I have been thinking about cognitive function, stacks and main function. I have a long history of not being able to find my own type and I came up with theory for that.
It's a known thing, that we all have 8 cognitive functions and that they have names like auxiliary, tertiary, inferior, shadow and etc. There are different methods to name them (spine, trickster, hero...), but always the difference between them seems to be their strength, how natural they are and which one you prefer to use. Here was a problem.
People in different situations tend to behave a little bit different, not only that, but some people seem to even change their behavior in same conditions. Many young people don't seem to know themselves well. Some people, when choosing careers, don't really know what they are, what they will like and some people even leave reserve for situation called "what if I don't even know I will like this".
So, in cognitive function theory this behaviour could only be explained as mostly not knowing your main function and being outside of it. It should be draining and sometimes that's true, but not always it is. In fact, big part of it is considered to be delightful, sometimes educating or fun. This is where this theory starts. Basically, I just speculate, that our function strength may alternate and that even a function in shadow can become delightful and not energy sucking, at the same time our main function can become very draining and pain in the ass to use it.
It's no secret, that our brains develop all the time and that we all develop our personality over time, as well as other regions of our brain. This knowledge and the fact, that brains have thing called plasticity may imply, that we can change ourselves and may be doing very often.
In the past, there were many development ideas, schools. Let's take a look at ancient Japan. There were samurais and their masters. A samurai always had to obey rules, which were called bushido. Often, those rules were against human's instincts, against simple survival needs. They were often opposing normal human behaviour, in some ways their primal personality, but samurais over time learned to obey them (not all of them) and change their personality, even if temporarily. In Europe we had knights, they also had some rules, which they had to obey and they learned to do so. In south Asia, there are monks, gurus and all they do all the time, is learning wisdom and how to become wise. They have to overcome many of their initial personality blocks and learn taught truths, therefore become someone with different cognition to some extent or at the very least, have no problems with quickly alternating between their primal selves and learned selves.
Many people would agree, that they shouldn't stay the same all their life and that they should learn how to become better people, therefore to develop themselves and in terms of personality, it means learning how to alternate functions, but in such way, that it doesn't drain too much energy or is too inconvenient to use. So, people shall learn how to use their lower functions effectively, to alternate them.
Yet people, still in some ways remain the same. Certain aspects of cognition don't change much or are generally enjoyable to use, this is what main function is. Our main function is a part of our ID (Freudian term), yet it isn't the only one. It's just fragment and most likely just as meaningful as all others (the rest of our functions).
In the past we had theory of basic human needs. The creator of this theory, A.Maslow, created a pyramid of basic human needs and claimed, that every human being must fulfill the needs of one tier, to start caring about other tier needs, but later J.Fraser suggested, that such views were incorrect and that our needs are often fulfilled not in sequence, but as what person in question thinks is more important (so those needs are basically are equal in their worth). And Fraser was correct. My own theory suggests similar concept, just applied to cognitive functions, but there's a small exception. When person in question is very tired, exhausted, then that person will be more likely to use main function as it is the path of least resistance or during periods of the most frustration in your life. When you just want to get rid of everything and come back to your safer state.
Neurologically this theory could be explained, that regions of main function are the most developed, they may have the most neural connections and that's why they are dominant, just that human often values something else and will work hard to develop another regions as well.
If person always had just one personality type, then shouldn't such person's cognition always be very similar and therefore products of cognition very similar? Imagine doing something very similar for the rest of your life. For example, if you always hated certain concepts in Youtube videos, you wouldn't change over time. Many people "grow out" such behavior and tend to change such views (they alternate their cognitive functions to gain more wisdom).
There's also something called crystallized IQ and fluid intelligence. Very often it changes over time. Most people, when they are kids, they have higher fluid IQ than crystallized IQ and later in life there's a flip, which happens during early adulthood (before early adulthood most people don't know their personality well, perhaps my theory is related to this flip and after the flip, many of us start to already know what we are) , so after that flip, most people have lower fluid IQ than crystallized IQ (crystallized IQ grew) and late in people's life both IQs tend to drop a bit (there was a rapid growth until mid adulthood). Pretty much the whole existence of fluid IQ may suggest, that we need to always learn to change and the existence of crystallized IQ suggests, that we also need to remember how certain stuff was learned. These two IQs in their nature are actually close to brain plasticity concept and if we combine all of them together and my theory, then it kinda makes sense, that our cognitive function can alternate and change in their enjoyableness and in mental energy drainage factors. Therefore, slightly opposing current views, that anything below first two functions will never be very enjoyable or energy generating.
