# Is there such a thing as not having a type?



## Aer (Apr 12, 2015)

Recede said:


> I think the confusion probably lies in how we are defining "facts". To me, a fact by definition is something that is known to be true, and I don't think it would be the normal, healthy behavior for any type to disregard the truth. Sure, someone can have an impression that feels otherwise. But if it did turn out to be otherwise then it wouldn't be a fact, it would be a misconception.
> 
> 
> 
> If type theory truly just left at that, it would be easy to type. But cognitive function theory goes on to assume a lot more than that, and that's where the system falls short for me.


I think facts can be defined in many ways, I'm personally rather skeptical of anything that claims to be a fact, because like the Buddhist parable says: "Once you find truth, you'll stop looking. So when truth knocks on your door, you'll send it away." 

I fully agree, I think everything works very well until you start assuming traits, and then expecting them to apply universally. 

It's actually interesting to note how psychology works of science in the way of only using objective data, and so the subjective side of the human is totally ignored for the most part. It's still kind of baffling how depression for instance gets treated with drugs or therapy without looking at the core internal issues that caused it. Or how every mental issue becomes a disorder that needs drugs and treatment to suppress the symptoms rather than dealing with what is actually causing the symptoms within the individuals psyche.


----------



## Aer (Apr 12, 2015)

Ksara said:


> I have previously posted a question does inner monologue=thinking. The consensus seemed to be a no.
> Perhaps more the contents or how the the inner monologue conducts itself may be influenced by a function rather than the inner monologue itself being a product of a function. Just as every one can speak. The way something is spoken is more indicative of the process rather than the act of speaking itself.


To add, much is shaped by the culture around you, which can disguise the reality behind a persona mixed with a group mind. 

Here's an interesting mind experiment you might like to try. 
* *




It's well known among many who study esoteric arts or many eastern systems that inner monologue is mostly just worthless chatter that for the most part plays the part of being "you." If you consciously learn to focus your mind and let go of the mental chatter, eventually it will fade completely, and all that is left is a void of peace. That is you will eventually have no mental chatter in daily life as a new norm. This is interesting, because after doing this you have the experience to differentiate "inner monologue" and "me." And even thoughts don't seem to come form "I" as much as from somewhere in my psyche that just comes up when needed. It's quite interesting to think of the possibility that humans are merely observers who play in a first person view of a body on earth, and for the most part go along with their persona, until they die.


----------



## Recede (Nov 23, 2011)

Aer said:


> It's well known among many who study esoteric arts or many eastern systems that inner monologue is mostly just worthless chatter that for the most part plays the part of being "you." If you consciously learn to focus your mind and let go of the mental chatter, eventually it will fade completely, and all that is left is a void of peace. That is you will eventually have no mental chatter in daily life as a new norm. This is interesting, because after doing this you have the experience to differentiate "inner monologue" and "me." And even thoughts don't seem to come form "I" as much as from somewhere in my psyche that just comes up when needed. It's quite interesting to think of the possibility that humans are merely observers who play in a first person view of a body on earth, and for the most part go along with their persona, until they die.


I've actually never had mental chatter, so I can't really do this exercise. The only thoughts I have that I'm aware of are conscious and deliberate, as in I actively choose to make every one of my thoughts, so if I want to stop having thoughts that's fairly easy to do. Mental chatter is something I see as automatic, background noise. Thoughts from the unconscious that just seem to happen on their own. 

Come to think of it, I do wonder if my being undifferentiated may be why I don't have any mental chatter. Maybe others are tuned in to a particular channel of unconscious thought (a function pulled up from the unconscious), and that's why they have this mental chatter.

I know others consider it healthy to be free from mental chatter, but I don't see it as an ideal state for someone like me who's never had it. I think having the ability to turn it both on and off would be ideal.


