PERSONALITY MATRIX

Part 2:

MBTI and the 16 Types and Cognitive Functions

"Short version"



Intro to type (the bare basics of the type code)

E-reader version of entire series on Academia

E-reader version "Building the Code" section

Back to Part 1

The processes: Input and Output and other two dichotomy letters

•[introduction: (the functions)]

•What is a "preference"?

•The attitudes (two middle factors)

•The type functions' operational definitions, derived from common function terms

•The fourth factor

•The dominant

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

•Preferred vs Unpreferred Functions

•Definitions of the Function Attitudes

•Simple type descriptions based on definitive dominant and auxiliary functions

•The standard four function-attitudes of each type

•What really sets the function order?

•The primary archetypal roles and attitude order

•The Arm and Spine of consciousness

•The Four Functions and their “shadows”

Understanding Archetypes and Complexes

•Projection: The Complexes and other people

•How the shadows manifest within the ego

•What invokes this stuff?

•An example, the block and tandem parallels, and summary of shadow dynamics

Lenore's interpretation of the eight function order: Brain lateralization

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?

It's all about “consciousness”

Temperaments are complexes too!

APPENDIX

Block names

Archetypes in three variables; Generic terms

Beebe Resources and Intertype dynamics

Animals and temperament or type

More on the function definitions

•Different perspectives with the functions

•Functions as "perspectives"

•("Not Cognitive Processes" premise)

•(Lenore Thomson's definitions from the book, and developing additional root definitions)

•Functions and gender roles

•How we divide reality: "abstracting" from the "concrete" world

•The neurology behind the functions

•Eight atitudes, and difference between the "general" and type-specific "uses"

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 the FIRO-B® system and the old Galen temperaments used by APS, LaHaye and others.

The basis of type is the way we divide reality between opposites. We have two different ways of processing information, and those are divided into opposite poles as well.

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, PROCESSING and OUTPUT. We take IN information, PROCESS it [meaning "rationally"], and then PRODUCE something with it. The information gathering processes are either Sensing or iNtuition, and what we do with the information are Thinking or Feeling. The "output" is basically the acting out of the decisions, and other behavior involved with our functional preferences.

The processes basically can be framed in terms of "positive"/"negative" data, or YES or NO (i.e. something is TENABLE i.e "able to be held" by the ego, or not):

1) IS or ISN'T. This takes the form of what's "known vs unknown" or "guessed vs "naysayed".

2) RIGHT or WRONG. This takes the form of "true vs false" or "good vs bad".

They've also been expressed as "S/N are “functions of the given”, and T/F as “functions of option”. (I.N. Marshall, "The four functions of: A conceptual analysis" Journal of Analytical Psychology 13(1), 1-32, 1968)

The best way to understand the functions is to think of them as "perspectives", rather than as "things" (like "gears" or "skills sets") that we "use", as is often put. Instead of "using ['X' function]" to see something is there or not there, or determine "right/wrong", we see the situation through the lens of that function, and then make the natural (mental or action) response. (Again, the "output").

These functions involve the ways the emotions interplay with our "rational mind". They carry what can be called a "sense of meaning" when brought into consciousness by the ego, and when not conscious, come out as felt reactions. In consciousness, they become the "interpreters" of these emotional events .

The "meaning" or "interpretation" we tend to draw in situations takes the form of:

Sensing: recognition of tangible information taken in through the senses; material items in space, what "known/unknown" (substance)

iNtuition: recognition of conceptual information inferred from or "filling in" situations; hypothetical patterns in time, such as larger contexts —"guessed/naysayed" (idea)

Thinking: evaluation based on the mechanics of objects and factors as (impersonal) "things"; in terms of "true/false" or "correct/incorrect".

Feeling: evaluation based on anthropic ("personal" or "interpersonal") considerations, involving affects on people or souls. In terms of "good/bad" or "like/dislike".

Perception is when the data or life itself, says “yes” or “no”. Something is either "there", or "not there"; you only can take it in, and agree or disagree.

With S, tangible reality says “yes” (it’s there, perceptible via the senses), or “no” (it’s not there)

With N, a pattern ("Where it's heading"; also "there" or not "there") says "yes" or "no".

Judgment is when we ourselves; i.e. the "ego" (and it's "will" or "emotions"), says "yes" or "no".

T, based on an impersonal criteria, such as how objects work

F, by personal criteria, such as how things affect people

Basically, the functions (divided first, into perception and judgment) can be framed as answering one of two questions:

1) What things are we observing?

2) What are the proper relationships between things?

The two functional poles for each question determine the type of observation or relationships being processed. Both can be expressed as either a more factual "it is what it is" approach, or one where there is some sort of meaning or worth to us.

They really represent artificial divisions of reality, where each person pays more attention to one aspect of experience or the other.

Basic functional "products":

[Awareness of] what exists; "is/isn't" observation (irrational) :

S: [special recognition of] material data or practical experience (e.g. "substance" of reality; "known/unknown")

N: [special recognition of] immaterial "implications" of objects and events (e.g. "idea" of reality; "guessed/naysayed")

[Evaluation of] how things relate; "right/wrong" evaluations (rational) :

T: [Determination or evaluation of] the proper relationship between objects (i.e. "true/false")

F: [Determination or evaluation of] the proper relationships of things to our feelings (i.e. "good/bad")

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". (Beebe, "A Jungian Analyst Talks About Psychological Types" at Inner Explorations).

Jung also expressed them as S: “registers reality as real", N: connected with time; that things have a past and a future, and thus “come from somewhere and go to somewhere, and you cannot see where they came from and you cannot know where they go to , but you get what Americans call a hunch”. So this function “divine[s] the implications or possibilities of the thing that has been empirically perceived, logically defined, and discriminatingly evaluated” [i.e. via S, T and F].

From there, we can simplify it as N dealing with time, and S dealing with space , since sensation comes through waves or other stimuli directly from objects in space. Any "pattern", "hypothesis", "theory", "implication", or "inference" you deal with involves something playing out in time.

*(While Jung associated "what is" with S, that would assume everything that exists is perceived through the senses only. But to our consciousness, patterns of "where it's heading" are "things" that exist as well. They are simply inferred, or basically "guessed" or "imagined", and if guessed against, this may come off as "naysaying"; i.e. objecting just for the sake of objecting, without any visible reason. You could distinguish it as S="WHAT it is" [the existence of something is already given], and perception in general is "THAT it is", to begin with).

F is "merely the function that places the highest premium on the psychological act of assigning value." It is “neither affect (or what we sometimes call ‘feelings’) nor the result of more unconscious emotion-based processes, even though [Jung] admitted our complexes are ‘feeling-toned'”. The difference between “Feeling” and “feelings” (emotion) is that Feeling is “the function that sorts out feelings” . Or, “discriminates affect”. (Beebe: Energies and Patterns in Psychological Type, 2016, p10, 148, 158).

T “defines for us” what we are perceiving “is” there. You can think of it in terms of “how things work”. “Defining” is done basically by determining “what it is” by how it works, or what it does, which yields the judgment of “true” that things are measured true or false by (as opposed to how we feel about it, which determines "good or bad").

We can parallel it up as S and T both dealing with "what is" in the sense of "fact"; one function observing, and the other assessing, and N and F dealing with "what it means"; again, one observing, and the other assessing.

To observe "fact" is to take in the tangible data "at hand", and to assess "fact" is to make the rational decision (based on how it works) of how the data is to be categorized (e.g. "named").

To observe "what it means" is to find an unseen meaning or inference the data implies or can fit into. (What N observes again, exists, and so "is" in the sense of being something that can be named. But it's not fact, in a tangible sense; it's a "meaning"). To assess "what it means" is to make a rational decision regarding how we (humanity) relate to the data.

Just what is a "preference"?

Now, we all do all of these things, so one can wonder what this is all about. What do we mean when we declare some of these processes as “preferred” in making up a “type”? The answer is that there are what can be described as more "general" and "special" instances of these perspectives; and it's the "special" instances that connect to the type "preferences" we are discussing here.

(As will be discussed more later, the key to understanding "preference", is what's called "ego-states". The ego is our main sense of "I", and will generally choose one function as its main "world-view", and various lesser "states" will hold other world views, represented by the other functions. These all represent "special" uses that will be specific to the different types. The "general" uses are those whose senses of meaning are not set apart and interpreted by a particular ego-state).

