Skip to content

Personality glossary

OK, I finally get into here my biggest interest these days, which is temperament and type theory.

For years, I had been composing a glossary of terms, some from the established (or even lesser known) theories, and some I have devised (denoted by “[ETB]“).

Here are the primers on both temperament and type theory:

a-rational [ETB]: proposed better term for “irrational”, which has taken on a negative connotation in modern speech. A “perception” or information gathering function (Sensing or iNtuition), or a type whose dominant is one of these functions.

a-rational content [ETB]: The perceptive content of data or discussion. Determines whether the perspective is tangible (“Sensory”) or conceptual (iNtuitive).

a-rationally compatible/incompatible [ETB]: types sharing or not sharing the same perception functions.

abstract: Based on a process of separating out irrelevant data, or the process of abolishing distinctions among concrete things in order to focus on what they share in common, which can then be treated as an idea.
Originally used by Jung for introverted functions, which draw upon the subject’s internalized data as the measure of what is relevant. It was later popularized by Myers and Keirsey as referring to the products of the iNtuition function (which draws meanings from data). (cf “concrete”)

Affection: The FIRO-derived area of personality dealing with deep personal relationships. It determines “how close or far” the relationship. (In the WIDP, it is renamed “Relationship”).
Does not seem to be directly represented in type theory. For some
people, it does seem to be their Interaction Style, in place of Inclusion. For others, whose Inclusion and Affection temperaments are the same, both would correspond to their Interaction Style.

Affective: dealing with the affects of behavior on people. Generally used to
describe temperament in general, but more specifically deals with the surface social or deep personal areas of temperament (Interaction Styles™ or Inclusion/Affection).

Affective inversion; Affectively inverted [ETB]: A person whose Interaction Style corresponds to the area of Affection instead of Inclusion (both of which are “affective”).
For example, a Choleric-Phlegmatic-Sanguine (CPG). We would initially assume the Interaction Style is “In Charge” for being Choleric in Inclusion, while Phlegmatic in Control fits NF. So they would appear to be an ENFJ. But if they’re inverted, the Interaction Style would be ENP or Get Things Going, and they would actually be ENFP. Their cognitive processes would match (Fi/Te and Ne), yet they would seem to be more “directive” and less “light and airy” than a typical ENFP; thus also appearing like an ESTJ, who uses the same functions. Because they clearly prefer N, they may also appear to be ENTJ.
However, the focus will clearly be on Fi (personal or humane considerations) and Ne (possibilities), over Te and especially Si, which may be totally weak, and Ni, which will be in the shadow. Having both Sanguine and Choleric in the mix, they may also appear to fit the “SanChlor” blend, and appear to confirm Keirsey’s belief that NF is the Choleric part of the personality. This could also make them look ENTP as well.
On the flipside, GPC might be an inverted ENFJ who appears Sanguine.

This is yet another possible explanation for variations in type, and the temperament-correlation not fitting all the time.

Affective temperament [ETB]: Generic term for Interaction Styles™.

Agreeable: High in Responsiveness. Also a factor in the Five Factor Model corresponding to the same general behaviors. cf “Critical”

Aligning Assessments[Berens/Montoya]: Tentative name for common preference of types sharing primary judgment functions of Fe and Ti; FJ’s and TP’s. {ETB: Earlier naming attempt; considered “enigmatic”(q.v) since the two categories are contigious}.
Motto: “I think, we feel

Alpha quadra [borrowed from Socionics]: the SFJ and NTP types, with primary functions as Ti, Fe, Si and Ne
(c.f. “Enhancing”; see “Cognitive Styles”)

Ambiversion: moderate expressiveness, or someone with features of both introversion and extraversion.

Ambivolition [ETB]: proposal for terms for moderate responsiveness. Someone between people-and task focus who can relate to either/both, or “take-em-or-leave-em”. (“-volition” comes from the Latin “-velle” meaning “will” or “desire“)

Anima (m)/animus (f) [Beebe/Jung]: the contrasexual archetypal complex associated with the inferior function. Like the associated function, it is a reflection of the dominant or hero.
Stems from the psychic images connected with life, the “soul” or nature itself; everything bigger than or outside the ego; including our sense of the opposite gender, which it then usually gets projected onto.

Archetype: a model of a person or situation that forms a pattern other people or situations are categorized by. It stems from the collective unconscious, and when personalized, becomes a complex. Types and temperaments are technically all archetypes. But in the eight-process model of type theory, they are specifically the roles associated with the eight function-attitudes.

Archetypal complex: see “complex”.

Area of interaction (or “need”): one of the three areas of the FIRO/APS system, covering surface social skills (Inclusion), leadership and responsibilities (Control) and deep personal relationships (Affection).

Arm/”the arm of consciousness” [Beebe]: the function tandems formed by the
auxiliary and tertiary (and their shadows), which are said to involve the ego’s
relation to others. (cf. “Spine”)

Arno Profile System (APS): a specialized version of the FIRO-B™ theory and instrument, used under licence of FIRO’s owners (CPP, Inc) to measure inborn temperament rather than changeable behavior. It discovered a fifth temperament, and uses it and the other four on the three-level FIRO matrix.
Created by Drs. Richard and Phyllis Arno.

Aspirational [Berens]: The inferior function or anima/animus

Attitude: the “introverted” or “extraverted” orientation of a function (denoted as “e” or “i” following the function letter).
a) The “J” or “P” designation in the MBTI code, telling you which function (by its classq.v.) is extraverted.

Away [ETB]: Borrowed from Karen Horney; it is a direction of withdrawal from people, either in expressive behavior (not approaching them), or in responsive behavior (not wanting them to approach you). (cf “Toward”)

Beebe, John: Jungian analyst who has developed an eight-process model of type by mapping several archetypal complexes to the eight function-attitudes for each type.

Berens, Linda (Dr.): type and temperament theorist; former student of Keirsey. Introduced Multiple Models™ (q.v.)

Beta quadra [borrowed from Socionics]: the NFJ and STP types, with primary functions as Ti, Fe, Ni and Se
(c.f. “Customizing”; see “Cognitive Styles”)

Blake-Mouton Grid: the 10×10 grid, with scores from 0-9 in both dimensions: (concern for productivity/people; corresponding to expressive and responsive), which was possibly the model for the APS’ temperament matrix. Blake-Mouton itself had five behavioral types mapped to it (one on each corner, plus one in dead center, being moderate in both dimensions), thus prefiguring five-temperament theory.

