AKHROMANT
INDEX
ABOUT
FAQ
GLOSSARY
MBTI TYPINGS
MBTI RELATIONS
DISCORD
PHOTOGRAPHY
GENERAL
DIFFERENCES
TYPING
FUNCTIONS
TABLES
LISTS
WORKS
VARIOUS
NAMES
MEMES
MORE
ABOUT
➤ About
➤ Anonymity
➤ Psychological Types
➤ Elsewhere
➤ Translations
➤ Fair Use Disclaimer
I don’t consider myself, or “follow”, or “identify as" anything. I don’t like the habit of introducing or defining oneself through labels, whether they refer to conceptual groupings of people (social, cultural, ideological, political, religious, etc), or personal aspects (history, conditions, lifestyle, etc). The problem is not the concepts themselves, but people identifying with them. Identification is one of the main sources of conflict and other bad things in the world: it brings about imaginary divisions because there’s always some sort of competition between identities. In the humanity=body analogy it’s as if the arms were up against the ears, the knees against the elbows, and so on.
There is no hidden motivation, endorsement, attack or agenda behind this blog. I’m not doing this because or for anything else. I’m not a member of any group, movement, organization or company, and I don’t support or “identify” with any concept related to ideologies, systems, practices, or abstractions of any kind. I have read and listened to lots of things about that, but I’m not part of anything at all. I know how and what I am physically because I can see myself in the mirror, for example. I know in which country I am because there are flags and signs and people talk about that, sometimes. But I don’t “identify” with any of those things, either. I don’t need to: they are just there.
I never post in relation to any particular date, holiday, anniversary, etc. There’s no implied meaning to be found between the posts and the calendar. The same applies to the news, of course. If something seems to have been prompted by a current event or circumstance, it hasn’t. And this part shouldn’t even be necessary, but whenever I refer to specific individuals, groups, happenings or things (using their name, image, title, etc), the purpose is simply to provide examples or subjects for neutral analysis and commentary, not to express any kind of approval or disapproval.
There are people out there who pretend to know me, but they don’t. Some of them have ulterior motives and write about me in a personal way trying to spread misinformation. You might have read supposed “reports” about things that I’ve said or done, things that I think (as if I had some kind of “secret”), things that have happened, things that others have said about me, etc, but it’s all false. In fact, many times the accusations are literally the very thoughts or actions of the “reporter”. So be careful, and ignore all that. There’s just a lot of deception, defamation, projection, fabrication and misinterpretation.
The lack of personal information is intentional: I’m not the topic of conversation. The idea is to keep the focus on the content, not on the author. It’s not a tremendously crucial concern, but I prefer remaining the most anonymous possible. One of the reasons is that concrete personal data usually gets in the way of peaceful communication and real understanding. Upon reading or hearing certain specifics, people tend to instantly build false images of others, and then they don’t even try to listen, question or learn, because they think they already know everything. Not even those details are necessary for this to happen. Sometimes it’s just some other “sign” they believe in. People start assuming all kinds of incorrect things about the person, losing focus, and basically being misled by their own ego, their prejudices, etc.
I don’t use “technical” vocabulary. I’m not an academic, but I know what Jung meant with his descriptions of the functions and the types (I can see it in myself and other people), I know how they actually match with the MBTI, and I try to explain it all here. I use a simple diagram that works as a general function map, to understand where things are and how they interact. It’s basically what Jung wrote in “Psychological Types” with a few added bits here and there, but not too much. (Check the Glossary page).
I use these X# combinations when talking about the functions in order: X1-X2-X3-X4, meaning “conscious dominant”, “conscious auxiliary”, “unconscious auxiliary” and “unconscious dominant”. Those are the proper functions of a type. When the X is known it becomes the usual T/F/S/N + i/e acronym, with the number saying where it is located: Ti2, Fe4, etc. The two most important things to remember here are: 1) the arrangement of the functions is i-i-e-e for the introverts and e-e-i-i for the extraverts (the models that assume an alternating order are all incorrect), and 2) Judging types have a judging dominant function (T1/F1), and Perceiving types have a perceiving dominant function (S1/N1).
I also use G# combinations when I refer to the ghost functions: G1-G2-G3-G4, the ones that the person “doesn’t have”. A ghost function (also ghostly/ghosted) is the proper function with the same number but in the opposite attitude: e↔i. So, for example, if someone has X2=Te2, then [s]he also has G2=gTi2 (because Te implies gTi, Ne implies gNi, Fi implies gFe, etc).
When the actual position of a proper function doesn’t matter or is not known I might use a “c” for “conscious” and a “u” for “unconscious”, for example cTi (which could be Ti1 or Ti2) or uTi (= Ti3 or Ti4). I often use the letters for that: cTi is just IT, and uTi is actually the same as EF.
Discord: akhromant | Flickr | 16 Archetypes
Portuguese translation by Mikael Fugger: Google Drive | Tables | Medium | Instagram
This website is strictly non-commercial and educational in nature, and it operates under fair use provisions (Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976) for educational, critical, and research purposes. All rights belong to their rightful owners, and no copyright infringement is intended.
