OK, this is a major shakeup of all my web space. I’ve been breaking up erictb.info, realizing that the clusters of articles on the main pages there is basically too cluttered, so I had begin by making separate pages for major essays, and now, I decided to drop a bunch of them here, and list everything to date, by category.
Entertainment and media
- Division between man’s soul and spirit
- Definitions of “Fortune/Luck” and “Money”, and the New Century
- Alternate Hex Codes
- Forgotten 4D object: The duo-cone
- Illustrating Little Girl Lost and the Langoliers
- NON-COMMUTATIVE SPACE
- Why is the “powers of ten” line asymmetrical? and the grownup name of “googol”
- How many sides does a circle have?
- “Great Zero” and the alternative negative number system
- Monochrome yellow vs. filtered or red+green mixing on
- Metric Time
Travel and Transit
RELIGION AND POLITICS
Reading Personality Junkie’s new book (My True Type) and how it mentions Jerome Kagan’s Galen’s Prophecy, which is the premier book on modern mainstream temperament theory, and how he mentions one of them: [high/low] reactivity, in addition to a similar factor from later research: inhibition/unihibition (both of which Drenth connects to I/E), this got me interested in connecting the modern theory to the ancient one. Another common version uses nine factors outlined by Thomas/Chess and Birch.
I think I once did try to connect the nine factors (for children, basically) to classic and typological factors somewhere, but couldn’t readily match anything consistently, so then set that aside, but recently had been thinking of it again.
I discuss this, because many people today will dismiss classic temperament as some ancient myth, like the astrology it was once remotely connected to, and then point out that the valid “temperament” theory recognized today is the nine factors for children.
But classic theory is based on the expressiveness × responsiveness matrix (originally in terms of moisture), and as we’ll see, it looks like these dimensions have simply been split and refined in this newer theory.
So the notion of four (or by extension, five) temperament types is associated with this old, outmoded theory, and the modern one uses “Traits” without making types out of them (just as the official Five Factor Model theory, which is the one that has the most respect in the larger “scientific” field of psychology). But what’s not usually said is that this modern theory did derive “types” from the factors! (Albeit an incomplete matrix).
They are called
Here are the nine factors and how the three types are determined:
mood, (positive=”easy”, negative= “difficult”, “slow to warm up”)
activity, low=”slow to warm up”
rhythm, regular =”easy”, slow to warm up; irregular=”difficult”
approach/withdrawal (Initial Reaction), positive=”easy” negative=”difficult”, “slow to warm up”["withdraws on first exposure"]
adaptability, high=”easy” slow=”difficult”
intensity, low/moderate=”easy”, low=”slow to warm up”, high=”difficult”
Now it looks like these can fit the categories of expressiveness and responsiveness.
So it seems reactivity then (which seems to closely correspond to “sensitivity” or “sensory threshhold”), as I/E would correspond to Galen’s “hot/cold”.
Activity, approach (initial reaction) and distractibility (And by extension, persistence/attention span) looks like it too, as they all deal with the response to the outside world (which will set the distinction from the internal world), and thus “response-time delay” and “expressed behavior”.
Now looking for the other factor, “moist/dry” (people vs task), Adaptibility, Intensity, and Mood all seem to fit a more “positive/negative” response that woud shape “wanted behavior”.
Regularity, at first glance doesn’t look like it fits, but then since it’s about “routine”, that can shape wanted behavior as well (since the high regularity child will want less disturbance to his routine, and the low regularity child will be more open to change).
Kagan added another factor, for infants who were inactive but cried frequently (distressed) and one for those who showed vigorous activity but little crying (aroused). This also seems like it might fit responsiveness.
The four factors used for the three types were the ones likely associated with “wanted behavior”. The “slow to warm up” was is basically a “difficult child” with low activity specified (the only instance of an “expressive” factor being used), and said to be fairly regular rhythm [in the last link].
So the three look like partial portraits of Melancholies and perhaps a Phlegmatic.
This looks like how they could match:
expressed Inclusion: activity, initial reaction, distractibility, attention span, sensitivity
wanted Inclusion: mood,
wanted Control: rhythm, adaptibility, intensity
Also worthy of mention is the Taylor-Johnson Temperament Analysis® (T-JTA®) https://www.tjta.com/tjtafaq.htm which unlike other “temperament analyses”, seems to be a more “standardized” and “in extensive use as a diagnostic instrument” that is designed for use in individual, premarital, marital, group, and family counseling.
It also has nine dipolar factors (and what they seem to line up with):
Nervous / Composed (wI)
Depressive / Light-Hearted (wI)
Active-Social / Quiet (eI)
Expressive-Responsive / Inhibited (eI)
Sympathetic / Indifferent (wI, wC or perhaps T/F)
Subjective / Objective (E/I: wI)
Dominant / Submissive (eC/wC)
Hostile / Tolerant (wI/wC)
Self-Disciplined / Impulsive (eI/wI or J/P)
The pastor who married us said he used this with us, but I don’t remember any of these; all I remember was Type A/B (She was A; I was B).
Hot on the heels of The 16 Personality Types: Profiles, Theory, & Type Development and The INTP: Personality, Careers, Relationships, & the Quest for Truth and Meaning comes My True Type: Clarifying Your Personality Type, Preferences & Functions http://personalityjunkie.com/my-true-type-book
It sounded pretty exciting, advertizing a new personality inventory composed of two parts, for preferences (E, I, S, N, T, F, J, P), and for functions (Se, Ne, Si, Ni, Te, Fe, Ti, Fi); which receive in-depth analyses; discussions of common “mistypings”, the role of gender, and even neuroscientific research regarding the brain activity associated with each personality function (Are some types ⦅or functions⦆ more “right-brained” or “left-brained?”).
He gives a brief history, and then lays out the different levels of type: the “preferences” (four dichotomies making up the type code), the functions (two of the dichotomies, and the function-attitudes with the i/e “direction”), the “functional stack”, which are the four primary function-attitudes. As pointed out in the review of the the last book, the “archetypes” used are:
“The Captain”, “The Sidekick”, “The Adolescent”, “The Child”.
He clarifies the “j/p” problem with introverts (that IP’s are actually dominant judgers, and IJ’s are dominant perceviers).
The focus is on the dominant function “types”: Si = SJ types, Se = SP types, Ni = NJ types, Ne = NP type, Ti = TP types, Te = TJ types, Fi = FP types, Fe = FJ types,
Part I is “Effective Typing: Barriers & Strategies”
He discusses Nature vs Nurture. I had heard of this term, and knew it had something to do with who we are by nature, and how we’ve been influenced by upbringing, circumstances, etc. As Drenth puts it “the cumulative effects of past and present circumstances—culture, family, childhood, etc.—on our personality.”
I had just never really looked into the whole concept, and for some reason thought it had something to do “blank slate” (tabla rasa) theory (which would I guess be a case of 100% “nurture”), and so didn’t add it to my vocabulary.
But this is basically what APS (which also doesn’t use the term) would remind us regarding trying to determine people’s temperament purely by observation. It can be influenced by numerous factors, they can be wearing personality “masks”, etc. All of that is “nurture”, while underneath it, there is still a true temperament (or type) in our “nature”.
So “nurture” is a nice one word term for these influences.
He reviews the three levels of development from previous book (Early childhood, late childhood, and adulthood) and the influence of the inferior function.
He also talks about the shortcomings of assessments.
