I think writing concise, easily understood summaries of JCF concepts for people to reference to would be the best thing to do.
I agree. Not too long ago, I was hoping to start up kind of a "Cognitive Function Encyclopedia" here on the forums where people could look up information about the different types. Some of [MENTION=442]arbygil[/MENTION] 's ideas appeal to me. There are a lot of people here who really enjoy the complex analytical conversation that comes with JCF and the Enneagram. Actually, a lot of what I've learned about both has been from PMing members back and forth. If we're willing to teach each other, and allow people to see that we are willing to share what we know, we could have a better level of understanding overall.
When I joined here last year, the forums were indeed very different. Like many of you, this place helped me to get out of depression and meet some really great people. Sometimes, like often happens with me, there are people on the forums that I find intimidating or not really my idea of an ideal friend; but what I respect is that we all come from different places in life- we have different backgrounds, different values, and different patterns of thinking. Like in any group, especially in groups including a lot of very sensitive and idealistic people (regardless of specific types), people are going to hold dear and quite personally to their ideals. I feel like as people in general, we need to treat those ideas with respect. What is hard is that often times when we see things differently, when people disagree, we feel our innermost selves are being attacked. I know I've felt this way. But no matter how we react, there is always a way to react with understanding.
The forums have gone in a direction which has been hard for me because, personally, I'd prefer to talk about JCF, the arts, social sciences... academic things. It's kind of drifted away from that. It's like a conversation in that way. As much as I'd love to talk about my personal interests, if there is no one interested, it wouldn't really be too considerate to force the conversation into my focus.
It can be so frustrating, I know, to do this. When you come across such intriguing topics as JCF and the Enneagram, you can feel an urge to have everyone be as intensely interested as you are; for the sake of learning more, for the sake of having a common interest with someone, for the sake of plain fiery intellectual interest! When people get bored, or don't see the point anymore, it can be disappointing- a feeling of rejection, almost. A feeling that people are missing out...
Which brings me to my next point. When people find out about MBTI, there is rarely any background information telling them about Jung's intentions for the cognitive functions. Often, unfortunately, MBTI is presented as a 'complete' system. It is this fact that later disappoints people (me included), when they realize that this system has strayed from the original intentions of Jung. Now, this doesn't mean those of you who have (sorry for the quotes, they're so obnoxious looking!) 'found your type' through MBTI are wrong, stupid, or "not as good" as those who prefer JCF. It's just that maybe they've been misguided from Jung's original intention.
When [MENTION=3465]Limit[/MENTION] posted about JCF, I felt really defensive and upset, because I had put lots of time into understanding MBTI; care about a lot of users who like the MBTI system, and had even told other people about it. When this "JCF" thing came in, I felt like someone just threw a big part of me out the window. I wanted to give up on any typology, because I was simply afraid it could later be disproven.
But isn't that what happens to many scholars and theorists. They invest so much time, effort, and discussion into their 'babies,' and when another scientist comes along and throws it out the window, it's quite a disappointment. But how will they react? Commonly, people react defensively or offensively, personally attacking the other's intelligence. But what if we didn't hold our theories and ideas so dear? Psychology doesn't unlock any 'truth of our existence,' nor does it do much more than aid us in
attempting to understand ourselves and each other. Jung surely understood this. You see, people were not meant to unlock the mysteries, solve the puzzles of life on our own. No theory is really sound, as we could never predict it being disproved in the future. So I feel like our relationships should not be compromised by the discussion of theory.
I know with recent events people have been put under stress and strain. It's tiring, and a little scary.
As much as many of us don't need to be a part of this forum, there are many who have used it to find hope in an otherwise hope-deprived life, something that is not only OK, but an honor to us as members. We have been given the opportunity to affect peoples' lives for the better- it's already been happening! The words of genuine love and encouragement haven't only uplifted, but they have helped to heal and restore people.
MBTI was what got us to meet here in the first place, and for that reason, regardless of the merit of its accuracy or plausibility, it's why this place exists. It's why so many lives have been changed. It's why we have proven over and over again that human kindness, even over the internet, can do wonders for people in need of love. We can't expect anyone to improve, we can't change anyone's minds, but we can embody the best of humanity by encouraging, teaching, learning from, and loving each other. That's what I hope I've done so far, and what I plan to continue to do. No matter how I got here, there are people on this forum that mean a lot to me for just being themselves. And that's all I ask.