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"
•"Not Cognitive Processes" premise
Understanding Archetypes and Complexes
The primary archetypal roles and attitude order
The Arm and Spine of consciousness
The Four Functions and their “shadows”
•Original four-process model
•Beebe's eight-process model; descriptions of shadows
•Projection: The Complexes and other people
•Lenore Thomson's interpretation of the processes: Brain lateralization
•How the shadows manifest within the ego
•J/P regain their significance; Summary of different levels of suppression from consciousness
•A Word on Socionics (j/p switch)
Recap of the entire process
Temperament and Interaction Style
Correlation with APS?
APPENDIX
Block names
Archetypes in three variables; Generic terms
Beebe Resources and Intertype dynamics
An example of the operating charters, using my type
Spine, Arm and opposite orientation of dominant
Deciphering Ni, and the difference from Ne (and Si)
Another perspective on the functions: Matrix of objects, motion, holistic and linear
•Linear/holistic and T/F/J/P
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 (and their basic meanings in relation to the external world):
EP: expressive, and preferring to experience the external world (proto-Sanguine)
EJ: expressive, and preferring to order the external world (proto-Choleric)
IP: reserved, and preferring to experience the external world (proto-Phlegmatic)
IJ: reserved, and preferring to order the external world (proto-Melancholy)
Most of these will grow into these temperaments, but some won't, depending on the other letters that develop.
It is also easy to imagine how simply experiencing the external world will tend to be more "responsive" than ordering it.
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).
The Dominant Function: Our "Operating Charter"
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 Sensation type (E-S)
ISJ introverted Sensation 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.
Whatever we habitually put aside to make our willful conscious choices will inevitably make its alliance with the unconscious -- emotions we don't want to feel, desires we don't recognize, etc. That is, the hero who has successfully established a sense of self and assimilated the good, supportive aspects of a Parental figure ["hero" and "parent" concepts will be explained below] will be compensated, in the unconscious, by everything s/he's rejected as not part of this self. (Lenore Thomson, Personality Pathways)
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 "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.). A differentiated cell focuses on that task, and then the information offered by other genes is blocked biochemically, and only genes that permit the cell to perform its task remain active. (Personality Type: An Owner's Manual, p.86). She suggests, taking from Jung, this is actually a wound on the psyche. Without any functions differentiated, none would be suppressed either! For instance, when a loved one dies, the reaction of human "temperament" (as distinct from the four or more "temperaments") is to mourn. (It is not a specific "Feeler" trait, though it can be considered a kind of "feeling"!) However, a person who prefers Thinking might be less likely to openly display the emotion, as opposed, of course, to those who do prefer Feeling, who will display a lot of emotion. Hence, something has actually been lost.
Continuing, she says that when a cell is close to death, it eliminates the biochemical blocks on its genes, and it has the potential to start over. Likewise, typologcally, we are ready to grow, and receive more influence from other functions. This is individuation, and the true goal of type which has been misconstrued as "developing all the functions".
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 "use" or 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.
In this light, it should be pointed out that these functions are best understood as perspectives, rather than as behaviors, skills sets, or entities that do things, as type discussions often fall into treating them as. Thomson (who also discusses the neurological aspect of the theory) distinguishes the "limbic system"; the basic emotional part of the brain that deals with natural reactions such as "fight or flight", with the frontal cortex, which gives us our distinctively human abilities to be aware of our awareness, and our cognitive faculties. The functions represent different ways of building neurological connections from the frontal cortex back to the limbic area, whose motives reach awareness as images freighted with emotion. Those images are filled out by personal experience, and they're essentially representations of the brain states required to respond to them. The functions translate this limbic motivation into cognitive data, allowing us to redirect the instinctual "energies" the limbic system mobilizes to activities that have individual meaning for us in a particular place and time.
She has compared the dominant function as the "central hub" of a network such as EBay, and its dominant goals as the "operating charter". Most of the links that we've built from the cognitive brain back to the emotional brain belong to the function we've differentiated. This creates an Ego-identity, a central hub with an operating charter.
The Auxilary and the Complete Type
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.
Alternation of Functions
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
From here, we can pick up discussing function orientations. So we can see how the auxiliary function is in the opposite orientation from the dominant, and these two functions with their attitudes determine the type and are normally notated as follows:
ISTJ: SiTe |ISFJ: SiFe |ISTP: TiSe |ISFP: FiSe |ESTP: SeTi |ESFP: SeFi |ESTJ: TeSi |ESFJ: FeSi
INTJ: NiTe |INFJ: NiFe |INTP: TiNe |INFP: FiNe |ENTP: NeTi |ENFP: NeFi |ENTJ: TeNi |ENFJ: FeNi
The functions have now been differentiated according to e and i, basically fanning them out from four to a total of eight: Se, Si, Ne, Ni, Te, Ti, Fe and Fi (which are often called "processes").
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 does not rely on any outside "concrete" perception. But all it really involves is getting the sense that a particular event is inevitable by conceptualizing patterns seen around you, and projecting what it will lead to. I describe this as a "template", which can be a kind of story even, which becomes a pattern seen in various events, creating a connection, which can be used to guage likely outcomes.
So like Si; you have taken in the information; and now it's inside. When you bring it up again from the inside, this time you abstract implications from it, and you are engaging Ni.
When we explore multiple possibilities, we are engaging in external intuition. When we lock in on one of them, and make it into a template of how things will be, we are internalizing the intuition process. When we make connections between objects based on properties of the objects, it is external intuition, for the aspects of the objects we are connecting are external to us. When we connect things using a template, it is internal; for the standard of choosing a template and what connects it to others is internal.