A Sensing type (_S__) is one whose primary outlook is to register reality as real , through tangible, material or practical "at hand" data and/or experience, located in space, which they generally "itemize", and thus think in terms of what is tangibly "known" or "unknown", or the substance of reality (which is what sets the idea, or what's implied).

An iNtuitive type (_N__) is one whose primary outlook is inferring the implications of things ; "filling in" experience with [mental] "constructs" that work or play out through time, such as concepts, hypotheses, or theories, which all involve "larger contexts" or meanings behind things and [non-physical] "patterns". Even physical or visible things, like in comparing one thing to something separate, but has some sort of inferred similarity. Focusing on a property to compare, like its shape; they have turned into an “idea”. They can be said to generally "philosophize" experiences based on putting these ideas together. This is about what is implied or inferred (or "imagined"), or we could say "guessed" or "nay-sayed" (which explains or improves what's "known", or the "substance" of reality).

A Thinking type (__T_) is one whose primary rational outlook is looking at the world "impersonally" or "technically", in terms of objects and how they work , which we can call the "mechanics" of things, (including people), often with a focus on goals such as efficiency. They tend to think in terms of "true" or "false" (which is what will automatically determine "like/dislike").

A Feeling type (__F_) is one whose primary rational outlook is paying attention to or sorting out feelings (theirs and by extension, others), looking at the world in terms of people or humanity, and the elements that makes them “subjects”, which is basically what could be called "anthropic" (or "humane"), and ultimately deals with the "soul", with its emotions and values; usually with a focus on goals such as individual or group harmony. (They will often mirror the other person's inner state and adjust their behavior accordingly). They approach life in terms of being human first, and seeing others as humans to interact with, and objects are to be looked at and used from the perspective of how we relate to them (or their affect on us). This leads them to "think" in terms of "good" or "bad" (which will assume what is "correct/incorrect").

Coming up with good definitions is pivotal to understanding the concepts, as many become confused in their or others' types from looking at behaviors, thinking "such-and-such type can't do that", or "He does such and such too much to be this type"; often using terms such as "emotions".

The type functions' operational definitions, derived from common function terms

Thinking and Feeling function's connection to literal "thinking" and "feeling":

The literal terms are based on the emotionality of the process, with emotion representing more of a deeper personal involvement in the process, in contrast to a detached impersonal pondering of subjects. This is where the confusion about "Feeling=emotions" comes from, but it says nothing about the humane or technical focused content of the process, which is what the T/F functions are about. A person can be "thinking" of how something affects him and how to react, and we see him sitting there "thinking", but in our sense of the terms, he's actually "Feeling". And a person can be having an emotional reaction because he sees something is incorrect; it won't work, and will lead to some sort of problems, if nothing more than inefficiency. We'll look and say he "feels" strongly about that, but his judgment is actually "Thinking"!

So the experience of emotions, wants and likes is not the Feeling function; it's the rational assessment of them that is.

Indeed, the feeling function, as a mode of psychological orientation, must above all not be confused with emotion. The latter, more properly called affect, is invariably the consequence of an active complex. "Feeling is distinguished from affect," writes Jung, "by the fact that it produces no perceptible physical innervations, i.e., neither more nor less than an ordinary thinking process." (Jung, Psychological Types, par. 725) Affect tends to contaminate or distort each of the functions: we can't think straight when we are mad; happiness colors the way we perceive things and people; we can't properly evaluate what something is worth to us when we're upset; and possibilities dry up when we're depressed. PERSONALITY TYPES: Jung’s Model of Typology, Daryl Sharp, Toronto, Inner City Books, 1987 p.18 http://www.innercitybooks.net/pdf/books/personalitytypes.pdf)

In our usage, thinking is basically a decision-making (even if just mental) process based on linear cause-and-effect principles. It tends to be more "detached" from emotions or "impersonal", as it deals in logic. I found that it can be summed up as dealing with the TECHNICAL or the MECHANICS of things, expressed as what's VALID .

Feeling is basically a decision-making process based on values where evaluations generally take into consideration what's DESIRED . This process will tend to have more emotion involved, and include personal ethics. It can be summed up as PERSONAL , as such "valuing" puts a personal aspect on things. Because "personal" can mean many different things, the term HUMANE or ANTHROPIC seems to cover its focus more specifically. Or we could say SOUL-AFFECT .

These two processes are also described as "arranging" or ordering one of two realms (below).

Sensing and iNtuition function's connection to literal "sensation" and commonly mentioned "intuition" :

Sensation is of course the data taken in through the five senses, which everyone does, including animals. The difference between a Sensation type and iNtuitives and animals is that they derive the most meaning from the sensory data itself, moreso than extracting unseen inferences from it (like N's), or only reacting to it according to instinct (like animals).

"Intuition" is frequently used in a sense like "woman's intuition", which is just a "sense" or "hunch", only partly based on what's seen before you, but the meaning is extracted from this often less conscious impression from within. An iNtuitive type will be more drawn to these meanings behind things, often "reading between the lines", as it's put.

We all can see, hear touch, taste etc. the items in the physical universe. But only some will have more of an emotional investment in paying attention to tangible experience such as this, where it becomes "preferred". What is seen right before them (or at least remembered) is more important as data. (And such "itemization" often leads to more attention to "details"). To others, the information gained from this alone will be less relevant. We all can infer mental constructs such as big pictures or deeper meanings from situations. But only some will gain the emotional investment from such intangible, conceptual data, and it will be those who saw the plain, concrete data as less relevant. To them, there must be more to what is seen before you. (Overall patterns are more important than details). Here now, we can really clear things up regarding emotions, since this often gets mixed up with one of the functions. We all have emotions and like and choose things based on likes and dislikes. Yet only some will have an emotional investment in personally relating to situations, and prefer to make their decisions accordingly. This will lead them to focus on the more "humane" considerations of situations, which might include emotions (their own and/or others). So this might look like investing in emotions for their own sake. We all can see technical, linear cause-and-effect relationships in objects and situations, and make decisions accordingly to them. Yet only some will have an emotional investment in this process. They are the ones who feel the least in control of emotions. The only emotions normally allowed will be the controlled ones associated with his technical (rather than directly personal) focus. (Else, they will tend to come up in a rash fashion).

The attitudes

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. So the distinction can be made in terms of an individual versus environmental perspective. (And for judgment, standards learned generally from nature; i.e. "universals", or from culture; generally "local"). In MBTI certification class, they were described as "turning" or even "going" "inward" or "outward", as if describing literal movement to one or another literal place to perform the process. This I found helped clarify the difference the direction creates within each function when they are used in one area or the other (where others use general behavior descriptions).

Jung called this "extraverting" or "introverting" the functions (notice the verb form of the words. "-vert" means to turn. Also, he insisted on spelling "extraversion" with the "a", where others have used "o" as we did on the first page). Extraversion and Introversion of functions are also called "attitude" or "orientation". So when discussing the eight resulting function-attitude combinations by in this fashion, lowercase "e" or "i" are placed after the function letters indicating the "introverted" or "extraverted" orientation of the function. (Thus denoted "Xe" or "Xi", with "X" here used as the variable for all of them).

Introversion and Extraversion in themselves likely start from neurology, where a person is either oversensitive or undersensitive to stimulation by external data. If he is undersensitive, he will want more stimulation, and move to gain it from the external world; and if he is oversensitive, he will want less, and turn inward, where he has stored data from previous experience or constructed his own standards of decision-making.

So the way these orient the functions:

e attention or evaluation is derived directly from external object, or the environment.

i attention or evaluation is filtered through internal subjective blueprint, learned individually.

Another way of putting it is that the introverted function focuses our cognition on the "inner world" of our own senses, intuitions, thoughts, and feelings, while extraverted functions directs our cognition to the "outer world" of the sources of sensations, intuitive patterns, people's feelings, etc.