•In “Strategies for Accurate Typing”, he tells us to look at childhood patterns (To prevent our self-appraisals from being skewed by current circumstances), and also says to look at “Which Type(s) are You Least Like?”
As an example, “an INTP was confident in his status as an NT type. However, he was unsure whether he was an INTP, ENTP, or INTJ. From this, it was clear that, of the four NT types, he was least like the ENTJ. This indirectly suggested that he was both an introvert and a perceiver, which ultimately helped him clarify his status as an INTP.”
(Using Berens’ theory, we could do this by Interaction Style, where INTP’s “Behind the Scenes ⦅introverted, informing⦆ is the diametric opposite of ENTJ’s “In Charge” ⦅extraverted, directive⦆. Also, having the same function order: T-N-S-F, but with the attitudes reversed).
•He also discusses the “ongoing tug-of-war between its dominant and inferior
functions. Jung introduced the term enantiodromia to describe this struggle of psychic opposites.”
•If you are an ISFP and Extraverted Sensing (Se) is your auxiliary function, your Se may be tempered by your overall status as an introvert. Hence, you may fail to identify with the more pronounced Se characteristics displayed by ESPs.
This is part of a problem ISFP’s I have seen, had in verifying their type.
•INJs are probably the types best suited for apprehending these sorts of
deep patterns. Hence, consulting with an INJ, especially an INFJ, may prove
helpful for synthesizing and making sense of the various elements of your
personality, thereby clarifying your true type.
In Part II: Clarifying Your Preferences, he does descriptions of each dichotomy. For I/E he goes into Jung’s theory of introversion and extraversion.
He also comes up with sorts of “subscales” (a là MBTI Step II) for the dichotomies except T/F. For I/E, its:
Independent (I) vs. Collective-Minded (E)
Reflection (I) vs. Action (E)
Strangers (I) vs. Citizens (E) of the World
Sensitive (I) vs. Uninhibited (E)
He mentions Jerome Kagan’s Galen’s Prophecy, which is the premier book on mainstream temperament theory, and mentions one of them: [high/low] reactivity, in addition to a similar factor from later research: inhibition/unihibition.
So Drenth connects these to I/E. (I’ll go more into this in a separate article).
Drenth acknowledges that many of us look more like a mixed bag of E and I. He also mentions how the opposite attitude auxiliary and inferior affect this.
•”The drive for personal growth can also lead to a mixing of E and I tendencies. Namely, for introverts, personal growth involves ‘taking the inside (I) out (E),’ which may inspire them to direct more of their attention and energy outwardly. For extraverts, personal growth entails ‘bringing the outside (E) in (I),” which may contribute to an increasingly inward focus.”
•”E, N, and J preferences can be associated with higher levels of talkativeness, as can the function, Extraverted Feeling (Fe). It would therefore not be unusual, for instance, to find an INFJ more loquacious than an ESTP.”
Not sure about this one in general. I guess when it comes to explaining concepts.
•”E-I mistypings can also stem from J-P issues. Namely, because perceivers are more impulsive and less careful than judgers, IPs may mistake themselves for extraverts. Similarly, since judging types tend to be more careful, cautious, and deliberative, EJs may mistype as introverts.”
Of course, in my theory, while E/I is “expressiveness”, J/P is apart of “responsiveness”, which is essentially “responding as an introvert or extrovert”), So this fits well!
•”Another common mistyping involves ENPs misclassifying as INPs. Since
ENPs are strong intuitives, they may confuse being intuitive with being
introverted, since both I and N can be associated with reflectiveness. ENPs
may also be less physically active than other extraverts, since it is really their mind that is most actively engaging with the world. So while their attention is still outwardly directed, the predominantly mental nature of their extraversion may serve as a point of confusion.”
This leads to the common “introverted extraverts” claim you often hear for ENP’s (and sometimes all EN’s). I think it’s sometimes overrrated, and that ENP’s in practice are often as expressive as other E’s. But again, “nurture” is what will shape these traits.
•”Our final E-I mistyping involves ISPs, who may misclassify as extraverts
because of their tendency to function as “busy bodies.” They may mistakenly
assume that, because extraverts lead an active lifestyle, their penchant for
being busy and active suggests they are extraverts. This mistyping represents the flip side of what we saw with ENPs, who are prone to conflating higher levels of mental activity with introversion.”
Yes, ISP’s are occasionally presented as “extroverted introverts”. Which is funny, since many of them often think the more active SP traits are too “extroverted” for them. It seems the mix of introversion with the highly active “Sanguine” SP causes a lot of confusion.
He gives a good breakdown of S/N. He mentions the concept of the “idea” of a table (which I will use in my ongoing thread on the functions).
Potential (N) vs. Actual (S)
Connections (N) vs. Particulars (S)
•IS types misidentifying as intuitives. This
relates to the fact that both introversion and intuition contribute an element of reflectiveness.
•Associating intuition with open-mindedness or certain types of
intelligence may inspire sensors to mistype as intuitives. This seems especially likely for sensors with higher IQs.
•He mentions T/F association with masculinity and femininity.
•His definition of T/F: “Thinkers tend to use impersonal, logic-based criteria, while feelers consider tastes and feelings— both their own and those of others—in making decisions.”
•”Thinkers and feelers also differ in their areas of interest and expertise.
Namely, thinkers tend to take interest in activities requiring the application of impersonal logic, while feelers take up pursuits that draw on their tastes, feelings, and people-related concerns.
As with the other preferences, it’s not that thinkers never have feelings or that feelers never use logic. Rather, they differ in the degree to which they lead with logic versus tastes and feelings”
•Thinking has a quantitative bent to it; it is a “calculating” function.
The feeling function weighs and evaluates our affective responses to the world.
•Thinkers also tend to experience diminished emotional responses, at least
compared to those of their feeling counterparts. They generally show less interest in and concern for their own feelings, as well as those of others.
•If we associate thinking with black-and-white, logical criteria, then feeling can be viewed to involve a more colorful, qualitative approach.
He draws the question of “Taste & Style: S, F, or Both?”
•”The real difference between thinkers and feelers involves what they value. As we’ve seen, thinkers value improving the functionality of things. They value things like efficiency, utility, and good strategy. Feelers, on the other hand, value the way things look, smell, taste, and sound, all of which impact their feelings. Feelers also place higher value on people and relationships.
I’m taking this in, as I continue to try to sift for better definitions of what Feeling really is. “Consider tastes and feelings”, “evaluates affective responses to the world” and especially “value..[that] which impact their feelings” sound very good.
He discusses the association of “values” with F, (“typically being used in a moral or people-related sense ⦅e.g., family or humanitarian values⦆”), and yet wisely points out that “using the term ‘values’ without further qualification may at times be misleading, since thinkers value T matters to the same degree that feelers value F matters.”
In “T-F & Gender”, he starts with the point that female brains display greater neuronal connectivity between hemispheres, whereas male brains show increased connectivity within each hemisphere. So, citing the 2013 “Sex Differences in the Structural Connectome of the Human Brain”, “females are more likely to integrate right (e.g., intuitive, emotional) and left-brained (analytical) styles in their processing, while males will tend to show less integration”. This of course goes along with males seeming more naturally “T”, while females seem “F”. The roles will seem more extreme T for males who fit, while women may experience greater difficulty sorting out their T-F preference.
Inbetween, he mentions the influence of the inferior, such as ETJs or ITPs caught up in a whirlwind romance, or IFPs or EFJs studying math, engineering, or other T subjects.