So just as you can experience a current event, just for what it is, which is Se, or abstract a new meaning from it, which would be Ne; you can also look back at a memory of an event, just for what it was, which is Si, or abstract significance from it in the form of things such as these templates, which would be 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.
More on deciphering Ni, and the difference from Ne (and Si), 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 pollution 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 that makes sense to him personally, rather than just for it to be neat or otherwise efficient (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).
Berens' "The Philosophy of life that engages in {Xy}" in the Cogntive Processes book may turn out to be the best short descriptions to understand them as perspectives with:
Se: There is always more to be experienced, and opportunities don't last.
Si: There is always a comparison to be made, and if it is familiar, it is to be trusted
Ne: There are always other perspectives and new meanings to discover
Ni: There is always a future to realize and a significance to be revealed
Te: Everything can be logical, structured and organized
Ti: Everything can be explained and understood in terms of how it works
Fe: Everything can be considered in terms of how it affects others
Fi: Everything can be in harmony or congruence
As "operating charters" I would rephrase them as:
Se: The environment must contain new experiences
Si: Life must be familiar to me
Ne: The environment must contain alternatives, new possibilities
Ni: Life must have an underlying significance to me
Te: The environment must be efficiently organized
Ti: Life must make sense to me
Fe: The environment must be socially friendly
Fi: Life must be personally congruent to me
Hence, as in the examples above, a person whose perspective is that the environment must be efficiently organized will therefore organize the desk so that it can be used most efficiently, which will most likely mean being neat. I realized that my whole "modus operandi" in life was that things must make sense to me. From earliest childhood, I demanded to ride the front of the bus, and remembered that it was so I could see what was holding us up and making the ride so long. That made it more tolerable than it would have been just standing in the crowds (especially as a small child) in the back not knowing what was going on and a sense of when we would be moving and finally get home. So Ti wasn't some skill or activity I "used"; it was a perspective that shaped my reaction to experience and how I directed my energy in response.
(Looking for some skill set I "used" made it nearly impossible to tell what I really preferred; —especially with Fi described in terms of "wants").
So I would organize the desk in a way that made sense to me, and it might not look neat enough for an extraverted Thinker, or even an extraverted Feeler, who will want it to "look nice"; which will also involve neatness. (There we can see something in common for both the J attitude types, even though their respective functions are radically opposite).
Likewise, when I listen to music from the past, which function is that I'm "using"? You would think it was Se, since I'm currently taking in information through the sense of hearing. However, the perspective is clearly an internal one, of reliving memory. Hence, you cannot judge the sensing attitude by a behavior, such as hearing something in the moment. It is a perspective focused on where the date is oriented (present--external, past--internal). Hence, attention to internal body sensations, while technically, "current sensory stimulation", are considered introverted.
Not Cognitive Processes (The Lenore Thomson Exegesis Wiki)
This site 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). Fi, in the sense of a differentiated function, is a perspective, and just because a person is engaging in a behavior often associated with it, it doesn't mean they are actually processing from that perspective, which is what might determine Fi's position as a preferred or primary function.
Another good point from Lenore is that the products of undifferentiated functions are perfectly capable of reaching consciousness, but only in so far as they're linked to the "operating charter" of the network our differentiated function has set up. This diverts their potential energic investment to dominant goals.
What this means, again, is something that is easy to forget in discussions, and that is that all types engage in behavior associated with all functions. What will be different in each type is the goal the function is working towards, which will be determined by the dominant and its perspective.
What tends to happen with unpreferred (and especially "shadow" functions, as we shall discuss shortly) is that the person will see that perspective as less relevant in situations. So types for whom Si is not a conscious function (such as NJ's), will be able to remember things like anyone else; yet they will tend to see the past as less relevant than the Si-preferring SJ's (who will likely demand everything they are involved with be familiar to them). So when they are remembering something, they are not necessarily "using Si". As a primary perspective, it is normally outside the consciousness. Likewise; with me, I'm usually so busy looking at something for the concepts I associate it with or extract from it; I do not see everything that is there. I got my first realization of what a shadow perspective is like when reading Berens' exercises on the complexes (Understanding and Applying Jung's Cognitive Processes), and for Se (p.18) it said "Look at the drawings. Notice the shapes, the shadings, the placement on the page. Just allow your eye to go wherever it seems to go (Don't jump to finding meaning, analyzing or categorizing yet!)"; it was actually hard to do this. I was like "yeah, yeah; I see that; now what does it all mean?" So while I can see as good as any SP type, still, the attention is clearly focused elsewhere. The Se perspective is less relevant (until I find I have missed something important, or are called to remember certain details of what was there).
The above quote on "using" functions like gears shows the utter confusion that can arise from such a simplistic interpretation (total ambiguation of the functions in relation to actual behavior), and offers a better way of understanding them.
Understanding Archetypes and Complexes
The key to understanding exactly how functions play out in each type are the archetypes. Jung's larger theories included hundreds of archetypes, which are "character roles" of sorts, within the psyche. A handful of these began to be associated with the function positions in each type, most notably by Jungian analyst John Beebe.
Archetypes are basically defined as "a way of organizing human experience that gives it collective meaning". The conglomeration of images, memories, and emotions surrounding an archetypal core, but unique to ourselves. So one such human experience involves "heroically" solving a problem. That is one archetype. Another experience is supporting others. Another one is looking up to others to support us. And another is finding completeness.
While our type preference lies in the ego, which is the conscious part of the psyche, the archetypes lie in the unconscious part, specifically in the area that is "collective", meaning shared by all people.