Jung had described an introverted functions as "one that has turned away from the object and toward the archetypal ‘idea’ that the object might be closely matched to . This archetypal idea, residing in the inner world, can be understood as a profound thought, a value, a metaphorical image, or a model of reality”, depending on the respective introverted function being T, F, N or S, and when orienting something external, “it is in the end, the comparison to the archetype [i.e. "ruling pattern"], not the stimulating object of situation itself, that finally commands the attention of the function".

To translate, an image of “true/false”, “good/bad”, an image itself (i.e. “an image of an image", hence introverted iNtuition’s “meta-perspective”), or “what is”. More simply put, the introvert's attention is drawn more to their own thoughts, feelings, sensations or intuitions, while the extravert's attention is drawn to objects in the environment.

It can be hard to determine, regarding the functional perspectives, what’s really “internal”, because in reality, all of our processes are technically “internal”. So this can be differentiated by

External world (environment): source of all data

Internal world (individual): where we receive and process all data

The process of data going from the environment to the individual is perception (“input”)

The process of data being ['internally'] assessed as right or wrong is judgment (“processing”)

The process of data going from the individual to the environment is behavior (“output”)

The extraverted subject [or complex/ego-state] simply goes to the environment to get to the [objective] source of the incoming data.

The introverted subject filters it within.

(Input is differentiated as a perception function and processing differentiated as a judgment function when connected to a typological complex. Extraverting is more than passive perception; it’s the ego state actively engaging the environment; seeking the input. With Se, tangible data is constantly coming in, but the ego state is already going out seeking it, and thus “paying more attention” [as we’ve often put it] to it).

So each person will have a preferred dominant orientation, of the inner or outer world. The dominant function will take the attitude of the dominant orientation .

Everyone uses all four functions (S, N, T, F), both internally (i) and externally (e), but for each type there is a particular order they fall in. One function will be dominant, and the others will follow.

Fourth factor and the code comes together

Myers and Briggs came along, and grouped this into the four letter codes. These consist of only two of the functions: the two most preferred, and the other two letters convey how the function is oriented and from that, which is first .

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 referenced externally. (This is called a "pointer variable"). 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 (and thus figure more in our interactions) , even if it is not the dominant. The other function of the two most preferred would then be presumed to be introverted.

So some common behaviors do result from having an extraverted J or P function, which appear in "J/P" dichotomy descriptions. Extraverting a judgment (decision-making function), tends to lead people to desire to establish order in the external world. Such as planning, scheduling, and other ways of desiring "closure". Extraverting a Perception function instead tends to make the person more open to emerging information or situations.

To show why extraverted attitude was deemed more important, it's pointed out that in some ways the dominant introverted perceiving type, who ends up bearing a "J", is actually the introvert more "open" to new information, and the dominant introverted judging type, who bears a "P" is more "closed" in ways; favoring his internally based decisions. But this "openness" or "closure" is internal, and though it does influence external behavior, what is more visible will be what matches the "extraverted function" J/P code.

The dominant introverted judgment type, for instance, may stubbornly hold onto internal "values" or "principles", as often described, but the nature of his judgment function is such that it does not really often latch onto fixed values or principles so hard in the first place ; at least not as often as an extraverted judgment, where it's "set" by objective factors. There will usually be room for new variables to be taken into consideration, so that decisions (especially as carried out in the outer world) will be more flexible. Meanwhile, dominant introverted perception types will be "open" to information coming from within, and so will likely not be as open to new information from without. What the external world sees then is the "set" standard of the extraverted judgment.

So to complete the definition of the type codes:

An extravert (E___) is a person whose ego focuses on the environment through the dominant function. Jung described the ego or “subject” as essentially “merging with the object”. The environment itself, or its judgments (consensus of other people, efficient courses of action, etc.) then are taken as his own.

An introvert (I___) is a person whose ego focuses on its own individual perspective through the dominant function. The perspective is described as approaching the environment and eliminating what is irrelevant according to his own internally held standard or "model" of a situation.

A Judging type (___J) is one whose preferred judgment (decision making) function is oriented environmentally. They will tend to take on the “judgments” of a group (consensus, harmony, etc.), or courses of action determined by the environment (e.g. what’s most efficient, pleasing to all, etc.) as their own values. The person then seems to desire more “closure”, since he expects decisions to be “set” according to external factors. (His preferred perception is then what will be oriented individually, according to a model of experience).

A Perceiving type (___P) is one whose preferred perception (information gathering) function is oriented environmentally. The person tends to remain “open” to new, emergent (often variable) information, before making a judgment (which is what will then be individually oriented, according to a model of rational principles).

The dominant

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 by elimination, 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 function is extraverted or introverted. It's telling you the ego's dominant orientation, and by extension, the function that falls in the dominant position). The function in the other slot would then be secondary or "auxiliary".

Here is the basic four step process for determining the type code's four letters:



The dominant orientation shapes the orientations of the other functions as well. Thus, the function order is alternated, starting with the dominant, which consists of a function and its 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. This is for the sake of cognitive balance (i.e. supplying data for or "informing" one's dominant judgment, or organizing one's dominant perceptions with rational assessments, and keeping us in touch with both inner and outer realms).

These two determine the type, and the rest of the functions follow in an alternating order.

The different attitudes are distinguished because they change some aspects of the functions within themselves. Data that's received from or shaped by the environment (outer world) will be different from that derived or filtered individually (i.e. inner world). So extraverted functions (in addition to sharing the J/P behavior), generally deal in breadth , and have a here-and-now or even "cultural" quality, while introverted functions go more in depth ; often including "universals".

So a person can prefer tangible data, but if his orientation is outward, he will prefer current experience received from the outside, while the person who prefers the same tangible data with an internal orientation will instead prefer stored (already learned and internalized) experience, which he will tend to measure current experience by.

I have found it good to express introverted perception as dealing with stored data, and extraverted perception as dealing with emergent data. Extraverted judgment deals with set standards, while introverted judgment deals with variables (that are determined by an internal model of things).

Jung expressed them in terms of the extravert adding (himself, essentially) to the external environment through the function, while the introvert subtracts from it all that is not relevant to his subjective storehouse. The terms he used for these are "introjection" and the more familiar "projection". The extraverted "subject" takes on as his own (introjects) the experience or values of the "object", and the introverted "subject" sees his own perspective in (projects onto) the "object", such as saying "if that were me, I would...".

(These would be the common denominator in the "stored/variable" vs "emergent/set" terms, which are split across the lines of judgment and perception.

However, my terms are a bit more descriptive of the nature of the functions than a simple "add vs subtract". So I'll use both).

We shall explore all of this more.

How the factors/dichotomies are determined; Dividing reality into "I" or "not I", and resultant ambiguous terms such as "subjective/objective" Type is based on the way we cognitively divide reality. It's just like the way we divide spacetime between back and forth, up and down, left and right, and past and future. The dimensions of spacetime remain whole and undivided, but when we look in one direction, we do not see its opposite; yet it is still there, and remains implicit to us as the other pole of the dimension. We have just chosen one direction, and the opposite is basically "suppressed" (in a way) in our consciousness, caused by the limitations of our sight. (And in the case of time, the forces of entropy, which pull us in one direction of "causation". Meanwhile, the perpendicular spatial directions are suppressed in a lesser fashion, as you can see along them partly).

So likewise, we also divide reality into what is “I” (the “subject”; individual) or “not I” (called “objects”, and in the “environment”). This forms the basis of what we can call “orientation” (also commonly called “attitude”). We also divide our cognition into taking in information that comes to us (which is basically involuntary), and then making rational (voluntary) decisions with it. These modes of processing are also split. So we divide the information we take in (perceive), into what is clearly observable by our physical senses (“tangible”, “material” or “practical”), and what is not based on the senses, but rather inferred from other data in some way. (And thus, intangible, "hypothetical", "theoretical").