Blended temperament: someone who has different temperaments in the areas of interaction. (See also “Phlegmatic blends”)

Blindness: when the factor of one system or model does not correspond to any factor of another. This will often manifest as being equally divided between type preferences.
Like Keirsey’s temperaments are “blind” to I/E. Each one is equally divided into two E types and two I types. Likewise, Interaction Styles are “blind” to S/N. Each Interaction Style consists of two S types and two N types. In either case, there is not even a slight preference for one or the other, so that any sort of correlation with the dichotomy could be made.

Block [ETB borrowing from Socionics]: consecutive pairs of functions consisting of one perceiving and one judging: the dominant and auxiliary, the tertiary and inferior, and their shadows.

Borderline [ETB]: a score on the temperament matrix bordering on another temperament. In the correlation to type, a Melancholy in Control with a responsive score of 3 or 4 (the latter, actually a Melancholy-Phlegmatic), will almost be Supine (5 and above; q.v.), and in theory fall into the MBTI SJ (Keirseyan “Melancholic”) category, but will have some NF tendencies from being close to Supine; and also, by extension, some S/N ambiguity).

Brain-lateralization theory: Lenore Thomson’s model of “left/right brain alternatives” (q.v.) It is actually derived from Jon Niednagel’s “BTi” (Brain Types Institute:
In this theory, “P” functions (extraverted perception and introverted judgment) are “right” brain, while “J” functions (extraverted judgment and introverted perception) are “left” brain. (It also holds that extraversion is front and introversion is back).
So when the dominant and auxiliary cannot solve a problem, we instead turn to the opposite functions in the same attitude as the dom. and aux. which in Beebe’s stacking order are actually #7 and 8 (the bottom of the “shadow”. See also “Ship Model”)

Some people think this mapping to the right and left hemispheres has been disproven by Dario Nardi’s more recent research. But Nardi is measuring brain activity on the neocortex (not directly measuring functions themselves, though they do affect activity in that area). Lenore has described the functions as being based on neural connections or pathways between the limbic system (lower in the brain) and the cortex (which is on the surface). So there is no necessary conflict as to the hemispheres. Different levels of the brain are involved.

Child: See “puer/puella”

Choleric: a classic temperament (yellow bile or fire—hot/dry) defined as expressive and task-focused. Thus, it has a reputation of being aggressive and critical.
Represented in Type by the EST/ENJ affective temperaments, and the NT conative temperament. Though Keirsey claimed NF was Choleric, based on a different method of reckoning. But with the NT’s “pragmatism” as expressive, and structure-focus as “task”, it would match Choleric, as some other theorists (Dave Kelley, etc) have noted.

Class [ETB]: the category of functions, perceiving (information gathering) or judging (decision making). Also, “Rationality

Cognitive process/(cognitive function): function or function-attitude, particularly as designated by Linda Berens.

Cognitive Styles: A new model, being developed by Linda Berens and Chris Montoya, basically corresponding to the Socionics quadras (q.v):

NTP-SFJ: Enhancing Style (TiFeSiNe; Alpha)
NFJ-STP: Customizing Style (TiFeNiSe, Beta)
NTJ-SFP: Orchestrating Style (TeFiSeNi; Gamma)
NFP-STJ: Authenticating Style (TeFiNeSi; Delta)

Cognitive Temperaments: The four groups represented by the S/N + J/P codes (SJ, NJ, SP, NP). Corresponds with the “perceiving attitudes”, since J/P indicates the attitude of the functions. Also known as the “[Janet] Germane Temperaments”.

Collective unconscious: the psychic space containing our inherited images of facets of life such as male female, mother father, hero, etc. (Which are archetypes—q.v.)

Compensation: where data is divided into one functional perspective or orientation or the other, with one preferred, and the other repressed. Dominant Thinking is compensated by inferior Feeling. And introversion is compensated by extraversion.

Complex: an archetype that has become personalized according to a person’s own experiences. In the eight-process model of type theory, they are specifically connected with the roles associated with the eight function-attitudes.

Compulsive: a variation of APS temperament that is most extreme in both
dimensions. They are the most driven by the temperament needs of both dimensions and lie in the corners of the matrix. Since Phlegmatic is in the direct center, it has no Compulsive variation, being the total opposite of compulsive.

Conation/conative: dealing with action and leadership. The definition is “It refers to the ability to act on what is known. From the Latin verb ‘conari’ which means “to attempt or to strive. The power or act that directs or impels to effort of any kind, whether muscular or psychical.” Would correspond with Control.

Conative temperament: generic term for Keirseyan temperaments

Conceptual [ETB]: the focus of the iNtuition function. Often called “abstract”; it is a perspective that focuses on what experience means, or where things are headed.

Concrete: Basically, tangible data. Initially used by Jung for Thinking or Feeling that remains tied to sensation, in which is it “archaic” and not fully differentiated. It was later popularized by Myers and Keirsey to simply refer to the products of the Sensing function (which of course deals directly with what’s tangible).

Jung’s use may be confused with extraverted functions because its opposite is “abstract”, meaning separating out what’s irrelevant, which Jung applied to introverted functions, and Myers/Kersey applied to Sensation’s opposite, iNtuition. But an extraverted function will draw on an objective standard initially seen as separate from the subject, while a concretistic function is from the start mixed up with the object.
This also sounds like Jung’s definition of extraversion (merging the subject with the object), but an example is idolatry, where primitive people could not see the divine as subjectively understood, so when they saw life or life-giving energy in objects (like the sun, trees, etc) they made those objects into the divine being (“gods”) itself. It may also otherwise lead to attachment to objects, giving them “magical effect”.
(Jung’s corresponding opposite of “abstract” for an extraverted function, is “empathetic”, since the subject merges with the object).

Congruent [ETB]: a temperament whose expressed and wanted dimensions is either both high or both low, (or both moderate). Sanguine, Melancholy and Phlegmatic, respectively. Corresponds with an S type (except for Phlegmatic) conatively, and “movement/process” and “intersecting” affectively.

Constellation: the process of a complex manifesting in our behavior (conscously or unconsciously). Often referred to (particularly for the shadows) as being “triggered”. When a [function-attitude] complex is constellated, its feelings or emotionally-freighted images will tend to reach us by way of the associated function-attitude.

Control: (1) The FIRO-derived area of interaction dealing with leadership and
responsibilities. Determines “who maintains the power and makes the decisions in the relationship” Appears to correspond to the Keirseyan (conative) temperaments in type. In the WIDP, it is renamed “Leadership”.
(2) See “process” (def. 2).

Cooperative: The Keirseyan pole indicating a type’s tendency to do “what’s right”. Shared by the SJ and NF temperaments. Since this will likely lead to a slower course of action, it appears to correspond with low expressed Control.