The easiest example of the unconscious is simply things we've forgotten. It's still buried in the memory somewhere; we just can no longer bring it up consciously. It may come up on its own through dreams, déja-vu's, sudden flashes of memory under stress, etc. Those are personal forms of unconsciousness. There are others that are collective, which are not based on our own memory, but nevertheless shape aspects of human existence such as our inherited images of male and female, good and evil, love and power, that are represented in all cultures.
When we have individual experiences that fit into these particular collective frames of organization we are discussing, and form a pattern in us, they then enter the personal part of the unconscious, and become complexes. The archetype is at the core of the complex. And then the archetype forms an encasement around the function. The function then becomes the operational perspective of that complex.
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. (Beebe)
However, the ego can still access the function apart from the archetypal "shell". Hence, what many people need to realize is that the function is not fated to be equal to its archetypal carrier. 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.
This matches what we just pointed out about the products of undifferentiated functions being capable of reaching consciousness. When it's linked to the ego's "network" of the operating charter, it can be "scooped out" of the unconscious shell as needed, as Beebe has put it. This process is still 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.
When a functional product is not linked to the network of the differentiated standpoint, then it remains conflated with one of the archetypal complexes, at the limbic level of emotional response.
The full name of these elements is function[-attitude] complexes, or “Archetypal Complexes Carrying the Eight Functions”, rather than reducing the complexes to the archetypes or the archetypes to the complexes.
Lenore Thomson (who has added discussion of Beebe's model to her theory since writing her book) emphasizes the archetypes being 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 self-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.
(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)
Implications of Beebe's Model from a Neurological Standpoint
So this model 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.
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".
So what will help decide this is to begin noting these different archetypal roles the functions play.
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".
The Arms and Spine of consciousness
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 to our own selves. These are set in place by the dominant and auxiliary functions. The dominant is our ego's operating charter, and the auxiliary is what we often use with others. So it's like the tertiary and inferior as a pair are a mirror image of the dominant and aux. as far as the kind of function, and whether it is associated with self, or with others.
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.
How the Spine, Arm (and opposite orientation of dominant) work for me
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 suppressed, 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 end up as 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", and it appears a "double negative" principle leads to it being the same gender as the person. The term actually came from Freud, and others named the corresponding state "Internal Saboteur", "Bad Object" or "anti-libidinal ego"). 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. Note 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 reflect 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)
I believe it would be accurate to extend the operating charter concept to each of the other seven archetypal complexes (after the dominant "hero"). They would have the corresponding one of other function perspectives as their operating charters: (parent: aux., child: tertiary, etc). Hence, when an Ni-preferring type (NJ) is remembering something from yesterday, he is not "using Si", though we might generally consider the act a "product" of Si. But when past rememberances come up under stress, they may tie into deceptive or destructive archetypes, which will now grant them the [otherwise unconscious] perspectives of Si, though usually negative ones. In contrast, for INP's like me, the Si perspective will often take on the form of child-like nostalgia.
An example of these operating charters, using my type
| 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 the ego.
The basis of this concept of cognitive intertype dynamics is the notion that the archetypes (particularly the shadows) are what we project onto others, and the goal of ego-development is to "own" them, and see them as apart of ourselves. We will then withdraw the complex being projected.
Hence, the larger Self, which goes beyond just ego consciousness into the personal and collective unconscious, is said to constantly be trying to "get our attention" through means such as conflicts and reactions, as well as dreams.
This is because the ego thinks it's the center of the psyche, when the larger Self really is.
The hero and child are likely not projected, because the ego owns them fairly early, in maintaining its dominant perspective, as per Thomson. She does suggest that many do project the parent, (which you would think we likewise wouldn't project much, since we often see it as just as integral to our type as the dominant) because of our tendency to jump to the tertiary defense. When projecting it, we would see others as "parent" figures, looking to them to help us with our auxiliary (which will go along with the child complex, which also looks up to others around the tertiary function).
When we withdraw that projection, we then open ourselves to more information from the auxiliary function, gaining "a strong motivation to teach and mentor others", and sometimes going to the opposite extreme of "preaching the auxiliary". The person now rigorously "parents" others with their perspective.
Projection of the anima/animus is said to be onto a person we fall in love with. We then see them as "completing" us. We likely see them through the lens of our inferior function. As the complex is traditionally said to be largely shaped by our parent of the opposite gender, I ended up with the irony of projecting an Fe-laden complex onto ISTJ women (who often fit the image on the surface because of their dominant Si perspective which retains the "traditional feminine roles" many of them were taught, which were very Fe-like). Yet they then turn out of course, not to be anything like an extraverted Feeler at all! That might make it seem like Si is my inferior; but Si is not what I'm projecting onto them; it's what they truly are, and I'm projecting something else that is not who they are; it's from within my own unconscious! (I luckily married a true Fe type who is much better suited for me!)
Berens considers "projective" the "negative side" of the ego-compatible "aspirational" (i.e. inferior) role, in which we "project our fears, shoulds and negativities onto others". This would point to just a general sense of vulnerability we have concerning the function regardless of the gender of the person we are dealing with. In four-process theory, the inferior was the entire "shadow", so in the transition to eight-process theory, it retains some of its particular association with "projection".
