[themodelplumber]

This is modeled really well by personality type theory. For example, you can model groups with two broad systems of feeling: Interpersonal relating, energy, and signaling vs. Personal values/interests-focus, uniqueness, & authenticity.

You are demonstrating the latter, describing in an authentic way how you are bored/disinterested by the former. People in the same group usually have a "bad boy" side that comes out if it's dragged too much by the interpersonally-smooth camp.

Note that there are attendant blind spots, e.g. diplomatic language & technique, which is sometimes really wise to use, is generally found more in the first group than in the second. Also, one might feel pressure from a third party to act inauthentically, and tow a party line, and then later explode in some inappropriate way because hey--that's BS!

Not everybody likes to hear about it, but a great way to succeed in a world of people on both sides of this divide is to find a way to use the best of both sides when appropriate for the situation. Preferably planning those moves when some patience is available...

[jesuscript]

Is it healthy to pathologies this stuff? Many people already have a tendency to over analyze (the voice in one’s head) their own self, and carry forward that practice in labeling/analyzing others.

Once you also accept a label, you can often close yourself off to possibilities, e.g - I’m just not that type of person.

Maybe this is one area we just leave alone.

[anonymouskimmer]

Can you specify the typology you got this from?

[themodelplumber]

In saying "can model" it's really more of a subjective treatment, not so much referring to any particular object.

There are many typologies, easily hundreds, which go into these topics at different levels and in different ways. JCFs in general are a pretty common element in this kind of modeling within personality type.

You used the "typology" rainbow word, which is more than I'm used to reading here, but I'm not sure what kind of experience you're in it for. A friend made one of those once maybe, or you sense a given system to critique because you recognize the the sound of it being related, or a new type-thing to learn about, hell yeah that's your day job, or just familiar with the word typology, etc.

[anonymouskimmer]

Ten years studying personality theory, with an emphasis on the Enneagram and instinctual variants. I've paid at least cursory attention to a half dozen to a dozen or so other systems. And I made an original synthesis between the the instinctual variants and Guilford's structure of intellect.

I'm just curious exactly where you're getting this from. Family dynamics, instincts? I'm curious to read more detail.

[themodelplumber]

JCFs are a good candidate for sure then. I'd dive into Fe and Fi for starters. Two feeling functions in different, opposite attitudinal roles (in, out; subject, object).

And the Jungian principle of opposites doing war; causing war. Transcending opposites, creating the third point.

That doesn't narrow it down much I know, but this was a long time ago for me and I kind of got sick of everybody's personal One True Model. To me they're all just toys or toy building blocks for telling stories, in a very important way.

(BTW to clarify, a lot of what I write here is also me modeling by internally referencing unlabeled systems or constellations of models for their derived effect, not just me referencing this or that model. So it would send the wrong message to send you some kind of chapter and verse anyway, and if I could do that it might even be ten models per word, depending)

When you related that you made an original synthesis you almost activated my thread-ejection seat; it so happens that I overdosed on this kind of discourse years ago due to my own enthusiasm for progress of such an amazing sort. :-) It's a fun domain. Good luck to you.

[anonymouskimmer]

:D