Perfect Symmetry

[Jon C]

Does a perfectly symmetrical person exist? Like an individual who is 50% in all categories. (I, E, N, S, T, F, P, J) How would we categorize this person? Would this be the idealistic type?

 

[Anthile]

Short answer: No.

Long answer: It doesn't make any sense from a typological perspective and is about as promising as trying to turn right and left at the same time; in the end, you're just going nowhere at all.

 

[Fukyo]

Does a perfectly symmetrical person exist? Like an individual who is 50% in all categories. (I, E, N, S, T, F, P, J) How would we categorize this person? Would this be the idealistic type?

You can't quantify these dichotomies in the psyche.

There is no "ideal" type, but different types can achieve an individual "ideal" level of development.

These dichotomies are also extremely simplistic and misleading, I recommend pursuing the study of cognitive functions.

 

[Jon C]

Do you believe that even in the event that it is typologically impossible for an individual's personality to be born into perfect symmetry, there may be a way to improve on the weakened aspects in order to move toward a more aligned, and less lopsided personality? Ultimately having the potential to reach that symmetry?

 

[Jon C]

You can't quantify these dichotomies in the psyche.

There is no "ideal" type, but different types can achieve an individual "ideal" level of development.

These dichotomies are also extremely simplistic and misleading, I recommend pursuing the study of cognitive functions.

How would you characterize that person's ideal level of development?

 

[Fukyo]

How would you characterize that person's ideal level of development?

A constructive use of the tertiary and inferior that facilitates the goals of the dominant and auxiliary function.

 

[Jon C]

A constructive use of the tertiary and inferior that facilitates the goals of the dominant and auxiliary function.

This was my original belief. I was just curious as to whether or not the idea of symmetry had been examined or proposed.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

"Uniform consciousness and unconsciousness of functions is, therefore, a distinguishing mark of a primitive mentality. " (Jung 515)

Long version:

Spoiler

For the sake of clarity let us again recapitulate: The products of all the functions can be conscious, but we speak of the consciousness of a function only when not merely its application is at the disposal of the will, but when at the same time its principle is decisive for the orientation of consciousness. The latter event is true when, for instance, thinking is not a mere esprit de l'escalier, or rumination, but when its decisions possess an absolute validity, so that the logical conclusion in a given case holds good, whether as motive or as guarantee of practical action, without the backing of any further evidence. This absolute sovereignty always belongs, empirically, to one function alone, and can belong only to one function, since the equally independent intervention of another function would necessarily yield a different orientation, which would at least partially contradict the first. But, since it is a vital condition for the conscious adaptation-process that constantly clear and unambiguous aims should be in evidence, the presence of a second function of equivalent power is naturally forbidden' This other function, therefore, can have only a secondary importance, a fact which is also established empirically. Its secondary importance consists in the fact that, in a given case, it is not valid in its own right, as is the primary function, as an absolutely reliable and decisive factor, but comes into play more as an auxiliary or complementary function. Naturally only those functions can appear as auxiliary whose nature is not opposed to the leading function. For instance, feeling can never act as the second function by the side of thinking, because its nature stands in too strong a contrast to thinking. Thinking, if it is to be real thinking and true to its own principle, must scrupulously exclude feeling. This, of course, does not exclude the fact that individuals certainly exist in whom thinking and feeling stand upon the same [p. 515] level, whereby both have equal motive power in con~sdousness. But, in such a case, there is also no question of a differentiated type, but merely of a relatively undeveloped thinking and feeling. Uniform consciousness and unconsciousness of functions is, therefore, a distinguishing mark of a primitive mentality.

Test results displaying percentages have no bearing on the fact that nature is already imperfect(considering absolutes), regardless, equal preference is a violation of consciousness as per Jung.

 

[Jon C]

EyeSeeCold to the rescue!

 

[CoryJames]

Do you believe that even in the event that it is typologically impossible for an individual's personality to be born into perfect symmetry, there may be a way to improve on the weakened aspects in order to move toward a more aligned, and less lopsided personality? Ultimately having the potential to reach that symmetry?