"The Shadow" was originally conceived by Jung as a single archetype that gets projected onto our enemies. In this model, it is of course divided into four distinct roles, "shadowing" the primary archetypes. When we project the encompassing complexes onto people, they seem to fit those roles, generally involving the function-attitude in that position in some way, and we react antagonistically in kind with that function. Or, they might genuinely be fitting the role in their own behavior. Like an example Lenore used was that an INTP, for whom the Demon is associated with Fi, might well project this image on to people who are so emotionally identified with a cause that they'll torture people who don't agree with them (that is, if what they're standing up for somehow threatens the ego's goals). This I can testify to, and realize that it appears to shape my reactions to certain movements within Christianity as reflected in some of my Christian writings.
Projection can be "positive" as well, though that can still ultimately become a negative thing. The anima projection on a loved one is an example, and we also are projecting onto people when we are jealous of them, thinking they have something we don't. Beebe mentions an INTP husband of an ENFP interviewer ("Typology In the Development of Integrity"), whose dominant function is her Trickster. The "humorous" positive side of this complex that gives us "a certain ability to cope" that "allows you to get through the jungle of human relations", is that the function conveyed "a sense of humor about introverted people and understood how to get along with them".
Again, this is likewise from something unconscious inside the person, being projected onto the husband.
To own the complex instead of projecting it at others, we must see ourselves as playing those roles; our own worst enemies. This is hard, because these parts of us are precisely what we have shut out of our consciousness. When we do this, the aggression associated with the archetype then comes more under conscious control, and the Shadow thereby becomes more of an ally (yet, without losing its feral danger). We also become more receptive to stimulation from the function that has become embedded in the complex's archetype. We can then experience the positive side of the perspective more.
This is what this whole concept is ultimately about, and self-growth is the real goal!
This is what has somewhat misguidedly become shorthanded as "developing the functions". That again assumes the functions are "skills" we "use". But you're not really developing functions; you're expanding consciousness and recovering suppressed perspectives, as that again is what the function attitudes are. The ultimate goal again, is "individuation". While this would yield a more balanced perspective in living, it is really not simply becoming "strong" in "all eight functions".
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.
The way to understand this is by the concept of resonation. Broadcasting works by emitting electromagnetic waves, which pulse in intensity in a particular frequency. When a receiver is vibrated at that same frequency, it resonates with the wave (vibrates with it, at the same step, so to speak), and thus picks up and relays the sound or other data being transmitted.
Likewise, this is how the archetypes work in cognitive dynamics. You parent someone with a particular function. If that same function happens to be in their "child" position, it will fit right into place like a puzzle piece, and a sort of "parent-child" relationship will develop around that function. If your critical parent functional perspective is used by anyone in any role, it may end up playing right into the things you are disgruntled about since they often involve that same function.
Another interpretation of the processes
Lenore Thomson also accepts Beebe's model, with a few modifications, such as reminding us it is a model of complexes. Like when I might criticize someone's behavior with Fe, and it therefore appears to be possibly the "Senex process". (I had to grapple with this when ENFP was at one point suggested as my type). 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 a more 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!)
Her 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 next to last function. 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; so called, because they are the dom. and aux. in the opposite attitudes, and thus the opposite brain hemisphere also). The tertiary and inferior are listed last. That way, 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. It's divided as the first four are the same brain hemisphere, and the others, the opposite brain hemisphere.
One example she gives of how the ship model works, is that the dominant, as the captain, is navigating in a particular direction. The auxiliary is the petty officer, who follows orders, but also brings to attention alternative perspectives. Like I imagine he might suggest steering off course to avoid some obstacle. The tertiary water skis behind the ship, thus heading in the captain's direction, yet making rude remarks. The inferior is a castaway given a lifeboat, who ties a rope to the ship, reaches land, and then ties the rope to a powerful truck, and begins driving inland, actually pulling the ship along with him. Of course, these different directions, if you have caught it, represent the attitudes.
So now we have three different levels of "degradation" of functions. If the preferred two (#1,2) don't solve a problem, they might degrade to #3,4, the opposite "tandem-mate" (opposite function with opposite attitude, and opposite brain hemisphere), or go into the shadow, either as #5,6, the preferred function's opposite hemisphere/attitude "double-agents", or at the bottom, (#7,8) the same side brain alternatives. Not sure what specific situations would determine which it degrades to, but it probably involves stress level. The more stress, the further down in preference it will resort to. Hence, Beebe's archetypes becoming more negative the further down in his order you go.
(Lenore believes the Trickster and Demon surface mainly in special situations "when the ego has reached the end of its limits". The Trickster, for instance, in situations of severe abuse, will defend the ego's integrity by splitting off the damaging content that can't be borne and narrowing the person's conscious framework. The result is a form of psychological denial. In a case where the ego is ready to grow, the Trickster floods consciousness with paradoxes that have no solution within the framework the ego has established. This serves to relativize the ego, as the Self assumes its rightful place as the center of the psyche. I believe in a combination of Lenore's and Beebe's versions of the theory).
How the shadows manifest within the ego
Within the ego, shadow function perspectives usually aren't trusted and take up a lot of energy when engaged, 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' engagements of their perspectives also might irritate us, especially in conflict, and especially if the function is also in their shadow, in which case it would resonate within their corresponding complex.
However, this too is not to be taken but so far, as it is tempting to do. Not every product of a particular function invokes that archetype for us in such a type-specific fashion. Recall, as functional orientations, they are all always operating in the psyche, and we will be conscious of their products as long as they support our dominant standpoint or further our dominant goals. If not, then they may conflate with one of the unconscious archetypal complexes (which carry the functional perspective), and cause stress for us, or clashes with others as described, since what we have suppressed is now being invoked.
