Temperament Part 2: The MBTI's 16 types and Cognitive Functions

Part 2:

MBTI and the 16 Types and Cognitive Functions

The processes: Input and Output and other two dichotomy letters
Building the Code
•first two letters to develop ("sociability temperament")
•dominant function (next letter to develop); other functions (and orientation) suppressed
•auxiliary function (type code complete)
•alternation of functions
Definitions of the Function Attitudes
•Functions as "perspectives"
•Another perspective on the functions: Matrix of objects, motion, holistic and linear
The primary archetypal roles and attitude order; arms/spines
The Four Functions and their “shadows”
•Original four-process model
•Beebe's eight-process model; descriptions of shadows
•A Word on Socionics (j/p switch)
•Generic terms for archetypes
List of Beebe resources, Intertype dynamics
Another interpretation of the processes (Lenore Thomson)
•"Not Cognitive Processes" premise
•Brain lateralization
Understanding Archetypes and Complexes
Recap of the entire process
Temperament and Interaction Style
Correlation with APS?

The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI)'s 16 types (based on the theory of cognitive processes by Carl Jung) is the most popular form of personality theory today, surpassing both FIRO-B and the old Galen temperaments used by APS, LaHaye and others.

The best way to begin to understand the type code and the functions is to think of our processes as like a computer, in terms of INPUT and OUTPUT. We take IN information, and then PROCESS it. The information gathering processes are either Sensing or iNtuition, and what we do with the information are Thinking or Feeling.

SENSING has been considered as dealing with more "concrete" input and language, (such as the basic physical senses) while INTUITING is considered "abstract" (Dealing with patterns, implications, theories, etc).
THINKING is basically a decision-making (even if just mental) process based on on principles in which evaluations are generally expressed in terms of "true" or "false" or what's VALID. It tends to be more "detached" from emotions, as it deals in logic.
FEELING is basically a decision-making based on values where evaluations are generally expressed in terms of "good" or "bad" or what's DESIRED. This process will tend to have more emotion involved, and include personal ethics.
These two processes are also described as "arranging" or ordering one of two realms (below).

Jung has been quoted in saying "that we need a function to tell us what is, and that is sensation. We need a function to give it a name [i.e logically categorize it], and that’s thinking. We need a function to tell us what it is worth, and that’s feeling, and we need a function to tell us what its possibilities are, where it is headed, and that’s intuition". ("A Jungian Analyst Talks About Psychological Types" at Inner Explorations).

Then, there's the matter of WHERE they engage (the OUTput), or the where the standard the evaluations are drawn from is located. Either the external world of people and action, or the internal world of thoughts and emotions. Jung called this "extraverting" or "introverting" the functions (notice the verb form of the words. Also, he insisted on spelling "extraversion" with the "a", where others have used "o" as we did on the first page). Extraversion and Introversion are also called "attitude" or "orientation". Extraverted functions deal in breadth, and have a here-and-now quality, while introverted functions go more in depth; often including "universals".

Everyone uses all four functions (S, N, T, F), both internally (i) and externally (e), but each person has a preference in an order of which of them he tends to be stimulated by.

Myers and Briggs came along, and grouped this into the four letter codes. They designated the second letter as the information gathering or "perception" code, for S or N, and the third letter as the decision making or "judging" code, for T and F.

The fourth letter was then given to new "J" or "P" codes indicating which of the two functions (denoted in the "perception" or "judgment" slots) were "extraverted" or used externally. This orientation was deemed important in personality type, and it makes sense, as this process will likely be the one that is more readily visible to the outer world, even if it is not the dominant. The other function of the two most preferred would then be presumed to be introverted.

The first slot was given to E or I codes identifying which one was dominant, by it being the one already identified —by J/P, as extraverted or introverted. (This is one point where it is easy to get thrown off, as you would expect I/E to be what directly tells you which is extraverted or introverted). The function in the other slot would then be secondary or "auxiliary".

Thus, the function order is alternated, starting with the dominant, which consists of a function and it's attitude.
The second or "auxiliary" function will be the other kind of process; if the dominant is perception; the aux. will be judging, and if the dominant is judging the aux will be perception. It will also be in the opposite attitude of the dominant. These two determine the type, and the rest of the functions follow in an alternating order. (For more detailed information on letters and functions, see Part 2a Appendix)

Two tesseract projections of four dimensional MBTI system, with individual "letter" cubes and squares, etc., and the four-letter code system, and how the different letters apply to the others.

Building the Code

It's best to start from the two letters said to develop first in infancy. According to Brenda Muller of Personality Page; I/E and J/P are the first traits noticed in younger children. This makes up a type grouping that has been called the "sociability temperaments". It is rather similar to the area of "Inclusion" discussed on the first page. If we take I/E to be "expressiveness", while J/P tends to fit "responsiveness" —(with a couple of important twists discussed later); we can call these "proto-temperaments".

So the four groups we have so far:

IP: proto-Phlegmatic

IJ: proto-Melancholy

EP: proto-Sanguine

EJ: proto-Choleric

Most of these will grow into these temperaments, but some won't, depending on the other letters that develop.

What these two letters tell us cognitively is:

EJ: dominant function will be extraverted, and it will be a judging function (T/F). Auxiliary function will be introverted and a perception function (S/N).

EP: dominant function will be extraverted, and it will be a perception function (S/N). Auxiliary function will be introverted and a judging function (T/F).

With introverts, it's a bit different, because J/P tells you which function is extraverted, yet for an introvert, the extraverted function will be auxiliary rather than dominant:

IP: dominant function will be introverted, and it will be a judging function (T/F). Auxiliary function will be extraverted and a perception function (S/N).

IJ: dominant function will be introverted, and it will be a perception function (S/N). Auxiliary function will be extraverted and a judging function (T/F).

Soon, the dominant function will develop. This will add a third letter, and also yield Jung's original eight "personality types" (Classics in the History of Psychology -- Jung (1921/1923) Chapter 10):

ESP extraverted Sensing type (E-S)

ISJ introverted Sensing type (I-S)

ENP extraverted iNtuitive type (E-N)

INJ introverted iNtuitive type (I-N)

ETJ extraverted Thinking type (E-T)

ITP introverted Thinking type (I-T)

EFJ extraverted Feeling type (E-F)

IFP introverted Feeling type (I-F)

So we have one ego, with a dominant orientation, and four functions.

The whole concept of function preference is based on acceptance vs. rejection. What the ego accepts as a source of stimulation becomes apart of the consciousness, and what it rejects or suppresses remains unconscious. The entire key to this whole thing is that when you choose one function, the other is rejected (or suppressed), and when you choose one orientation to receive use a function in, the other orientation is rejected or suppressed for its use as well.
This would also explain why I/E and J/P would be the first letters to develop. All that is known at first is that you are internally or externally focused, and either rational or a-rational (or "irrational"). These are Jung's terms for judgment and perception. Since judgment functions, both Thinking and Feeling deal with conscious cognition, they are considered rational, while perception is more involuntary, and thus not rational. So the types are deemed "rational" or "a-rational" based on this dominant or first function that develops.
EJ=extraverted Rational, EP=extraverted a-rational, IP=introverted rational and IJ=introverted a-rational.
Notice that for the introverts, the J and P seem reversed. Even though the terms are basically synonymous wth judgment and perception, we cannot readily translate the terms and call them "J and P types", because the J and P, as was mentioned, refer to the preferred extraverted function, not the dominant one! So again, for extraverts, it will line up properly, yet introverts will be dominant "j" (rational) with an extraverted "P" in the code, or dominant "p" (a-rational) with extraverted an "J" in the code.
(Socionics, the Russian version of type theory, aimed to correct that by making [a lowercase] "j/p" refer to the dominant function, as will be addressed later).

Thus, T and F are just two sides of the "rational" coin, and S and N are two sides of the a-rational coin. And then if these function coins are split along the edge into separate coins in themselves, the different orientations of them are just different sides of those coins. While Jung did later make introversion and extraversion essentially properties of the functions (such that I/E became little more than "the dominant function attitude"), initially, they were properties of the ego, as they were in our old temperament matrix. It's the ego that chooses an internal or external preference. And this I have found is the best way to build and understand the model.

So the ego chooses its dominant orientation; the inner world of thoughts and emotions, or the outer world of people and action, to receive its main stimulation from. It also chooses its dominant function (S, N, T or F), as the content of the stimulation it responds to in that chosen orientation. The other orientation and the other functions are initially rejected. The person is capable of engaging in behavior associated with the other functions, but as distinct forms of consciousness by which we prefer to receive stimulation, the functions remain in a state called "undifferentiated". Type theorist Lenore Thomson has compared this state to embryonic cells, which have not yet taken on their specific functions in the developing body (they start out all the same, yet some will become brain cells, others, skin cells, etc.). She has also pointed out that the ego will have an emotional investment in whichever its dominant function is. Many people will mistake any "emotion" for a Feeling preference, when it is not necessarily. That is one instance, in which there may be a display of an undifferentiated "Feeling".
The way this worked for me, is that I actually had an emotional "attachment" for detached analysis! Seems kind of contradictory, and it was hard to determine when reading so many descriptions that associated Thinking strictly with "detachment" and Feeling with [emotional] "attachment", without allowing for undifferentiated functions that determine the ego's dispositions in the first place.

When the auxiliary function develops, then the type code is complete.

