what do you think?

Non-MBTI psychology topics, mental disorders, human nature...
Post Reply
evegenindia
Posts: 3
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 4:46 am
MBTI type: infp
Gender (M or F): m

what do you think?

Post by evegenindia » Wed Jan 09, 2013 4:46 am

Shibus four step hypothesis of the fundamental relation between objects.


I created this elaborate system that I believe stands true not just for the human mind based on Carl Jung, but also for any two objects in the universe. Remember, its just a hypothesis.

1) I do not make a distinction between humans and objects since i consider humans to be simply complex objects.

2) I believe that objects are either drawn towards, or they draw towards themselves.

3) I think objects draw into themselves either control or freedom, or draw towards control or freedom.

4) I think the purpose they do this is so that they may either grow, or they may survive.

In this, i do not assume objects have the ability to think, but rather, that they are either drawn towards, and draw in.

here, these definitions are parallel with Jung
with,

1) introversion being a drawing in.
2) extraversion being a drawing out.
3) controls being judgment.
4) freedom being perception.
5) survival being thinking and sensing.
6) growth being feeling and intuition.

Nihon
Posts: 18
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 5:47 am
MBTI type: Intj
Gender (M or F): F

Re: what do you think?

Post by Nihon » Wed Jan 09, 2013 11:17 pm

I think you're quite right about things being drawn to or away from each other. Though I don't quite understand the growth or survival part and 3 through 6 don't seem to be related to being drawn to or from something. I like the idea that people are drawn to control or freedom though. I do think that the NF temperament may be about growth and improvement and I like that idea. ST isn't a temperament so I haven't looked into it, but you may be quite right that it's about survival. However, I think that growth is also about survival. Growth, improvement, and change are a big part of why humans have come as far as they have, so I think growth is also about survival, just in a different way. The ability to change quickly and easily is basically what adapting is and intelligence evolved with in us partially because it gave us the ability to adapt better. (Greater intelligence means a greater ability to accurately perceive the future, and being aware of what will happen makes us more likely to choose the correct path of adaption on the fly and, thus, more likely to survive unwanted or unexpected situations.)

My text book on Personality Psychology said that the Approach vs Avoidance dichotomy is probably going to become the next "big thing" in psychology. I think this is pretty much what you're talking about. It's thought that when more research is done, we'll find that it's a huge driving force behind personality characteristics. The avoidant style of dealing with the world or with problems is usually a very problematic style because of it's eventual effects on friends/family/partners. Use of the Avoidant style in relationships usually leads to unhappiness. The approach style is generally seen as more healthy. There seems to be connection between the two types and trust. Avoidant types are unlikely to trust other people very much and tend to be suspicious. Approaching types tend to trust other people and believe that people are good at heart. The approach style can go wrong if the person's trust is broken in a horrible way. Then, being extremely disappointed because they believed in the goodness of someone, they may feel used and want to take on more Avoidant characteristics. But a someone who is really a full Approaching type will probably want to come back around to trusting people again, whereas an Avoidant type usually doesn't want to trust people. A lot of this is said to come from the mother-child relationship, which is the first relationship a child ever has. The mother-child relationship is said to set an example for the child of what's to be expected from people throughout their life. If the mother isn't affirming enough or supportive of their child's needs, the child is more likely to grow up to be Avoidant. They will then treat their children similarly, thus passing on the Avoidant style. They may love their children with all their hearts but if the child's needs aren't being met and they can't feel/see/hear the mother's love being given to them, they assume they aren't loved. The feeling of being unwanted and unlovable at deep (usually hidden) unmovable level is usually a problem for Avoidant types. It's likely that no matter how much you tell them you love them, they won't believe you on some deep level. They want to believe you, they just can't and that will bother them as well, because they may see and feel the honesty of your words but not be able to accept them deep in their heart. Mothers who are very affirming and show their child their their love and support all the time usually end up with Approaching children. These children will firmly believe that they're loved, even if evidence to the contrary arises. Some of this is also said to be genetic though, so there is the possibility that even if you try really hard to show your child that they're loved, they may still grow up feeling unloved.

The R-Drive (Reward Drive) personality factors at http://similarminds.com/personality_types.html might be of some interest to you. I hope this will help you to further develop your hypothesis! :)

evegenindia
Posts: 3
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 4:46 am
MBTI type: infp
Gender (M or F): m

Re: what do you think?

Post by evegenindia » Wed Jan 09, 2013 11:39 pm

Thanks so much for the reply.

I just wanted to input that since a healthy human being has all cognitive functions (some more visible than others) it would mean that survival and growth are part of everyone, though there is a leaning to one or another.

Also, I considered the trust factor as well, as I've read that patients with williams syndrome, who are said to be perfect extraverts, tend to also be the most trusting people. I also looked into oxytocin, the so called trust molecule, for an answer.

All I can assume is that trust is incorporated into my model somehow (perhaps trusting in control or freedom as an answer to your life)

but i'm not absolutely sure how trust is incorporated into my model, so i decided against mentioning it.

I would also like to add another thing I thought off. That if this model works on rocks as much as human, there seems to be a negativity and positivity pattern that I see.

Drawing in, would be negative
Drawing towards, would be positive

Control, would be negative (that which cannot be)
Freedom, would be positive (that which can be)

Survival, would be negative
Growth, would be positive

There seems to be a negative-positive pattern.

I don't know how it all makes sense in the end, but definitely, i'm going to keep working on this hypothesis.

evegenindia
Posts: 3
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 4:46 am
MBTI type: infp
Gender (M or F): m

Re: what do you think?

Post by evegenindia » Thu Jan 10, 2013 12:36 am

Also, since this model can't be proven for the natural world,

I'll have to be satisfied to use this simply for the human mind

Though I do suspect it somehow runs parallel to the natural world

kate
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri Aug 30, 2013 10:04 am
MBTI type: MBTI
Gender (M or F): F

Re: what do you think?

Post by kate » Fri Aug 30, 2013 10:27 am

I think you're quite right about things being drawn to or away from each other. Though I don't quite understand the growth or survival part and 3 through 6 don't seem to be related to being drawn to or from something. I like the idea that people are drawn to control or freedom though. I do think that the NF temperament may be about growth and improvement and I like that idea. ST isn't a temperament so I haven't looked into it, but you may be quite right that it's about survival. However, I think that growth is also about survival. Growth, improvement, and change are a big part of why humans have come as far as they have, so I think growth is also about survival, just in a different way. The ability to change quickly and easily is basically what adapting is and intelligence evolved with in us partially because it gave us the ability to adapt better. (Greater intelligence means a greater ability to accurately perceive the future, and being aware of what will happen makes us more likely to choose the correct path of adaption on the fly and, thus, more likely to survive unwanted or unexpected situations.)

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest