is no disagreement in fact, there can be no consistency when barely anyone actually is what they think they are.

That is why people end up with opinions like the one Dreamweaver just expressed to me, thinking type is irrelevant to romance when that could not be more wrong. People are naturally drawn to other people that can readily stimulate them, inspire them, and also appreciate what they naturally give. To think that this dynamic has no effect at all in romance is just plain absurd.

 

[Dreamweaver]

Eyeseecold: Cool Story

Fukyo: This is very true. The problem with MBTI though is the amount of Chaos that you have to deal with, there is little agreement in these differing romantic partnership ideals, some say same types work best (INTP+INTP), some say opposite types work best (INTP+ESFJ), some agree with Pod'lair's inspirational (INTP+ENTJ), and then you have socionics' shit (INTP+ESFP).
There is an even bigger problem than the disagreement though, it is the fact that none of those models can type people to save their life. That is exactly why there is no disagreement in fact, there can be no consistency when barely anyone actually is what they think they are.

That is why people end up with opinions like the one Dreamweaver just expressed to me, thinking type is irrelevant to romance when that could not be more wrong. People are naturally drawn to other people that can readily stimulate them, inspire them, and also appreciate what they naturally give. To think that this dynamic has no effect at all in romance is just plain absurd.

Don't get me wrong - I didn't reject the basic idea of a required compatibility based on a range of elements. But to assume that there is "a most ideal" type for you out there (and thus a whole category of people?!!) and so to assume that any romantic relationship based on another formation will be less rewarding is a bit troublesome to me. Are you saying those who speak of "true love" are the ones who found their Inspirational other while the rest is still dabbling around? What is it - luck, insight, chance? Now what about the value we derive from or give to certain friendships or the fact some people nurture their family relationships despite differences? Is "half of it" a lie?

 

[Adymus]

Don't get me wrong - I didn't reject the basic idea of a required compatibility based on a range of elements. But to assume that there is "a most ideal" type for you out there (and thus a whole category of people?!!) and so to assume that any romantic relationship based on another formation will be less rewarding is a bit troublesome to me.

Is it really such a strange idea? if you can accept that there will be some people that are more compatible, and some people that are less compatible, then shouldn't it stand to reason that there is a most and least compatible in there?

Furthermore, we are talking about a whole range of people that are wired the same way to be drawn to and stimulated by the same things, with that taken into consideration the possibility of these people having an optimal relationship pairing seems like it would be obvious to me.

Are you saying those who speak of "true love" are the ones who found their Inspirational other while the rest is still dabbling around? What is it - luck, insight, chance? Now what about the value we derive from or give to certain friendships or the fact some people nurture their family relationships despite differences? Is "half of it" a lie?

Perhaps they did, or perhaps they are just saying they did.

It is by no means "Chance" at all, we are naturally drawn to our inspirationals, when the two meet and find each other appealing it certainly is not just by random chance. You don't even have to know the other is your inspirational, you don't have to understand the theory to be able to see that you find them intriguing, inspiring, stimulating, etc.

As for your last question, what about it? Is it a lie? No, not necessarily, a person does not have to be your inspiration, or even stimulating to you for you to feel that you "love" them, especially if they are your family or long time friends. You seem to be confusing the difference between having a relationship with a person and being stimulated or inspired by the energies that the person is giving off, they are not the same thing, although the latter definitely does intensify the relationship.

I have an ISFJ friend who has known me for a very long time, she thinks I am weird as hell but she would say that she "loves" me, as she still feels very close. But did you notice the part where she thinks I am weird as hell? Her relationship status as my friend does not mean she understands, appreciates, and is stimulated by my nature in the way that a another type would be, it just means she values our relationship for whatever reason she values it.

 

[Dreamweaver]

Is it really such a strange idea? if you can accept that there will be some people that are more compatible, and some people that are less compatible, then shouldn't it stand to reason that there is a most and least compatible in there?

Furthermore, we are talking about a whole range of people that are wired the same way to be drawn to and stimulated by the same things, with that taken into consideration the possibility of these people having an optimal relationship pairing seems like it would be obvious to me.

It's objectively understandable, subjectively hard to define. To me at least. Until enlightened.

An earlier word choice of yours, a.k.a. "muse", helped me to find out how to approach reality with the consideration of where you're coming from, shared through your perspective.

I've taken an interest in the introductions on your website. The INFJ, especially, helped to make a click in my head when talking about the wholesomeness of everything in the universe and all of that jazz.

So I'm totally "Nai-Zyy"... Hmmmm. Or so it seems to me, so far.

Perhaps they did, or perhaps they are just saying they did.

It is by no means "Chance" at all, we are naturally drawn to our inspirationals, when the two meet and find each other appealing it certainly is not just by random chance. You don't even have to know the other is your inspirational, you don't have to understand the theory to be able to see that you find them intriguing, inspiring, stimulating, etc.

I agree, but again, there is the confusion of being able to be "triggered" energetically by more than one person and by more than one type. It just resonates on different wavelengths and it takes time and distance to distinguish these for ourselves within the greater scheme of things. (Oh how I love this mumbo jumbo talk!)

As for your last question, what about it? Is it a lie? No, not necessarily, a person does not have to be your inspiration, or even stimulating to you for you to feel that you "love" them, especially if they are your family or long time friends. You seem to be confusing the difference between having a relationship with a person and being stimulated or inspired by the energies that the person is giving off, they are not the same thing, although the latter definitely does intensify the relationship.

I have an ISFJ friend who has known me for a very long time, she thinks I am weird as hell but she would say that she "loves" me, as she still feels very close. But did you notice the part where she thinks I am weird as hell? Her relationship status as my friend does not mean she understands, appreciates, and is stimulated by my nature in the way that a another type would be, it just means she values our relationship for whatever reason she values it.

Exactly: exchanged energy, which resonates on shared levels, tends to intensify, or at least emphasize, the (potential) connection between people.

Hm - good point you have there: mutual understanding. It's an extremely important factor within interaction and how it influences each other. It is often felt that most people might not "see" us; that instead, most people are like passing shades to one another. But to understand someone as a fellow individual, as somebody outside of ourselves that's still as remarkable, we have to be able to read that person's language and somewhat "identify" with it as someone belonging to the same sphere. In some relationships, this happens on a 'deeper' or 'more consistent' level than in others. Theoretically, inspirational relationships are the most efficient way towards that sort of direction: I understand that. I'd just also like to think we could describe relationship dynamics with even more intrinsic and environmental elements, ha, but that's just me contemplating and using whatever information I possess to weave things together and envision how it goes about.

Anyways, thanks for your time so far. I'm sure you're enjoying yourself, here, too. lol.

Btw, you should totally dedicate a thread to what's previously referred to as "shadow theory".