From here, we usually get into the alternating "attitudes" (the i/e orientations) of the functions.

For now, the best way to look at it is to keep thinking of the dominant orientation (I/E) along with the dominant function and its auxiliary.

This yields:

ISTJ: I-ST

ISFJ: I-SF

ISTP: I-TS

ISFP: I-FS

ESTP: E-ST

ESFP: E-SF

ESTJ: E-TS

ESFJ: E-FS

INTJ: I-NT

INFJ: I-NF

INTP: I-TN

INFP: I-FN

ENTP: E-NT

ENFP: E-NF

ENTJ: E-TN

ENFJ: E-FN

For each type, the other two functions will follow the ones denoted, in an inverse order. If the dominant and auxiliary are TS, then the next two, the tertiary and inferior will be N and F, in that order. For ST, it will be FN; for NF, it will be TS, and for FN, it will be ST.

What we see here is an alternation between rational and a-rational functions. To use the j/p notation, it is either jppj, or pjjp. (Recall, j = T/F = rational, and p = S/N = a-rational). This forms what are known as tandems, where the dominant and inferior are the same sort of function (judgment or perception), as are the auxiliary and tertiary.

There also are simply the consecutive pairs, which in Socionics, are called "blocks".

So to list out the different combinations of four:
STFN (I=ISTJ; E=ESTP)
SFTN (I=ISFJ; E=ESFP)
NTFS (I=INTJ; E=ENTP)
NFTS (I=INFJ; E=ENFP)
TNSF (I=INTP; E=ENTJ)
TSNF (I=ISTP, E=ESTJ)
FNST (I=INFP; E=ENFJ)
FSNT (I=ISFP; E=ESFJ)

(Note that changing I/E for types with the same function order also changes J/P. This is because that last dichotomy changes the orientations of all the functions, including the dominant).

The dominant and auxiliary, will be more developed and mature, and the tertiary and inferior (when they develop, in coming years) will be less developed and immature, from being initially rejected and thus lower on the acceptance order from the first two. This will set the stage for the archetypal roles or complexes mapped to the functions.

Since it is the first two that define the type, we can now add the orientations as attitudes of the functions, and what we end up with is this:

ISTJ: S_(i)T_(e)

ISFJ: S_(i)F_(e)

ISTP: T_(i)S_(e)

ISFP: F_(i)S_(e)

ESTP: S_(e)T_(i)

ESFP: S_(e)F_(i)

ESTJ: T_(e)S_(i)

ESFJ: F_(e)S_(i)

INTJ: N_(i)T_(e)

INFJ: N_(i)F_(e)

INTP: T_(i)N_(e)

INFP: F_(i)N_(e)

ENTP: N_(e)T_(i)

ENFP: N_(e)F_(i)

ENTJ: T_(e)N_(i)

ENFJ: F_(e)N_(i)

Definitions of the Function Attitudes

So now that we have identified these eight processes, we can look into what they actually are. There are many different descriptions of them, but I find it is better to start with elemental definitions.

Se: concrete perception in an outer orientation
Si: concrete perception in an inner orientation
Ne: abstract perception in an outer orientation
Ni: abstract perception in an inner orientation
Te: logical judgment in an outer orientation
Ti: logical judgment in an inner orientation
Fe: value judgment in an outer orientation
Fi: value judgment in an inner orientation

Typical descriptions these will translate into:

Perception functions, which is basically, taking in information:

Se: Concrete perception in the outer world of people and action. This comes out as paying most attention to the current experience.

Si: Concrete perception in the inner world of thoughts and emotions. How does one do this? By relying on "memory". You've already taken the information in through the senses, now, it's inside. When you bring it up again from inside, you are engaging "introverted Sensing". (Attention to internal body sensations is also considered Si).

Ne: abstract perception in dealing with the outer world of people and actions. This involves looking at an object, and conceptualizing from it. You then imagine multiple possibilities for it.

Ni: abstract perception in the inner world of thoughts and emotions. The way this is described often sounds mystical, like ESP or something, as it supposedly does not rely on any outside "concrete" perception. But the basic description is realizing that a particular event is inevitable (perhaps by conceptualizing patterns seen around you, and projecting what it will lead to). So like Si; you have taken in the information; but this time, it's abstract, and now it's inside. When you perceive the implications from it, you are engaging Ni.
While Ne started from an external focal point, and then branched out multiple possibilities from it, Ni has been described as the opposite; starting out with multiple objects, and then converging the possibilities to one [internal, known only to you] focal point, which would be a likely [future] outcome.

Hence, the orientation of iNtuition can be determined by where this focal point lies. Likewise, both functions are associated with "connections", and it often becomes hard to tell which is which from the definitions. But Ne's connections between different things would be like my attempts to connect together different personality typing systems according to corresponding elements. These elements (such as factors and temperaments) would be the external objects being focused on. Ni's connections are deeper and harder to pin down, but would involve elements such as "meanings" that underlie the surface parts.
Like I look at one instrument that I think is very good, but also hear about the general reputation of the organization behind it in people's perception, and then fear that the instrument will fizzle out in the future. Other instruments are more popular, and will likely continue to succeed. So this ties into a sense of an "underdog" struggling to survive, but the popular and powerful prevail.
I'm looking at that instrument, its organization, its competitors (which are more popular), and then people's perceptions, plus symbolizing a principle in life; and all of these factors seem to be pointing to a particular outcome. (Ni is usually negative for me like this, while Ne is more positive. The reason why will be explained below).

Judgment functions, which are basically arranging an environment.

Te: Arranging the outer world of people and actions according to logic. So effecting any change to things, such as objects, structures, organizations, etc. There will usually be an external standard of efficiency.

Ti: Arranging the inner world of thoughts and emotions according to logic. This is associated with actions such as naming and categorizing, because these take place internally. There will also be frameworks one adheres to. My attraction to temperament and type theory in the first place is because of its symmetries, such as originally, the expressive/responsive matrix, and now, the type dichotomies. It just so happens to explain my experience with people, and my own thought processes (which will be a Feeling type's initial focus). So I like to find symmetries in things. You can see this in some of my other essays. It's a logical arrangement of the inner world. Symmetry is an example of a universal principle. Introverted judgment deals with both the personal and the universal. So there are universal principles, which we can select as personal priciples or frameworks.

Fe: Arranging the outer world of people and actions according to values. This will manifest as connecting with people and creating or maintaining harmony in the group. It will also be connected with responding to expressed needs.

Fi: Arranging the inner world of thoughts and emotions according to values. This is described in terms of maintaining "congruence" between one's own actions and values. This will support an internal "harmony". They will use something like the type theories more for self-understanding and improvement. (Hence, a lot of NFP's involved in type discussions). There are also universal values which will be referenced, and the person can respond to what others need even when they don't express it.

(Notice, the extraverted descriptions are more brief. They are easier to understand and explain, while introverted functions, especially the judgments and iNtuition, can be more "fuzzy", because of the fact that they are internal processes and thus a bit harder to really pinpoint or differentiate from each other or their extraverted counterparts at times).

Linda Berens came up with some nice short phrases and analogies for the perceiving functions:

Se="what is"
Si="what was"
Ne="what could be"
Ni="what will be"
Te="how to do it"
Ti="why it is"
Fe="what we need"
Fi="what is important"

There are also the descriptions:

Se: EXPERIENCE The experience
Si: RELIVE The experience
Ne: CONCEIVE FROM The experience
Ni: ANTICIPATE The experience
Te: ORGANIZE The experience
Ti: ANALYZE The experience
Fe: RELATE TO The experience
Fi: EVALUATE The experience

In addition, there is a "How to tell the forest from the trees" analogy done for the perception functions ("How to tell iNtuiting from extraverted Sensing" by Linda V. Berens and Judy Robb):

•Extraverted Sensing - Notices the rich detail in the whole forest - the trees, their color and texture, their sounds, their smells, the pattern of light and dark...

•Introverted Sensing - Notes that this forest has always been here and recalls being in a forest from childhood, smelling that smell and the fun of playing hide and seek behind the trees...

•Extraverted iNtuiting - Thinks of the fractal patterns, the wide range of possibilities in the forest, how this forest is part of the ecosystem and is affected by polllution from the city...

•Introverted iNtuiting - Recognizes that the forest is deeply symbolic of all of life in its interconnectedness and constant recycling and growth and foresees that this forest will soon be torn down for a housing development...

This would extend to the judgment functions as thus:

•Extraverted Thinking - Directs the clearing of the forest for the development on the basis of efficiency

•Introverted Thinking - References the principles of ecology to do an Environmental Impact study of the development

•Extraverted Feeling - Considers the benefit of new housing on people

•Introverted Feeling - Considers the importance of the forest and how much value it has in nature

The most concise root definitions:

Se: Referencing of external experience (present reality)
Si: Referencing of internal experience (past reality and internal sensations)
Ne: Referencing of external patterns (alternate reality of possibilities and inferences)
Ni: Referencing of internal patterns (future reality foreseen by implications)
Te: What's valid based on external standards
Ti: what's valid based on internal standards
Fe: What's desired based on external standards
Fi: What's desired based on internal standards

Functions as "perspectives"

The best way to understand the functions is to think of them as "perspectives", rather than as things that we "use". An example I have seen is that one does not "use Te" to organize one's desk, as it is often phrased. A better way to describe it is that he sees a disorganized desk through the lens of Te, and then makes a decision to organize it. This would be a logical order. Fe, on the other hand, would more likely only arrange it in consideration for another person, like if the desk is in their house, and they like to have their house look nice for others, or if someone asks them to organize the desk for them. A Ti perspective might organize it according to some internal model such as symmetry, rather than just for it to be neat (and the result may even even still seem messy to extraverted judgers, as I have experienced). In both of these last examples, the line between the functions or the attitudes becomes blurred, (is either the Fe or Ti type really "using Te" at the moment?) This is why it's better to look at it in terms of the perspective rather than by the behavior. (Perhaps the notion of "using" a function took hold because it is easier to say).