CORE™ Approach: Berens’ reframing of the Multiple Models™ (q. v.), taking the same three divisions (Cognitive, Conative, Affective) and separating the archetypes (which were generally discussed as part of the “cognitive processes”, which they are associated with in John Beebe’s model) into a fourth category.

Cognition (The cognitive processes)
Outlook (the Archetype model)
Roots (temperament; “Conative”)
Expression (Interaction Styles, “Affective”)

Critical [ETB]: The opposite of Agreeable(q.v.), a type or temperament that is low in Responsiveness. Not used much because of the negative connotation. (Replaced by Resistantq.v.).

Critical Parent [Berens]: Witch/Senex (Also called simply “critical”).

Cross-factor [ETB]: a factor in a temperament matrix that links diametric opposites according to the orthotopic two dimensions.

Crow’s Nests: Lenore Thomson’s designation of the two functions opposite the dominant and auxilary, but with the same attitudes. What would correspond to Beebe’s “Trickster” and “Demon”. This is based on a “ship crew” analogy outlined in her book, where the functions serve as a lookout.
Also known as Right or Left brain alternatives. According to her theory, they are the first we run to when the dominant and auxiliary can’t solve the problem. This is supported in many people’s cognitive process test results, in which the two functions generally do come out the next strongest after the dom. and aux.
Hence, it explains some type confusion, such as an INTP having supposedly “too much” introverted Feeling.

Daimon/Demonic Personality Complex [Beebe]: the archetypal complex associated with the inferior function in the opposite attitude. It is basically a “negative anima” (and thus “double-negatively” reflects the dominant gender).
Since the anima/animus is a vulnerable area that yet conveys a sense of “life” or the “soul”; the Demon conveys a sense of death or the destruction of the ego (usually imagined, but does also come up under genuine severe trauma).
We often see things we feel really threatened by through the function (as it is the opposite-of-dominant function, yet in the dominant’s preferred attitude where it prefers its dominant function).

Its positive side is an “angelic” sense of “transformation”. (Hence, “daimon”, which has a slightly less necessarily negative meaning than “demon”).

Deep shadow [ETB]: The Trickster and Demon functions, being the lowest in Beebe’s stacking order, and usually assumed to be the furthest from consciousness.
This is however not necessarily reflected in cognitive process tests, which measure function “use” in terms of behaviors, which could possibly result from unconscious functions, and thus do not really indicate true function “strength”.
(see also, “Regrettable block”)

Delta quadra [borrowed from Socionics]: the STJ and NFP types, with primary functions as Fi, Te, Si and Ne
(c.f. “Authenticating”; see “Cognitive Styles”)

Differentiation: the process by which an ego begins separating out the preferred functional perspectives it tends to focus on, detemining the person’s type. (Often called “developing” the functions).

Directive: see role-directive.

DiSC: A personality theory, created by William Marston (who would later go on to create Wonder Woman), which is similar to classic temperament theory. The two factors (corresponding to expressiveness and responsiveness) are Assertive/Passive, and Open/Controlled. The “types” (which the theory name is an acronym of) are Dominance (Assertive, Controlled — Choleric), Inducement (Assertive, Open — Sanguine), Steadiness (Passive, Open — Phlegmatic or Supine), Conscientiousness (Passive, Controlled — Melancholic). Berens (q.v.) has compared her Interaction Styles™ mapped to MBTI type, to it.

Double Agents: Lenore Thomson’s designations of the dominant and auxiliary functions in the opposite attitude; corresponding to Beebe’s “opposing personality” and “witch/senex”.

Driving needs: the needs that drive the temperaments (in APS), or their expressive and responsive behavior. Generally, low expressed behavior is a drive away from people, due to fear of rejection (or in the Control area, failure). High expressed behavior is a drive towards people, stemming from a need for attention. Low wanted behavior is drive away from people in a need of independence, or distrust of dominance. High wanted behavior is a drive toward people in a need of acceptance or fear of worthlessness.
Putting these together, the direct temperament needs are— Melancholy: fear in general; Supine: affirmation, Sanguine: socialization; Choleric: his goals; Phlegmatic: protect his energy reserve (not driven in either dimension, so thus having low energy and needing to protect it).
Phlegmatic blends will combine Phlegmatic low energy in one dimension with the need of the other temperament it is blended with.

Ego: an archetypal complex marking the center of a person’s conscious existence.

Ego-dystonic/incompatible: in function theory, the “shadow” (q.v.) perspectives, which represent rejected orientations of the four functions, which then often come out negatively, and associate with negative archetypes.

Ego-syntonic/compatible: in function theory, the “primary” functional perspectives, which represent the ego’s default orientations of the four functions, and usually associate with more positive archetypes.

Eight-process theory: a model of type discussing each of the eight function-attitudes for each type. The most well-known version of this is John Beebe’s model, associating them with various archetypal complexes. The first four will be “primary” or “ego-syntonic”, and the others (which reverse the attitudes) will be “shadow” or “ego-dystonic”, and usually unconscious.
Lenore Thomson’s “ship model” also uses all eight, but places the shadows
inbetween the dominant/aux. and tertiary/inferior. Socionics “model A” has a similar stacking order.

EISeNFelT [ETB]: an acronym for the 16types systems (MBTI, etc) formed from its first three dichotomies.

Emergent[ETB]: the external data referenced by extraverted perception. Works with variable judgement content (cf “stored”).

Enigmatic Types [ETB]: Types with mixed responsive behaviors across the affective and conative temperaments. TP’s and FJ’s; especially the N variants.
FP’s by contrast are the most consistently responsive, being both informing and motive focused. TJ’s are the most consistently non-responsive, being both directive and structure focused. TP’s and FJ’s combine either informing with structure, or directing with motive.
This often results in type uncertainty, especially in the T/F dimension. NFJ’s in particular are the only directive F’s, and thus have a bit of a harder edge than other Feelers, and may look like Thinkers. Though they are still very warm, compassionate and emotional inside. (They’re also the only motive-focused J’s). NTP’s are the only informative T’s, and thus will have a softer edge than other Thinkers, and may confuse as Feelers. They can move back and forth between being very serious and analytical, to being very light and silly. (They’re also the only structure-focused P’s). STP’s and SFJ’s will likewise have odd-matching T/F/J/P and structure/motive preferences.
ITP’s and EFJ’s also are a blend of diametrically opposite temperaments (Sanguine with Melancholy, or Choleric with Supine or Phlegmatic).