The brain hemispheres come into play again in this observation:
“More specifically, IFJs are apt to mistype as thinkers and ETPs as feelers.
This is because the I, T, and J preferences are all roughly associated with the left side of the brain, so if exhibiting a more left-brained style, IFJs (especially ISFJs) may mistype as thinkers. Similarly, the E, F, and P preferences have often been associated with the right hemisphere, so in displaying a more rightbrained style, ETPs may misidentify as feelers. It is therefore particularly important that IJs and EPs be capable of differentiating the various T and F functions (Ti, Te, Fi, Fe) in order to accurately identify their T-F preference.”
J/P preference definition:
“J types are outwardly firm, direct, and opinionated. They are more inclined to directly express their views and wishes by way of declarative statements (e.g., ‘I feel that…’ or ‘I don’t like…’ or ‘We should…’).
This contributes to their status as potential leaders, teachers, or managers.
P types, by contrast, are outwardly open, receptive, and adaptable. They are less apt to declare their opinions or impose their will on others. They tend to express things in an open-ended (e.g., ‘What do you think about…?’) rather than declarative fashion.”
He cautions against the whole “neat, tidy…etc. stereotypes.
Structured (J) vs. Unstructured (P)
Planned (J) vs. Open-Ended (P)
J Types: Conviction & Convergence
P Types: Exploring & Experimenting
Seeking vs. Experiencing Closure
He also comes up with this great comparison between the E/I + J/P groups:
EJs actively seek and readily experience closure
EPs neither strongly seek nor readily experience closure
IJs experience, but do not strongly seek, closure
IPs seek, but do not readily experience, closure
And how they differen in the “laws” (judgment products) they produce:
“The Laws of Js & Ps: The target and direction is either inward or outward”.
This also shapes the question of “Are J Types More Responsible? Moral?” It looks like it because “this supposition is founded on the extraverted nature of their J function, which makes their dutifulness and devotion more overt“. However, P’s are equally equally dutiful and responsible, but it doesn’t look like it because of the inward/outward direction of the “laws” they set.
He also discusses “Restlessness, work, Learning & Teaching Styles”.
In “Clarifying Your Functions”, he discussed the i/e attitudes:
Te seeks to impose rational order on external systems; it is outwardly controlling.
Ti imposes rational order on the self and its objectives; it is concerned with self-regulation, self-direction, and self-control.
Fe facilitates order and gives direction in the world of human relations; it seeks social and moral order.
Fi is concerned with emotional and moral order of the self; like Ti, it is self-regulating and self-controlling.
When the perceiving functions take on an E or I direction, we arrive at the following formulations:
Se surveys a breadth of external sensations and experiences; it is characteristically open-ended and non-discriminating.
Si retains, condenses, and recollects past information; it also perceives inner bodily sensations.
Ne surveys and recombines a breadth of ideas and possibilities; like Se, it is characteristically open-ended and non-discriminating.
Ni collects and synthesizes information to produce convergent impressions, insights, answers, and theories.
Then gives and overview, then detailed profiles of each.
Ni is described as “convergent“, while Ne is “divergent“. (I tried to employ these terms once).
He references Nardi’s neuroscientific research, and at the same time seems to acknowledge Neidnagel’s “P=right; J=left” division (as in the I-T-J/E-F-P obvervation, above), though acknowledging that introverted perspection (S/N + J) will have some ‘right brained” characteristics. Like “Ni can be viewed as more linear, vertical, or hierarchical in its approach (this is partly why NJs are often viewed as more “left-brained” than NPs).” “And while Si also entails certain left-brained features, such as attending to explicit rules, procedures, and details, it also has right-brained capacities that often go overlooked. Among these is the role of Si in attending to inner body sensations (e.g., pain, hunger, thirst, numbness, tingling, muscle tension).
He also cites Lenore Thomson in the section on Ti.
From Nardi, TP’s exhibit a mix of right and left brain activity.
While I read Nardi’s book and saw the little maps, it wasn’t plotted by function-attitude and quadrants, but rather by several new named archetype-like “skill-set” categories and associated behaviors on 16 regions of the neocortex. People often claim Nardi’s work now discredits Lenore’s (Neidnagel’s) earlier work, and it’s hard to verify if there’s a contradiction because of the totally different method of mapping. But in this book, they seem to harmonize. People will often object to Ti (introverted Thinking) as being “right brain” (by virtue of having a “P” attitude), because “thinking is left-brained”, and similarly Fe (extraverted Feeling) being “left brain” (J attitude) because “Feeling is right-brained”. But we see here where they do have elements of both.
All of this harmonizes with my own observation of TP and FJ being “hybrids” of sorts, when measured along the old “people/task focus” dimension. Left brain T and J tend to task focus. Right brain F and P tend to people-focus. So as has been observed, TJ’s tend to be “the most directive”, FP’s, the least so, and TJ’s and FP’s somewhere inbetween. So, for instance, “Unlike Ti, whose logic holistically consults both sides of the brain, Te hails squarely from the left hemisphere”.
Next, he introdces his J/P order notations: J-P-J and P-J-P, where the first is the dominant, the second is both the auxiliary and tertiary, and the last, the inferior. This order is very important in his discussion, and leads to the discussion of the EJ-EP-IJ-IP groups. Recall, he focuses on IP’s as dominant judgers, and IJ’s as dominant perceivers. So EJ’s are the “purest judgers”, and EP’s are the “purest perceivers”.
He then finishes the main section of the book with a detailed profile of the four attitude-groups (also known as the “sociability temperaments”, and said by one theorist to be the first letters to develop in a child).
The biggest new contribution in the book is his own “Type Clarifier Assessment”. It not only consists of 36 items consisting of two choices, which are actually different pairs of letters (From a-h) for each question, and you tally up the selctions for each letter, and then determine the dichotomy preference from comparisons (this is the “Preference Clarifier”); but also adds a “Function Clarifier” where you rank descriptions of the eight function-attitudes. It then gives instructions on integrating the two parts, and offers possible problems discussed int he book as why they might not line up.
He gives an example of an INTJ who got an impossible function order (Ni-Ti-Fi-Ne-Te-Fe-Se-Si; similar to what people get on cognitive preference tests; especially the one made by someone on a forum, where Ni and Ti are often strongest), but showed that “it is not surprising that, as an introvert, three of his top rankings were introverted functions” and that “the basic ordering of his functions is generally consistent with the predictions of type theory for an INTJ (i.e., N-T-F-S), and that upon further study and self-exploration, people typically come to see their preferred functions more clearly. (So that the INTJ may come to see he prefers Te over Ti).
It concludes with the functional stacks of each of the types. That of course is the four “primary” functions only. The “shadow” function (“other four” for each type) are never mentioned, as I had hoped.
Overall, it is a very good read; a great, relatively short introduction to type!
Cognitive Styles is a new model, being developed by Linda Berens and Chris Montoya. The four Styles correspond to the pairs of type groups denoted by the last-three-letters, which share in common the two function tandems formed by the preferred functions and their “mirrors” (dominant with inferior, and auxiliary with tertiary).