Another perspective on the functions: Matrix of objects, motion, holistic and linear:

Fundamental Nature of the MBTI (Mark Bruzon)

While this idea might not clarify the processes for the un-advanced; it does give another perspective to look at them through.

Reality is portrayed as a grid-like matrix.
Perception deals in the components of the matrix

Sensing is portrayed as dealing with objects ("physical"; including people, events, etc), or what things ARE. They are portrayed as dots at the intersections of the grids

iNtuition is basically what things DO, or how they work, move ("motion"), etc. Hence, the grid becomes abstract (dotted lines) with no objects shown

Extraversion covers the entire matrix, or "wide area" Introversion covers a "local area"; perhaps a single object, or its immediate area.

So Introverted Sensing will focus on a particular object and the sensory information incorporated into a localized matrix area. This will end up most dependent on a familiar and stable environment.

Extraverted Sensing deals with objects in a wide matrix area, and hence, awareness of the immediate physical environment, and the enjoyment of sensory stimuli and living in the present.

Introverted Intuition: how things work/move in a localized matrix area. So it's more into the abstract principles that underlie a given event, not in the event itself. Each object in the analogy above (being drawn to a conclusion) can be understood individually in its role in the conclusion.

Extraverted Intuition how things work/move in a wide matrix area. Conceptualizes within the overall picture, and thus immediately aware of all the possibilities suggested by a particular situation.

Judging deals in the connections within the matrix

Feeling is holistic, establishing between multiple objects throughout the matrix. It maintains the integrity of these wide connections and not just the immediate structure. This will lead the feeler to be concerned more with people than things, and a broader perspective. So in the diagrams, you see a section of the matrix enclosed in a circle.

Thinking is linear, based on specific properties. So actions will only have to maintain the immediate matrix structure, and disregard all that is not directly related to the decision at hand. In the diagrams, you see the intersections of the grid (with or without concrete objects) with connecting lines making a path.

To understand how "holistic" equated to feeling, the key is in the word "harmony". Feeling provides a sense of how the world should be, with non-technical criteria, and hence, the association with emotions and attachment. Thinking deals in the technical connections, detached from any other consideration.

The attitude of the judging functions is determined by the perception attitude it is paired with (which of course is the opposite attitude). So extraverted Thinking and Feeling deal with local area matrices (not wide area, as you might assume), and introverted Thinking and Feeling deal with the wide area matrix.

This makes perfect sense. It explains why introverted judgments deal in universals, as well as the subjective factor. Universals are represented by the wide area matrix. The local area matrix is the "external" immediate environment the extraverted judgments deal in.
I thought if it in terms of anchoring. With Je, you anchor yourself to the local area, such as a group, organization, the immediate area, etc. With Ji, you cannot anchor yourself to the entire matrix (all of reality, or the universe). So you are basically anchored in yourself, so to speak. Like if you're piloting a ship at sea on the earth (a very localized environment), you can drop anchor, and it will land on the solid surface under the water. Yet, if you're in space (floating through the larger universe), you cannot drop anchor anywhere. According to Relativity, every object is basically it's own "at rest" inertial frame of reference. Hence, Ji dealing with subjective and universal things, and Je dealing with local externals.

So introverted Feeling is holistic relationships over a wide area matrix. Universal and personal values and a desire of overall harmony in the overall environment.

Extraverted Feeling: holistic web of connections (and harmony) within localized area: group, family, community, etc.

Introverted Thinking: linear connections suggested by overall external elements. It's not interested in the external situation, but any [universal or internal] understanding it may bring.

Extraverted Thinking: linear connections within a localized matrix area. Hence, bringing order into specific aspects of life such as a particular organization or institution.

Bruzon also maps the functions to the brain hemispheres like Lenore Thomson.

The primary archetypal roles and attitude order

To pick up again with the attitude order, at first, it was assumed that all three of the non-dominant functions took on the non-dominant orientation. This led to a dispute about the exact order of functions, when the orientations would be assigned to them as "function attitudes".

What will help decide this is to begin noting the different roles the functions play. Jung's larger theories included hundreds of archetypes, which are "character roles" of sorts, within the psyche. (Will be explained more, below). A handful of these began to be associated with the function positions in each type, most notably by Jungian analyst John Beebe.

The dominant function, being the ego's most preferred, will tend to play out in a "heroic" role, as would figure.

The auxiliary, which is also mature and confident, will be more supportive, of both our dominant function, and we will tend to use it to help others. This had thus been identified as playing a "parental" role.

The tertiary function will be less mature and confident. Compared to the others, it will manifest a childlike quality, as we look up to others and seek approval. It is also what we tend to associate with innocence and finding relief. It has been associated with Jung's "puer aeternus" or "puella aeterna" archetypes. It is said to "inflate" itself in childlike enthusiasm, but then "deflate", when its vulnerability surfaces again.

The inferior is the most rejected function. Yet, we deep down inside (only partly consciously) feel an incompleteness without it, or “aspire” to it. It will thus be the most vulnerable, and even associated with "inferiority complexes". It also ends up being associated with the opposite sex.
Beebe, who identified the other three roles, connected this one with Jung's "anima/animus" complex. It is also likened to the "soul".

Beebe had also named the two tandems we earlier identified. The hero and anima are called the "spine" of consciousness. The parent and child are called the "arm". Since each tandem will consist of either judgment or perception functions, Beebe terms them "rational" or "irrational", being Jung's terms for judgment and perception.
If two people's spines are "crossed", it means one is rational and the other is irrational. When this happens, one person may think the other is making judgments, when he is only making observations, and vice versa.

Beebe has made diagrams of these tandems crossing each other, with the spine as vertical, and the arm horizontal, so that it actually looks like a sort of skeletal frame. (And the dominant function is called the "head" while the inferior is the "tail"). But it actually means more than just that. As you may have noticed, the arm deals specifically with our relations to others. The spine, encompassing our main ego function, and the "soul", deals with our relationship toour own selves.
As Beebe has expressed it; the spine, which in defining our identity concerns itself more with what we can be or do in and for ourselves. The arm is more focused on the ways in which we use our consciousnesses to reach out to others. Think; a child will look up to others (for help, approval, etc). Just like the parent will try to help children.
This will prove very helpful in understanding his model, and identifying where particular functions fit in determining a type.

Of course, this will not be a rigid distinction. Each function will usually come to play for both ourselves and others in some ways. For instance, the spine archetypes might deal with people if the function is extraverted, and likewise arm archetypes may deal with self if the function is introverted. But you have to look at the ultimate GOAL of the complex behind the archetype in determining spine vs arm.

The way this works out for me (as INTP), is, my inner world has always been filled with rational judgments. Those judgments tend to be logical connections focusing on "things" rather than ethical judgments focusing on people. This "Thinking" is basically "for its own sake" as Jung put it. However, the ego still would like its judgments to be beyond itself, especially since they tie into universals anyway. Hence, it turns to the auxiliary function, which ends up as its main channel to the outside world. The internal judgments are then presented to the outer world in the form of perceptions of abstract possibilities offered to help other people see and consider the personal or universal principles of the ego's inner world.
If the preference was Sensory data instead, the inner linear connections would tend to be more concretely focused, and I would present them to the outer world by more "hands-on" means, such as helping people with physical activities, crafting, or fixing things. The auxiliary function also within the ego "feeds" the dominant, of course. So I turn to the outside to take in more data to churn into the internal thinking. I had always noticed this, even since childhood.
Even though my Thinking is usually oriented inwardly, sometimes I can turn it outward directly when needed, such as to fill in for the limitations of the inward logic/outward possibilities combination when it doesn't accomplish the goal. Like when the logic needs to be applied in the outside world to be useful to others. So if people don't understand my conclusions, then I'll extravert the Thinking and appeal to other theorists and their conclusions or borrow naming conventions (agreed upon logic), rationalize/justify the conclusions, organize them into tables and illustrations, etc. I may even arrange external things to fit an internal model (which may not be obvious to others observing).
If I was naturally oriented to the outer world with linear connections, then I would present this to the world in a direct fashion by arranging things according to logic, informed by internal perception, rather than offering it in the form of possibilities or physical guidance.

The Four Functions and their “shadows”

Continuing with the attitude order, while it is agreed that the auxiliary and inferior functions manifest the opposite attitude from the dominant, the tertiary was later determined by most to be in the same attitude. According to Lenore Thomson, it is actually the child or "puer" complex that orients the tertiary function to the dominant attitude, in order to maintain the ego's dominant orientation, while the auxiliary and inferior try to pull it in the opposite direction. This, she calls the "Tertiary Temptation" or "Tertiary Defense". So the order of attitudes is eiei or ieie
So likewise, both the function and orientation repressed from the dominant function will come together in the inferior, which will carry a connotation of a love-hate relationship, as they are both supressed, yet we sense a lack of completeness without them. So what looks like the 'diametric opposite' of the dominant, nevertheless works in tandem with it as an ego-compatible process. They will be even more compatible than the dominant function with the opposite orientation, and the opposite function in the dominant orientation, which are the true "ego-incompatible" processes, as we will see next.