----------



## Aer (Apr 12, 2015)

Recede said:


> I've actually never had mental chatter, so I can't really do this exercise. The only thoughts I have that I'm aware of are conscious and deliberate, as in I actively choose to make every one of my thoughts, so if I want to stop having thoughts that's fairly easy to do. Mental chatter is something I see as automatic, background noise. Thoughts from the unconscious that just seem to happen on their own.
> 
> Come to think of it, I do wonder if my being undifferentiated may be why I don't have any mental chatter. Maybe others are tuned in to a particular channel of unconscious thought (a function pulled up from the unconscious), and that's why they have this mental chatter.
> 
> I know others consider it healthy to be free from mental chatter, but I don't see it as an ideal state for someone like me who's never had it. I think having the ability to turn it both on and off would be ideal.


I'm referring to all mental noise, be in from the conscious or unconscious. Unconscious thoughts that just pop up on their own are just as unwelcome unless asked for... At least for me  

Undifferentiated in what way? 

And I look at it like this: On my PC, I keep only the applications and processes that I need running, and otherwise keep everything else off til needed. So in my mind, the less that's going on the more that may be used in other processes and hear yourself behind the chatter


----------



## Aulredigon (Jun 19, 2015)

This off topic but if we look at identity and personality as two different things, I can identify as a king and still do a peasant's labor. As per your question, if this typing system is based off of behavioral characteristics exhibited by one's studied nature, and if this study is said to encompass the bigger truth, then it makes sense that this known nature manifest itself in its subjects as supported by evidence and therefore be categorized. In this case, the cognitive functions right?? So you can have a more specific type, you can even have different sets of patterns so long as dwell in the functions that constitute this typing, the nature of this whole thing. There is no such thing as not having a type, unless the subject shows no sign of behavior or unless there happens to be a "bigger" picture that contains more and accurate representation of this behavioral nature, which is likely. Sorry I can't explicate well but hope it helps.


----------



## Recede (Nov 23, 2011)

Aer said:


> I'm referring to all mental noise, be in from the conscious or unconscious. Unconscious thoughts that just pop up on their own are just as unwelcome unless asked for... At least for me


I don't see that type of exercise as working for someone like me who only has conscious, deliberate thoughts, because that's actually the end goal of the exercise. The idea is that most people have mental chatter from the unconscious that they have little control over, and so this exercise is about learning how to turn that off. We already have control over our conscious, deliberate thoughts though, so there's no need to learn control for those thoughts. 



> Undifferentiated in what way?


In the Jungian way. http://personalitycafe.com/cognitiv...gs-differentiation-functions.html#post3585681

Basically it means I don't have type.


----------



## Aer (Apr 12, 2015)

Recede said:


> I don't see that type of exercise as working for someone like me who only has conscious, deliberate thoughts, because that's actually the end goal of the exercise. The idea is that most people have mental chatter from the unconscious that they have little control over, and so this exercise is about learning how to turn that off. We already have control over our conscious, deliberate thoughts though, so there's no need to learn control for those thoughts.
> 
> In the Jungian way. http://personalitycafe.com/cognitiv...gs-differentiation-functions.html#post3585681
> 
> Basically it means I don't have type.


Great!:happy: Although, I was originally pointing that exercise to Kasra :kitteh:

But does differentiated really mean without a type, or would that just mean having control over your type? As in, I know I value Ni over other functions, and if I don't follow my natural way of thinking I tend to become depressed and rather neurotic. But, at the same time I can use any other combination of functions as needed


----------



## Recede (Nov 23, 2011)

Aer said:


> But does differentiated really mean without a type, or would that just mean having control over your type? As in, I know I value Ni over other functions, and if I don't follow my natural way of thinking I tend to become depressed and rather neurotic. But, at the same time I can use any other combination of functions as needed


Differentiated means having a type, undifferentiated means not having a type and functioning at a more unconscious level. Full control would mean having every function differentiated (able to be brought into conscious use), but it's unclear whether such a thing is possible.


----------



## Aer (Apr 12, 2015)

Recede said:


> Differentiated means having a type, undifferentiated means not having a type and functioning at a more unconscious level. Full control would mean having every function differentiated (able to be brought into conscious use), but it's unclear whether such a thing is possible.


Sorry, I meant undifferentiated. But, wouldn't that still mean one function dominates? Or would that mean listening to a deeper part of yourself, rather than just going with your functional impressions?


----------



## Recede (Nov 23, 2011)

Aer said:


> Sorry, I meant undifferentiated. But, wouldn't that still mean one function dominates? Or would that mean listening to a deeper part of yourself, rather than just going with your functional impressions?