In studying these concepts, I had outlined five questions as to how these shadows manifest:
1) What exactly triggers them in us
2) How others "use" of them affects us
3) how they affect ourselves, inside
4) how we use them on others
5) when the "good" or "bad" sides of them surface
One way to get a rough idea of how they work is by the fact that there are four functions, with one set shadowing the others with the opposite orientations. When the primary function can no longer solve the problem, the ego might switch its orientation in defense, and you will get a very negative reaction in that [opposite] function-attitude.
In actuality, rather than the archetypes constraining the functions, the functions constrain the complexes. That is, when a complex is activated, the behaviors will reflect the function associated with it. When the complex is invoked, the feelings will reach us by way of the associated function; and especially the aspects of it that we don't usually allow into consciousness, or something that we associate with it that strikes us as fitting the archetype. (oppositional or adversarial, cranky or witchy, deceptive or mischievous, or evil and inhuman. It could also hold for the inferior and other primary ones as well).
So then what triggers the complexes? As part of the personal unconscious, they likely are invoked when something occurs that triggers a conscious or unconscious memory of an event associated with an archetype. So the repeat of a situation in which you felt oppositional or adversarial will trigger the Opposing Personality Complex, and its associated functional perspective. A situation that makes you feel very disgruntled might trigger the Witch/Senex and its function-attitude, etc. A person might trigger them, again, when they are engaging the related function in a way that invokes these memories or makes the ego feel threatened. Again; it is not necessarily any engagement of it, however.
This is described as a "limbic" reaction, meaning an emotional response not tempered by our rational mind. When a particular complex is not engaged in this fashion, the function remains in the neutral undifferentiated state, and can possibly be manifested as (and tolerated in others) good as anyone else. (That is, depending on experience; which is what fills the "images" of the neurological connections associated with the functions). 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.
(Likewise, one person's very shadowy manifestation of one of the other person's ego-syntonic functions will also likely have a negative effect. Like if someone were to employ a Ti perspective in a negative way against me; as in an argument. Or a TJ being "double-binding" or "destructive" with Fe).
My enthusiasm for the theory could be considered a "product" of an introverted Feeling "process" (which is often defined as the subject-oriented emoting that leads to enthusiasm about something), but I'm not actually "using" Fi. I do not suddenly "prefer" it, nor is any "demonic personality" or "angelic" (or "transformative") complex engaged, even. My perspective is one of making sense of things through symmetrical frameworks (personal/universal logic), and the emotional valuation being expressed is simply an ego reaction to something fitting this goal.
To carry this into the earlier "organizing a desk" example, if the person has Te as the "hero" function (ETJ), then organizing the desk might be his way of "saving the day". If it's "parent" (ITJ), organizing the desk might tend to come out more in the form of instructing the other person who left it messy. If Te is child or inferior (FP's), the act of straightening the table may 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 circumstances surrounding organizing might tend to be more negative, and they likely won't even be conscious of this.
For me, in its more positive side, it backs up my logical conclusions, such as the example of arranging the desk according to convenience. In this case, the arrangement by convenience is a form of external efficiency. But the question is what determines the efficiency? If it's from referencing a personal preference (let's say, particular types of desk organizers, because of how they work), rather than some agreed upon standard, then that is an internal (subjective) logic, and what we have to look at to determine which function is really driving the action here. Te in a primary position would see this as still 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. I want it that way for my own subjective reason, and externally setting and maintaining that order will end up coming off as "oppositional". (It's usually certain imposed rules and regulations I might become this way about, moreso than organizing a local area). An ETP will tend to be even more critical of others concerning the order. An IFJ might tend to make mistakes, such as throwing out important papers. An EFJ might work up a frenzy and 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 normally less relevant functional perspective ends up surfacing in a "huffy" manner that we can loosely associate with an archetypal manifestation.
The "Demonic personality complex" may be engaged (in which the person is reacting to their own suppressed logical organization perspective and projecting it onto the other person or environment, and thus reacting to the lack of organization in a negative manner); or if they are not projecting in that particular instance, I imagine it's just the panic of having to engage a normally rejected perspective.
For me, who is consciously examining these different reactions, it seems that while a complex might not always be engaged, you might still see particular situations through them. So that situation calling for a Te, or Se perspective I might likewise have an aversion to as irrelevant, yet the Te situation I might see as involving dumb rules (the "oppositional" attitude), and the situation calling for Se I might feel trapped in, or feel that current sensory awareness or attention evades me in a "tricky" fashion. I'm not really projecting anything, except my own aversion to an irrelevant perspective, or my own aggression or vulnerability at a situation. So then the situations come to be seen through the archetypal lenses.
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, certain physical acts such as walking elevated tracks).
The Trickster and Demon function influenced decisions particularly are said to end up being regretted because they usually erupt in such a rash manner from being the most suppressed, and in the more vulnerable areas.
So basically, We disown shadow complexes, and distrust their associated functional perspectives.
So to answer the five questions:
1) The complexes (personal unconscious) are triggered when a situation invokes a memory of an experience associated with the corresponding archetype. Like something that makes us feel inferior, adversarial or cranky; or makes us feel trapped, or feels like evil. We then view this through the perspective of the associated function-attitude.
2)Others' manifestations of these functions may trigger these memories, and affect us in kind. (i.e. according to the archetype, and its functional perspective). Otherwise, they will be subject to how they fit the ego's goals (positively, no effect, etc).
3)We normally see the functional perspectives as "irrelevant" (or sometimes even have an aversion to them or situations calling for them, likely based on experience), and under stress, engage them in a rash, haphazard way. Again, the products of the undifferentiated functions do not have this [type-specific] effect on us when not in conflict with the ego.