We also make a distinction between subject and object in our mental decisions (judgments), which stems from a sense of "right and wrong" (and usually leading to courses of action to make what’s deemed “wrong” to “right”), as determined by our reactions. The emotions (leading to our reactions; whereby we are making rational decisions) can tell us that the affect on us is from something about the object; which will basically deal in the mechanics of things; how they "work" (which is “impersonal” or "mechanical"; operating regardless of their affect on our souls), or it can tell us that this affect is directly about our “soul” (the “subject”, and hence, “personal” or "soulish"). This will generally split the neutral “right/wrong” into the more impersonal “true/false” or the more personal “good/bad”. These are the bases of the three main variables in type; two preferred functions (one perception, and one judgment), and orientation. Orientation then becomes split into a third and fourth variable (actually, first and fourth, in the type code), based on which orientation is dominant , and then, which function is oriented environmentally or individually. The dominant function will take on the dominant orientation, so this also tells us which function is dominant . The other preferred function will be “auxiliary” (needed simply because we also must have a preference in other mode of process; both perception and judgment). Right here we see where two of the variables can be associated with the common terms “subjective” and “objective”, which may cause some confusion when these terms are encountered. One is dealing with an individual or environmental orientation, where only the individual is conscious of his own “soul” , and thus everything in the environment {including other people} become “objects”. The other is dividing all of reality directly between impersonal “objects” and personal “souls” {whether individual or environmental}, and making rational assessments based on which of these two categories we are reacting based on .

Hence, in addition to "subjective", you also see "personal" used for both i and F functional perspectives. There is "cross-talk" between some other dichotomies as well, such as "concrete/abstract" applying to S/N and i/e. (This will be discussed further in the appendix). David Keirsey Please Understand Me II p331 had said Myers "inherited Jung's error of confusing extraversion with observation (S) and introversion with introspection (N)". (See http://www.teamtechnology.co.uk/keirsey-analysis.html) So he uses "introspective" for N, and yet others get confused, because they still associate introspection with I. Some EN types are said to "look introverted", because N is "introspective".

Then, in Jung's writings, you even see "conscious/unconscious" used for both S/N and i/e attitude. (It seemed what is deemed "conscious" is whatever is sensory (tangible) and externally oriented (environmental). Internal (individual) is not really conscious, because you're not experiencing it from the real world; it's basically an image you're bringing up yourself; just as N is really dealing just in images without [necessary] "substance". ) The difference can be seen in all three factors (i/e, S/N and T/F) dealing with the primary polarity in our existence, of "I" vs "not I" .

i/e deals with this directly, looking at WHERE the data we are processing is coming from. Either the environment ("not I"; object) through direct experience (conscious) or our own individual ("I"; subject) filtration (unconscious; not actual experiencing at the time) of it; often through memory.

S/N is WHAT FORM the data is; either tangible items (and practical situations, etc.; conscious); "as is" ("not I"), or our own [individual; ("I")] grouping of data into intangible (unconscious) concepts. (Your iNtuition really only is perceived by you, until shared with others). Both i and N are creating "ideas" that are processed by an individual, but one is treating idea as the "location" (orientation; exists only in an individual), and the other as a type of data.

T/F is dividing reality essentially into types of understanding; WHO OR WHAT are we understanding in an assessment of a situation: Either impersonal objects ("not I") known through their "mechanics", or living souls; each one an individual "subject" ("I", as part of the larger "us", who are the only things in the known physical universe that can even speak of "I/us". So this is like a collective sense of "I/not I").

We can see here where we can even detach from ourselves and look at the "mechanics" of how we work as "objects" in the universe, even though we are still people with souls. This is how people and things involving them can be seen through a "Thinking" lens.



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. Notice, no functions have been identified yet, only the pointer variables (telling us what attitude and position they will be).

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 main "world-view"

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 ; only one of which has become dominant.

The process of the first function "developing" was called by Jung, differentiation. The way we in practice describe the "preferred" functions (the first two), and even the third and sometimes fourth, is technically a form of "differentiation". However, Jung actually applied differentiation primarily to the dominant function. The other functions remain in a state called "undifferentiated", where they can come into consciousness when linked to the ego structure set up in relation to the dominant function, or remain unconscious and tied to the emotions. This will be described as we go along.

A function is differentiated when we place greater value on those choices where emotion and reason are in synch.

When we use a function that is destined to become differentiated, we feel an emotional investment in what we're doing, and we feel in control of our emotional life, so we keep on doing it. We tend to be more stimulated by the function. It then appears to "develop" or get "stronger", and behaviors associated with it will increase. We then go from the more "general" to more "special" uses of the function, and then can put together a "type" code.

But the real motivation is deeper than just the behaviors, which often become focused on in descriptions and discussions.

As for the other functions, the whole concept of function preference is based on acceptance vs. rejection. What the ego accepts as a sense of meaning 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..." (Lenore Thomson, Personality Pathways)

Another way of putting it is that the unconscious area takes form when the ego's bright light of awareness is focused on one part of reality, plunging the rest into darkness.

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 interpretation of situations through. It also chooses its dominant function (S, N, T or F), as its interpretation in that chosen orientation.

The other orientation and the other functions are initially suppressed . The person is capable of engaging in behavior associated with the other functions (i.e. "general"), but as distinct, "special" senses of meaning by which we have an emotional investment, the functions remain "undifferentiated". They simply remain tied to the emotional responses to life, as mobilized by the dominant function.

In other words, for the type preferring 'at hand' tangible data (the "substance" of what's "known", materially), any intangible conceptualizations or inferences from this data implied (the "idea" of what "guessed", hypothetically) will simply support the emotional investment the person has in that tangible data.

For the person preferring conceptual, inferential data, the tangible 'at hand' reality he sees before him will simply be used to support the inferring process. For the person who prefers technical ("true/false" according to impersonal mechanics) criteria for decisions, any humane "value" ("good/bad" according to the affect on living souls) he places on them will support his Thinking, rather than being a differentiated "Feeling" process. And for the person who prefers humane considerations, any logical, technical conclusions will support the humane endeavor somehow. What determines the true "preference" is not the "function" you might see him "using" at any given time, but rather the ultimate perspective it is supporting .

The opposite functional perspective is always implicit in a situation, because when we look at it through a function and orientation, we are in essence dividing the situation that in complete form consists of both material and hypothetical, mechanical and soulish, and environmental and individual aspects

So if I pick out of a situation the mechanical elements I individually (subjectively) subtract from (i.e. I pick it apart to determine what is true or false), then the soulish elements I would have to objectively add myself to (i.e. good/bad as determined by the environment or culture) are implicit, in having basically been differentiated or set apart. This will come out as a particular neglect of the environment of people in the logical analysis, and as the ego matures, this will start to become a "nagging" issue (e.g. "how others feel" about us), that we eventually will begin to integrate more into our consciousness.

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). The functions in that state are not even differentiated from each other. They are not really separate entities waiting for us to "develop" skills associated with them, as we have often made them out to be. The symbols and images generated by the psyche will reflect admixtures of these functional products.

So the entire key to this whole thing is that when you choose one function, the perspective of the other is rejected or suppressed, and when you choose one orientation to 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. In this very early stage, the kind of rational or a-rational data that will be preferred (true/false vs good/bad; or what's tangibly known vs inferred ideas) hasn't differentiated yet. But for when they do, 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 with 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).

The rationality (i.e. rational vs a-rational) of the dominant function, while deemed less important than the rationality of the preferred extraverted function by Myers; it may still be helpful to know in determining type, as people often may know their two preferred functions, but not be sure which is dominant. But the dominant is the ego's main approach to the world, and so the rationality does shape this.

An "a-rational" type [E__P or I__J] is one who's primary outlook is recognizing "what is" (whether tangibly "known"[S] or mentally "guessed"[N]). They will live to "take in" information to inform their judgments.

A "rational" type [E__J or I__P] is one whose primary outlook is determining "right" or "wrong" (whether impersonal "truth"[T] or humane "goodness"[F]). They will live to form decisions out of their perceptions, and to somehow make "right" what is deemed "wrong" (even if mentally rather than always implementing things).

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 supposedly 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.

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:

ESTP: E-ST (Extraverted Sensing with Thinking)

ESFP: E-SF (Extraverted Sensing with Feeling)

ISTJ: I-ST (Introverted Sensing with Thinking)

ISFJ: I-SF (Introverted Sensing with Feeling)

ENTP: E-NT (Extraverted iNtuition with Thinking)

ENFP: E-NF (Extraverted iNtuition with Feeling)

INTJ: I-NT (Introverted iNtuition with Thinking)

INFJ: I-NF (Introverted iNtuition with Feeling)

ESTJ: E-TS (Extraverted Thinking with Sensing)

ENTJ: E-TN (Extraverted Thinking with iNtuition)

ISTP: I-TS (Introverted Thinking with Sensing)

INTP: I-TN (Introverted Thinking with iNtuition)

ESFJ: E-FS (Extraverted Feeling with Sensing)

ENFJ: E-FN (Extraverted Feeling with iNtuition)

ISFP: I-FS (Introverted Feeling with Sensing)

INFP: I-FN (Introverted Feeling with iNtuition)

The Tertiary and Inferior

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. They basically "reflect" the first two.

These will be the functions suppressed from the preferred position. We initially tend to ignore or at least pay less attention to them, and often feel vulnerable in some way or another through their senses of meaning when forced to deal with them. We then project this onto others. This is the basis of a full model of cognitive dynamics we are leading to.

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).

Alternation of Functions and attitudes

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".

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:

ESTP: S (e) T (i)

ESFP: S (e) F (i)

ISTJ: S (i) T (e)

ISFJ: S (i) F (e)

ENTP: N (e) T (i)

ENFP: N (e) F (i)

INTJ: N (i) T (e)

INFJ: N (i) F (e)

ESTJ: T (e) S (i)

ENTJ: T (e) N (i)

INTP: T (i) N (e)

ISFP: F (i) S (e)

ESFJ: F (e) S (i)

ENFJ: F (e) N (i)

ISTP: T (i) S (e)

INFP: F (i) N (e)

Preferred vs nonpreferred functions

With the concept of "suppression" in mind, we can see why, when a person who is geared to focus on technical things (true/false), and normally suppresses or ignores the human-related ones (good/bad) is forced to deal with the latter, such as in a situation where his life is severely affected, it may trigger a strong negative reaction, which is all the repressed emotions erupting from the unconscious. Again, the part of him that is in touch with the "personal" side of life he feels is tied up with emotions he feels he cannot control.

Likewise, when someone normally focused on the humane is forced to deal with the technical, this might also negatively erupt in some way, as the part of themselves that would put logical efficiency first feels cold and inhuman to them. They'll likely do something like use cold logic to attack someone else's logic (but in a more reactive way than the T normally doing the same).

As an example of the problems that can erupt from the emotions involved with the functions, when someone has a negative "Feeling" reaction, I project how I would have to have been feeling in order to react that way , and assume that person must be that upset, and then feel very defensive, and might lash out in kind. The other person (who might not be that upset) will then wonder why I "overreacted".

Extending this to the perception functions, for someone normally focused on the tangible (substance of what is known), the part of himself that focuses on the conceptual (ideas that are guessed) might seem spaced out or unrealistic, while for the person preferring the conceptual, the part of himself preferring the tangible might seem unimaginative or fatalistic.

This will be more pronounced for the inferior function, because it is the most suppressed from the dominant being the most preferred. (This is covered most extensively by Naomi Quenk, Was That Really Me? How everyday stress brings out our hidden personality, Davies-Black, 2002). The tertiary, as we will see, will likely become strong sooner.

In this light, it should be reiterated 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. Again, we do not see a whole undivided reality . Just as we divide space and time into two "directions" for each dimension, we also divide the world cognitively.

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 INFJ: NiFe INTJ: NiTe ISTP: TiSe ISFP: FiSe INFP: FiNe INTP: TiNe ESTP: SeTi ESFP: SeFi ENFP: NeFi ENTP: NeTi ESTJ: TeSi ESFJ: FeSi ENFJ: FeNi ENTJ: TeNi

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", but more properly designated "function-attitudes". There are also collective notations for extraverted or introverted Judgment or Perception: Je, Ji, Pe, Pi).

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.

i [internal: individual subject] or e [external: environmental object] represent:

S: source of tangible sense impressions

N: source of inferred impressions

T: standard of technical efficiency

F: standard of human behavior, harmony

The "proclamations" or command each function makes:

S: “behold!” (the environment or via individual recollection).

N: “imagine!” (inspired by objects in the environment, or images that come up from within)

T: “true!” (determined by environmental dictates or individual reflection).

F: “good!” (determined by environmental values or individual reflection).

Here are the combinations that result, in the common terminology and definitions or associated processes:

Se: concrete perception in an outer orientation (current physical sensation)

Si: concrete perception in an inner orientation (memory, learned "facts", internal bodily sensations)

Ne: abstract perception in an outer orientation (ideas and multiple "possibilities")

Ni: abstract perception in an inner orientation ("foreseeing"; "meta-perspective")

Te: logical judgment in an outer orientation ("organizing" for efficiency)

Ti: logical judgment in an inner orientation ("analyzing" with internal "frameworks", "principles", etc)

Fe: value judgment in an outer orientation ("connecting" socially; "considering others")

Fi: value judgment in an inner orientation ("evaluating importance", "what one wants", etc).

What I find are the most concise root definitions :

Se [spacelike] object recognition in the [outer reality of the] environment

Si [spacelike] object recognition in the [inner “image” or “model” of the] individual

Ne [timelike] pattern recognition in the [outer reality of the] environment

Ni [timelike] pattern recognition in the [inner “image” or “model” of the] individual

Te [impersonal] truth determination in the [outer reality of the] environment

Ti [impersonal] truth determination in the [inner “image” or “model” of the] individual

Fe [human] affect determination in the [outer reality of the] environment

Fi [human] affect determination in the [inner “image” or “model” of the] individual

A little more detail:

Se: awareness of material reality in the environment (turn outward for attention to immediate at hand objects, such as physical/practical items, as it occurs)

Si: awareness of material reality filtered by individual knowledge (turn inward to compare at hand data such as physical/practical items with a storehouse of fact and experience)

Ne: awareness of hypothetical reality inferred from the environment (turn outward to "fill in" experience of objects with mental/ideational constructs such as connections or patterns)

Ni: awareness of hypothetical reality inferred by individual impressions (turn inward to subject's unconscious to "fill in" mental/ideational constructs with connections like "hunches")

Te: assessment of "correct/incorrect" (mechanical "truth") by an environmental/cultural standard (turn outward to objects to determine their proper relationship to each other)

Ti: assessment of "correct/incorrect" (mechanical "truth") by an individual/natural standard (turn inward to internal "blueprint" of proper relationship between objects)

Fe: assessment of "like/dislike" or [soulish] "good" by an environmental/cultural standard (turn outward to evaluate proper relationship involving/between people)

Fi: assessment of "like/dislike" or [soulish] "good" by an individual/natural standard (turn inward to internal "blueprint" of proper relationship involving people)

A compromise:

Se: recognition of what's known in space is stimulated by the environment (as it emerges in the external world)

Si: recognition of what's known in space is stimulated by individual reference (filtered through internal recollection)

Ne: recognition of what's guessed through time is stimulated by the environment (one pattern implies another “externally”)

Ni: recognition of what's guessed through time is stimulated by individual reference (looks outside time to the internal subconscious)

Te: determination of what’s correct (true/false) is stimulated by the environment

Ti: determination of what’s correct (true/false) is stimulated by individual reference

Fe: determination of what’s desired (good/bad) is stimulated by the environment

Fi: determination of what’s desired (good/bad) is stimulated by individual reference

We can also look at the common human "faculties" they are associated with; like Se involving the basic senses, of touch, taste, sight, hearing and smell, and Si being involved with "memory", where we store our sensory experiences to bring back up to consciousness to compare with current experience. Also, especially for the perception functions, the neural imprint being made (as neurology is naturally the foundation of cognition).

The eight faculties (and associated perspectives are:

Current sensation (associated with Se products; stimulation via space) —immediacy

Memory (associated with Si products; stores and filters spatial data) —familiarity

The 'imagination' (associated with Ne products; of potential changes through time) —implications

The unconscious (associated with Ni products; filters temporal patterns) —hunchery

Common Sense (associated with Te products; learning from outside authority how things work) —authority

Reason (associated with Ti products; learning or determining for yourself how things work) —expedience

Sociabilty (associated with Fe products; connecting with people via the environment) —fellowship

The conscience (associated with Fi products; our own human values used to relate to others) —contentedness

The NEUROLOGICAL connections; what's actually going on in the brain :

Se: Neural connections made by CURRENT, DIRECT input

Si: Neural connections made by PREVIOUS, DIRECT input

Ne: CURRENT neural connections from INDIRECT input

Ni: PREVIOUS neural connections from INDIRECT input

Te: Previous neural connections instruct current ones based on impersonal objects

Ti: Current neural connections matched with previous ones based on impersonal objects

Fe: Previous neural connections instruct current ones based on our emotional state

Fi: Current neural connections matched with previous ones based on our emotional state

Now, the natural mistake to make is to define simply "Se=current experiences" and "Si=memory", and so on. This is not totally true. For one thing, only certain types have a normal preference for Se or Si, but every person has both current sensation and memory! So the function-attitudes are specialized attention to the data taken in through the faculties, as used by the ego-structure.