Being undifferentiated means being unable to listen to deeper parts of yourself for long periods because no function has been fully pulled up from the unconscious. Naomi Quenk in her book described an example where someone prided herself in being able to use both Sensing and Intuition, feeling strong in both. But in her job she found herself unable stay focused for long on one or the other, which became distracting and problematic.


----------



## Aer (Apr 12, 2015)

Recede said:


> Being undifferentiated means being unable to listen to deeper parts of yourself for long periods because no function has been fully pulled up from the unconscious. Naomi Quenk in her book described an example where someone prided herself in being able to use both Sensing and Intuition, feeling strong in both. But in her job she found herself unable stay focused for long on one or the other, which became distracting and problematic.


Ah, I see... I'd say I'm on the other end of the scale, where I have conscious control over functions, and am learning to balance and use them without being totally fickle. It seems the key is stepping above them, rather than forcing one to do the others bidding. 

Here's a glyph I just filled in with Jungian psychology to make a map of self, at least how I see it. 
View attachment 399346


It's actually interesting to note that Alchemy had a similar path as Jung's. Or in other words, Jung's path to individualization, is alike to the Alchemical path of the great work. Which the great work can be summed up in three parts: Purity, or realizing yourself as naive. Overcoming the dark side of your nature. Becoming pure though transmutation using the light and dark aspects. Whereas Jung's was: Realize the self, Overcome the Shadow, Use the shadow to overcome your Anima/Animus 

Interesting stuff :kitteh:


----------



## counterintuitive (Apr 8, 2011)

The Dude said:


> Everybody has a type. The problem is finding it for some people (mostly NPs). I sometimes think I have Ni, when it is just Ne and Ti working at a hypersonic pace. If you're struggling to find it, Ne and Fi or Ti is a part of your personality and or you're in an unhealthy cognitive state.


Is this really true about NPs? How did you come to this realization?




Recede said:


> I've actually never had mental chatter, so I can't really do this exercise. The only thoughts I have that I'm aware of are conscious and deliberate, as in I actively choose to make every one of my thoughts, so if I want to stop having thoughts that's fairly easy to do. Mental chatter is something I see as automatic, background noise. Thoughts from the unconscious that just seem to happen on their own.
> 
> Come to think of it, I do wonder if my being undifferentiated may be why I don't have any mental chatter. Maybe others are tuned in to a particular channel of unconscious thought (a function pulled up from the unconscious), and that's why they have this mental chatter.
> 
> I know others consider it healthy to be free from mental chatter, but I don't see it as an ideal state for someone like me who's never had it. I think having the ability to turn it both on and off would be ideal.


I didn't realize it was normal/common to have background noise? I don't have that either, I only have conscious thoughts. Even my idle thoughts are either consciously directed, or if I let my mind wander, I'm _letting _it wander - it's not uncommanded.

I don't think I'm undifferentiated, though; I can recognize a clear Ti/Fe pair and the total absence of Te/Fi, so I must be partially differentiated. I wonder though if maybe I'm undifferentiated on perceiving functions, or else have good use of all 4 of them.

I also wouldn't see it as ideal to be thought-free, or to have a silent mind; the entire goal of thinking is to think, at least for me. I want to have thoughts, not turn them off.


----------



## Ixim (Jun 19, 2013)

Recede said:


> If so, any thoughts or examples? How would one tell whether they have a type or not? And if there is no such thing, why is it not possible?


There is. Jung called it "primitive mentality"-a mentality with no visible extrovertion nor introvertion. Primitive mentality being in the middle of the spectrum [40,60]%. We nowadays call it-call it an "ambivert". That thing prevents your functions to form, but equally prevents a function to get super weak and subconscious. In magnitude it could be called "jack of all trades". Specifically being able to do a bit of everything and really be able to do those stuff(a la Da Vinci), but not enjoying either of those.

...pick your poison in other words: a strong and a weak function OR no strong, but no weak function either. I know which one I'd choose :wink: .


----------



## Jippa Jonken (Jul 20, 2015)

Yes. If one doesn't admit at least this possibility, then one is creating false knowledge.


----------