4)We project them onto others, in which we see the other person as the archetype. (This can be either from them truly acting in a way that matches (resonates with) the archetypal complex, or likely more often, just our manufacturing the illusion of such when a situation somehow evokes it). We then react to them in the same way. (adversarial, critical, etc). The goal is to see these archetypes in ourselves rather than project them.
5)The positive effects surface more either in certain instances of stress when the primary counterparts cannot solve the problem. Otherwise, it is when we "own" the associated complexes and withdraw them, that we gain more conscious access to the functional perspectives.
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.
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 suppressed 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 perspectives (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.
What's worse, is when I try to explain this stuff to the Si types around me. They think it's crazy, because Ni is even deeper in their shadow. They operate off of internal concrete data, so abstract data is rejected, particularly from the internal world.
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 there 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!
| 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 perspective, and also rejects Feeling. So the Feeling perspective 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. |
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 was done to more closely match Jung's "rational/irrational" type designation, which was based on the dominant 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 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).
There are disputes as to whether this combination of temperament with Jung's cognitive theory is valid, and whether they can work together. Jung rejected temperament models, and analysts trying to be true to his theory, such as Lenore, follow suit. They see temperament as "behavioral", while the cognitive perspective goes beneath that to our inner drives. Others like Keirsey, as just stated, reject the cognitive processes. LaHaye and Arno seem to avoid mention of Jung altogether. Yet, a student of Keirsey’s; Linda Berens adopted his model and recombined it with the cognitive processes. I go along with this view.
General limbic "temperament" (as discussed by Lenore, and shared by animals) starts out as natural, universal reactions to situations; such as "fight or flight". None of the "functions" are differentiated. When we begin preferring a particular perspective (an attitude and a function, or the "towards/away", etc. drives discussed on the first page), then it begins to differentiate temperament types, that can be divided up into particular numbers, such as "the four temperaments". These are basically combinations of expressive and responsive behavior, which as we shall see further, do parallel functions and attitudes. Other perspectives are suppressed. We then fit into a particular temperament or type category distinct from others.
When we identify that type by a particular function/attitude combination, it's not that only that type "uses" that "process"; it's just that the particular type is marked by choosing it as its main perspective in perceiving and judging information. Hence, in type discussions; "Xy" functions associated with particular types are best understood in terms of the type's archetypal complexes. (which will tend to be more mature for the first two, less mature for the next two, and have more negative and unconscious connotations for the rest).
So Berens incorporated the cognitive processes into the temperament model, and also 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.
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 “sensitivity” 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". Keirsey alluded to this in his first book when mentioning the SP's impulsiveness. While not necessarily a form of "dependency" in itself; this is what that behavior is associated with in FIRO and APS. 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)
APPENDIX
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).
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)
Basis of concepts of anima and demon: Donald Kalsched's The Inner World of Trauma: Archetypal Defenses of the Personal Spirit http://www.donaldkalsched.com/pub_trauma.html
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.
"Undifferentiated" functions in consciousness as linked to network of operating charter:
INTP:
1 operating charter: life must make sense to me
2 the environment must contain alternatives/possibilities for things to make sense to me
3 life should be familiar to make sense to me
4 a socially friendly environment makes the most sense to me
5 the environment should be ordered in a way that makes sense to me
6 life's underlying significance should point to possibilities in the environment that make sense to me
7 the environment's new experiences should make sense to me
8 what makes sense to me provides congruence
Functions in the archetypal complexes:
INTP:
hero: LIFE MUST MAKE SENSE TO ME
parent: I must show/teach others possibilities, perspectives, new meanings
Child: I like the familiar things from when I was growing up
anima: I must be accepted and have a socially friendly atmosphere, (and the ideal other half will be good at creating them)
Opposing Personality: I must order the external world according to what makes sense to the hero.
Oppose those who order it differently
(back-up process)
Senex: I must determine the underlying significance of these negative outcomes.
Resonate negatively with those who confirm the negative intuitions
(Profound wisdom can be discovered from this)
Trickster: I want to experience (see, hear, taste, touch, play, etc) what I want to experience, and I want it NOW. (Especially to make sense of something). Use current facts to double bind others; often feeling double-bound by them myself.
(Use current sensory experience to be silly at times)
demon: I must be what I want to be, stand up for what I think is important, and maintain a clear conscience at the same time; and I'm jealous of those who seem to have attained this in a way that is opposed to the ego. Thus; will try to knock them down from what I see as their lofty perch.
(sometimes can realize the true relative importance of things even when it goes against ego's wishes).
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.
Deciphering Ni, and the difference from Ne (and Si)
Both Ne and Ni 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. The connections between them are likewise external (such as different systems having analogues to "extroversion"). Ni's connections are deeper and harder to pin down, but would involve elements such as "meanings" that underlie the surface parts.
Like I could think of looking at one personality 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. I also have a lot of unrelated things in life I have assigned symbols for and found that the corresponding points seem to match quite well, especially involving crossing timelike things such as music, with spacelike things such as places. This often comes up as using changes in space to point towards hope in negative situations in time, or vice versa. The negatives are also sometimes extracted from a sense of underlying meaning in events. These connections are purely internal.
In light of Beren's "philosophy of life" descriptions for the "operating Charter" concept; I find that they hold the key for completely cracking this confusion of Ni with Ne.
Ne: There are always other perspectives and new meanings to discover
Ni: There is always a future to realize and a significance to be revealed.