(I have made the comparison of them to the Socionics quadras since the groups use the same corresponding function-attitudes, though this new model is not based on Socionics, and the same atttitudes in that system sometimes mean something slighly different than in Western type):
NTP-SFJ: Enhancing™ Style (Ti/Fe, Si/Ne; Alpha)
NFJ-STP: Customizing™ Style (Ti/Fe, Ni/Se; Beta)
NTJ-SFP: Orchestrating™ Style (Te/Fi, Se/Ni; Gamma)
NFP-STJ: Authenticating™ Style (Te/Fi, Ne/Si; Delta)
Along with this, are group names for the individual tandems as well:
Inquiring Awareness: Si/Ne (SJ/NP)
Realizing Awareness: Ni/Se (NJ/SP)
Ordering Assessments: Te/Fi (TJ/FP)
Aligning Assessments: Ti/Fe (TP/FJ)
Here’s how they relate:
The Enhancing style has preferences for Inquiring and Aligning
The Customizing Style has preferences for Realizing and Aligning
The Orchestrating Style has preferences for Realizing and Ordering
The Authenticating Style has preferences for Inquiring and Ordering
The Inquiring Style is held in common by Enhancing and Authenticating
The Realizing Style is held in common by Customizing and Orchestrating
The Ordering Style is held in common by Orchestrating and Authenticating
The Aligning Style is held in common by Enhancing and Customizing
I had been saying for years that these groups should be named. It would help people in their type search (and also those helping them), as the groups are currently addressed by such clunky terms as “Ne-Si user”.
Like for a perfect example; I realized I fell into that group right away, but if we had these names back then, I could simply have said “I know I prefer Inquiring and think I prefer Aligning”. (Or overall: “I think I relate the most to the Enhancing style”).
So when I help someone with looking for the best-fit preferences, for the many supposed “NiTi” types in discussions, who often weigh between INTP and INFJ, because of high Ti and Ni in cognitive process tests; I can now say that they have an obvious “Realizing Awareness” preference, since Ni and Se are high, and Ne is low. So INTP is very unlikely, though the person looks like it because of the Ti + “abstract” (N) focus. I can then suggest another Realizing type, such as ISTP. (In addition to INFJ). ISTP will be Ti dominant, followed by Se.
If they think their Ni is high, we can point out that it may actually be tertiary, which is said to often “inflate” itself, and appear preferred.
When discussing relationship type matches between an NFP and NTP, we can say “you both prefer ‘Inquiring’, so you’ll ‘perceive things the same way'”.
In a personality clash, instead of “the real clash is Ne/i-Si/e; not Te/i-Fi/e”; I can say “the real clash is between an Inquiring and Realizing Awareness preference rather than an Ordering and Aligning Assessment”. More to type, but easier to say or even think than all those “process” codes!
This model is realy still in development, and the tandem names not yet published (tentative, shared with permission). They hope to publish sometime within the next year.
You can keep up to date on this at:
Linda Berens Institute
Came up with this simple step by step approach to mapping Keirsey to the classic temperaments, from remembering awhile back, a leading theorist who was on a list, and I was explaining the correlation, and the person felt Keirsey doesn’t correspons to the temperaments (the way the Interaction Styles do).
But the matchup is very simple, from looking at the original temperament factors.
Galen’s system was based on hot/cold and moist/dry.
Hot/cold became I/E, which is apart of the Interaction Styles. So moist/dry would correspond to informing/directing. “Directive” communication can be described pretty well as “dry”; even moreso than [necessarily] literal “directing”.
The problem is the Keirsey groups. He linked them based characteristics rather than Galen’s factors.
The artistic SP was “Sanguine”, the more serious SJ was Melancholic, the more “emotional” NF was Choleric and the “calm” NT was Phlegmatic.
But to map them to the ancient temperaments, what we really need is to map them to hot/cold and wet/dry. Hot/cold can’t be represented by I/E this time, as these temperament groups are “blind” to that factor. They are evenly divided between E’s and I’s. So we need to ee if we can find something else it corresponds to.
The factors he mapped them too were MBTI’s S/N and a new one he introduced, cooperative/pragmatic.
This latter one looks like it could fit hot/cold. Pragmatics ae quicker to take action, based on what “works”. So they will be a bit more “aggressive”, sort of like extroverts in social interaction. Copperatives will want to do “what’s right”, which will make them more “reserved” in taking self-initiated action, like introverts in social situations.
So then is S/N “moist/dry”? Doesn’t seem like it.
For one thing, assuming Keirsey was right in at least some of his matchings, S and N tie together what were opposites in Galen’s system. The Sanguine and Melancholic are both S’s! To Galen, one was hot-moist and the other cold-dry. Nothing in common; opposite in both dimensions. The same with N’s being Phlegmatic (cold-moist) and Choleric (hot-dry).
Other version’s of temperament theory, such as Kant’s, had perceptive factors that tied together the opposites. So there must be another factor we have to look for.
S/N ties SP with SJ and NT with NF.
Cooperative/pragmatic ties together SP with NT and SJ with NF. But we already figured that might be hot/dry.
So is there anything that ties together the remaining pairs? SP with NF and SJ with NT? Keirsey said they were total opposites and had nothing in common.
Yet Linda Berens did tie them together with a new factor called structure/motive. Now this sounds like it could be our missing factor of moist/dry. Moist/dry also became known as people vs task focus, and “structure” directly sounds like “task”, while “motive” sounds like “people”. NT’s and SJ’s tend to operate from structures (such as plans or institutions), while SP’s and NF’s look more at people’s motives, to “work with them”. In common temperament descriptions, SJ and NT do sound more “task”-focused, and “dry” in communication, while NF and SP are more “people”-focused, and more “light” (or “moist”) in communication.
So with that, we end up with:
SP pragmatic-motive (hot-wet) = Sanguine
SJ cooperative-structure (cold-dry) = Melancholic
NT pragmatic-structure (hot-dry) = Choleric
NF cooperative-motive (cold-moist) = Phlegmatic
Since I deal in five temperaments, this could also be “Supine” (the true “cold-moist” where Phlegmatic is really neutral; lukewarm and a between a solid and fluid), which would have more of an emotional energy, thus perhaps fitting many NF’s better, according to the whole “emotional” description.
Still, since these temperaments are “Conative” (about action, and by extension, “leadership”, and not “affective”, or the familiar “social dimension of temperament), then the “emotional” NF can still be Phlegmatic also.
As I always point out, the benefit of this is a way to simplify types as a blend of two parallel temperament matrices. So ISTJ ends up as Melancholic in both areas, while ISTP is what LaHaye and others would call a “Mel-San”. Melancholic on the surface social area of interaction, but having the Sanguine’s extraverted Sensory focus (best represented in the ESFP), making him more active and “open” to new experiences than other Melancholics. Many ISP’s read Keirseyan profiles, in which the temperament (the primary unit in his theory) colors the whole type, making it seem more “extroverted”, but the “blend” way tells them they are Sannguine when it comes to “action” (conation), but are totally opposite in temperament socially. It’s also tells you s bit more than a name such as “Crafter”, and is simpler than using terms such as “Contender Artisan”.
The religious world is in constant turmoil, of people all claiming to have something called “truth”, but nearly all of them being in disgreement as to what this “truth” really is. This ironically send to the watching world the very message they claim to eschew: of truth being “relative”. One scripture they often hurl at each other (as well as the unbelieving “world” of course” is:
Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. Gal 5:20-21
Most of these terms are quite familiar, as what the Church has preached a lot against. (Not “variance” so much, however, which makes a lot of sense, as figures in what we’re discussing here). But what exactly is this other one in particular, “emulation”?