The above is basically describing “responsively enigmatic” types. You can also look at “expressively enigmatic”, where I/E and cooperative/pragmatic don’t line up. Introverted, pragmatic: INT, ISP; extraverted cooperative: ENF, ESJ. This will be more pronounced in the introverted types, who will be initially reserved, socially, but will be notably quicker to approach others or take action when a particular situation arises. Consistent types (introverted, cooperative: ISJ, INF; extraverted, pragmatic: ESP, ENT) will often appear doubly introverted or extraverted (Especially the extraverts, like both Sanguine-Choleric mixes (The ExTP’s) being more expressive than the pure temperaments).

Since “expressed behavior” is what we say we want, and responsive behavior is what we really want (< Arno’s), responsive enigmatism is more significant.

Enneagram: a type theory (heavily referenced in MBTI type discussions), infused with a lot of Eastern concepts, that has nine types that appear similar to the temperaments plus moderate blends. It is factored to different matrix structures, however. (As opposed to expressiveness and responsiveness). There are also three different Instinctual variants, Social, Self-preservation and Sexual, which seem to directly parallel FIRO/APS’s Inclusion, Control and Affection. However, types are not blended or stacked along them. They are simply preferences that can make variations within a type.
Types can only be blended with adjacent ones, in what are called “wings” or in “tri-fixes” where you can choose one type from each of the “triads” of “gut” (8,9,1), “head” (2,3,4) and “head” (5,6,7).

ERICA [ETB]: an acronym for the FIRO/APS system (And by extension, the WIDP): Expressive/Responsive × Inclusion/Control/Affection.

Expressed: The FIRO dimension representing expressiveness. (In the WIDP, it is renamed “Demonstrated”)

Expressed Affection (eA): The FIRO dimension determining how much a person tends to approach others for deep personal interaction.

Expressed Control (eC): The FIRO dimension determining how much a person tends to approach others to control them, or impose self-initiated decisions. Likely corresponds to Keirsey’s “pragmatic/cooperative”.

Expressed Inclusion (eI): The FIRO dimension determining how much a person tends to approach others for surface social interaction. Corresponds to extroversion/introversion.

Expressive: a temperament or type with high expressiveness. An extrovert or pragmatic/utilitarian.

Expressive Phlegmatics [ETB]: collective term for Phlegmatic blends with high expressiveness and moderate responsiveness. Sanguine Phlegmatic and Choleric Phlegmatic

Expressiveness: one of the dimensions of the personality matrix. It denotes how much a person tends to approach others for interaction. Most commonly represented by introversion/extroversion.
Originally mapped to the four elements by Galen as a “hot/cold” dimension. Also described in terms of long or short “response-time delay”.

Extraversion/extroversion: the primary “high expressive” pole of both temperament and type theory. In Jungian theory, also represents the dominant “attitude” a person prefers, in which his differentiated dominant function will be oriented towards the outer world of people or emergent data, or an external standard of judgment.

Believed to be created neurologically by an undersensitivity toward external stimuli, which leads the person to keep turning outward for more stumulation.
Classic temperament generally spells the word with the “o”, but Carl Jung insisted on the “a”.

Extrovolition [ETB]: proposal for alternative name for people-focus or high responsiveness. Means “outward-willed”, based on the idea that high responsives are said in APS to “respond as an extrovert” (despite how they express, which shapes I/E).

Face [Reinhold, Personality Pathways]: a tandem formed by the two primary functions sharing the same attitude (dominant/tertiary, or auxiliary/inferior). Hence, one face will be “introverted” and the other will be “extraverted”. (I extend this to the shadows as well: “shadow faces”).

Factor: any bi-polar scale or dimension in a personality matrix.

Feeling (F): the judgment (decision-making) function that covers personal or interpersonal elements of life. According to Jung, it tells us “what [something] is worth“.
This is possible from our state as emotional creatures affected by objects and events, which is the focus of the function. From this, we are able to “relate” (rather than detach) to things.

A person’s “Feeling” function is their perspective of the human side of things, and their attention to and evaluation of things by emotions and values, and identification with other living beings.
A Feeling type is one whose primary rational outlook is looking at the world in terms of people or humanity, and the elements that makes them “subjects”, such as 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 that perspective.

FIRO-B™ (Fundamental Interpersonal Relationship Orientation – Behavior): a once popular instrument created by Dr. William Schutz, to measure behavior on three levels of interaction: Inclusion, Control and Affection. Each level consists of a two-dimensional expressive/responsive(“wanted”) matrix.
Scores on each dimension are 0-9. This yields the possibility of moderate scales (generally, around 4 and 5), and thus nine behavioral groups are mapped out on the three resulting grids, with the Control area including a tenth division (low e; w=6).
This was adapted for temperament into the Arno Profile System.

Five Factor Model (FFM): Also called “Big Five”, OCEAN and SLOAN. A theory (perhaps the one most respected in the larger psychological field) measuring five standalone factors: Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Openness, Neuroticism. Official test, NEO-PI. The first four have a rough correlation with MBTI, and Neuroticism is the one not represented, though a corresponding factor was included in Myers’ analysis, but then grafted into the other factors in MBTI Steps II and III.
The theory basically fanned out from the work of Hans Eysenck, who factored the classic temperaments according to Extraversion and Neuroticism. He later added a another factor, Psychoticism, and his theory became known as “P-E-N”. Psychoticism was later broken down into Agreeableness and Conscientiousness, and Openness was added.

Five Temperament theory: Theories that add a fifth temperament to the ancient four temperaments. This is done by adding moderate scales to the 2D matrix, so that there is a moderate temperament in dead center, in addition to the other four in the corners.
Arno Profile System and WorleyID Profile are the primary examples. Other systems using five, though not necessarily calling them temperaments are Blake-Mouton, Thomas-Kilman, and Jay-Hall.

Forer Effect: when definitions or descriptions of elements of personality theory become ambiguous or easily misunderstood so that any people of any type can identify with what’s supposed to be specific to one type. This can happen in questionnaires, yielding high scores in a particular factor or function that do not really indicate an accurate preference for anything.

Four-process theory: the classical MBTI breakdown of functions for each type, referencing the dominant, auxiliary, tertiary and inferior. Each function will be assigned a particular attitude, resulting in eight possible function-attitude combinations, but only four will be discussed, while the other combinations, which are deemed unconscious, will usually not be discussed. Eight-process theories (q.v.) do aim to discuss them.

Four-temperament theory: The ancient theory of four temperaments, Sanguine, Melancholy, Choleric and Phlegmatic, named by Galen after four humors (body fluids). Similar theories were Plato’s Four Types of Men: Artisan, Guardian, Idealist and Rational, and similar systems by others along the way. Tim LaHaye repopularized  the Galen temperaments for modern times, and David Keirsey mapped them to MBTI types, eventually reviving Plato’s names. Other systems continue to use variations of them, often calling them some sort of “Styles”.