"Revealed" basically means "uncovered". So it's a matter of UNcovered versus DIScovered. They sound synonymous, but there really is a difference.
un- prefix of reversal (from PIE *anti "facing opposite, near, in front of, before")
dis- "do the opposite of" (from PIE *dis- "apart, asunder")
"uncover" or "reveal" implies that something was covered, and now we're reversing this.
For "discover", the object is not necessarily covered to begin with. It's just not known about, and instead of covering it, so it remains unknown, we're doing the opposite of covering it, and making people aware of it.
So "discover" reflects Ne's external focus, of meanings that are implicit in the object, yet are being made known to observers by the subject relaying the information. "uncover/reveal" reflects Ni's internal focus, where a subject picks up a significance that has apparently been covered, and now reverses this by applying it to the various objects involved.
Also, we have new meanings vs significance.
When I compare MBTI with the other temperament matrices, I first see that both include introversion and extroversion. So if they share that in common, I then wonder if MBTI has any counterpart to the other temperament factor of people/task. I eventually find that the factor corresponds to both T/F and J/P. So now, I "discover" this new (to everyone else) meaning of the T/F and J/P factors. The connection is already implicit in those external objects, but now instead of covering it up like it doesn't exist; I'm doing the opposite.
Ni is about significance, which is really a subjective thing, not directly implicit in the object.
A good way I have just thought of of describing this is what I have called an "event template". In the forest analogy, the template would be what the forest was said to be symbolic of. Life's interconnectedness, which includes recycling. Things are created, then destroyed, and new things are created from the, Hence, the replacement of forest with a housing development (possibly with materials made from the forest!) will play out this pattern.
The "underdog loses out to the big and powerful" I mentioned above is another example. Likewise, I can remember being real young, and taken to the beach. It was an exciting new adventure; but IIRC falling into the water, and it was very scary and traumatizing. Later, going to a pool, I was pushed in. Going under water for me is very scary. So I had this sense of danger regarding beaches and pools.
Years later, I catch the Brady Bunch episode where they go on vacation in Hawaii. I remember it was a very exciting event for them, and it seemed like it would be a great time. But then, these negative events start happening. I remember the hideous spider attack in the room. And the, the older brother wiped out in the surf, and was thought to be dead. There was this looming sense of a curse, from the Tiki they encountered.
Now this was not even my experience. It was fictional. Yet it tied to experiences I had, and formed what I'm calling a "template". A sort of situational counterpart to an archetype. I could name it like an archetype; such as "Hawaii-Bound" after the episode (though that title is not really descriptive enough). It also parallels Christ's statement "those who shall save their lives shall lose it", or "When they shall say 'peace and safety', then shall come sudden destruction". Again, when we think things are so well, all horror breaks loose. So I could call it "Peace and Safety".
This would form a mental background future events would be engaged against. They then take on a significance. Like I cut my finger really bad on a family outing to a beachside resort, on a 104° day in a hotel with no A/C, but the windows painted shut from whern there were A/C's. This seemed to fall right into this template, though I probably wasn't even thinking directly about the Brady Bunch episode. It was just this background sense of things being "too good" on the way to the outing, and thus something go horribly wrong.
Another template is based on Aliens, where they make the exciting discovery of life on another planet, but the guy has the horrible experience with the face-hugger. When it comes off; it seems he is all right, and he tries to move on from that trauma and in somewhat of a daze, get back to normal life by eating with the others. But then, that's when the horror of horrors happens. The alien inside him bursts out. This is what loomed in my mind as I had to walk around in this heat after loosing so much blood, and I tried to be OK and get back to normal, but the others were saying I was not completely myself, and almost in a daze. Luckily, no further horror happened after that. Still, it all fit into these templates.
The templates are purely my own in applying to situations; hence, introverted, and yet they do tie into universals (hence, other people using the same concepts), which is also characteristic of introverted functions. Those would be the internal "focal points" of the illustration I posted.
So what ends up happening, is that whenever there is some really exciting event or prospect, I have this back-of-my-mind fear that something really bad is going to happen. Of course, Ni for me is in the shadow, in the "Senex" or "critical parent" position. It is negative, and very incomplete, and not a good guide at all.
So now we see the basis of Berens' description of Critical Ni for INxP's as "putting a damper on plans for the future with negative thoughts of how things will be". It's based on a sort of negative template. My "good" parent Ne tells me that the negative is only a possibility, but more likely (looking at the external data available so far), things will go all right. Yet for some reason I lock on to this negative possibility. I'm no longer exploring possibilities; now I'm inferring significance. (For the record, since this deals with stressful events, it can likely be seen as a manifestation of the archetype. I otherwise don't usually trust or think much of such a process).
For NJ's, this function will be more mature, and they will have more positive uses of it, which will also be more likely to come true, as more indepth, complete templates will be created, which will pick up more cues on whether a particular outing really fits into the template that ends in disaster. From what I have heard, many of them have learned to keep this stuff to themselves, being we are in a heavy S[J] society that thinks it's weird. (Ni is at the bottom of their shadow, after all).
I have noticed that the language of Ni types will often be filled with references to fictional stories and proverbs. These form the templates Ni plays off of; or more accurately, rather than being original templates themselves, they more likely fit into timeless templates (i.e. universals) that Ni uses fiction and current experience to link all together. ENTP John Beebe also does this a lot, and this would be Ni backing up his dominant Ne (with "parent" Ti), in discussing his theories. He himself has said that the study of archetypes are the domain of Ni.