What do you think about this theory?
It's a known thing, that we all have 8 cognitive functions and that they have names like auxiliary, tertiary, inferior, shadow and etc. There are different methods to name them (spine, trickster, hero...), but always the difference between them seems to be their strength, how natural they are and which one you prefer to use. Here was a problem.
People in different situations tend to behave a little bit different, not only that, but some people seem to even change their behavior in same conditions. Many young people don't seem to know themselves well. Some people, when choosing careers, don't really know what they are, what they will like and some people even leave reserve for situation called "what if I don't even know I will like this".
So, in cognitive function theory this behaviour could only be explained as mostly not knowing your main function and being outside of it. It should be draining and sometimes that's true, but not always it is. In fact, big part of it is considered to be delightful, sometimes educating or fun. This is where this theory starts. Basically, I just speculate, that our function strength may alternate and that even a function in shadow can become delightful and not energy sucking, at the same time our main function can become very draining and pain in the ass to use it.
It's no secret, that our brains develop all the time and that we all develop our personality over time, as well as other regions of our brain. This knowledge and the fact, that brains have thing called plasticity may imply, that we can change ourselves and may be doing very often.
In the past, there were many development ideas, schools. Let's take a look at ancient Japan. There were samurais and their masters. A samurai always had to obey rules, which were called bushido. Often, those rules were against human's instincts, against simple survival needs. They were often opposing normal human behaviour, in some ways their primal personality, but samurais over time learned to obey them (not all of them) and change their personality, even if temporarily. In Europe we had knights, they also had some rules, which they had to obey and they learned to do so. In south Asia, there are monks, gurus and all they do all the time, is learning wisdom and how to become wise. They have to overcome many of their initial personality blocks and learn taught truths, therefore become someone with different cognition to some extent or at the very least, have no problems with quickly alternating between their primal selves and learned selves.
Many people would agree, that they shouldn't stay the same all their life and that they should learn how to become better people, therefore to develop themselves and in terms of personality, it means learning how to alternate functions, but in such way, that it doesn't drain too much energy or is too inconvenient to use. So, people shall learn how to use their lower functions effectively, to alternate them.
Yet people, still in some ways remain the same. Certain aspects of cognition don't change much or are generally enjoyable to use, this is what main function is. Our main function is a part of our ID (Freudian term), yet it isn't the only one. It's just fragment and most likely just as meaningful as all others (the rest of our functions).
In the past we had theory of basic human needs. The creator of this theory, A.Maslow, created a pyramid of basic human needs and claimed, that every human being must fulfill the needs of one tier, to start caring about other tier needs, but later J.Fraser suggested, that such views were incorrect and that our needs are often fulfilled not in sequence, but as what person in question thinks is more important (so those needs are basically are equal in their worth). And Fraser was correct. My own theory suggests similar concept, just applied to cognitive functions, but there's a small exception. When person in question is very tired, exhausted, then that person will be more likely to use main function as it is the path of least resistance or during periods of the most frustration in your life. When you just want to get rid of everything and come back to your safer state.
Neurologically this theory could be explained, that regions of main function are the most developed, they may have the most neural connections and that's why they are dominant, just that human often values something else and will work hard to develop another regions as well.
If person always had just one personality type, then shouldn't such person's cognition always be very similar and therefore products of cognition very similar? Imagine doing something very similar for the rest of your life. For example, if you always hated certain concepts in Youtube videos, you wouldn't change over time. Many people "grow out" such behavior and tend to change such views (they alternate their cognitive functions to gain more wisdom).
There's also something called crystallized IQ and fluid intelligence. Very often it changes over time. Most people, when they are kids, they have higher fluid IQ than crystallized IQ and later in life there's a flip, which happens during early adulthood (before early adulthood most people don't know their personality well, perhaps my theory is related to this flip and after the flip, many of us start to already know what we are) , so after that flip, most people have lower fluid IQ than crystallized IQ (crystallized IQ grew) and late in people's life both IQs tend to drop a bit (there was a rapid growth until mid adulthood). Pretty much the whole existence of fluid IQ may suggest, that we need to always learn to change and the existence of crystallized IQ suggests, that we also need to remember how certain stuff was learned. These two IQs in their nature are actually close to brain plasticity concept and if we combine all of them together and my theory, then it kinda makes sense, that our cognitive function can alternate and change in their enjoyableness and in mental energy drainage factors. Therefore, slightly opposing current views, that anything below first two functions will never be very enjoyable or energy generating.
What do you think about this theory?