Function: a perspective or “sense of meaning” where gathered information is interpreted or divided into either tangible (Sensing) or conceptual (iNtuition) data, and evaluations are based on technical (“impersonal”—Thinking) or human-focused (“humane/personal”—Feeling) content, and which the ego or one of its complexes tends to pay more attention to.

Function-attitude: one of the eight variations of the four functions denoted by the i/e orientation.
Se: extraverted Sensing; Si: introverted Sensing; Ne: extraverted iNtuition; Ni: introverted iNtuition; Te: extraverted Thinking; Ti: introverted Thinking; Fe: extraverted Feeling; Fi: introverted Feeling
(By extension, there are also the collective shorthands Je: extraverted Judgement; Pe: extraverted Perception; Ji: introverted Judgement; Pi: introverted Perception)

Function-attitude complex [Beebe]: one of the eight archetypal roles associated with each function for a given type.

Gamma quadra [borrowed from Socionics]: the SFP and NTJ types, with primary functions as Te, Fi, Se and Ni
(c.f. “Orchestrating”; see “Cognitive Styles”)

Hero [Beebe]: the archetypal complex associated with the ego’s dominant function.

Humor/humour: the body fluids, black and yellow bile, blood and phlegm, anciently thought to cause the dispositions that became known as temperaments. Determined in the middle ages not to be the cause, but the names stuck.

Humane [ETB]: the “personal/interpersonal” focus of the Feeling function. Often associated with “values”, “ethics”, and (sometimes incorrectly), emotions.
Characterized by a “holistic” focus on how things affect people.

Merriam Webster defines the term as “1: marked by compassion, sympathy, or consideration for humans or animals. 2: characterized by or tending to broad humanistic culture”. So some may think it is inaccurately suggesting F’s are always more compassionate, but the “consideration” and “humanistic” (i.e. “the humanities”) parts of it are closer to what I’m trying to convey.

Immature block [ETB]: The tertiary and inferior, which tend to be less mature than the preferred functions. (representative card suit: hearts: the vulnerable, innocent area)

Impersonal: the technical focus of the Thinking function. It deals with things (including living beings) in terms of objects (see “objective”) rather than their affects on living subjects. (c. f. “panpersonal”; see also, “technical”)

Inclusion: The FIRO-derived area of personality dealing with surface social skills. Determines “who’s in or out of the relationship”.
Appears to correspond to the Interaction Styles in type. In the WIDP, it is renamed “Social”.

Incongruent[ETB]/indirect: a temperament whose expressed and wanted behavior is dissimilar (high in one dimension and low in another). Supine and Choleric. Corresponds with a conative N type, and an affective “control/outcome” or “interlinking” style.

Informative/informing: see role-informative

Inquiring Awareness [Berens/Montoya]: Tentative name for common preference of types sharing primary perception functions of Si and Ne. SJ’s and NP’s. {ETB: earlier attempt; tried “circumspective” (to “look around”)}.
Can be thought of in terms of “take in emerging meanings, internalize the experience”

Intelligence variant: Keirsey’s designation of the eight type groups denoted by the last three letters. Derived by dividing his four temperaments by the role-informative/directive dimension.
In the cognitive process model, they comprise the pairs of types with the same function-attitude preferences; only reversed between dom. and aux.

Interaction Styles™: Linda Berens’ designation of the affective temperament groups within type. Very a-symmetrical to the MBTI dimensions, thus needing three letters to identify, it is factored as E/I + S + T/F and E/I + N + J/P. (EST/ENJ “In Charge™”, ESF/ENP “Get Things Going™”, IST/INJ “Chart the Course™”, ISF/INP “Behind the Scenes™”)
Fits the classic “social” concept of temperament, with I/E (introversion/extraversion) as one dimension, and SF/NP and ST/NJ (called “informing” and “directing” respectively) as the other (i.e. “people/task focus”).

Interlinking: Keirsey’s more recent designation for an affective group (interaction roles or styles) whose behavior locks into place, so to speak, with the diametric opposite style. The behaviors are opposite, but the agenda is the same (even if not really desired by one of the parties).
The expressive and resistant [q.v.] EST/ENJ groups will tend to lead, while the reserved and responsive ISF/INP groups will tend to follow. Hence, they “interlink”.
This could also extend to the conative groups, where the Choleric in Control (NT) also tends to lead, and the Supine in Control (basically, a kind of NF) will want someone else to lead.

Intersecting: Keirsey’s more recent designation for an affective group (interaction roles or styles) whose behavior with regard to the diametric opposite style does not lock into place, so to speak, but is described in terms of an “opponent” vs “proponent”. In such case, both sides are doing the same thing (as opposed to one leading and the other following) yet having different (opposing) agendas.
The expressive and responsive ESF/ENP groups will be very social, while the reserved and resistant [q.v.] IST/INJ groups will tend to want to be left alone. Both are basically “doing their own thing”, rather than following or leading.
They may clash, if the expressive (Sanguine) approaches the reserved (Melancholy), and the latter resists.
This could also extend to the conative (Control) temperaments.

Intertype Dynamics: A theory of how types relate to each other, by the functions they share or do not share. While Socionics has a well developed system of this, for MBTI, one has only been provided by the Type Logic site, which offers software for it, for a price.

Completely compatible (same quadra):
XXXX Identity —The same type
yXXX Pal —differing only in I/E; same preferred functions
Xyyy Supplement —same primary functions, two “blocks”(q.v.) reversed
yyyy Anima —All four primary functions in reverse

Incompatible (alternate quadra):
yXXy Contrast (also called “opposing personality”; same function order, but attitudes reversed)
XXXy Complement (type with opposite J/P, which orients preferred functions differently)
yyyX Novelty (type sharing only J/P, which orients opposite functions)
XyyX Enigma (McAlpine, “Dynamic Opposite”; all eight function-attitudes in reverse order)

Rationally compatible (adjacent quadra):
XyXX Neighbor (common rational function in same position, and by ext., the rest of the arm or spine)
yyXX Counterpart (one’s dom. is the other’s aux).
XXyy Advisor (one of one’s preferred function is other’s tert. or inf; with common I/E and S/N “language”)
yXyy Pedagogue (one of one’s preferred function is other’s tert. or inf.; opposite I/E)

A-rationally compatible (opposite quadra):
XXyX Companion (common a-rational function in same position, and by ext., the rest of the arm or spine)
yXyX Tribesman (one’s dom. is the other’s aux)
XyXy Suitemate (one of one’s preferred function is other’s tert. or inf).
yyXy Cohort (one of one’s preferred function is other’s tert. or inf.; opposite I/E)

Introversion: the primary “low expressive” pole of both temperament and type theory. In Jungian theory, also represents the dominant “attitude” a person prefers, in which his differentiated dominant function will be oriented towards the inner world of thoughts or internalized data, or an inner (often universalistic) standard of judgment.