Ni is often described as dealing with "frameworks", which is a term usually associated with Ti (also making it confusing). But Ti deals with frameworks of judgment, you make decisions with, such as sets of principles. Ni would deal with frameworks of perception, in which you take in new information. I would say all four introverted functions have frameworks. Ti is logical frameworks (called "principles"), Fi is ethical frameworks ("values"), Si is concrete frameworks (i.e. memories of how things should be), and Ni is abstract frameworks, such as these event templates.
Ni is often confused with Si even, because a person can look at how events play out over and over, and then get a sense of what will happen in the future. However, this can be Si. Looking at how gravity always pulls things down, and then deducing that something you let go of will drop would be Si. It is concrete data. It's the act of creating a template of events that is the process of abstracting (from memories), not just any "foretelling" of the future. It generates a concept.
The whole "Bad things will happen on a fun outing" is not based on concrete facts such as gravity. It is a model pairing together otherwise unrelated events that only share a few details in common, such as going to a fun outing. There is no external element connecting the two to any common negative chain of events. It's all in an internal template, or perhaps 'storyline', if you will. Another example is conspiracy theories. In this case, the negative outcome has already occurred, and now you employ a template of conspiracy scheming to "reconstruct" how it "must have been" carried out. (The "blaming" aspect of this will be especially pronounced for those of us with this process as the blaming "critical parent"!)
This also brings to light the fact that the simplistic descriptions of Ni as "foretelling the future" really do not do the function justice. This is what has made it so hard to figure out all this time. And any person who seems to have some sort of "visions" of the future is automatically made into an NJ type. The templates may give you a sense of what will happen, and you can loosely call them "visions", but they are not glimpses into the future.
Another example is in one of Berens' descriptions of Ni; a person choosing a dog has a "vision" of a dog barking and crying, and then realizes that they should get a dog that didn't mind being alone. This doesn't even have anything to do with any particular singular event being "predicted". It was a template or model of a situation that was referenced to inform a decision for the better, to avoid that template possibly being realized in a future event.
This makes it more clear to me, about a close friend of ours, who I always typed as ISTJ because of being pure "Melancholy" on the APS. Yet there was this problem (for my correlation) of her having these "visions" of things. And other people in the churches (which are charismatic-leaning) who otherwise seem SJ, say they have these "insights" as well. Yet I have realized that these visions are totally concrete in content. Like seeing a dome shape, and then, an event occurs involving a dome. But this is not Ni. Ni is abstract. Now, if the dome was a symbol of something, then it might be fitting into an Ni template. Even though the aforementioned dog vision seemed concrete, its application was clearly an abstract model, and again, not a hard prediction. They claim the insights are gifts from God, and that would be more fitting than a natural cognitive preference. The cognitive process test I am seeing confuses both Ni and Fi with such oversimplified descriptions in the questions, and SFJ's end up coming out as ISFP's (yet with very high Fe!).
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.
This becomes another evidence of the temperament correlation. Lenore Thomson, in contrast to Bruzon, claims J is linear, and P is holistic (she spells it "wholistic").
If both are true, it means that T and J are both linear, while F and P are both holistic. But in two different areas.
In Bruzon's theory, linear/holistic are concerned with the "connections" between events (T="this causes that" with lines connecting the dots; F is more about an overall "harmony" represented by events being enclosed in a circle).
To Lenore, linear/holistic is:
J [Je/Pi: left brain]="one-after-the-other" rules; desires predictability; structuring reality before it exists, interested in outcome.
P [Pe/Ji: right brain]="all-at-once" approach to life; desires probability; adjusting to conditions here and now, in light of their impact on our goals, interested in dynamic process.
Bruzon's use of the terms are connected with tying together our perceptions, and Lenore's seem to be more about the actual decision making process itself, or the "nature of the values/principles" as she puts it.
In the correlations we are making here, T and J are both "task" focused" (less "responsive"), and F and P are more "people" focused (more responsive). Task-focus is "directive" for the Interaction Style (S+T, N+J) and "structure focused" for the temperament (S+J, N+T), and people-focus is "informing" for the Interaction Style (S+F, N+P), and "motive focused" for the temperament (S+P, N+F).
My understanding was helped in taking shape years ago when I saw this essay: ( Achilles Tendencies: Exploring Human Frailty and Personality Type), where it is pointed out that TJ's are the most directive, FP's the least so, and TP's and FJ's somewhere inbetween. (And I deduced from that; because they thus mix the two different forms of people and task focus. TJ's, for instance, are both directive and structure focused. This will yield, a very linear and task-oriented type, while informing and motive focus will make FP's very holistic and people-oriented). So what's happening is that linear and holistic seems to be connected directly to task vs people. (Task-focus=linear; people focus=holistic). What we end up with is that TJ's are the most linear; FP's are the most holistic, and TP's and FJ's are inbetween; mixing linear and holistic in one way or another.
An example Lenore gives is with a speed dial list. Fe types might arrange it by the importance (closeness) of the person to them, while Te tyes might do it alphabetically. In my observation of this, they're both engaging in a linear task of ordering things one after the other. (while I as a P type would tend to be a bit more indecisive about it; usually leaving it in a default alphabetical order, or perhaps a combination of alphabetical and importance, such as grouping them by importance, and then alphabetizing the names within a group). However, an alphabetical order is more linear than a personal order. A follows B follows C... etc. Arranging by importance is in a way, holistic, and would match Bruzon's "all the dots in a circle" illustration.
So to spell this out:
FJ: the linear decisions [tasks]; holistic connections
FP holistic experience [dynamics]; holistic connections
TJ the linear decisions [tasks]; linear connections
TP holistic experience [dynamics]; linear connections
Hence, TJ, doubly linear, FP, doubly holistic, TP and FJ, a mix of linear and holistic.