And what emerges from this is yet another set of pairings: the alternating functions, which have the same orientation, such as the dominant and tertiary, or the auxiliary and inferior. These are called introverted or extraverted "faces".

1 Spine perception (S or N) judgment (T or F) Introverted Extraverted Preferred

2 Arm judgment (T or F) perception (S or N) Extraverted Introverted Preferred

3 Arm judgment (T or F) perception (S or N) Introverted Extraverted Non-preferred

4 spine perception (S or N) judgment (T or F) Extraverted Introverted Non-preferred

So what we now have is this:

ISTJ: Si-Te-Fi-Ne

ISFJ: Si-Fe-Ti-Ne

ISTP: Ti-Se-Ni-Fe

ISFP: Fi-Se-Ni-Te

ESTP: Se-Ti-Fe-Ni

ESFP: Se-Fi-Te-Ni

ESTJ: Te-Si-Ne-Fi

ESFJ: Fe-Si-Ne-Ti

INTJ: Ni-Te-Fi-Se

INFJ: Ni-Fe-Ti-Se

INTP: Ti-Ne-Si-Fe

INFP: Fi-Ne-Si-Te

ENTP: Ne-Ti-Fe-Si

ENFP: Ne-Fi-Te-Si

ENTJ: Te-Ni-Se-Fi

ENFJ: Fe-Ni-Se-Ti

This is the model most widely used across MBTI theory and discussions. We can now see the total of eight processes, and how the symmetrical arms and spines are opposite in both function and attitude. However, in traditional MBTI use, only the four shown for each type are discussed. Yet this naturally might raise the question of what about the "other four" processes for each type. This is where Beebe came in with his "eight-process model".

In the older theory, the inferior had been deemed what is known as the "shadow"; basically the least conscious part of the psyche. The type with the same four functions in reverse (inferior as hero, tertiary as aux., etc.; the type with all four letters opposite, or "inverse relationship" according to Beebe) was deemed the "shadow type", with a negative manifestation of it erupting under stress. (See www.teamtechnology.co.uk/myersbriggs.html)
Beebe determined that the inferior was actually apart of the "ego-syntonic" (or primary) range, along with the first three, but that it did border on the true "shadow" or "ego-dystonic" range, which is an even less conscious realm where these supposed "other" four processes lied.
(So the true "shadow type" would actually be the one sharing only the two middle letters, or its inverse, sharing the first and last letter!)

ISTJ ESTJ ISFJ ESFJ ISTP ESTP ISFP ESFP INFJ ENFJ INFP ENFP INTJ ENTJ INTP ENTP

1st Si Te Si Fe Ti Se Fi Se Ni Fe Fi Ne Ni Te Ti Ne

2nd Te Si Fe Si Se Ti Se Fi Fe Ni Ne Fi Te Ni Ne Ti

3rd Fi Ne Ti Ne Ni Fe Ni Te Ti Se Si Te Fi Se Si Fe

4th Ne Fi Ne Ti Fe Ni Te Ni Se Ti Te Si Se Fi Fe Si

5th Se Ti Se Fi Te Si Fe Si Ne Fi Fe Ni Ne Ti Te Ni

6th Ti Se Fi Se Si Te Si Fe Fi Ne Ni Fe Ti Ne Ni Te

7th Fe Ni Te Ni Ne Fi Ne Ti Te Si Se Ti Fe Si Se Fi

8th Ni Fe Ni Te Fi Ne Ti Ne Si Te Ti Se Si Fe Fi Se

Recall, there are really only four functions, which an ego receives stimulation through in an inner or outer orientation, rejecting the unchosen orientation into the unconscious.

So what Beebe's concept of the shadow really is, is a glimpse into these suppressed orientations of both the functions and the complexes that employ them.

The "hero" degrades into an "opposing personality" receiving stimulation from the dominant function in its suppressed opposite orientation. (this is one of two Beebe named himself. In Jung's conception, it was just a "negative hero"). Since we're now tapping [further] into what has been rejected from the consciousness by the ego, this, (along with the next three) will often come out in a negative fashion. Yet this one does also back up and fill in the blind spots of the hero. (It is also said to often be the opposite sex, like the anima).

The "parent" splits off a "critical" version of itself receiving stimulation from the auxiliary function in the opposite orientation. Beebe matched this to Jung's "witch" and "senex" (old man) archetypes (for females and males, respectively). Its good side is that it can provide profound wisdom.

The negative aspect of the "child" receives its stimulation from the opposite orientation of the tertiary and becomes a bratty "bad child", associated with Jung's "trickster" archetype. It creates double binds for self and especially others, and its good side is comedic relief.

The anima or "soul" is shadowed by a "demon" which receives its stimulation from the opposite orientation of the inferior. (This is the other one named by Beebe; a "negative anima"). Since that was already the most rejected area, then its shadow manifests in a particularly destructive fashion. It can also become an "angel" or "transformer" in bad situations.

The resulting order, it must be stressed, is not to be assumed to be strength. And even though we have used "shadow' as the group of bottom four, even that is not a hard division. According to Mark Hunziker and Leona Haas Building Blocks of Personality Type (Unite Business Press, a division of Telos, 2006):

Actually, the shadow encompasses all processes that are primarily unconscious in an individual. Which processes these are will depend on that person'a type development and can even include all eight in a very young child. Not also, that the normal hierarchy of preference for processes five through eight has not yet been empirically established, and in practice is likely to vary from person to person. Beebe cautions us not to assume too much on the basis of his numbering, which in many ways is simply for convenience in identifying the various positions. He simply puts it forth as a tool that he has found useful and informative and which at least for the first four functions seems to refleact the order of conscious cultivation of the functions that he has observed. The numbers for the shadow functions are identified merely to mirror the ordering of the first four.
(Glossary: "Shadow", p. 215, emphasis added)

To carry this into the earlier "organizing a desk" example, if the person has Te as the "hero" function (ETJ), then organizing the desk will be his way of "saving the day". If it's "parent" (ITJ), organizing the desk might come out more in the form of instructing the other person who left it that way. If Te is child or inferior, the act of straightening the table will be more like a good deed, done innocently, perhaps to win approval, or just because they gain some relief doing so. If it's shadow (TP/FJ), the act of cleaning will tend to be more negative, and they likely won't even be conscious of this. For me, it backs up my logical conclusions, such as the example of arranging the desk according to a symmetrical model. (such as color. Te in a primary position would see this as possibly inefficient and organize it by a more efficient means). I might even become stubborn about this if the ego feels threatened in any way by some other order. And ETP will be more critical of others concerning the order. An IFJ might tend to make mistakes, such as throwing out important papers. And EFJ might totally wear themselves out organizing the desk for others, when the others might not even care. The need to organize stems from their extraverted Feeling, but if they are under stress, the perspective changes, and they over-focus on the impersonal logic aspect of the ordering.

The key to remember here to distinguish the processes is that they are forms of consciousness or perspectives, by which these eight complexes within the psyche receive their stimuli. They are not eight solid "things" as we often treat them.

These shadows manifest usually under stress, and most likely involve people or situations offending or intimidating their primary counterparts. When the primary function can no longer solve the problem, the ego will switch its orientation in defense, and you will get a very negative reaction in that [opposite] function-attitude.
The archetypes are also said to communicate with each other in kind, from person to person. We got a glimpse of this earlier, when we saw that with the parent we tend to help others, and with the child we look up to others.
So one person's good or bad "child" might annoy the other person and trigger his negative "parent". Intimidating the child may also trigger the negative parent, along with the negative child. Even within the ego-syntonic primary range, child and parent will communicate with and read each other in kind. Ths dynamic will be especially pronounced when the two people have the same function in the respective conflicting or connecting archetypes!

This is a great explanation of many conflicts and miscommunication, like when one person thinks the other is "talking down" to him. Sometimes we might want to be "parented" by someone with our tertiary function as their auxiliary. (An interesting point is that people tend to come to us for help using the function in that role for us. Like people know to come to me for different options and possibilities, such as how to get from one place to another). Yet if we don't want to be parented at a particular time, we might be irritated by it. Especially considering the fact that using the same function, the person with it as "parent" will be more serious with it, while the person with it as "child" will want to "play", with it.

Within the ego, shadow functions usually aren't trusted and take up a lot of energy when used, so it is under stress that the normal inhibitions we have to receiving stimuli from them and acting upon it are removed, and they erupt in an "emergency" and usually haphazard sort of way. Others' use of them also might irritate us, especially in conflict, and especially if the process is also in one of their shadow complexes.
However, when a particular complex is not engaged by being stimulated, the function remains in the neutral undifferentiated state, and can be manifested as good as anyone else. Hence, iNtuiters can see, hear, smell, touch etc. in the current context; thinkers can feel and feelers can think, extraverted Sensors and introverted iNtuitive types can remember things; etc. without necessarily "using" an out of preference "process" or manifesting one of the complexes.