Now believed to be created neurologically by an oversensitivity toward external stimuli, which pushes the person to withdraw from it and turn inward.

Introvolition [ETB]: proposal for alternative name for task-focus or low responsiveness. Means “inward-willed”, based on the idea that low responsives are said in APS to “respond as an introvert” (despite how they express, which shapes I/E).

iNtuition (N, to not confuse with “introversion”) the perception (information gathering) function that deals with conceptual data, or “where [something that "is"] is heading”, according to Jung.

An iNtuitive type is one whose primary outlook is concepts and meanings behind things.

Judging, Judgment:
1 A “rational” decision making function: Thinking or Feeling. (Can be represented as “j”, or “J[e/i]“).
2 (“J“) A pole of the final dichotomy of the type code, indicating that the preferred judgment function is extraverted, or oriented toward the outer world.
As a preference, it is generally characterized by a focus on outward “closure” and external order of some sort, whether impersonal, or more personal.
The perception function will be what’s oriented inwardly, so the person will draw on a storehouse of knowledge (tangible or conceptual) to inform their outward decisions.

Keirsey (David, W; Temperament Theory/Sorter-KTT/KTS): a Type theorist who mapped Plato’s four types of men and Ernst Kretschmer’s character styles to MBTI’s SJ, SP, NT, NF groups, which he designated as the “temperaments”; and producing a test (paper and online) for both temperament and type. His groups are very popular, and while he rejected the Jungian functions type is based on, most typology fans use both (which is a de-facto “Multiple Model™”—q.v.).
Keirsey’s son, David M Keirsey, follows in his father’s work, sometimes adding his own touch to the theory.

Keirseyan temperaments: the familiar, but a-symmetrical “conative” type groupings of SJ, SP, NT, NF.

LaHaye, Tim: Conservative Christian leader more known in recent decades for his Left Behind fictional series, but who in the 60’s had begun writing on the four temperaments, and adopting them for “Christian growth”.
In addition to the ancient four temperaments, he also devised 12 “blends” of all the temperaments with each other (two different orders for each blend). Earlier systems did this, but omitted blends of opposites (Sanguine with Melancholy, etc), so that there were only eight blends.
The blending order is based on a stacking order of relative strength determined by “percentage” by taking his simple test. So the first two, if close enough in score will be considered the blend. A third can be strong enough to make a three-way blend.
APS would refine this by basing blends on the three areas of need. Arno also cites LaHaye as speculating on a “passive Sanguine” that foreshadowed the fifth temperament, Supine. In my correlation of APS with MBTI/KTT, I have adopted LaHaye’s combining forms (SanMel, etc.) for Inclusion/Control combinations mapped onto the conative and affective groups within type (i.e. Interaction Styles + Keirsey temperaments).

Language styles [ETB]: What I have termed the four E/I + S/N groups (ES, EN, IS, IN). Expressive vs reserved factored with concrete (tangible) vs abstract (conceptual).

Left brain alternative: The “Crow’s Nest” functions for a J type, whose dominant functions are said to stem from the left side of the brain, so these are the other “J” (extraverted Judgment/introverted perception) functions.

Leukocytes/plasma [ETB]: White blood cells and fluid, as proposed “fifth humor” to assign to fifth temperament, Supine. They “serve” the body by helping to defend against infectious disease and foreign materials as part of the immune system.
So you would have a nice symmetry: two types of bile (yellow and black), and two types of blood (red and white), and colorful humors (yellow, red) on one side, and black and white on the other (with “phlegm” in the middle of it all).

Locator chart: a map of nine or ten FIRO behavioral groups carved out of the three need areas of FIRO-B™ by Dr. Leo Ryan. This would basically foreshadow the APS temperament system.

Loop: basically a tandem of two functions a person gets caught in (often negatively). Usually the dominant and tertiary.

Matrix: the usually 2 dimensional graph on which temperaments are plotted. In these theories, the dimensions (factors) are expressiveness and responsiveness (under various names). In Keirsey’s theory, it is MBTI’s S/N and his own Cooperative/Pragmatic.

MBTI: (Myers-Briggs Type Indicator®) The official test for the 16 types system, measuring four dichotomies; E/I, S/N, T/F and J/P, and putting them together into 16 types.

Melancholic/Melancholy: a classic temperament (black bile or earth—cold/dry) defined as low in both expressiveness and responsiveness. Hence, it often appears sad, withdrawn, contemplative.
In type, represented by the IST/INJ affective temperaments, and SJ conative temperament.
Classic temperament uses “Melancholic”, while some modern theorists, such as Tim LaHaye and the Arno’s, use “Melancholy”.

Mental Muscles™ A series of diagrams showing each type’s four-function stack, on the Team Technology site of Steve Myers (no relation to Isabel Briggs Myers).
It illustrates the functions as four bubbles, in order of dominant, auxiliary, tertiary and inferior, with a dividing line between introversion on the left and extraversion on the right, and the bubbles will be placed mostly on one side or the other in an alternating fashion, representing the type’s preferred orientation (attitude) of the functions.
This is actually a great way of representing all of the eight possible function-attitude combinations (Xe/i) for each type using just the “natural” (q.v.) four. Rather than being some totally separate “function”, the opposite attitude of each function will simply be a less conscious aspect of it, represented by a small portion of the bubble lying on the other side of the line.

Mirror Temperaments: The flipside of the asymmetrical Keirsey groups (SP, SJ, NT, NF): SF, ST, NP, NJ. These ultimately form a basis of Interaction Styles, when you pair together the “informative” (SF/NP) and “directive” (ST/NJ) groups, and then divide them by E/I.
(One theorist, Janet Germane, claims the NP’s as the real “Apollonian” —instead of Keirsey’s original NF designation; and the NJ as the real “Promethean”, instead of NT). See

You could also look at “Mirror Interaction Styles”:
ISP/INF: introverted, motive focused
ISJ/INT: introverted, structure focused
ESP/ENF: extraverted, motive focused
ESJ/ENT: extraverted, structure focused

Moderate: an implied pole lying midway between the opposite poles. Ambiversion is an example of this.

Motive-focus: part of a cross-factor Berens discovered for the Keirseyan temperaments, defined as “characterized by a focus on motives and why people do things in order to work with the people they are communicating with rather than trying to force them into a preconceived structure”. This would appear to correspond to high wanted Control, as the person thus allows others to shape their actions. It pairs what were opposites in Keirsey’s S/N and Cooperative/pragmatic matrix: SP and NF.