How we divide reality into the functions and attitudes All self-conscious beings perceive data (of what exists) through imagery. When the images are based directly on physical material (superstrings in space vibrating in a way that produces fields that other superstring fields cannot pass through, including those making up our bodies; and thus stimulates our nerve sensors and reflect photons and other waves which also stimulate sensors), then we are experiencing sensation (S), and we call these fields “material”, and can say that it is empirically “what's KNOWN”. The material reality forces everyone to agree with what image is seen (even if they try not to see it, or interpret it as something else).

Our experience of this can be immediate, in the environment (e), or previously learned and retained, individually (i). If the imagery is not backed up by the material experience, then it is merely inferred (may or may not exist, but we haven’t verified it yet), or is imagined (put together in our minds, such as “stories”, “big pictures”, “meanings”, etc.) and is thus “hypothetical”, or described as “GUESSED”, (or "could be", which implies time), and the function is iNtuition (N). These are more fluid and subject to individual interpretation. That’s why topics such as religion and politics often end up becoming endless disputes, and thus so heated (and avoided by some).

These hypotheses can be from the environment (e), where they’re based on other objects or patterns, or they can be from the individual (i) unconscious, often brought up as "insights" from reflection, and used to intepret other patterns. All self-conscious beings assess things as right or wrong. What’s right is what we [rationally] strive for, and what’s wrong is what we seek to make “right”. If the sense of right or wrong is from reactions that are based on the effect of objects based on the mechanics of their own properties, we speak of things being “true” (versus “false”) or “correct” or not, and the function is called Thinking (T).

This assessment can be based on the environment (e), where the objects themselves, or a group or culture’s demands or consensus on the best use of them, determines what is correct; or it can be based on individually (i) determined knowledge or logical preference. If the sense of right or wrong is from reactions that are based on the effect of objects on our own souls, we speak of things being “good” (versus “bad”) or “liked” or not, and the function is called Feeling (F).

This assessment can be based on the environment (e), where a group or culture’s demands or consensus (of values) determines what is “liked” or good (which the assessing ego takes as its own and acts accordingly); or it can be based on individually (i) determined knowledge or ethical preference (which can be used to gauge the needs of others). Each ego prefers one function, and either the environmental (“extraverted”) or individual (“introverted”) focus. Since we have to both take in information (“perceive”), and determine right/wrong (“judge”), then each ego will have an "auxiliary" preference for the other mode of processing from its dominant. This will also take on the unpreferred orientation. From here, we are able to identify 16 “types”. The ego or various ego states (which mirror the ego's consciousness) will then reference the other functions (which will mirror the first two) as needed.

The extraverted functions and Si are fairly easier to understand. It's the remaining three introverted functions that often give a lot of people a hard time, and even get confused with each other. Ni is particularly the (infamously) hardest to understand. (It is generally recognized in the type community that introverted functions are "deeper", and being essentially "internal", not as easy to pinpoint. And while Ne is easier to understand on the surface, sometimes it's hard to tell which is which between the two attitudes of iNtuition understandably since it deals with the "abstract", and this can happen for T and F as well, due especially to confusion about the introverted variants).

Using the concept of "images" in the table (for perception, and "mechanical vs soulish" for judgment); I think I've come up with the best way to understand all of them:

Se: individual’s images match current environment

Si: individual’s images ONCE matched the environment, but currently can only be held among individuals sharing the experience

Ne: individual’s images do not [necessarily or currently] match environment, but are still based on the environment (and thus others can possibly be made to experience them)

Ni: individual’s images do not [necessarily or currently] match the environment, and can only be directly perceived by the individual .

(and hence, why it’s so hard to explain).

Te: individual’s assessment of true/false (mechanics of the situation) are determined by the environment .

Ti: individual’s assessment of true/false (mechanics of the situation) are determined by individual reflection .

Fe: individual’s assessment of good/bad (soul-affect of the situation) are determined by the environment .

Fi: individual’s assessment of good/bad (soul-affect of the situation) are determined by individual reflection .

Another way of looking at it is that in deciphering the two different attitudes of each function, the question to ask is:

WHAT is creating the actual sensation? (the object in the environment, directly, or the subject’s individual storehouse of memory)

WHAT is creating the actual intuition [i.e. pattern connection]? (the object in the environment [directly implies connection to something else] or the subject’s individual unconscious impressions [which infers connections by some other means than the object itself])

WHO is really doing the actual Thinking? (the subject, or an object; i.e. Other person, group, computer; e.g statistics, etc.)

WHO is really doing the actual Feeling? (subject, or an object; i.e. other person, group, culture).

We will explore other ways of describing these in the appendix.

Simple type descriptions based on definitive dominant perspective and auxiliary function

Even though each type code is defined by the dominant and auxiliary functions, the dominant is the one the ego really invests in. The auxiliary is just there, supplied by a “supporting” complex or ego state (as we shall see next), because of the need for balance (to balance the dominant’s judging or perception with the opposite mode of rationality, and the dominant’s introverted or extraverted attitude with the opposite).

So to start with the NP's, which are types most common in type discussion, and often wonder which function is really dominant:

INTP:

Ti ego: lives for the proclamation of “true! true! correct! correct!” as determined by the individual. Like I look back over my writings, [type, politics, other interests, etc.], noting the key points, and subconsciously relishing “true!” via the emotions (which are based on an impersonal declaration of "truth", not on the emotional state in its own right). Things that are “false” bring very negative emotions, especially when affecting the ego, but at other times, can be totally trivial, like simple lack of symmetry of something. A nice symmetry brings a warm feeling of an un-spoken “true”. Broken symmetry will feel dissonant.

Ne support: draws them to the "philosophical" side of things; shares truths as “ideas”, telling others to “imagine” them as possibilities, to see the truth in them, or how they work.

ENP:

Ne ego: lives to “imagine! imagine!” Already geared to the environment (patterns extracted from real life), it's not initially as much about sharing with others. It's for them to relish the world of ideas, and then share them via their Ji perspective. (Will not be as grounded upon “truth” or “goodness” as the Ji dominant. This was brought to mind by someone on a transit forum, who always puts out wild ideas of how to rearrange subway lines, even though many have shown him they will never be seen as efficient by the Transit agency. I myself had begun coming up with all sorts of ideas years ago, but quickly learned [and then internalized] the agency's principles of how to run things (and this even before working for the agency myself). The fact that his focus is so strongly on technical judgments of how to arrange things suggests a strong "mechanical" focus, and they are totally his judgments; ignoring the judgments of the external authority. So it's Ne being perhaps a bit overdriven, and thus not grounded enough with the T judgment of whether the principles behind the ideas are "correct", and, which when dominant and more mature, would also know when to back itself up with the opposite attitude. An ENFP with an overdriven dominant will have more of a "personal" focus, but not enough to ground the ideas to see they are not really doing anything for the people.

Ti support (ENTP): draws them to the mechanics of things, and shares imaginations by showing others how the ideas work.

Fi support (ENFP): draws them to the human side of things, sharing imaginations by showing others how the ideas affect people, like spreading happiness through “silliness”, or using theories like this to improve self and personal relationships

INFP: Fi ego: lives for the proclamation of “good! good! nice! nice!”. I imagine they might look back over their writings, noting the key points, and subconsciously relishing “good!” via the emotions, which are what are focused on.

Ne support: shares niceties as “ideas”, telling others to “imagine” them as possibilities, to see the goodness in them.