At one end you are completely wrong. People are not born into a personality. A personality, (and consequently a personality type and its cognitive function) is formed through life experience. True, a brain may have certain genetic, biological predispositions that make the development of one trait easier and therefore more likely than another, but each baby born into this world is, on the most simplistic level, a blank slate.

This is where you are completely right. You can spin this truth to your advantage, and say that everyone is born in perfect symmetry, and their experiences take them from being evenly split between all functions, to a certain, slowly settling type. Most of this change would occur early in childhood. Though I am not certain, I believe that there are several branches of child psychology that support my thinking.

 

[Jon C]

At one end you are completely wrong. People are not born into a personality. A personality, (and consequently a personality type and its cognitive function) is formed through life experience. True, a brain may have certain genetic, biological predispositions that make the development of one trait easier and therefore more likely than another, but each baby born into this world is, on the most simplistic level, a blank slate.

This is where you are completely right. You can spin this truth to your advantage, and say that everyone is born in perfect symmetry, and their experiences take them from being evenly split between all functions, to a certain, slowly settling type. Most of this change would occur early in childhood. Though I am not certain, I believe that there are several branches of child psychology that support my thinking.

So ultimately, even in the event that we are all born in perfect symmetry, the lifestyle and environmental factors that would maintain this symmetry is theoretically non-existent.

 

[CoryJames]

Realistically, yes. I have a nature fear of absolutes, so I will not say that it is 100%, no doubt, unequivocally the case. But yea, pretty much. What is more likely than anything else is that one might be able to somehow sway from side to side, if you imagine their cognitive functions as visible, like the graph in your signature, maybe approaching all being 50% again, but it would be very doubtful to ever reach that level.

Every single stimuli has a minute effect on us and how we perceive the world. It is easier to think about if you understand the central theme behind Quantum Mechanics, that nothing is truly definite, but rather everything is in terms of probability, and that each possible outcome from each possible situation actual does happen, but in parallel universes to this one, that are just a shade different from our own.

The amount of control and precision necessary to manipulate a human's cognitive function would need to be specific to a degree that is unimaginable, especially when they human is a very small child and the brain is at its most malleable.

 

[Lostwitheal]

It is easier to think about if you understand the central theme behind Quantum Mechanics, that nothing is truly definite, but rather everything is in terms of probability

I will have an infinite improbability drive someday, damnit!!

 

[walfin]

I think there are some people with rather weak preferences on all scales. Have seen some personality badges with pretty weak preferences before on more than one scale (myself included) though not exactly 50% on all.

Does it make them perfect? I doubt it. The results just mean what they say; these are just people who are betwixt and between, and have both strengths and weaknesses of both extremes of the scale, to a lesser degree.

 

[CoryJames]

It's like asking yourself, would you rather be REALLY good at a few things and really bad at a few others, or would you rather be average at everything. No one option is explicitly better than the other, and in my personal opinion, I'd rather be the best at something and the worst at something else, than be someone mired in mediocracy.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

I think there are some people with rather weak preferences on all scales. Have seen some personality badges with pretty weak preferences before on more than one scale (myself included) though not exactly 50% on all.

Does it make them perfect? I doubt it. The results just mean what they say; these are just people who are betwixt and between, and have both strengths and weaknesses of both extremes of the scale, to a lesser degree.

Your reasoning assumes that test results are 100% accurate, which they are not. This is why I think it is ill-advised to type a person based on the strength of one's cognitive functions. Rather, people should be typed by observing the psychological effects due to function consciousness (or lack thereof).

 

[Jon C]

I think Jung sums it up perfectly in the quote posted above: "Thinking, if it is to be real thinking and true to its own principle, must scrupulously exclude feeling. This, of course, does not exclude the fact that individuals certainly exist in whom thinking and feeling stand upon the same level, whereby both have equal motive power in con~sdousness. But, in such a case, there is also no question of a differentiated type, but merely of a relatively undeveloped thinking and feeling."

 

[CoryJames]

Damn I'm good.