Movement: see “Outcome”

Multiple Models™: the theory of Dr. Linda Berens, recombining type and the Jungian functions (cognitive) with the Keirseyan temperaments (conative; Keirsey had rejected the functions), and adding a third model, the Interaction Styles™ (affective). It provides three “angles” to look at type from, especially in finding a “best-fit type”. It is the de-facto model of most of the online type community, who reference all three models in discussion.
My correlation of FIRO/APS with MBTI/KTT maps right onto the Multiple Model through the affective (Inclusion) and conative (Control), gaining classic temperament theory (APS and LaHaye) hypothetical access to the cognitive.
See also, “CORE™ Approach”

Myers’ temperament groups: The preferred function combinations of S/N + T/F (ST, SF, NT, NF).

Nardi, Dario: type theorist and close associate to Linda Berens. Author of the “Keys 2 Cognition” cognitive process tests, which scores the eight function-attitudes instead of four dichotomies. Also maps brain theory to the functions, in his book Neuroscience of Personality.

Natural function [ETB]: the original four functions, S, N, T or F, unspecified as to attitude (i/e). Could also be referred to as the function “in general”. Taken from the uses of “natural” for engines that are not “turbocharged”, and musical notes that are not “flat/sharp”.

Near shadow [ETB]: the Opposing Personality and Witch/Senex functions, which shadow the dominant and auxiliary functions, and thus are assumed to be closer to consciousness than the other two shadow functions. The Opposing Personality especially, often comes into consciousness to “back up” the dominant perspective. (See also, “Resistant block”)

Neuroticism: A personality factor, originally conceived by Hans Eysenck for the four classic temperaments, where it was the other scale factored with Extraversion. The original temperament factor other than Extraversion (people vs task) was similar to both Agreeableness and Neuroticism. It involved how long a person tended to sustain their emotions; where Neuroticism is basically how much a person is characterized by negative emotions (its opposite is “Stable“), and people/task basically covers how much interaction a person wants from others, and thus how “responsive they are to them. The two are similar, but not exactly the same. In most models, the other factor is more like Agreeableness.

Where the other four factors of Big Five roughly correspond to MBTI, Neuroticism wasn’t represented in the primary Step I, but a corresponding factor of Comfort/Discomfort was included in Myers’ analysis, but eventually grafted into the other factors for Steps II and III.

In classic four temperament theory, Neuroticism was more like the inverse of responsiveness, where Melancholy and Choleric are high in neuroticism and low in responsiveness.
When you add in the fifth temperament Supine (q.v.), it breaks this symmetry because it is also high in neuroticism by its descriptions (expecting people to know he needs interaction and then becoming frustrated, etc.), yet it is also high in responsiveness. The new symmetry that results is that Neuroticism corresponds with any low pole in either expressiveness or responsiveness. Supine is low in expressiveness (extraversion), Choleric is low in responsiveness, Melancholy is low in both scales. Sanguine is high in both, and thus “stable”, and Phlegmatic, the other original stable temperament, is actually moderate in both scales (rather than ow in expressiveness and high in responsiveness as originally factored).

Non-preferred functions: the tertiary and inferior, as opposed to the dominant and auxiliary. Technically, the “shadows” of eight-process theory are “non-preferred” (or “unpreferred”), but the term stems from the original four natural functions (without necessarily fixed attitudes). So the shadows would be included in the preferred/nonpreferred designations, as they are really just variations of the first four. (See also “immature block”).

Normative Temperaments: The four groups represented by the T/F + J/P codes (TJ, FJ, TP, FP). Corresponds with the “judging attitudes”, since J/P indicates the attitude of the functions. Also known as “Myers/McCaulley groups”.

Objective: oriented toward objects. This can indicate an extraverted (e) orientation, where the subject turns toward outer objects to process data, or a more impersonal (T) focus on things as simply objects, regardless of affect on any subject.

Octave [ETB]: the full set of types associated with each temperament. Each classic temperament will be represented by four social (Interaction Styles), and four conative (Keirseyan) groups. One type representing the temperament in both areas (the “pure” type), so that there are actually seven types. Just like musical octaves start and end on the same note letter, so that there are only 7, A-G.

Octaves according to purity order(q.v.):
Supine or Phlegmatic: INFP, ISFP, ENFP, ISFJ, INFJ, INTP, ENFJ

Diagram of Supine octave:

Operational definition: A definition of an element of a theory, that may appear to mean something else if taken too literally. An example is Arno’s claim that a Choleric “does not like people” (Temperament Theory Manual, p.73). “Not liking people” is really an operational definition of being task-focused and only relating to people if a strict criteria is met. While some people’s behavior may tend to seem more critical towards people due to this; if taken literally, it can lead to a very bad assumption or stereotype about the temperament, and make it appear totally negative.

Other examples of this are terms used in typology/function theory (such as Feeling dealing in “values”, or introverted Feeling dealing in “what’s personally important” etc.) that often lead people to misunderstand the functions, create Forer effects (q.v.) or even become ambiguous as in different aspects of the theory (like “abstract” usually refers to iNtuition, but Jung originally used it for introversion. “Subjective/objective” can refer to i/e or T/F. This is why I have come up with what I believe are less ambiguous terms for the functions: S-tangible, N-conceptual, T-technical, F-humane).
Another example is that saying someone’s particular function is “inferior” might sound like an insult, but all it means is that it is the function opposite their dominant (which is “superior”), and thus by definition has been psychically deprecated in favor of the other function.
Yet another is Jung’s “irrational”, referring to a perception function. “Irrational” has taken on a negative connotation in modern speech. (Hence, I prefer “A-rational”)

Opposing/oppositional Personality Complex [Beebe]: The [usually] contrasexual archetypal complex associated with the dominant function in the opposite attitude. Hence, it shadows the hero (as a “negative hero”). It is also a reflection of the anima, combining its [opposite] gender with the hero’s confidence, usually in a negative fashion. (Like when the ego feels obstructed). Positively, it “backs up” the dominant.
2) It is also the term for the intertype dynamic of two types sharing the same function order, but with the attitudes reversed (See “intertype dynamics” and “shadow type”).

Ordering Assesments [Beens/Montoya] Tentative name for common preference of types sharing primary judgment functions of Te and Fi: TJ’s and FP’s. {ETB: considered “consistent” (see “enigmatic types”)}.
Motto: “I feel; we think

Orientation: the internal or external “attitude” of a functional perspective.