ISTP, ISFP

Se support: draws them to the practical side of things; shares truths or niceties as practical experience such as the arts, mechanics, etc. showing others how tangible things work, or how to experience the joys of life

ESP:

Se ego: lives to take in “what is”. Already geared to the environment, where emergent data is taken in ‘as is’, it's not initially as much about sharing with others. It's primarily for them to relish the moment of tangible reality and then share the experiences with others via their Ji perspective. (Will not be as grounded upon “truth” or “goodness” as the Ji dominant. If too overdriven above a Ti sense of how things work, a person may do all sorts of stunts figuring from Se alone that he's mastered it, and yet make critical mistakes and get hurt. If too overdriven above an Fi sense of what affects people, may engage in offensive verbal or physical play).

Ti support (ESTP): draws them to the mechanics of things, and shares experiences by showing others their sense of how the dynamics of them work.

Fi support (ESFP): draws them to the human side of things, sharing experiences by showing others their sense of how they affect people, like spreading happiness through “fun”, or using internet venues like this to interact with others.

ISJ:

Si ego: lives to draw on the experience of what “is”, as maintained and filtered by the individual. Relishes what's “known”, used to navigate what currently “is“.

Te support: (ISTJ): draws them to the mechanics of things, and shares practical knowledge by showing others how they work to produce efficiency.

Fe support (ISFJ): draws them to the human side of things, sharing practical knowledge by showing others how to meet needs, like spreading happiness through service (Fi dom. “pure” Supines, in contrast, serve 'actively' via inferior Te, through which they are seeking acceptance in return. They're not adopting the environment's values, but rather environmental efficiency, though in a subordinate way. For more on this, see Supine “service”: introverted or extraverted Feeling?).

INJ:

Ni ego: like Ne, lives to “imagine! imagine!”, but now the patterns are extracted from the individual's own reflection or sudden insight, which do not come directly, immediately from the environment. This is for them to relish an internal world of ideas. (Will not be as grounded upon “truth” or “goodness” as the Je dominant)

Te support: (INTJ): draws them to the mechanics of things, and shares their visions by showing others how they work to produce efficiency.

Fe support (INFJ): draws them to the human side of things, sharing their visions by showing others how to meet needs, like spreading harmony through giving insights.

ETJ:

Te ego: lives for the “truth” of efficient order. Will point to “objectivity”, but the ego still is gratified, relishing the “correctness” of how things work in creating order and frets at “incorrect".

Si support (ESTJ): draws them to the tangible side of things, drawing upon their individual knowledge of “what is” in how to create efficiency.

Ni support (ENTJ): draws them to the philosophical side of things, drawing upon their individual visions of how to create efficiency.

EFJ:

Fe ego: lives for the “goodness” of environmental personal harmony. Relishes “good!” “nice“, “liked” in the environment, and frets at “bad” or “disliked” as well.

Si support (ESFJ): draws them to the tangible side of things, drawing upon their individual knowledge of “what is” in how to create interpersonal harmony.

Ni support (ENFJ): draws them to the philosophical side of things, drawing upon their individual visions of how to create interpersonal harmony.

We can sum up the basic "natural" (i.e. regardless of attitude) function preferences (the middle two letters) as such:

ST: practical mechanics ("realistic"; what really works)

SF: practical anthropinism ("aesthetic"; what really helps people)

NT: philosophized mechanics ("rationalistic"; the idea/theory of what works)

NF: philosophized anthropinism ("idealistic"; the idea/theory of what helps people)

The standard four function-attitudes of each type

While it is agreed that the auxiliary and inferior functions manifest the opposite attitude from the dominant, the tertiary was later determined by most (at least in common type discussion) to be in the same attitude. This theory has been attributed to type theorist Harold Grant. (See "Developing Models and Beliefs: Reviewing Grant, Thompson & Clarke's Image to Likeness after 20 years of life and type", Peter Geyer; c.Grant, Thompson & Clark, 1983. The MBTI Manual, however, leans toward Jung's view of the tertiary being the opposite attitude, while Naomi Quenk has it being either attitude, usually leaving off its attitude notation. This shall be addressed more, shortly).

So the order of attitudes is eiei or ieie

The functions (now with the attitudes) end up interlinking into tandems based on:

Pe: "Emergent" data: external perceptive source

Pi: "Stored" data: internal perceptive source

Je: "Set" criteria: external judgment standard not determined by the subject

Ji: "Variable" criteria: internal judgment standard requiring more detailed, "deep" analysis by the subject

With this, we see that the type-defining dominant and auxiliary must be balanced as JePi or PeJi because:

Emergent data (Pe) produces variable situations (Ji)

Stored data (Pi) is best for set procedures (Je)

The tertiary and inferior for each type will again "mirror" (reflect) these in both function and attitude, forming the tandems.

Using our definitions of the functions, the tandems come together as follows:

SeNi: the substance of experience is observed as it emerges from the environment, so the ideas of things are taken from an individual arsenal of subconscious impressions

NeSi: ideas of things emerge from the environment, so observations of the substance of experience is compared with an individual arsenal of facts.

TeFi: technical (impersonal) true/false assessments are set, so anthropic (personal) good/bad assessments must then be variable in deference.

FeTi: anthropic good/bad assessments are set, so technical true/false assessments must be variable, in deference to them.

They've also been expressed as:

TiFe: "I think, we feel"

FiTe: "I feel; we think"

I've never seen this one, but by extension:

SeNi: explore the emerging experience, internalize the meanings

NeSi: explore the emerging meanings, internalize the experience

On the flipside, if the variable judgments are preferred, the person will realize he needs to reference a set standard (in the opposite functional perspective) to promote his personal/universal conclusions with the outside world. Or, perhaps, feeling vulnerable in that area, he'll leave the external world to "do all the work" in setting the standards.

These tandems have finally been given a name! In the new model being developed by Linda Berens and Chris Montoya, the tandems have been tentatively labeled as such:

Se/Ni: "Realizing Awareness"

Ne/Si: "Inquiring Awareness"

Te/Fi: "Ordering Assessments"

Fe/Ti: "Aligning Asessments"

The names make sense, as Se and Ni will tend to take things as they are, and simply "realize" something from the data; Se just taking it "as is" from the external world, and Ni filling in a pattern from internal impressions or images that come up. Si and Ne, on the other hand, both basically "compare" data (comparing tangible data with internally stored facts, or comparing one external [intangible] pattern with another to infer their "interconnections"), relying more on memory. Hence, a lot of "inquiring" is necessary to make the comparisons (to what's in memory).

Assuming "order" being logical, Te will be most externally visible, and Fi will support it from internally. Ti's internal logic is more variable, so both it and its companion external Fe expression will tend to "align" things accordingly.

These make up the groups at the center of the new model, the "Intentional Styles" (working title, "Cognitive Styles"), which are the four groups of four types sharing both perception and judgment tandems:

"Enhancing" (Ne/Si + Fe/Ti: SFJ/NTP)

"Customizing" (Se/Ni + Fe/Ti: STP/NFJ)

"Orchestrating" (Se/Ni + Te/Fi: SFP/NTJ)

"Authenticating" (Ne/Si + Te/Fi: STJ/NFP)

The premise is that the title of each group is the common “intention” of the types in the group.

Another writer, Micheal Pierce, Motes & Beams: A Neo-Jungian Theory of Personality (2020, self-published) also names the groups, which he considers "the four temperaments". He starts by making some observations I had long made: S and T are very "factual", while N and F have more of a "human" element of "meaning". So S and T he calls "denotative", while N and F are "connotative". Also, I had long noted, S and T are more "objective", and N and F more "subjective". As was discussed in an inset above, extraversion is also considered "objective", and introversion "subjective". So in the pairing of functions with attitudes, when "objective" and "subjective" match up in function and attitude (denotative + extraverted; connotative + introverted) the resulting function tandem is what he calls "contextual" (Se-Ni and Te-Fi). The functions tend to look directly at reality, in the immediate contexts. When they are mismatched (denotative/introverted, and connotative/extraverted), the function tandem is "universal" (Ne-Si, Fe-Ti). The flow from subject to object is interupted, and the validity of one's own context can no longer be taken for granted. (p33-4). (Here we see the parallels to "Realizing vs Inquiring"; but the judgment tandems are bundled in with it as well! So it would stand that "Realizing" and "Ordering" are both together as "contextual", while "Inquiring" and "Aligning" are together as "universal").

