Does the concept of type 'maturity' relate to cognitive development?
This is just something that randomly just came to me; I haven't really thought it through...
Can the idea of individuals of a certain type, being 'mature' reveal more than just a particular (but unrelated to Jung or any Jungian derivative) characteristic like maturity? or knowledge?
The context in which I refer to maturity;
When people refer to other types and other functional attitudes than the ones most natural to theirselves, alluding to the concept of 'maturity', some people suggest things like, "the mature dominant thinkers, see worth in feeling functions" or something to this effect. Adjacently, the same is often said in regards to what constitutes a "healthy" type (I do not wish to address healthiness here, as it it seems to be colloquially defined and collectively understood on personality forums as distinctive, but still adjacent to 'healthiness', whether that is an inappropriate definition or not. Personally I don't like how healthiness seems to be defined).
The mechanism of maturity relative to functional balance*?
*I use 'development' and 'balance' congruently here.
Perhaps most people in the formative years and early stages of development, have a great tendency to find the oppositional functions of others to their self, or other functions they are not well endowed with (according to functional hierarchy), as being 'strange', 'threatening' and may even be hostile towards other functional attitudes (a question here is, can a dominant function be so wrapped up in the ego, it fundamentally causes imbalance to the psych? I think this is what SimulatedWorld is getting at in the 'types and personality disorders' thread and the other theories concerning tertiary traps, as opposed to the idea of shadow functions. I actually really like this idea).
As I understand it, as one develops, one integrates particular mechanisms of perceiving and judging into their overall mindset in accordance with the theorised pathway. Many have suggested certain types start looking more like each other, the further along development they progress. Specific functions farther down in the individuals hierarchy may appear less 'foreign' and 'threatening'. While that individual may never fully understand the attitudinal mindset characterised by a function that is not their dominant or aux (or which is not integrated into their four defining functions), they may start to value the mindsets of more and more people, and see the relevance of the way they perceive and judge.
So when a person talks about maturity when observing other types/attitudes towards other type functions; is that really less of a comment on the 'other' person, and more of an exercise of addressing and self referencing their own development?
For example, when an infp talks about an estj, can that partially reveal how that infps' development of Si and Te is going? obviously personality traits and personal affinity to their own functions muddle this a little.
I am not necessarily suggesting that maturity in type accords to acceptance of other types, because I think one may be able to do that without necessarily developing. One may be able to see the relevance of a particular functional attitude, without accepting it for instance. I think sometimes type/functional 'hostility' is the result of just a lack of knowledge, and conversely a lot of understanding can come from knowledge of the system. Though clearly, lack of knowledge of a function, also comes from not having it integrated into your particular mindset.
I'm also not suggesting, that "maturity" involves complete balance in all functions- I am not suggesting an intp for instance, is 'mature' when they genuinely see the relevance of (the very last function in their theorised mindset pathway), Fi.
What effect learning about functions has?
However, I don't think this process of learning about functions and other types is passive. One can learn all they like about Jung, but I think only true understanding can come from looking at functions objectively, and seeing their individual relevance to individual types. I wonder; considering all learning relies on mechanisms of perceiving and judging, does it require a certain type of perspective (or judgment?) shift to actually truly see the relevance and value in all functions outside of your defining mindset?
I suggest this, because as a result of learning about functions, I have felt a pull away from my ego. A sudden, 'aha, realisation', that these are all ways of percieving and judging the world that may well be opposed to how I percieve and judge the world, but I'm slowly genuinely understanding them as a result of moving through my dominant and aux functions.
Thoughts? have I typed too much waffle? :S