The Greek word is zēlos, or basically, zeal.
definitions from the lexicon:
excitement of mind, ardour, fervour of spirit
zeal, ardour in embracing, pursuing, defending anything
zeal in behalf of, for a person or thing
the fierceness of indignation, punitive zeal
an envious and contentious rivalry, jealousy
It’s other translations are:
zeal (John 2:17*, Rom 10:2*, 2Cor 7:11*, 2Cor 9:2*, Phil 3:6, Col 4:13*),
envying (Rom 13:13, 2Cor 12:20, 1Cor 3:3, Jas 3:14, 16),
indignation (Act 5:17, 2Co 7:11, Heb 10:27**),
envy (Acts 13:45),
fervent mind (2Co 7:7)*,
jealousy (2Co 11:2)*
** divine use
(most instances of “zeal” are positive; the exception being Phil. 3:6, describing Paul’s pre-conversion zeal in “pesecuting the Church”. In Romans, the “zeal” in itself is good, but misguided
“Indignation” is negative in Acts, but positive in Corinthians
When we hear “envy” and “jealousy”, we think of someone who is simply mad because someone else has more or nicer things than he does.
That traditional understanding of “envy” would be more phthonos and phthoneō, used in a few scriptures.
The derivative word zēloō is sort of inbetween:
to burn with zeal
to be heated or to boil with envy, hatred, anger
in a good sense, to be zealous in the pursuit of good
to desire earnestly, pursue
to desire one earnestly, to strive after, busy one’s self about him
to exert one’s self for one (that he may not be torn from me)
to be the object of the zeal of others, to be zealously sought after
zealously affect (Gal. 4:17, 18*), envy (Acts 7:9, 17:5), be zealous (Rev. 3:19), affect (Gal. 4:17), desire (1 Cor 14:1*, James 4:2), covet (1 Cor 14:39)*, covet earnestly (1Cor 12:31)*
What we see with “zelos” is more about the fervor, which can be good or bad. It’s the striving, not simply an emotional state. We can strive to have what someone else has (which would be the literal violation of the tenth commandment), and we can strive to look holier than others, or to prove ourselves the “chosen” ones.
Positively, Paul’s readers are told to ‘covet’ the best gifts, but never is anyone told to covet the authority of teaching. That’s what becomes the negative sense, of “emulating”, out of “jealousy”.
James 3:1 goes as far as to tell us “Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers and sisters, because you know that we will be judged more strictly.“
(In the Amplified Bible: “Not many [of you] should become teachers (self-constituted censors and reprovers of others), my brethren, for you know that we [teachers] will be judged by a higher standard and with greater severity [than other people; thus we assume the greater accountability and the more condemnation].”
Everybody seems to gloss right over this, so confident that they are in the full “truth”, so there would be nothing for them to be “judged” over; that’s for everyone else. (But then don’t those you would say are in error all think the same thing? Nobody has the sense that “it CAN happen to YOU too!”).
Jesus Himself said: “If you were blind, you should have no sin: but now you say, WE SEE; therefore your sin remains (John 9:41).
Peter, in a verse that sounds like it can be describing many modern religious leaders, warned the early Church “And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you” (2Pet 2:3). In this case, the word is pleonexia, “greedy desire to have more, covetousness, avarice”, but we can see here the connection, as to what “emulation” is about. It ultimately boils down to control.
The prophets and apostles in scripture sure look “good” thundering “the truth” at the “sinners”, don’t they? So in that sense, the modern leaders are “jealous” of others [the leaders in scripture] who have something they don’t: divine authority revealed in scripture. They of course claim they have this authority, but then so does everyobody claim that, including all the ones they deem “false”. Who is right, then?
So a person may be jealous of one of these leaders feigning this authority, and try to out do them. That’s how legalism and dissension multiplies.
As I’ve mentioned in my old writings, you start out with the “historic” Church, which preaches law at the world. Someone gets jealous, and they don’t want to just be another law preacher; they want to go one step further. So they point out that the Law actually proscribes the seventh day as the sabbath, not the first. So there; they’ve surpassed all the other Christians. They don’t consciously think of it this way, but that is what it clearly implied.
They are keeping the “forgotten commandment”, and every other Christian is just as disobedient as the rest of the world. (Since to fail to keep one is to be guilty of the whole Law).
But it doesn’t stop there. Someone else will then add a particular “true Church name”, and then someone will add the annual Passover, and then the seven annual feasts, and then a “correct” way to keep one of them, the Pentecost, and then, “sacred names” (the Hebrew terms for God and Jesus), and then other little details to separate themseves over. Everyone else not as strict is “pagan”, and then on the other hand, to those who go further than they do, they will become “moderate” and “reasonable” [in comparison] now, talking like the less strict in saying why the extreme is not necessary.
You have others who, instead of the sabbath, use “degrees” of what they call “separation”. It starts with condemning both the modern world and the modern Church for the standard moral sins (sexual, divorce, and believing or at least “compromising” on evolution, “humanism” or psychology, etc), but then add stuff like comtemporary music or being too “friendly” with Catholics and Modernists. Others will add to this modern Bible versions (favoring the King James only), and by comparison, that first “separatist” group is just as much in the state of “compromise” as everyone else.
Among these, some will push for “separating” not just from those seen in error, but even from those who agree with them, but don’t “separate” from others enough. Hence, additional “degrees” of separation. There are also disputes between some as to how harsh and vitriolic they should be against “error”. They’ll criticize any leader, including those who have taken strong stances against psychology (such as the “Biblical Counseling Movement”), for so much as using terms that to them are “associated” with psychology, such as “woundedness” or “therapy”. Hence, at least two or three ministries does “exposés” on nearly every well-known leader, including those fairly “fundamentalistic”, as teaching “other gospels”, meaning they are “psychologized”.
You also have even more radical groups who ban all instruments in church altogether, or even all music, favoring just “preaching”. They talk down to even the musically conservative as if they’ve completely sold out the Gospel; lumping them in with the contemporary church, and ultimately, “the world”.
They’ll all claim this is just a desire to teach “the truth”, but all of this is actually from a kind of jealousy, and misguided zeal, and hence, the “emulation” Paul mentions.
So they have passages that seem to justify emulating the prophets and apostles. First, various Old Testament scriptures themselves, where the prophets were called to “lift up thy voice” against “a rebellious house”. In the New Testament, the one used the most by more contentious groups I had mentioned in a recent article is 2Tim 4:2 “Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.” A couple of passages in Titus as well. At least one group builds a doctrine called “instant preaching” from this. Hence, emulating the zeal they think they see justified in the passage.
But all of this is divinely appointed apostle Paul encouraging a junior apostle to keep error out of the fledgling Church, which was preparing for a soon “end” (which was sort of an antetypical counterpart of several events in Israel’s history, such as captivity by Egypt).
Once the Church went past that immediacy to centuries and then milennia of world history, even becoming dominant over various nations and cultures, this situation was no longer covered by those pastoral instructions of Paul.
So when preachers would jump up on stages behind pulpits and thunder hell and judgment at congregations (for generations gripping society by fear), they were falsely “emulating” what they thought scripture was saying the Church should do.
Spurgeon and Edwards became a big model for hellfire preaching and the resultant fear it produced. So-called “revivals” marked by apparent [outward] moral fervency that came afterwards seemed to validate this method, but then the entire revolt against religion because of the fear and control tactics this later produced had to be blamed on external developments. They forgot that the motive for serving God was to be love, not fear.
Most of the Church has emulated particularly the Old Testament (even as most say we are no longer “under” it. Again, sabbatarianism only takes this to further degrees than “historic orthodoxy”, but it all boils down to the Law, and the one thing agreed on by most is the ongoing condemnation of man produced by that Law).