 

[SkyWalker]

Jon C, this is a great subject, I think about this a lot! Let me give you my conclusions

It is impossible to use multiple functions at the same moment in time, but you can alternate through them in time.
- Just like you cannot focus your eyes on whats in front and what is behind you at the same time. But you could look forward, turn your head and then look at that backside.
- Just like a planet cannot be in all positions of its orbit around the sun. But it can be at each position of the orbit in a certain moment of time.
Just so... it is the same with your cognitive functions. If you are alternating between them, you are actually metaphorically orbiting them, many paths/orbits are possible (read kaballah related or other mystical stuff for more on this).

If you alternate through them all the time, you can be any type (thus the ultimate balanced type)
You would be able to develop all functions properly and thus be able to understand and talk the language of all types, making you the most intelligent, since you can see the full spectrum, instead of being partially blind like everybody else. In each situation you can choose which function is best suited and use it accordingly. Each type has a type that can beat him, but it is a circle like rock/scissors/paper, e.g. there is no ultimate winner. But you could be the ultimate winner in all 1-on-1 situations if you can dynamically adapt your type to the one type that can always beat your opponent's type.

Although the ultimate winner in 1-on-1, you would be the ultimate loser when confronted with a (complete) group of all specialists (society)
You are not a specialist in any type, but in society everybody is a specialist. Specialists are experts in a certain function, since they have developed it all their lives and you (the balanced one) have only devoted part of your life to them (since you have devided your full life time over each of them equally) So the specialsts would always be better in that particular function than you and could always beat you if that is the only function that can win. You could actually beat them 1-on-1, since you could switch to the next type that can beat them, but if your are in a society where this next type also exists, they will reap the occasion before you (they are faster and better in it because they more specialized in it) and you will be left behind as the loser.

Thus society forces you to become a type / a specialist / a partially blind fool

It sounds really bad actually, but so it also happens inside your body (= a society of cells), thus it might be the way of nature: stem cells (e.g. the fully balanced ultimate type that can still become anything) become specialist cells. once they start to specialize it is a process that reinforces itself, becoming ever more specialized, and is quite hard to reverse. You could probably be able to reverse it if you know how / e.g. with the right techniques.

Specialization is like an addiction that you could clear if you fast/refrain from it and try other things instead. Most fall back into the addictive trap again though.

Many situations make it hard for you: Its quite hard to fight a dangerous enemy with your weak arm while your strong arm is behind your back. You would probably use your strong arm anyway just to survive, kicking you back into the old addiction

I "BELIEF" it is quite possible to become a balanced type if you truly desire it and go for it and rehabilitate/train your underdeveloped functions SLOWLY and CAREFULLY until that weak arm is ready to go in combat against a dangerous enemy as well. So just dont expect to be balanced in a few seconds, its a slow delicate process requiring huge discipline and years of training

Another benefit of being balanced which i didnt mention yet is that a truly balanced type has no preference, thus is totally unpredictable! This is very beneficial when you operate alone against enemies. Let me explain.
All specialists are predictible, you can build traps for them if you know their type, simply set up some paths of choices/options in their lives, planned by you in advance, in which you know in advance which option they choose (because of their preference), and you just lead them to exactly where you want them to be in the end (in your trap). This only works if you seperate them or when they are in a dysfunctional society, in a healthy society a specialist is always protected by another specialist (just like your body and its immune system).

 

[walfin]

Your reasoning assumes that test results are 100% accurate, which they are not.

No...sigh.

The gist of what I was saying is merely that an XXXX type is not perfect.

Another benefit of being balanced which i didnt mention yet is that a truly balanced type has no preference, thus is totally unpredictable! This is very beneficial when you operate alone against enemies. Let me explain.
All specialists are predictible, you can build traps for them if you know their type, simply set up some paths of choices/options in their lives, planned by you in advance, in which you know in advance which option they choose (because of their preference), and you just lead them to exactly where you want them to be in the end (in your trap). This only works if you seperate them or when they are in a dysfunctional society, in a healthy society a specialist is always protected by another specialist (just like your body and its immune system).