Unfortunately, a lot of people, including the mainstream psychological field, do not really take type theory seriously. Some even regard it as a pseudoscientific fad, sort of like astrology. The main criticism being lack of empirical evidence, and the possibility of Forer effects (generalized type behaviors that can be claimed by anyone at times).
But it makes sense that if you choose one thing, what's left over will fall into an opposite role. The consciousness most rejected by our ego from its most trusted and confident area will be what's most vulnerable. What is initially suppressed, but chosen as next choice will have a supportive nature like a parent. What's rejected from that will have a dependent, childlike nature. What's further supressed from all four of the resulting roles will be very negative, and operate in a reverse fashion from them.

So basically, these archetypes consist of different levels of rejection/suppression from consciousness; with suppressed forms of consciousness (the functions in one orientation or the other) providing stimulation to suppressed areas of the self (the lower complexes). Since "preference" is a matter of "trusting" functions and orientations over others to solve problems, then the less trusted a function/attitude, the deeper into the unconscious it will be repressed.
Hence, it should be kept in mind that the line between function attitudes is more fuzzy than it might appear in reading "Xe vs Xi" descriptions. This (along with the notion of "undifferentiated" functions) helps allow for the anomalies of complex beings such as ourselves, who might not seem to fit in the "boxes" all the time if we make them too rigid. Some seem to make the attitudes to be like entirely separate animals, but this often results in a lot of difficulty when one thinks he or another might be "using" a function in the "wrong" attitude for his type "too much". You're simply receiving stimuli via a function, and if the normal orientation you receive stimulation from it in isn't working at the moment, the ego might try the opposite orientation; however, this might be more uncomfortable (and come out more negatively) since this orientation is normally rejected.

Here's a good way of illustrating it:
I had been thinking of the really negative intuitions I sometimes get about things, and realized, the reason Ni will be involved in negative thoughts, is that all of my positive perceptions of abstract data are directed outward. Since our egos naturally gravitate to what is pleasing to them, then we will focus our energy on perceiving or deciding according to those functions and orientations we find the biggest positive associations with.
Since (for me) the ego's inner world is primarily one of linear judgment, abstract perceptive stimuli is rejected from that world, and turned outward. When I want to go inward for perception, then, I turn to concrete data, which is otherwise rejected.

So then what abstract perception is left to be perceived from the inside? The negative stuff ignored by the outward abstracting ego. And what concrete stuff is left to be perceived from the outside? Either stuff I don't want to see or deal with (perhaps from not thinking it's important), or stuff I can latch onto to try to trap others or get them off my back.

The same with judgment. I find joy in internal logic, while ethical issues often come off as very intrusive to the inner world. It's a threat, like I'm afraid it will condemn the logic or try to pull me away from it, or expose my flaws or make me vulnerable or something. (And I then also react to the stimuli by tending to want to pull down the lofty moral stances of others, which I feel in some way threatened by!)
So then ethical values are simply delegated to the outer world. (And even then, it's shaky!) If I can fit in with others, and/or they accept me, then there; the ethics/integrity/self-worth issue is taken care of. (Let others 'do all the work' for me in that area!)
But not in the area of logic! Outer world, keep out of that area! Just like ethics feel very intrusive in my inner world, the outer world is very intrusive to my logic. If I feel the need to turn outward to defend, prove or support my inner logic, then I'll call on external stimuli such as external efficiency or other such standards.

Hence, these suppressed orientations of the functions carry an overall negative connotation!

These primary and shadow functions have often eclipsed each other, especially in the older four-process theory, which does not address the opposite orientations of each function. After all, there are really four functions that the ego orients in a particular direction. So most type discussions focus on only the four functions and their associated "attitudes" for each type. All of the attributes of these functions then tend to become associated with the function or "process" notated as "Xe" or "Xi" in the dominant, auxiliary, tertiary or inferior position. So INTP's will often attribute all of their strong emotional reactions to their "inferior Fe".
However, Beebe, in "Understanding Consciousness through the theory of psychological types" quotes James Hillman (Lectures on Jung’s Typology, 1971) in associating "inferior Feeling" with "anger and rage and ambition and aggression as well as with greed and desire" and that it "turns upon itself, morbidly; we are envious, jealous, depressed, feeding our needs and their immediate gratification...", and then later suggests that this "might better be understood as a description of demonic introverted feeling in an introverted thinking type". (emphasis added). He had also said that this description of the inferior is similar to Adler's description of the "inferiority complex". So hence, both "attitudes", and the associated archetypes will parallel the same complex, only the "shadow" of the inferior will be even more negative!

The different tandems also carry over into the shadow. All four complexes tend to be very negative towards both self and others, but the opposing personality and demon, as the shadow of the spine, will be more connected with the self (ego). The witch/senex and trickster, as the arm will be more about "tying down" others to get them off our backs. Hence, you will see the "Oppositional" process described in Linda Berens' books as being "stubborn" about things, while the "critical parent" is more sharply "critical", and described elsewhere in terms of "low blows" and "looks that stop you dead in your tracks". One is primarily serving the ego it is shadowing, while the other is focused on dealing with the other person.

Also, from what I have seen, the blocks will also parallel. The opposing and witch will reflect the confidence of the hero and parent in a very aggressive way. The trickster and demon, while not really "vulnerable” themselves like the child and anima, nevertheless will compensate for the vulnerability of those complexes, and thus come out very reactively. We are still vulnerable in situations that call for the 7th and 8th functions (like for me, physical things such as walking elevated tracks)

I have found a great parallel between the blocks and the four playing card suits:

1/2: ♦ diamonds: the ego's most cherished goals
3/4: ♥ hearts: the vulnerable, innocent area
5/6: ♠ spades (sharp weapon)
7/8: ♣ clubs (blunt weapon)

It has also been outlined in Socionics, by:

Valued (i.e. primary):
1, 2 Strong
3, 4 Weak
Subdued (i.e. shadow):
5, 6 Strong
7, 8 Weak
[Numbers changed to Beebe's stacking order, with which they line up in this case]

(Faces will also of course become opposite in orientation).

Hence, I look at a person like Hitler, whom everyone seems to believe was an extraverted Feeling type. They say that he was very driven by “values”, and such "passion", and had a good command over people, which is said to be good (strong) Fe use, etc. But how exactly was he using Fe? In a good, "parental” fashion, supporting others? Or was it more "destructive"? It's not about how visible or "strong" the function is, (which is what a lot of people trying on types or typing others get hung up on, especially when observing the comparitive stengths in the results of Nardi's cognitive processes tests).
Also, using the block system, we can ask, which was more confident and mature, or more vulnerable or immature: Thinking or Feeling? I see him as very effective with extraverted Thinking. (Some will point out stuff like bad military moves, but there are many other people involved in that, and the fact that he still came so close to world domination inspite of that you can't ignore). When the values come out so negatively and defensively like that, it is likely coming from a vulnerable area. A vulnerable Fi anima shadowed by this destructive Fe that manipulated people to serve an ultimate "heroic" cold Te agenda.

A Word on Socionics:
Functions of one orientation or another accomplish the same things for the ego (concrete perception, abstract perception, logical judgment, or ethic & value judgment); only it's the area stimulation is received from (translation into standard used or place of application) that differs along the lines of internal or external.
This is one reason the correlation with Socionics is cloudy. Socionics uses a lowercase "j/p" to indicate "dominant" instead of "extraverted" function. This will yield the same code for extraverts, since the dominant is the extraverted one. However, for introverts, j/p will be swapped, such as Ti+Ne indicating "INTj" instead of INTP; and there is dispute over which one really corresponds to the MBTI. The second block (called "Super-ego", while the first block is the "ego") will even match up with INTJ: Fi+Se! (When arranged as "Ego-SuperEgo-Id-SuperId, the comparitive stacking order is 1,2,8,7,4,3,5,6) Then, even the Ti and Ne for the INTj is often said to 'act like' MBTI's Te and Ni for the INTJ. And Te and Ni for INTp like Ti and Ne for INTP. Hence, INTj might turn out to be INTJ (and INTp be INTP) after all.
When you realize, again, that there are really only four functions, and that the ego is the one who bears the "attitudes", then you can see why these different versions of the theory could diverge so, while ultimately still be attempting to describe the same thing.

So to recap the different ways we can degrade into the shadows: A Thinking Introvert, for example, initially rejects (suppresses from consciousness) the outer world for his stimulation, and also rejects Feeling. So Feeling stimuli then will generally become associated with the outer world, and as the diametric opposite of the dominant, will be inferior. Feeling stimuli is rejected from the inner world, and the outer world is also rejected as the area from which he receives stimuli for his dominant Thinking. Hence, Fi and Te will be even further in the unconscious, but they can come up if the ego switches the dominant function OR orientation.
Likewise, the auxiliary perception will also be rejected from the inner world, and thus placed in the external world, to balance the dominant. The other perception function in the tertiary position will be rejected in both orientations, until the Puer complex orients it into the dominant attitude (and the other orientation will remain rejected). These two functions then will also degrade into the rejected counterparts when situations call for them.