The utter irony, is that while they are emulating all this authority, they are often preaching to others Jesus’ instruction to “come as a child”. This surely creates an imbalance of power, with the leaders in a special position. But that instruction was for everybody, not just “laity” or whatever. Nobody has “graduated” or moved past that so that it no longer applies to them, or they are still somehow credited with it even as they lord it over others. (e.g. “minister” meaning “servant”, yet possessing authority and even a kind of “rule”, yet still calling himself a “servant”). With so many “prophets”, that leaves hardly anybody left to be disciples. That’s why there’s so much dissension.
This leads to much of the Church becoming known as “contrary to all men” (1 Thess. 2:15). Many seem to think this is essentially what God wants us to be; figuring that He Himself is. But it’s portrayed negatively here; this referred to those in the first century who were also trying to clean up the sins of the nation through the Law, leading them to reject the Messiah they were sent and persecute His followers (under the guise of “righteousness”)!
But this ignores His grace, so we end up emulating the wrong things! Everyone copies His “anger at sin”, but not His “graciousness”. They copy authority, but not humility!
On the other hand, emulating also includes copying the world (in a way the ultraconservatives often condemn), such as trying to make it more entertaining (in order to increase numbers). Also, being so preoccuppied with numbers and “growth” (of a particular organization or movement) to begin with.
We end up emulating the wrong things! Everyone copies His “anger at sin”, but not His “graciousness”. They copy authority, but not humility! We become “contrary to all men” (1 Thess. 2:15)
Why do we do this?
At the root of all of this, we all have a part of ourselves that craves total freedom, and thus not only secretly envying those “living it up” (no matter how much we claim to be “changed”, that desire is still there!), but also resent others who on the other extreme give up freedom and revel in this state of “delayed gratification” (and often preach this to others). This looks good before men (hence, Matthew 23:5). It is a kind of “strength” that many do not have, and “strength” looks good to us.
This naturally provokes us to want to take them down a few notches one way or the other.
With many (especially nonbelievers), it’s to directly expose their imperfection by pointing out instances of them not really “practicing what they preach”. The assumption is “if they can’t do it, then I can’t be expected to either, so that gets me off the hook”. The other way, for those willing to give up freedom, for the “secondary gain” of the appearance of “righteousness” (before men) this gives; the tack then is to outdo the other person: to show that he has in fact not gone far enough in his legalism.
This creates the “one-upmanship” that has characterized all religious dissent (and then often crosses over into politics; hence “sedition” added to the list).
In Jungian theory, our egos are geared toward presenting a positive “persona” to the social environment, and the “shadow” forms from this as everything that must be hidden or disowned in order to maintain that image. So people then stuff (or somehow justify) their own sins and then go after others, “boxing” their own shadow either through trying to take them down, or outdo them.
(As I’ve said elsewhere, the reason many Christians are so against psychology, with Jung as the one they frown upon the most, is because it exposes a lot of their own shadow, such as the control motive for much of their preaching. So they again emulate the prophet or apostle preaching against the influx of “paganism”, though they miss where Paul does cite pagan philosophers in his argument to the men on Mars Hill. So people emulate what they want to, and ignore everything else).
Also, I believe even the “New Testament” prophetic “gifts” are often wrongly emulated today, and sometimes comes off in an envy-provoking “look at us; look at our supernatural power” sort of way, and has various “degrees” different groups take it to, from just tongues, to rolling on the floor, to claims of physical “healing”, to bizarre stuff like laughing and barking. (The true gifts among those I believe ended, because of the end of that age, but that’s a whole other debate).
Again, it’s people looking at both the Old and New Testaments and trying to repeat or continue everything they read today, such as healings, tongues, God directly orchestrating nearly every event in people’s lives, and the language too. I always liked how Horton, Beyond Culture Wars on p284:
“We still speak Christian-eze; we still talk about being ‘blessed’ and ‘anointed’ and use other Christian language that nobody understands outside of the evangelical world”, yet “…are accommodating the message to the world”. By fusing scriptural language of God’s “power” with modern experience of “faith” (where all dramatic special revelation has ceased and God becomes totally internalized), we end up with what Horton described in the followup book Christless Christianity; that God becomes like a “power source” we “tap into” like electricity. Also, Jesus becomes like a “life coach”. This “power” concept affects our view of “regeneration” and “sanctification”, and ends up often justifying a legalism that makes us forget our own sinfulness.
When they add Satan into the mix, life becomes like a chess game between God and Satan. (They claim Satan is defeated, but he still has all this power in people’s lives, and is succeeding in taking most to hell, so the “victory” is only in opening it up so that anyone can hypothetically “choose” abundant life).
Some even try to copy other aspects of the OT; including various forms of worship (and I’m not even talking about the sabbatarians now, but rather some charismatic-leaning evangelicals). We figure God was so hard on “pagan” practices; so surely, the Judastic practices He Himself commanded, were “safe” and good.
So I watch and listen to the people around me, and yes, it sounds like a continuation of Scripture, but there was always a “disconnect”, as we’re really still all carrying on a mundane life not much different from “the world” around us, with the exception of trying to be more moral, and being involved in church.
But all the scriptural language was based on a particular Plan God was working out, and though they think this plan is not finished, and will be fulfilled yet future, it was said back then in the New Testament to end “shortly”; and being extended for centuries has only muddied everything, with the Church totally changing from when it was under apostolic authority, and then various movements having to try to put back together the “original church” by emulating various things in scripture, though still filtered through (and thus skewed by) the 1900 years of postapostolic Church history!
So it sometimes looks like a shallow imitation, and sometimes even mockery of scripture. Hence, “emulation”.
So as Paul says, we understand “neither what [we] say, nor whereof [we] affirm” (1 Timothy 1:7), totally misusing the Law.
As we see there, this sin is just as much a barrier to “the Kingdom of God” as all the other sins, including the much focused on sexual sins (which many seem to associate with “the flesh” almost exclusively). The total discord we see in the Church (which is supposed to represent “the Kingdom”) is the outworking of this.
This is why I’ve seen the Fulfilled View as a relief from this endless strife of trying to prove to the world (and to each other) “truth”. (And without taking the normal route of dismissing the Bible as untrue or irrelevant).
Recently, coming to understand the whole Jungian framework better, I’ve been trying to identify a common thread to understand the functions through: “relationships”. Not just personal relationships (which is what we often use them for in understanding type), but relationships of objects in general.
First, to go back over what the functions are from scratch:
Perception encourages us to process sensory impressions as they occur.
Judgment prompts us to organize our sense impressions by focusing on the ones that happen regularly enough to recognize and predict. (Lenore, Personality Type An Owner’s Manual, p253)
Left brain (J = Je/Pi) linear one-at-a-time approach to life
Right brain (P = Pe/Ji) wholistic* all-at-once approach to life.
*(Also spelled “holistic”, but “wholistic” is actually the more correct form: http://www.reference.com/motif/health/holistic-vs-wholistic. “Holistic” is similar, but more about “interconnectedness”)
Descriptions from the chapters on the functions:
Se: Sense impressions as they occur
Si: stabilize our sense impressions by integrating them with ones we remember (past experience)
Ne: unify sense impressions with larger [outward] contexts
Ni: liberate sense impressions from larger contexts; patterns are part of us; the way we make sense of information and energy impinging on our systems
[Notice, both Si and Ne deal in “integrating” or “unifying”, while Se and Ni deal in individual or “liberating”. This is why the functions work in tandem].