So putting this all together, he ends up with:

"Monarchic" (Se/Ni + Te/Fi: "contextual" perception and judgment)

"Democratic" (Ne/Si + Fe/Ti: "universal" perception and judgment)

"Anarchic" (Ne/Si + Te/Fi: universal perception, contextual judgment)

"Theocratic" (Se/Ni + Fe/Ti" contextual perception, universal judgment)

Both of these models are outlining the same type groups as those commonly known in Socionics, which are called the "quadras").

All of these groups are very useful to refer to, as often people seeking a type (or those helping them on the type boards) will know which function or even the function tandem they prefer, but could previously only refer to them by such clunky and misleading terms as "Ti/Fe user".

What also emerges from the function order 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" (Ross Reinhold, Personality Pathways).

The dominant/tertiary pair are also frequently referred to (unofficially) as a loop. This especially when the tertiary "inflates" (ego uses it to try to appear more confident in that perspective than it is), or the auxiliary is otherwise not being used much, and thus the person is operating out of their dominant face, and thus the dominant attitude in an unbalanced fashion. They are then said to be stuck in a "loop".

position "a-rational" order "rational" order "I" order "E" order preference Dominant perception (S or N) judgment (T or F) Introverted Extraverted Preferred Auxiliary judgment (T or F) perception (S or N) Extraverted Introverted Preferred Tertiary judgment (F or T) perception (N or S) Introverted Extraverted Non-preferred Inferior perception (N or S) judgment (F or T) Extraverted Introverted Non-preferred

So what we now have is this:

ESTP: Se-Ti-Fe-Ni

ESFP: Se-Fi-Te-Ni

ISTJ: Si-Te-Fi-Ne

ISFJ: Si-Fe-Ti-Ne

ENTP: Ne-Ti-Fe-Si

ENFP: Ne-Fi-Te-Si

INTJ: Ni-Te-Fi-Se

INFJ: Ni-Fe-Ti-Se

ESTJ: Te-Si-Ne-Fi

ENTJ: Te-Ni-Se-Fi

ISTP: Ti-Se-Ni-Fe

INTP: Ti-Ne-Si-Fe

ESFJ: Fe-Si-Ne-Ti

ENFJ: Fe-Ni-Se-Ti

ISFP: Fi-Se-Ni-Te

INFP: Fi-Ne-Si-Te

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 first/last and middle functions 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 we move toward an "eight-process model".

What really sets the function order?

This is a question commonly asked in typology discussions.

First, since the notion of "eight" functions is formed by the attitude, we need to address that more, and start by going back to the dispute of which orientation the tertiary function takes. We already discussed the "mirroring" dynamic that assigns the ["natural"] tertiary function (i.e. without regard to attitude yet) as opposite of the auxiliary. Now we will look at what makes the attitude opposite as well. From there, the remaining function order will fall into place.

We got a clue to the source of this order, above, in looking at how one pair of functions is preferred, and the other pair are suppressed; either ignored or disowned within ourselves, and projected onto others. This sets the basis for this next concept. So now, we appear to jump to an advanced level of the theory.

That's because the key to understanding exactly how functions play out in each type and even why they fall into the order they do are the archetypes .

Jung's larger theories included hundreds of archetypes, which are "character roles" of sorts, within the psyche. These can be considered "emotionally freighted images", often associated with undifferentiated ("general" and unconscious) functions. A handful of them began to be associated with the function positions in each type (which would be additional "special" uses), most notably by Jungian analyst John Beebe.

Archetypes (the term meaning "ruling patterns") are basically defined as "a way of organizing human experience that gives it collective meaning". Hence, like the functions themselves; they and their differentiation are tied into our emotional reactions.

When an archetype fills up with a person's individual experiences, it becomes known as a complex. This may be defined as the conglomeration of images, memories, and emotions surrounding an archetypal core, but unique to ourselves. The best way to understand complexes, are as "ego-states". The ego (our main sense of "I", and itself a “complex”) is divided into numerous “states” representing discrete (though not totally conscious as such) lesser senses of “I” (which are also complexes. Explained more in the section on "Archetypes"). These "use" various functions as well, and are what will set the order all eight have been placed in, based on the level of consciousness they [the complexes] represent . (This is still not necessarily a hard "order" of relative "strength", though).

So one such human experience or sense of "I" involves "heroically" solving a problem. That is one archetype. Another experience or sense of "I" involves supporting others. Another one is looking up to others to support us. And another is finding completeness, through something "other" than ourselves (including attraction to the opposite gender).

The primary archetypal roles and attitude order

As was alluded to, it was originally assumed that all three of the non-dominant functions took on the non-dominant orientation. Jung believed all undifferentiated functions would be mixed together in the attitude of the unconscious, with the auxiliary being the one to offer the type's best shot at attitudinal balance. 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. (Beebe did an interview with an ENFP whom he described as an "eternal student of type theory" with her Te).

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".

So the way the tertiary question can be resolved, is to see that all three views (dominant, opposite or either attitude) are right, though in different instances. The tertiary may well default to the opposite attitude, initially, but it is likely 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 complexes try to pull it in the opposite direction, thus remaining in the opposite attitude. (This is the point we have been building up to in introducing the archetypes now). This would tie into what Lenore Thomson calls the "Tertiary Temptation" or "Tertiary Defense".

(It would also then stand that it's the "Parental" complex that orients the auxiliary to the opposit attitude to begin with. Many people wonder why it should be opposite from the dominant. Some even claim Jung made it the same attitude. And so it's this particular complex, whose initial agenda is trading some of the Hero's options for "adaptative" power, that chooses the opposite rationality and attitude of function).

So likewise, both the function and orientation repressed from the dominant viewpoint 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 shortly.

(What ends up happening, is that this creates a double-negative with the J/P dichotomy when comparing types. If both the individual function is opposite, and its J/P orientation is opposite, the resulting function "preferred" by the type with the opposite letters, will still be "compatible" or "syntonic" with the ego; but nevertheless in a lower position in consciousness. The type with all letters opposite will simply prefer the same four functions in the opposite order. The types will generally have a "love-hate" relationship, but should ideally "grow together" as their tertiary and inferior develop).

Recall, I had cited a Personality Pathways article by Lenore, on how whatever we put aside to make conscious choices will inevitably make its alliance with the unconscious. So continuing: "That is, the hero who has successfully established a sense of self and assimilated the good, supportive aspects of a Parental figure will be compensated, in the unconscious, by everything s/he's rejected as not part of this self. "

So we can see here, another "mirroring" dynamic paralleling the one earlier mentioned for the associated functions. This would explain why a dominant or "superior" function, attitude and associated archetype would generate an "inferior" (opposite archetype) of the opposite function and attitude. Likewise, why a "Parent" in second place would be mirrored by a "Child" in third place, again, with the opposite function and attitude.

The Arm and Spine of consciousness

Beebe had also named these two tandems. 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.

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 like 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 rationality/a-rationality of the 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”

So now, we can address the "other four" functions for each type. In the older theory, the inferior had been deemed what is known as the "shadow"; an archetype representing 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! In the former case, the [opposite] J/P are orienting the common [preferred] functions in opposite ways, and in the latter case, the common [shared] J or P is orienting the opposite functions in the same way (which of course is also orienting the functions in common in the opposite way!) In either case, all four primary functions will lie in each other's shadow; either in the same order in the first case [being that changing I/E as well will keep the same function as dominant when its attitude is switched at the same time], or in the opposite order, leading to all eight ending up in reverse, in the last case).

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 turns inward or outward to interpret situations through; rejecting the unchosen orientation for the function 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" interpreting situations through 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". The classic archetypes it can be linked to are the "Warrior" or "Amazon"). 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. (The complex is also said to often be the opposite sex, like the anima. So "Warrior" and "Amazon" may swap for males and females. This may be from it being energized by the anima, which that latter complex tends to do when less mature. It's ultimately supposed to get us in touch with the Self rather than the Shadow).

The "parent" splits off a "critical" version of itself interpreting situations through 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" interprets situations through the opposite orientation of the terti