So now, we can make generic terms for the eight archetypes. They can be reduced down to three variables which should give a more concise idea of what they are about:

positive (primary) vs negative (shadow)
confident (top two of four functions) vs vulnerable (bottom two)
ego-focused (spine) vs others-focused (arm)

hero: positive, confident, ego-focused
parent: positive, confident, others-focused
child: positive, vulnerable, others-focused
anima: positive, vulnerable, ego-focused
opposing: negative, confident, ego-focused
witch/senex: negative, confident, others-focused
trickster: negative, vulnerable (compensatory), others-focused
demon: negative, vulnerable (compensatory), ego-focused

An exhaustive print of Beebe's model does not seem to be available, and much of it has been communicated mainly through lectures. You can get parts of it from various places.

The basics, and how he evolved the model:
http://www.ccc-apt.org/system/files/Beebe+-+Evolving+the+8-function+model+APT.pdf
http://www.ccc-apt.org/system/files/Type+and+Archetype+-+Part+One+-+The+Spine.pdf
http://www.ccc-apt.org/system/files/Type+and+Archetype+-+Part+Two+-+The+Arms+.pdf

Some other informative articles:
"TYPOLOGY IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF INTEGRITY: An Interview with Dr. John Beebe", In Touch August, 2000 http://www.centerpointec.com/files/typology_Development.pdf

"A Jungian Analyst Talks About Psychological Types: A Visit with John Beebe" - DVD (transcript online at http://www.innerexplorations.com/catpsy/a.htm)

Type templates you can use to see which ones fit you best:
http://www.vtwellness.net/type_and_archetypes/archetype_based_self_exam

Some more information on them can be gotten from Telos Publications, which publishes the works of Linda Berens, Haas & Hunziker and others: http://www.telospublications.com

He introduced his model in "A new model of psychological types" (1988), C.G. Jung Institute of Chicago.
One extensive printed article by Beebe is "An Archetypal Model of the Self in Dialogue" in the Theory & Psychology journal, offered for a price or subscription, at: http://tap.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/12/2/267. He even analyzes Woody Allen's movie Husbands and Wives in light of the archetypes.

"UNDERSTANDING CONSCIOUSNESS THROUGH THE THEORY OF PSYCHOLOGICAL TYPES", Chapter 4, Analytical Psychology: Contemporary Perspectives in Jungian Analysis, Joseph Cambray and Linda Carter (Editors), Hove and New York: Brunner Routledge, 2004, pp. 83-115. is like a more detailed and in depth version of "Evolving the 8 Function Model"

Here, in a typology discussion, I try to outline the 32 possible shadow function roles: http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/844121-post68.html

This blog lists each process in each position using examples and lines from movies:
Mapping Jungian Archetypes on Cognitive Processes (Symbol Thinking)

While Socionics is admired for having a more developed "intertype dynamics" system, one has been created for regular MBTI type (and using Beebe's concepts) by Type Logic: Relationship pairs: Definitions. From their main page, you can select each type, and at the bottom of the type page, will be listed each of it's relations (as links to that type's page). On my longer page on MBTI, I give the letter code "formula" and eight process function order comparison for each relation, with the INTP's relations as an example: Intertype Dynamics.

Another interpretation of the processes

Lenore Thomson also accepts Beebe's model, with a few modifications. She for one reminds us that the archetypes are complexes. Many in type discussions have gotten into treating the "processes" almost as self-conscious entities in themselves. Like we might say something like "My Fe did not like this...", "his [puer] Te inflated itself", etc. But the ego is the only conscious entity here, and the functions are just perspectives taken by the complexes manifested in the ego. I have found that this makes it much less confusing, because in a given situation, I would be looking for a "process" to commit some sort of action, and then it becomes ambiguous, like when I might criticize someone's behavior with Fe, and it therefore appears to be possibly the "Senex process". But the Senex is NOT a process, it is a complex, and it might not be engaged at that particular moment, (and if it is, I find that it tends to be making negative intuitions of outcomes or universal meanings of the situation (Ni) which might not always be apparent to others. And the Fe is really stemming from a vulnerable anima rather than an aggressive complex). This is a mistake a lot of people make in typing. (I had also wondered how Ni as senex could "be viciously critical of others" as the archetype is described, and this is easier to imagine being done with Fe, but again, it's not the process that does that; it's the complex being stimulated by it!)
(You can see some of her teaching on these things:
Jung MBTI Theory | Lenore Thomson Bentz
Psychological Orientation vs. Cognitive Skills | Lenore Thomson Bentz
Different Meanings of Temperament | Lenore Thomson Bentz
John Beebe & Archetypes | Lenore Thomson Bentz)

Not Cognitive Processes (The Lenore Thomson Exegesis Wiki)
This one hits the nail on the head, regarding the problems that arise when trying to categorize every behavior as a distinctly differentiated "process use":

In "cognitive processes" theories, Se, Si, Ne, Ni, Te, Ti, Fe, and Fi are categories of conscious mental activity, so that nearly everything we do mentally can be fit into one category. Different versions of "cognitive processes" assign pretty different meanings to the same two-letter codes, but here is a sample of how the approach works: memory, or recalling the past, is Si; envisioning future scenarios is Ni; playing sports is Se; having sex is Se; saying something to put people at ease is Fe; expressing your emotions is Fe; keeping your emotions to yourself is Fi; brainstorming is Ne; finding the leverage points that will repair a system is Ti; making and following a schedule is Te; etc.
This leads to questions like:
• "Which cognitive process do I use when stroking my cat? Fi because it's empathic? Fe because it's expressive? Se because it's physical? A combination of those three?"
• "Which cognitive process is recognizing a face? Se because it's visual? Ne because it involves a pattern? Te because it involves putting something into a category? Si because it's recognizing something known from the past?"
Another way to put it is that these theories make Se, Si, Ne, Ni, Te, Ti, Fe, and Fi into something like gears in a car, and you shift between them just like when driving. For example, "It's time to plan next year's budget. Since that's in the future, I'd better use my Ni."
Hypothesis: Lenore's function attitudes are conflicting forms of mental representation
Lenore Thomson, by contrast, is describing conflicting ways that the brain structures or represents the self and the environment. Each attitude gives you a different view of the same situation, and it's hard to see in terms of more than one of them at the same time, something like a Necker cube. Having many conflicting ways of looking at the same things was Nature's way of giving you extraordinary adaptiveness, many opposite ways of structuring information creating greater stability than committing stiffly to any one form of coherence. Each attitude gives you a different mechanism for orienting yourself in a situation and navigating through life.

This really helps against a "key-word fallacy" that sometimes develops; especially from people referencing Berens' or others' descriptions, which often describe the processes with a word or short phrase. While we used this above, a bit, to help give us a concise idea of the processes, it cannot be taken too far; as a positive indicator of preference in a person's behavior, or even writing. Some people fall into this in discussions, where any heed to conscience, or enthusiasm, or mention of something being "important" or even "liked" is interpreted as "using Fi", because Fi is described in terms such as "evaluating importance", "conscience", or expressing "like/dislike". (what also ends up happening with the latter point, is that Fi will tend to end up sounding "selfish", especially in comparison to Fe). The above quote shows the utter confusion that can arise from such a simplistic interpretation (total ambiguation of the functions in relation to actual behavior, leading to the Forer effect), and offers a better way of understanding them.

Lenore's biggest contribution is her brain lateralization theory, which exposes another path in which we fall into our shadows. Introverted judgment and extraverted perception (Ji/Pe=P) were determined to be controlled by the right brain hemisphere, and introverted perception and extraverted judgment (Je/Pi=J) controlled by the left hemisphere. (And extraversion is front and introversion is back).
In her theory, in certain instances of stress in which your first two functions cannot solve the problem, you will switch to the functions located in the same hemisphere, which are actually the last two! So for your dominant, you will maintain the same attitude, and the same kind of function (j or p), but it will become the opposite function! Basically, the shadow of the anima, which is the demon! In the discussion of of Beebe's order above, the ego switched the orientation of its dominant functions to degrade into the Opposing Personality, but in this case, the ego switches the function instead of the orientation, thus plummeting to what in Beebe's model, would appear to be the bottom function of the shadows!
And the good parent will be replaced by the Trickster. These are the two functions that are deepest in the shadows, and assumed by many to be hardly ever used, yet do seem to come up stronger than the tertiary and inferior in many people's cognitive process test results!

This has resulted in a different stacking order, called the "lasagna model", where the shadows are placed inbetween the dom/aux and tertiary/inferior blocks. So the block that in Beebe's model is placed last, she calls "Crow's Nest" in a ship crew analogy she has made, and they are usually listed in 3rd and 4th place, followed by "the Double Agents" (the other two shadows), and then the tertiary and inferior last. That makes some sense, as the "inferior" then really is "inferior". This would make sense from it being the most consciously rejected function. Those "below" it are unconscious, remember! A lot of people in discussions like this order, because it more closely matches their comparitive strengths, as measured by the cognitive process test. Of course, this can't be made into a hard rule either, and it won't always match in that order. The model is actually not intended to replace Beebe's; it works beside it as another perspective on shadow degradation. The model also ends up as totally alternating in attitude, as ieieieie, with the order using Beebe's numbers being as follows: 1,2,8,7,5,6,3,4.

All of this may explain why, and again, it helps to start off thinking of just the four functions with the shadows as essentially areas within the four, rather than stacked separately below them.