Te: shared qualities objects have in common used as a standard of sequential order
Ti: the variables [essential dynamics] in a situation related to our intended effect.
Fe: measure our options for relationships against an external standard of behaviors
Fi: encourages a personal relationship to an evolving pattern (e.g. how a given situation would affect the person)
[You can deduce from this that both T and F deal in "relationships", and that while F is relationships of a "personal" nature, T is relationships between objects: impersonal].
Genesis portrays a universe created by differentiation of opposites.
God separates light from dark, the heavens from the earth, the dry land from the water, night from day, life from the nonliving waters, and then the nonliving earth, male from female, intelligent man from nature, and then good from evil (which man was not supposed to get into on his own).
When our souls become immersed in spacetime, marked by a physical body in a particular location and time, we divide existence into past/future, ahead/behind, up/down and left/right.
Ever since, we’ve been psychically to try to mend the rifts in one way or another.
So we spend our lives depending on the material world we were split from in order to survive, and try to merge with it by either getting in harmony with it, or conquering it.
We long for an existence beyond this world of spatial and temporal polarities, where separation is undone, good and evil are resolved, and we no longer have to depend on the environment for survival. Our attempts to create this now (through our ego-driven enterprises) often end up blurring polarities such as good and evil. We just cannot inegrate the data that goes against the path we have set for ourselves.
Heterosexual desire is at its root a psychic attempt to reintegrate what was split off from us when we were developing into our own gender (which too often focuses too much on the body and the physical pleasure. Still not sure how the dynamic translates for homosexuals).
So all of the polarities and every object and event are connected by some form of relationship to one another, and it’s the nature of these relationships that provide the data for our cognitive functions.
Human egos divide (abstract) reality into opposite poles in terms of these relationships, and usually takes one side of each over the other. This creates imbalances in our perspective, as concrete (“mixed together”) reality ends up being neither of the extremes people always veer towards.
We each have impressions of reality, or “truth”.
We observe and assess the relationships between things in organizing our impressions.
“Observation” of truth:
tangible (what is right before you;
immanent tangible relationships)
conceptual (background, contexts;
transcendant intangible relationships; what it means or might be done with it)
“Assessment” of truth:
technical (impersonal; relationships between objects)
humane ([inter]personal; relationships between people)
Orientation of truth
external (localized, immediate)
internal (universalistic, which can only be processed internally since we are not omnipresent)
(I find that it’s actually harder to come up with better terms to differentiate the perception attitudes than it is for the judging attitudes, since N got described in terms of “motion”; i.e. “where it’s heading”, which is easy to misinterpret, and all perception is described in terms of “sense impressions”, which might make us think of S.
I first considered “static” vs “mobile” instead, but this is still confusing, as it’s not about actual motion, but rather just the mobility of possible relationships. –As in “pattern abstracted from one situation to give meaning to another” as I’ve seen it put. Hence, “immanent” vs “transcendant” might be better terms. It’s not the object N is looking at that’s “heading” anywhere; it’s a pattern that can be taken from another object and matched to this one. All together this creates a matrix of possible connections.
[Edit: I think I'll just go with :tangible vs intangible" as even better, being more simple].
To use Bruzon’s “Fundamental Nature of the MBTI” illustrations [http://personalitycafe.com/cognitive-functions/9813-mbti-functions-explained.html or https://web.archive.org/web/20131004003001/http://player2000gi.alotspace.com/jungian_functions.htm%5D, if the S focus is represented by individual points, the N is the background space between them, represented by the dotted lines connecting points.
On his page, he states: “The Sensor is obviously aware of the motion component, but within the reality structure, this takes the form of fact, rather than process.” iNtuition “often provides intelligence and the ability to understand complex ideas and relationships.”; i.e. the complexity of the relationships is the real “motion”.
Also, now I’m willing to use “personal”, along with “impersonal”, where before I suggested “humane” for Feeling, because framing it in terms of “relationships” avoids the double meaning of “personal” as also an introverted perspective. And they’re more familiar, common words. Using the concept of “immanent” vs “transcendant” [or "tangible" vas "intangible"] relationships instead of “concrete” or “tangible” avoids the misconception that any dealing with tangible items isn’t iNtuition. Introverted Sensing might seem to be other than “immanent” [or even "tangible" perhaps] since it might deal a lot with the past, which is not right before you. This is why I once tried to dub its tandem with with Ne as “circumspective”, or “looking around” rather than “looking at”. But again, it’s the character of the data that determines it, not the time element.
The definitions of the terms are:
Immanent – to experience reality as present in the world where transcendent is to believe reality exists outside the material universe.
Introverted Sensing still deals with “reality present in the world”, even though it may store facts outside “real time”. iNtuition of either attitude deals with concepts such as [nonvisual, non-auditory] patterns and meanings, which are nonmaterial).
Putting it all together:
We are social creatures, and our Persona forms as we try to adapt to the social environment (i.e. expectations) around us, and what’s left out of this becomes the Shadow.
(Even if we say we don’t care what others think, we still like to think of ourselves in ways that would “look good” to others. Like being strong, honest, etc. even if we do it in ways that don’t look like those qualities to others).
This further creates more polarities, between the perspectives we choose to accomplish this, and their opposites.
The ego chooses the orientation and form of “truth” it finds it uses best for these adaptations (indicated by the emotional reward given when successful). The other orientation and truths become subdued; still there, only not given as much weight. At least one other mode of truth will be preferred, since we must both observe and assess. So the mode of the opposite method of processing will become “auxiliary” and also take on the opposite orientation (for the sake of balance).
Different, partially dissociated senses of “I” will focus on each of the other modes of truth, and in either orientation.
“The [first] four functions” of each type are simply what the parts of ourselves that are the main ego achievers, the ego supporters or guides of others, the less mature uplookers, and the inferior-feeling seeker of completeness will focus on. More negative versions of these will reverse the orientations, generating “the other four”.
|Function definitions||Resultant dominant perspectives||Se: observing immediate tangible relationships||experiencing life as it comes|
|Si: observing through a storehouse of tangible relationships||filtering life through familiar fact|
|Ne: observing immediate intabgible relationships||exploring conceptual contexts as data arises|
|Ni: observing through a stored sense of intangible relationships||exploring conceptual contexts not yet externalized|
|Te: assessing immediate impersonal relationships||establishing logical order|
|Ti: assessing wholistic impersonal relationships||making sense of things using logical order|
|Fe: assessing immediate [inter]personal relationships||establishing social harmony|
|Fi: assessing wholistic personal relationships||look at life through the lens of human values|
So if we want to know which function is being “used” in a given situation, we need to ask:
1) Are the relationships observed between objects/events tangible (each one “is what it is”), or are they intangible (patterns that can be abstracted from one situation to give meaning to another)?
2) Are the relationships being assessed in a fashion impersonal (how things work), or personal (how they affect self and/or others)?
3) Is the data being derived from an external, immediate source, or an internal, often more far reaching source?
So when we speak of “using” a function, we have to clarify what we mean. It can be more active or passive.
It’s not having the emotion that indicates a “Feeling” function, it’s what we do with it.
Awareness starts with Sensation, but “S” simply makes this its primary focus, while “N” goes beyond that into invisible CONTEXTS. (Hence iNtuition being described by Jung as “unconscious”, along with introverted functions which draw on an invisible internal blueprint of data, and undeveloped functions and the Shadow).
