Investments vs. Essence

Whether they use the terminology of any particular type system or not, people often think that they "are" a certain kind of person and therefore can and cannot do certain things. For example, "I'm a type-A personality, so I can't listen to what anyone else is saying except insofar as it relates to my goals." "I'm an easygoing person, so I'm just going to accept that I don't have any goals and won't accomplish anything." "I just go on gut feelings. I don't reflect or think. That's just the way I am."

Some people call that self-acceptance. Lenore theory suggests that it's self-delusion.

The main purpose of Lenore's vocabulary of attitudes is to enable you to see beyond the limits of your ego. It gives you a conscious perspective on aspects of yourself that are not necessarily part of your self-image.

The alternative self-understanding that it gives you is: "I have made a number of investments, in both mental working and social position, that have put me into the position where I am today. These investments are not me, they're just investments. I could invest in completely different things, and I can see how I'd be starting from scratch. I could continue investing in the same things, and I can see how I'd get very quick results but would miss out on developing other capacities."

Prior to such a self-understanding, people tend to view non-dominant attitudes as a threat to their very selves. For example, from a dom-Ni standpoint, nothing would seem to be more anathema than looking at what someone else is trying to show you. Arguments and objections of all sort immediately arise: "Well, maybe that's true in your reality," "That's your interpretation, but some people might disagree," "That serves the purpose of ______, but what if I don't want to do that?", Marxist deconstructions, analyses of bias, "That's not necessarily true," and "That's not true in all possible contexts." All are covers for the raw emotional argument of "You can't make me look! I refuse to see it! I refuse to look at anything that I haven't foreseen in my mind! If I were to look and just let myself follow whatever's there, without having first conceptualized what to look for, I would lose my detachment! I would lose my very autonomy! I wouldn't be a dignified human being! I would cease to exist! YOU CAN'T MAKE ME LOOK!!"

Ultimately, what you get from Lenore's stuff is that these things are no threat at all. Whatever your four-letter code, you can look at anything in any way at all and survive--even though it might not seem that way. You can only know that when you can see function-attitudes as nothing more than function-attitudes--including the ones that you've been using for ego-orientation. They're ways of looking, and you can look through any of them and still be you.

And you can see that whatever "type" someone appears to be, that's not them, it's only the current state of their investments.