This way of viewing it is apparently more true to the original conception of MBTI, with E/I and J/P as separate factors in their own right, apart from the functions in the first place. (Otherwise, you would think the "official" MBTI should be tests measuring cognitive processes directly instead of dichotomies, such as those by Dario Nardi or Singer-Loomis, and that the type code should be in the form "XeYi" (two preferred functions with attitudes), which is the same number of letters and just as descriptive). When a person engages the brain alternative switch, he is maintaining his J or P orientation, and hence, again, those functions at the very bottom might come up more than the tertiary and inferior, which are the opposite orientation in that last dichotomy. Hence, when an Fe type has to arrange things logically (à la Te) to host and caretake, it is general "J" action.

So the MBTI questions basically measure, first, introversion or extraversion. Then, the two preferred functions, one perception, and one judgment. Then, it measures general "judging" vs "perceiving" behaviors, and from there is able to put together the type code. If you score high on Judging, then it must be the judgment function you scored highest on that is "extraverted". The perceiving function must therefore also be introverted. The reverse for scoring high on "perception". The one whose orientation matches the first letter (I/E) must then be your dominant, and the other, the auxiliary. Which ever one is extraverted will color the general "J" vs "P behavior. Hence, that can be treated as a standalone dichotomy.

To reiterate, it is better to think of the functions as perspectives, so when the person appears to be "using" two conflicting "processes", it is the perspective of one of them that will be preferred, and shape the context the behavior is occuring in.

Understanding Archetypes and Complexes

As we have seen, there is a lot of misunderstanding in discussions regarding the archetypes and how they play out in the functions. In writing to both Beebe and Lenore Thomson to try to get a better idea of how these concepts work, I gathered from them the following descriptions:

•A complex is simply an archetype that has entered the personal unconscious.
•An archetype is sort of like an empty grid -- a way of organizing human experience that gives it collective meaning. When the grid fills up with individual experience, it becomes what Jungians call a "complex" -- the conglomeration of images, memories, and emotions surrounding an archetypal core, but unique to ourselves.
•Archetypes, according to classical Jungian theory, are the cores around which complexes form.
•the archetypal qualities of the “positions” are that each of the eight possible positions the types take up and come to occupy in the psyche have a “genius loci”, the archetype, out of which the function-attitude in its position emerges.
•There is an old Jungian language that refers to function-complexes, and indeed each function-complex, or as we would now say, in an 8 function model, function-attitude complex, has as its core an archetype.
•The archetype is the shell in which the function-attitude lives and grows, and out of which the ego can scoop the function-attitude for its own purposes.
•The function-attitude complexes are not equated with the archetypes, but rather these complexes will necessarily have an archetypal quality according to the position they are in. Thus we develop an inferiority complex around the inferior function, a superiority complex around the superior function, a “best auxiliary” complex (the caretaker) around the auxiliary function, and an “eternal child” complex around the tertiary function.
•In the case of the four function-attitudes in shadow, the archetypal cores of the complexes often come more decisively forward, but even then, the function attitude is not fated to be equal to its archetypal carrier.
•So these various complexes can be called, “Archetypal Complexes Carrying the Eight Functions”, rather than reducing the complexes to the archetypes or the archetypes to the complexes.
•This leaves room for the functions to step away from their carriers and operate independently of what brought them into the ego, and for the carriers to go on being their archetypal selves in the background. That process of differentiation without destruction of the ground is actually enabled by insight into the original role through which the function attitude has been led to express itself before it becomes part of directed consciousness.
•The eight-function model is basically a diagram of the several complexes that are normally activated when an ego-identity is established. It isn't telling you how the functions are going to operate when they're "used." It's telling you how the complexes are going to operate when they're influencing one's behavior.

So, to recap the entire process:
Our ego chooses the inner or outer world, and begins choosing a dominant function to use in its world. First, the class of function is chosen: either an information gathering or decision making function. Then the specific function is chosen (concrete or abstract information gathering, or logical or ethical decision making). An auxiliary function will be the opposite class of function in the opposite orientation.
And there, the type is set, and the rest of the functions will eventually fall into place!

Temperament and Interaction Style

The 16 types have also widely been divided into some sub-groups, consisting of different two or three letter combinations. The most popular are the four “temperaments” of David Keirsey: SP, SJ, NT and NF. This grouping is called “asymmetrical”, because it does not map to the same dichotomies across the board like our “sociability temperaments” mentioned earlier. Notice, for Sensors, temperament is determined by J/P, while for iNtuitors, it is T/F (This would be formulated S + J/P; N + T/F). For the Sociability groups, it was E/I + J/P across the board. Myers and Briggs had suggested the symmetrical function pair groupings: S/N + N/T (SF, ST, NF, NT) as the “temperaments”.

Some understandably think Keirsey's arrangement is strange, but the reason for this is that he derived his temperaments from the old Hippocratic/Galenic ones we discussed on the first page. Originally determined by the factors of delay (expressiveness) and sustain (responsiveness); Immanuel Kant first added a form of perception as a factor: Beauty vs. the Sublime. Beauty actually paired together Sanguine and Melancholic (high perception of beauty), which in the old matrix were diametric opposites. Likewise, Phlegmatic and Choleric were now both "low". You can see where this is sort of an early forerunner to the Sensing vs iNtuition scale. (Sublime was sort of an inverse of sustain, with Melancholic and Choleric as “high”). Ernst Kretschmer seemed to take perception as a factor further in developing his four “Character Styles”: depressive, hypomanic, anesthetic and hyperesthetic, which made up the two categories "cyclothymes" and "schizothymes" . It was these types Keirsey apparently utilized and mapped to the MBTI’s 16 types, across its S/N dichotomy factored by a new scale he called “Cooperative” vs. “Utilitarian”. (SJ’s and NF’s are “cooperative”; meaning “do what’s right”, and SP’s and NT’s are “utilitarian” or “pragmatic”, meaning “do what works”).

The SJ he said was Melancholic, the SP, Sanguine, the NF, Choleric, and the NT, Phlegmatic.

One thing to remember about Keirsey, is that even though he uses the same four dichotomy codes and 16 types as MBTI, his theory is still rather different, and focuses on the temperaments. The types are really considered just "variants" of the temperaments. He even rejected Jung’s functions by the time of his second Please Understand Me book, and redesignated the dichotomies as standalone factors of “Expressive vs. Reserved” (E/I), “Concrete vs. Abstract” (S/N), “Tough-minded vs. Friendly”, and “Scheduling vs. Probing” (J/P).

Next, a student of Keirsey’s; Linda Berens adopted his model and for one thing, recombined it with the cognitive processes, and added a new set of groupings in addition to the temperaments; the Interaction Styles. (Her full system being called the "Multiple Models"). These are also connected to the ancient temperaments, and are similar to other models such as Social Styles and DiSC, which also use a similar matrix. This model essentially reverts back to the old factors of delay and sustain (or expressive/responsive), via the E/I dichotomy (expressive) and a new one called “Informing/Directing”, which she has even linked to “responsiveness” or “people/task”. This factor was actually created by Keirsey (called “role-informative/directive”), though he used it in dividing his temperaments into eight “intelligence types” consisting of the last three letters. STJ, STP, NFJ, NTJ were “directive” (tend to communicate through giving directions), and SFJ, SFP, NFP, and NTP were “informative” (tend to communicate through giving information). You could see right there where those would correspond to responsiveness.

He may have also possibly divided them further by I/E into these four groups as Berens is more known for doing, but it was not until recently, in his book Brains and Careers that he made the groups (which he calls “roles of interaction”) more publicly known. The codes for them are IST/INJ [introverted/directive: Melancholic], ISF/INP [introverted/informative: Phlegmatic], EST/ENJ [extraverted/directive: Choleric], and ESF/ENP [extraverted/informative: Sanguine]. This also is very asymmetrical, dividing according to S/N like Cooperative/Pragmatic did. So the formula for Interaction Styles is E/I + S + T/F; E/I + N + J/P.

Correlation with APS?

So we can see from here, that the Interaction Styles will correspond with the Sociability temperaments for N types, but for S types, they might not. SFJ’s will start out as EJ’s or IJ’s, but once the S and F develop, their Interaction Style will become Sanguine or Phlegmatic (or Supine) and not Choleric or Melancholic. STP’s will start out as EP’s or IP’s, but once the S and T develop, their style will become Choleric or Melancholic instead of Sanguine or Phlegmatic.

Berens also introduced another factor for the temperaments called Structure vs. Motive, which links opposites in Keirsey’s matrix. (SJ/NT = Structure, “focus on structures...to not be at the mercy of others; SP/NF= “Motive”, “focus on motives of why people do what they do, in order to work with them”). As this seemed to be another direct form of “responsiveness”, this was the key for my own correlation of the FIRO/APS with MBTI. I have determined that Interaction Styles corresponds to our old area of Inclusion, and the Keirseyan temperaments (called by Berens, “conative”, meaning “dealing with action”), are Control. The third area, of Affection is either not represented well, or might be apart of the Interaction Style, if the person’s temperament is the same in both Inclusion and Affection. If not, it might either just not affect the type pattern much, or it could possibly throw the correlation off. (Berens calls the Interaction Styles "affective", and the generic term for Interaction Styles would basically be "affective temperaments", while Keirsey's groups are "conative temperaments". The area of Affection would be affective also, though on a deeper level).