People are still objects (impersonal material) and objects do have affect on people. So a T’s organizing can take into consideration people, and an F’s organizing will include objects. But the focus will be on the opposite (preferred) elements, and what they are organizing will in the long run take a back seat (and may be easy to pick flaws in, because it is the more vulnerable component to their judgment, and yet is supporting what ego is pushing for, and thus will be felt as an attack on the soul; hence the person then possibly falling into the “inferior grip”).
So the insistence on Genesis as being a literal account of universe-wide creation in seven literal days is a rabidly one-sided “S” perspective looking only at the tangible (immanent, static) words on the page, and refusing to place them in a larger intangible (transcendent, mobile) context. (And this brand of fundamentalism will also usually dismiss discussions like this that employ psychological concepts in favor of explaining everything with “scripture terms only”). On the other hand, people who use the allegorical approach to altogether neutralize anything the Bible says about God or morality are making a lopsided use of an “N” perspective.
It’s possible for one’s enjoyment of physical pleasures to be connected with larger contexts such as symbolic meaning. Like in sex, this is precisely what a “fetish” is. You can have the physical pleasure without the fetish, but the fantasy carries a larger meaning that goes beyond the physical contact.
I also see a lot of introverted iNtuitives who can get into nostalgia and other “past” focused interests (even though Si is the deepest “shadow” function for them), because there are a lot of patterns, symbols and other larger contexts that come from the past.
What I see they get irritated by is a focus on past “facts” just for their own sake, or reliving events that are in some way negative to them (such as conflicts).
(Autistic spectum disorders may be characterized by “taking things too literally” (missing nuances, etc), and this sounds like S, but it is still possible to take certain things others say literally, while still preferring transcendent relationships for one’s own perception, as do most Aspies who gravitate to the N side).
So looking at type through the lens of temperament (and even Myers-Briggs had originally set out to create a new four temperament or “style” type of system, and of course, Keirsey did perfect the temperament groups, but then rejected the functions types were based on), we have gotten into looking for “traits” such as “focus on the past”, but we see where it doesn’t always work that way. There are other factors that can produce similar behaviors.
The key temperament traits to look for are the original “expressive” and “responsive” (with the neurologically based I/E as expressive), which do remotely correspond with functional preference, but have their own set of typical behavioral patterns.
Now with a nerdy male virgin going on a rampage, and having complained of being a “nice guy” who didn’t get a chance with women, it seems the blogosphere is going after self-proclaimed “nice guys” or nerds.
You’re Probably Not Really a Nice Guy
The whole “nice guy” thing comes from less “tough” guys seeing the girls favor more “confident” (as he puts it) guys.
But then the women end up not happy with these guys, as with this “confidence” often comes the typical womanizing, and even abuse. Yet they got a chance, and keep getting chances, so the more passive guys then seem “nice” in comparison in the long run. (Only the immediate impression is being looked at, not the big picture).
It seems to be almost a “cultural” thing. Of course, not everyone is like that. It often becomes part of an in practice “package” deal, as this is what society expects of men. You play a game, score, and don’t get tied down, and the women follow their role (tying the man down, often with pregnancy, being “clingy”, etc), and the man doesn’t want that, etc.
“Fun, confident, honest kind guy with a sense of humor”, and “values generosity and compassion”, “doesn’t feel entitled”. That’s a nice ideal, but much harder to find all in one person in practice, because people may put that out there as a front, but what he says about women goes both ways.
Men are real people too (every one of them consisting of good and bad, and all having some deep “issue” or another), not some “hunk” or commodity you can just have custom made to order like that.
So what happens, is that women look for these ideals, but then the outright “users” who play the best game end up scoring the most. (And they DO feel “entitled”. Ever hear them grumble to their friends when the girl doesn’t give them sex? The women really DO sound like “a piece of meat” then, often expressed in rather vulgar terms of one single body part, so it’s not like it’s just the less assertive guys who are guilty of that.
The “entitlement” sense is just from the natural male sex drive on steroids in this sexually saturated culture. But women feel entitled in their own ways too, That’s just human nature).
Of all the guys you hear (in your own life or on TV, etc) who have gotten a lot of women, how many of them are really all those things in the end?
THAT’s what the less confident [professing] “nice guys” are complaining about.
So just giving that one group all this tough talk (like they’re just “insecure bitching drama queens” as he puts it, and not the true “nice guy” the girls want, as if all the guys who are scoring a lot really are THAT perfect) is just one sided. It’s putting the whole problem on one side, now seen as wrongly putting the blame on the other side. But neither extreme is ever right.
And as for the “friend zone” thing, it’s hard to know when to be too assertive and “go for the gusto” (don’t women complain about that?), or whether to start out as friends, and then work from there. So apparently, girls will end up going for the more assertive guy, but once again, not like everything that comes with that package.
He looks like the type of guy, at least in my environment, girls all liked or at least respected, so this seems like a sort of defensive “backlash” thing, even using the same language as the race/economic issues (“entitlement”, etc), and it’s just a total lack of compassion for those not good at playing the game.
In a similar vein,
Your Princess Is in Another Castle: Misogyny, Entitlement, and Nerds
He makes a lot of good points, but Eliot Rodger obviously had a much more serious problem than simply a need to “grow up”. To just apply a simple blanket statement like that oversimplifies the problem and generalizes it to all “nerdy guys”, like they all have the same problem.
This whole thing about “entitlement” is also overgeneralized, and there is some truth in it, but then everyone feels entitled to something. As I said above, that’s human nature.
Again, it sounds just like politics (especially economics and race), where people feeling defensive (including those who feel they rose up from the ranks they’re now criticizing) go after the [still] downcast with a lot of “tough talk”, and that they simply feel “entitled”, and needing to “grow up”, “pull their bootstraps”, “stop whining/self-pitying”, etc. Ironically, in this case, the answer still ends up as having to “earn” it some way, which implies just the same “entitlement” with different criteria.
A lot of people are hurting (in social and other ways in addition to economics or other forms of discrimination), and there often seems to be little compassion, so they self-pity. That’s not the problem; one thing needed is more understanding, not a lot of “when I was a self-pitying a-hole [like you], I … … now you just need to grow up” talk.
For Rodgers, his problems obviously ran much deeper.
I like the way it was reportedly put on a Facebook post (now taken down, it seems):
Just a few words on the speculations that I have heard in the media about Elliot Rodger:
Well-intentioned commentators have have referenced and if may be blunt- projected, cultural and political analysis of what this tortured young soul was all about. He was “Self-Entitled”, a “Whiner” , obviously “Misogynist”, somewhat “Racist”, an “Aspie”…on and on…… It is the hatred of women ….It is his access to guns… It is Wealthy Privileged Kids…. It is Video Games…. He was too “Horny”…. He was too “Prudish”
No. Elliot Rodger was mentally ill. Profoundly so. That is, BY FAR, the takeaway that the world should have about this tragic man.
Sure he expressed that mental illness with extreme misogyny. But don’t try to look into what made Elliot Rodger do what he did in the history of sexism. Find it in the history of mental illness. Of course his “views” on women were depraved and repulsive in the extreme. But they were not “views”…. they were ravings. Ever since that first detailed conversation that I had with him that night on Abbot Kinney, I knew that there was simply NO point in trying to act as his teacher or mentor. What he needed was a DOCTOR.
And yes…. he creeped me out.
A good video on this: