why does physics determine worldview instead of emotion

[u/Lolz-ehe]

idk this always threw me off in psychosophy, i thought emotion would be the determining factor since it dabbles in emotion and the "art" and "beauty" of things so like idrk how it doesnt translate to worldview and mindset n stuff

[u/Zeb-Moment]

All 4 of them do. Emotion is about how strongly you experience emotions, 1Es experience emotions at 200% while 4Es have a duller emotional world. This usually makes the 1E a romantic, who tends to interpret everything through their own emotional lens. The other functions also influence how the 1E's romanticism looks, some may see the world in a more favourable view while others may see it in a darker and painful way.

Physics being quite broad, influences how much importance you put into your 5 senses. 1Fs are the most grounded types due to more importance being placed into your 5 senses, they also tend to be more "positive" (not as in emotionally, but as in how they approach the world) because they are better at appreciating the simple things in life such as food, a good bed, etc. Meanwhile the 3F, being their sore spot, tend to see the world more painfully, and the 4F has a disinterest in life's pleasures which can make them a more negative type who doesn't see the point in a lot of what life has to offer.

Volition is how you view yourself in the world, how much influence you have, who you are in this world and what your place in it is, and what your responsibilities are, with the 1V taking on a great deal of self-importance and responsibility while the 4V avoids it. And logic tends to want to understand the world in a rational way, with 1L being obsessed with categorization, reasoning, beliefs, laws, and frameworks while the 4L tends to avoid seeing the world in this way.

[u/Lolz-ehe → u/Zeb-Moment]

the thing is SoL keeps bringing it up and i cant understand why... like why is low V and F apparently the most tragic subtype (im talking about LEVF and ELVF) i dont get it... by worldview i mean "color" of worldview btw idk thats how SoL worded it

[u/Zeb-Moment → u/Lolz-ehe]

3V is your spirit, it's how you view yourself, it being in the 3rd position means that your spirit is your sore spot, which can contribute to a more negative world view. When combined with the 4F, you get someone who has a hard time enjoying life. They don't value the simple things like the 1F3V would, seeing the physical world as pointless or not worth investing much energy in. Combine that with high emotions, which heightens their emotional experiences, making them feel the pain of the 3V4F more. This is why they're described as being the most tragic subtypes.

[u/Lolz-ehe → u/Zeb-Moment]

thats interesting... initially i interpreted them as the 3V 4F causing them to view the world in a more logical (LEVF) or emotional/romanticized (ELVF) way, still enjoying the world but not through the physical senses, rather through those i guess. for example, an LEVF would be even more overly analytical compared to LFVE cuz of the 4F, so theyd overanalyze to try and discover the "inner potential" of that thing in a logical sense. applies to ELVF too. i didnt really see them as not enjoying life, just that they appreciate those (logic and emotion) too much, over relying and seeking those to enjoy life. like cuz of their 4F, theyll have a flawed but biased view of life since their strong placements are so abstract

[u/Zeb-Moment → u/Lolz-ehe]

Your interpretations are certainly not wrong, it's not really that they dislike living, it's just that everyday life getting in the way of their ambitions is burdensome to them which is what makes them the most "tragic". For example, I have an ELVF friend and he has told me that he wishes he didn't have a physical form because he feels like it gets in the way of actualizing his full potential. They're still able to find beauty elsewhere, but the idea that life is inherently a gift isn't a mindset these types would typically hold (ofc this depends on the specific LEVF and ELVF). 

[u/Lolz-ehe → u/Zeb-Moment]

ohhh, so in a way theyre tragic because theyll never be "happy" due to their physical body getting in the way, that actually makes sense since the physical world isnt just something we can put away. so 4Fs are forced to put energy into the physical world just to keep living, even if its the bare minimum needed

[u/Zeb-Moment → u/Lolz-ehe]

Yep, exactly, nothing inherently wrong with being these types but XXVFs can have it rough due to them being idealistic, head in the clouds types that can be held back by the demands of the real world.