The way the factors seem to line up;

Expressed Inclusion (eI) = E/I

Wanted Inclusion (wI) = Directing/Informing (S + T/F; N + J/P)

Expressed Control (eC) = Cooperative/Pragmatic (S + J/P; N + T/F)

Wanted Control (wC) = Structure/Motive (S + J/P; N + T/F)

So to pick up with what was mentioned in the beginning regarding the sociability temperaments, while I/E will generally correspond with expressed Inclusion, in the correlation I have made between the two systems, J/P can correspond to either wanted Inclusion OR Control. The full temperament combination (Inclusion and Control) will be determined by the other letters.

Another thing, regarding correspondence with the APS system, is that the 16 types are based on groupings of four (4x4=16), and have no provision for a fifth temperament. That's because there are no moderate scales. The dichotomies are either/or. So the Phlegmatic reverts to the "introverted/responsive" place it held in older temperament theory. Therefore, in these correlations, Supine is basically melted back into Phlegmatic.

Actual statistical correlations have been done between FIRO and MBTI, but they do not use Keirsey and Berens' factors, but always the four MBTI dichotomies themselves. These yield mixed results, because of the fact that the factors are so intertwined. T/F, for instance, are not only connected with informing/directing (for S's) and structure/motive (for N's), but also cooperative/pragmatic (also for N's). Hence, that dichotomy we would expect to affect wI, wC and eC. (In one of the studies, T correlated high with eC, which would fit pragmatism! T, along with P is generally more "pragmatic", while F and J are more "cooperative"). E/I does correlate well with both eI and eA, and both N and P correlate well with wI. Sure enough, N and P together yields Informing communications, which I have linked to high wI! (The correlations are discussed with more detail on the other MBTI-APS correlation essays).

The pattern that emerges: recall, we identified J/P as a form of "responsiveness" that could represent either Inclusion or Control. It turns out that T/F is also a form of responsiveness, which will represent the opposite area from J/P. This makes sense, as "Feeling" will tend to be more responsive than "Thinking"; just as "Perceiving" is more responsive than "Judging" in (or ordering) the outside world. When one is wanted Inclusion (affective: directing/informing), the other is wanted Control (conative: structure/motive)! The dividing line is S/N (perceptive), which as it turns out, ties together opposite e/w temperaments in the Control area. In Keirsey/Berens' matrix, S/N was a primary factor, while structure/motive was a "cross-factor" Berens added, tying together opposites. We have reversed this, making structure/motive primary factors. S/N now becomes the cross factor. (In the Interaction Styles, Berens also has a cross-factor, called "process vs. outcome", or formerly, "control vs movement". This would roughly correspond to the "direct/indirect behavior" of congruent (Sanguine, Melancholy) or incongruent (Choleric, Supine) e/w scores discussed on the first page).
Cooperative/pragmatic ends up as the "conative" version of "expressiveness", and hence the conative analogue to I/E.

But all of this leads to the corollary that Keirsey had gotten NT and NF backwards in the correlation to the ancient temperaments. NT is actually Choleric, which better fits the "pragmatic/structure focused" pole, and NF, Phlegmatic (or possibly Supine, or a combination), which would be "cooperative/motive focused". Keirsey decided that the NF’s “exciteability” matches Choleric, or Kretschmer’s “hyperesthetic”, while the NT’s “cool dispassion” was Phlegmatic or "anesthetic". Yet, if you realize that Keirsey’s temperaments correspond to the Control area (leadership and responsibilities), and not the surface social skills of Inclusion, then it figures we would look for a different set of behaviors in determining the temperament. NT’s “cool dispassion” actually better fits the classic Choleric’s lack of feeling and coldness. Kretschmer had even said the anesthetic displayed a “cutting active coldness and passive insensitivity”, which you will see described for Cholerics in Arno or LaHaye’s systems and others. German psychologist Fritz Riemann (Grundformen der Angst [Elementary Forms of Fear"]: E. tiefenpsycholog. Studie ; 1961) states: "So while the NT strives for autonomy and independence, the NF fears nothing more than the loneliness of becoming an autonomous, independent individual". That clearly sounds like a Choleric vs Supine contrast in the area of Control! Independence versus dependence! (Or in Dr. Will Schutz' original FIRO names, "autocrat" vs "abdicrat")
Kant had said the Choleric and Phlegmatic were both “cold-blooded”. But the Phlegmatic’s characteristic “coolness” is actually from his lack of energy, while the Choleric’s coolness was true coldness, and quite “active”. Even Keirsey’s “skills sets” and Berens’ “core temperament needs” confirm this, as the NT is “Tactical” skills, and has the need of "mastery and competence", which matches classic Choleric descriptions, and the NF has the “Diplomatic” skills set, perfectly matching the traditional portrayal of the Phlegmatic as diplomatic. Thus on the flipside; Berens describes the NT's stressors as powerlessness and incompetence, and that when stressed, he "obsesses". (When people see obsessiveness, they often associate it with Feeling!)

This does not affect the validity of Keirsey's theory, as the Galen correlations were just a passing reference he made to continue the "legacy" of temperament theory, and he otherwise moved on past them. However, it is in my correlation where the Galen connection becomes more significant.
A couple of sites that links the ancient temperaments to Keirsey's the same way I do:
http://www.selfgrowth.com/articles/Warfield2.html;
http://www.davenevins.com/personalities/main/4-temperaments.htm.

code Keirsey Berens APS (approximate)

SJ Guardian Stabilizer Melancholy in Control

SP Artisan Improviser Sanguine in Control
NF Idealist Catalyst Phlegmatic or Supine in Control
NT Rational Theorist Choleric in Control
IST/INJ Contender Chart the Course Melancholy in Inclusion
ISF/INP Responder Behind the Scenes Phlegmatic or Supine in Inclusion
EST/ENJ Initiator In Charge Choleric in Inclusion
ESF/ENP Coworker Get Things Going Sanguine in Inclusion

The 16 types, to use LaHaye’s combinations (with the "primary" temperament presumed to be Inclusion or Interaction Style, and the “secondary” to be Control or conative):

ISTJ: pure Melancholy

ISTP: MelSan

ISFP: PhlegSan or SupSan

ISFJ: PhlegMel or SupMel

ESTP: ChlorSan

ESTJ: ChlorMel

ESFP: pure Sanguine

ESFJ: SanMel

INFJ: MelPhleg or MelSup

INTJ: MelChlor

INFP: Supine & Phlegmatic; pure or blended together

INTP: PhlegChlor or SupChlor

ENFP: SanPhleg or SanSup

ENFJ: ChlorPhleg or ChlorSup

ENTP: SanChlor

ENTJ: pure Choleric

People I have discussed this with, who take four and five “humour” temperament tests (including a few I know who have taken the actual APS) do tend to come out close to what their type would suggest using this correlation. (e.g. Most INFJ’s are Melancholy Phlegmatic or Melancholy Supine rather than Melancholy Choleric, which most INTJ's come out as!)

These are helpful, in understanding "temperament blending". Like an ISFP might object to some SP stereotypes, which are often based on a general "Sanguine" profile (which actually tend to reflect the original "extroverted" traits of the temperament in its purest form). So they may even think they are more NF-like instead. However, that type is basically Sanguine (in action skills) mixed with Phlegmatic or Supine (in social skills), which will greatly temper the Sanguine traits, and since NF also seems to be Phlegmatic or Supine (though in "action" skills), the type might seem like some sort of "blend" or cross between SP and NF.
It should also be pointed out that the correlations of NF and SP to Supine or Phlegmatic in Control and Sanguine in Control might be looser, because in FIRO and APS, high wanted Control leads to a form of "dependency", which is focused on in the descriptions. This does not seem to be seen so much in the type profiles, though there are evidences of it in places. Like some _S_P type profiles mentioning a "cool off" period, that appears to be a hint of the Sanguine's independent/dependent "swing". And many NF's do say they have problems making decisions, which is characteristic of Supine. This was also clearly implied in the Riemann quote, above. The moderate wC Phlegmatic does not have this problem, but instead lacks energy, which the NF does not seem to have a problem with. (However, that does lead the Phlegmatic to become "diplomatic" like the NF. They want responsibility to be "shared"). So these two Keirseyan groups might fit the moderate blended Supine Phlegmatic or Sanguine Phlegmatic [not the same as "SanPhleg", above] instead.

For more on my correlation, there is the shorter version: ERICA vs. EISeNFelT: A new Look at FIRO-MBTI Correlations, and the longer version: Evolving the MBTI-APS Correlation

Summary of these concepts: Type Ideas

To Part 3: APS and Other Systems (Enneagram, Horney, Type A, etc)

1	Spine	perception (S or N)	judgment (T or F)	Introverted	Extraverted	Preferred
2	Arm	judgment (T or F)	perception (S or N)	Extraverted	Introverted	Preferred
3	Arm	judgment (T or F)	perception (S or N)	Introverted	Extraverted	Non-preferred
4	spine	perception (S or N)	judgment (T or F)	Extraverted	Introverted	Non-preferred

code	Keirsey	Berens	APS (approximate)
SJ	Guardian	Stabilizer	Melancholy in Control
SP	Artisan	Improviser	Sanguine in Control
NF	Idealist	Catalyst	Phlegmatic or Supine in Control
NT	Rational	Theorist	Choleric in Control
IST/INJ	Contender	Chart the Course	Melancholy in Inclusion
ISF/INP	Responder	Behind the Scenes	Phlegmatic or Supine in Inclusion
EST/ENJ	Initiator	In Charge	Choleric in Inclusion
ESF/ENP	Coworker	Get Things Going	Sanguine in Inclusion