Development of Personality
The following is a theory that is open for discussion, and I feel this forum has the most potential for understanding it and providing constructive criticism, so if it seems like I'm stating things as absolute fact, I'm only doing so out of theoretical formality and don't necessarily believe it to be completely true or think it's complete. That said:
Stages of Development
Imagine a child that grows into an adult. After that child is born into the world and starts growing with it, there will be aspects to their existence that evolve with how their mind comes to understand their relationship with the world's nature.
1. Childhood Innocence and the Process of its Destruction (Psychological Regression) - As the child begins to experience the world, they will be prone to taking first-hand experiences and instincts as absolute truths, simply because they have no reason to understand otherwise. In this stage if such absolute truths are called into question or challenged and shown to be maladjusted beliefs, a process of defensive neurosis and heavy projection inevitably results before the child is forced to question what they have come to believe. In terms of function dualities, it could probably be said that in this stage there is no desire to separate opposing aspects of cognition (evidenced by neurosis and projection). The inevitable regression that is produced leads to questioning of them-self and a desire for psychological stability that proceeds into the next stage of Ego Differentiation.
2. Ego Differentiation (Psychological Repression) - Here is where the child starts to separate and differentiate them-self from what created Psychological Regression and becomes an adult. In order to do this, parts of the self must be encouraged and utilized more intensively, while other parts then must inevitably be repressed to do so. In this stage we get a formation of ego that provides a mental clarity and stability to an otherwise chaotic, neurotic, and projective existence of conflicting functional aspects. And in this stage, we have a greater awareness for the harmful results of being without an ego by again aiming at repressing parts of ourselves. But as the ego stabilizes and a mastery of the will is obtained from it, this leads into the next stage of development of individuation.
3. Individuation (Ego Release) - In this stage, the repressed parts of the ego can come out in a positive manner, and in a manner that the ego has some stabilizing control over. This is where the adult becomes a mature adult. The ego then comes into a process of dissolution in order that avoided aspects of existence can be appreciated, a greater awareness is achieved, and the full intelligence of the Self that each person has can be realized independent of any concept or expectations of thought and behavior or any external standards endowed.
Application to Model A
In terms of the functions of Model A, I think this can be applied as well.
1. Stage one pinpoints areas of the superid by showing them in a negative light.
2. Stage two highlights properties of the ego, while showing the superid as neutrally aligned, but something that is grown and learned upon. And the superego here is a negative expression of the conflict that goes into superid suppression.
3. Stage three removes the conflict between ego and superid, allowing the superego to become positive and creating a self-actualized or individuated characterization of the person.
Now explain much of this is autobiography.
I concur. But can you explain why they were even estranged to begin with?
I'm a stage of development.
I guess it would have to be in some ways, huh? More honestly, this parallels Jung a lot. But it agrees with my experience, so might as well throw out the idea, since it seems few are aware of such ideas that in a lot of ways I see are a foundation to explaining some socionics concepts.
Originally Posted by Ekpyrosos
I suppose you don't have to, but for some people it's easier to break it down in order to understand more clearly when type theory applies differently; this could be used to improve or correct conflicting socionics ideas and information, as well as help elucidate its potential.
Originally Posted by tcaudilllg
IMO, it's analogous to teaching a complex, but valid, math formula to an audience that doesn't understand the concept that derived it; in the long run, taking the time to explain things clearly, makes it easier for other people to see its validity, whereas without the explanation, the absence of proof leads to an uncertainty of how it's applicable and an automatic dismissal because they don't know what to do with it.
Actually when you go deep enough into the explanation, you end up with a character. After being developed to a certain extent, the character seems to have a realism and authenticity of its own, and serious observers won't question it (a delusional minority will). This is what most of the socionists don't understand, because they only want to create something to sell to organizations. Standard organizational psychology bullshit.
Originally Posted by gambit
The conflict between the super-id and the ego is due to the super-ego's supposed enthrallment to the id block. Determining to forever subjugate the id block to the super-id resolves the conflict, but at the price of creating massive ego inflation with respect to the super-id (e.g. narcissism).
I think Eliot Spitzer (ILE) is probably my fav exemplar of suggestive function overemphasis: he fought tirelessly to make the world a more just place for many years (seriously: this dude took on the recording companies and CD producers all), and in exchange he felt himself worthy of any sensory delight he could get his hands on. Probably still does.
^ I tend to think this is a lot like a shadow personality because then the Superego becomes much more pronounced. If you're interesting in seeing what I'm talking about, there is a movie called Quitting with an ESFp like that. Himself and his parents are real-life actors, so in this movie they all play themselves. I can vouch for the film's accuracy having an ESFp brother who was once a drug-addict as well, and almost exactly like this; it's too bad I had my own shit to deal with at the time because I feel like I understand their conflicts, where other people just seem to freak out, come to hasty generalizations, and point fingers.
I'll look for that movie. I don't know what type the shadow is. Fi matters in politics burn me up, generally, but it seems like a lot of people get burned up by them so it may just be that the shadow is oriented to Fi. The shadow is worth studying but doesn't get enough attention.
The strangest thing about using the superid functions is that my extroverted intuition -- my "idea machine" -- shuts off when I use them. I wonder if this is true for every type or just intuitives?
Also I think there are more levels to individuation past the one we already passed. Jung says the mid-life crisis culminates in a spiritual transformation. Might the individuation levels dovetail with Ericson's later stages of development?
Any suggestions as to what age intervals those stages happen in?
Look up Erickson.
Originally Posted by Gravolez