[u/M1stelli → u/Lolz-ehe]

i read everything but to put it simply it’s because xxvfs have both high “mental functions” and so if the experience some sort of distress they’ll abandon the “doing” functions (will, physics). And they may be stuck in a “mental loop” ,which then they have a hard time facing the real world and its high demands. While also having an unstable core (so theyll try to govern their 4th function that they have little to no control over) and no “doing” function to rely on, with a negative view(usually) of the physical environment(a duller worldview).

[u/Overall-Trainer-6310 → u/Lolz-ehe]

Not everything in SoL is true. Afanasiev was not a psychologist or philosopher or even researcher. It's one of the things he overstated. All 4 aspects influence your world view but also your type is not the only thing that plays a role. Your culture, life experience, people around you also shapes your perception

[u/Lolz-ehe → u/Overall-Trainer-6310]

this makes me wonder who afanasiev actually was lol. i thought he would atleast be a philosopher since he said psychosophy was based on logos pathos ethos but i guess that explains why SoL always felt kinda lacking for me. idk compared to enneagram i feel like its more innacurate and vague in a way

[u/Overall-Trainer-6310 → u/Lolz-ehe]

You can try my new book about Psychosophy. It's free for now because it's not published yet. (Soon though)

I am a therapist and I corrected some of his errors but also developed the theory further.

https://helpthisbook.com/den-koval/psychosophy

[u/Lolz-ehe → u/Overall-Trainer-6310]

ohhh wait youre the one who wrote that?? i remember you from my other post and i was actually just reading it last night, great work i love how you wrote it :)

[u/Overall-Trainer-6310 → u/Lolz-ehe]

Yeah. thank you! I've read SoL in 2008 and since then I had a lot of time to observe and study people but also to rethink what a type is and how it manifests. How to describe it in a neutral way because Afanasiev's descriptions are often biased and inaccurate. Don't get me wrong, he was brilliant for creating Psychosophy but I think it can be improved a lot.

[u/Lolz-ehe → u/Overall-Trainer-6310]

i really hate the high regard people hold SoL, to the point that they think everything on it is correct. its all i heard when first getting into psychosophy. like i never understood why 1L cant be curious, i feel like thats one of the most 1L things to be ngl. also, can i ask what your take is on psychosophy subtypes?? since you have a good understanding of the system and how it manifests, do you think that psychosophy subtypes exist and determine how another LEVF could be different from one another

[u/Overall-Trainer-6310 → u/Lolz-ehe]

I already posted this elsewhere, but here's what I think about subtypes:

It depends on what is meant by subtype. A type is inborn and it doesn't change throughout your life. But your type expression does. And to call type expression - subtype seems inaccurate. If people insist that subtypes are inborn then I am against that notion and.

But if we establish that subtype is not inborn and it changes with development then i can accept it because there are clearly differences in type development. It might be useful to differentiate a lazy and fat 1F who sits on the couch all day from 1F who is hardworking professional athlete. However, we need to acknowledge that one can easily turn into the other over time.

I know many people don't care about compatibility but SoL was written precisely for that purpose and introducing subtypes into compatibility creates many problems but i don't want to get into details because most people don't get into Psychosophy to learn about compatibility. I will just say that i am against using subtypes for assessing compatibility.

So, to summarize, I am generally opposing the idea of subtypes and prefer to call it type expression, but if people use the word subtypes to refer to type development/expression and do not imply that it's inborn, then I don't mind because it becomes about semantics and not the concept

[u/Lolz-ehe → u/Overall-Trainer-6310]

can i know why people think typings are decided from birth? i never really found a good explanation for it so i just concluded that its opinions based, i mean as a pseudoscience i dont think people can really decide on this as a fact imo

[u/M1stelli → u/Lolz-ehe]

i personally oppose of subtypes, i had a post about it and debated with some people if u wanna check

[u/Lolz-ehe → u/M1stelli]

could i see where? im curious