Specialisation has its benefits. An economics analogy - free trade is good because it allows for specialisation.

A "generalist" might not necessarily be totally unpredictable.

 

[Jon C]

No...sigh.

The gist of what I was saying is merely that an XXXX type is not perfect.


Specialisation has its benefits. An economics analogy - free trade is good because it allows for specialisation.

A "generalist" might not necessarily be totally unpredictable.

I like this... both the idea of specialization, and that fact that even if an individual had perfect symmetry, they wouldn't necessarily be perfect. They would just be void of the overwhelming weaknesses... but in the process they become void of overwhelming strengths as well, so it wouldn't actually result in something ideal or preferred... just different. And because you have no strengths, which makes it harder to specialize... Jung considers this a primitive way of thinking.

 

[Jon C]

And SkyWalker I agree with the majority of your conclusions as well.

 

[CoryJames]

Luke? Is that you my son?

 

[flow]

Although the ultimate winner in 1-on-1, you would be the ultimate loser when confronted with a (complete) group of all specialists (society)
You are not a specialist in any type, but in society everybody is a specialist. Specialists are experts in a certain function, since they have developed it all their lives and you (the balanced one) have only devoted part of your life to them (since you have devided your full life time over each of them equally) So the specialsts would always be better in that particular function than you and could always beat you if that is the only function that can win. You could actually beat them 1-on-1, since you could switch to the next type that can beat them, but if your are in a society where this next type also exists, they will reap the occasion before you (they are faster and better in it because they more specialized in it) and you will be left behind as the loser.

Thus society forces you to become a type

This begs the existential quandary: What should I specialize in? Or, should I rebel and choose not to specialize in anything? Thus remaining objective and equally critical of everything.

Hmmm.. I think I need a specialty.

 

[walfin]

Thus remaining objective and equally critical of everything.

Actually, I think this is a specialisation. It's called INTP.

 

[CoryJames]

This begs the existential quandary: What should I specialize in? Or, should I rebel and choose not to specialize in anything? Thus remaining objective and equally critical of everything.

Hmmm.. I think I need a specialty.

You make the mistake of thinking you have a choice. Your specialization will come as a result of experience, opportunity and societal pressures.

 

[SkyWalker]

A "generalist" might not necessarily be totally unpredictable.

No, sorry, a 'generalist' is really TOTALLY unpredictable. Let me explain by metaphore. Compare it to a man with 2 equally strong arms, you never know with which arm he is going to punch you (since he has trained both for punching). Now take a man with one super arm that is a pleasure for him to use and one atrophied weak arm which hurts with every move. Which arm is he going to use to hit you???
It is the deeper intent of a person that you can predict, even if you cant predict if he will punch you on the nose or give you an uppercut under the jaw, but you know its going to be his strong arm, in that sense he is TOTALLY predictable and in that sense you can ALWAYS trap him as long as you seperate him (e.g. if he is not with his one-armed friends.)

 

[SkyWalker]

You make the mistake of thinking you have a choice. Your specialization will come as a result of experience, opportunity and societal pressures.

I like to "BELIEF" in free will, so I "BELIEF" it was a choice somewhere down the line. but after that choice it sets you in the direction of that choice, making chances higher that you choose the same later (thus interferring with your free will somewhat like an addiction does). And the more you choose it again, the more likely that you will choose it again in the future

That doesnt mean that free choice goes away once you are at maximum "addiction" levels: Although very hard, some have actually exerted such strong 'free will' that they have even kicked heroin! Isnt it free choice to kick heroin if you are an addict? (Although only very few have succesfully done it out of all addicts...)

I think it is therefore also possible to kick your personality type/preference/addiction and train your shadow side instead, you just need to get out of your comfort zone

 

[GYX_Kid]

Test results displaying percentages have no bearing on the fact that nature is already imperfect(considering absolutes), regardless, equal preference is a violation of consciousness as per Jung.

i have no input other than this is all incredibly interesting.