Outcome: (formerly “control” def.2): one pole of the cross-factor Berens discovered for the Interaction Styles.™ Linking Behind the Scenes™ with In Charge™, it denotes a person who prefers arriving at a goal (may thus be confused for the “closure” associated with J), instead of focusing on the process used to get there.
An example of this, is that I wish to pay bills in one shot and be finished with it, not owing anyone anything, instead of paying a little of each at a time.
Corresponds to Keirsey’s “interlinking” and APS “incongruent” temperaments.

Panpersonal (conceived as “essempersonal”) [ETB, tentative]: proposed opposite of “impersonal”, to represent the products of the Feeling function, since “personal” is ambiguous (i.e. also refers to an introverted perspective).
“im-” means “not”, and its opposite is generally no prefix at all. So the closest thing to an opposite of that prefix would be the root “essen-”, meaning “to be”. Or, perhaps, “pan-” meaning “all”, which is an established (and less awkward) prefix.
It would serve as a collective for “personal/impersonal”, which is also used (with “personal” generally as introverted Feeling, and “interpersonal” as extraverted Feeling).
This is proposed as an alternative to “humane” (q. v.), which appears to carry a particular positive connotation to people.

Parent (“good Parent”) [Beebe]: the archetypal complex associated with the auxiliary function. Through it, we generally tend to help others through the perspective of our auxiliary function.

People-focused/oriented (Arno: “relationship oriented”): A temperament or type who responds well to people, generally wanting or at least welcoming or accepting interaction initiated by others.
Represented in type by “informing communications” (affective) and “motive-focus” (conative), corresponding in either fashion to F and/or P.

Perceiving, Perception:
1 an “irrational” (or “a-rational”, q.v.) function. Sensing or iNtuition. (can be represened as “p” or “P[e/i]“).
2 (“P“) a pole of the final dichotomy of the type code, indicating that the preferred perception function is extraverted, or oriented toward the outer world.
As a preference, it is generally characterized as being more “open” to possibilities and emergent data, whether tangible, or conceptual.
The judgment function is what will be oriented inwardly, so the person will use internalized principles to carry out the direction their outward information carries them.

Personal: a common ambiguous term that can refer to either an introverted perspective (regarding the ego of an individual person, as opposed to a group or other external object focused on by an extraverted perspective), or, the general “person”-[individual or collective]focused perspective of the Feeling function (as opposed to the “impersonal” {q. v.} focus of the Thinking function). (see also humane, panpersonal)

Personal unconscious: the personal part of the unconscious, where archetypal images “fill up” with personal experience and become “complexes”.

Phlegmatic: the ancient temperament (phlegm or water—cold/wet) that fell into the low expressive, people-focused slot. They were thus slow, yet friendly and peaceable.
However, it was determined that the temperament was really moderate in both scales (and even once defined as the absence of temperament), so thus in the APS system, it is dead center of the matrix, while a fifth temperament, Supine takes its place as introverted and responsive.

Represented in type by the ISF/INP affective groups, and the NF conative temperament. Though Keirsey claimed NT was Phlegmatic, by a different criteria. However, with the NF’s cooperative as a kind of low expressiveness or reservedness, and the motive focus as responsive, it would fall into either the ancient place of the Phlegmatic, or the modern place of the Supine.

Phlegmatic blend: a temperament that is moderate in one dimension of expressiveness or reponsiveness WITHIN a particular area of interaction.
The person will either express himself as a Phlegmatic and respond as one of the other temperaments (in which case he will be an “ambivert”, and inbetween in expressiveness, and yet share the high or low responsiveness of the other
temperament), or he will express himself as one of the other temperaments, and respond as a Phlegmatic. So he will be a solid introvert or extrovert, but have a “take-em-or-leave-em” attitude in responding toward people, and relate to both people and tasks. [APS reports will generally still describe them as "both introverted and extroverted" because of the Phlegmatic part of it, but I'm using i/e strictly for expressiveness].
This is not to be confused with being one temperament in one area, and Phlegmatic in another. Hence, “Phlegmatic Melancholy” can be either a moderately expressing and low responding temperament within Inclusion (or the other two areas), or it can be something like a Phlegmatic in Inclusion and Melancholy in Control. The APS did not devise a way to differentiate the two kinds of blends in the names.
When I use LaHaye’s combining forms, such as “PhlegMel”, it is an Inclusion/Control combo, which I have mapped to type. (In that case, an ISFJ, as ISF-Phlegmatic + SJ-Melancholy).

Phlegmatic Cross [ETB]: the entire set of expressed and wanted scores of 4 and 5 on the APS grids for all three areas, which represent the Phlegmatic temperament (dead center) and its blends with the other temperaments.
I have found that people who lie on this cross will tend to have uncertainty in some of the MBTI type dichotomies, because these represent moderate (inbetween) preferences, which do appear to be reflected in both systems.

Phlegmatic Expresseds [ETB]: Collective term for Phlegmatic blends who express as a Phlegmatic (moderately) but respond as one of the other temperaments. Expressed scores are 4 and 5. These are “ambiverts”, and tend to be calm observers of people, neither moving toward or away in their expressiveness, yet having a clearer preference in responsiveness. (cf “Expressive Phlegmatic”)

Phlegmatic Resistants[ETB]: Collective term for Phlegmatic blends with moderate expressiveness, but with low responsiveness. Phlegmatic Melancholy, Phlegmatic Choleric.

Phlegmatic Responsives[ETB]: Collective term for Phlegmatic blends with moderate expressivness, but with high responsiveness. Phlegmatic Supine, Phlegmatic Sanguine

Pragmatic: The Keirseyan pole indicating a type’s tendency to do “what works”.
Shared by the SP and NT temperaments. Since this will likely lead to a quicker course of action, it appears to correspond with high expressed Control. Also called “utilitarian”.

Preference clarity [MBTI]: the measurements represented by the four MBTI® dichotomy scores (PCI: Preference Clarity Index), which are not how much you prefer each pole (as many understandably assume), but rather how clear the preference. If the scores are 50%, it doesn’t mean you’re “both”, or no preference (“neither”), but simply that from the way you answered the questionnaire items, a preference could not be determined (the instrument will then assume I, N, F or P for each 50% dichotomy, because it is assumed that people of those preferences might be inclined to answer in favor of the opposite preferences, E, S, T or J, which are the stronger preferences in Western society).

Preferred function: the dominant and auxiliary (and usually, their attitudes), which define the type. ([ETB]: these make up the “preferred block”; representative card suit: diamonds: the ego’s most cherished goals).

Primary function: one of the four function-attitudes denoted for each type, as the dominant, auxiliary, tertiary and inferior. Identifed as “ego-syntonic”.
(cf. “shadow”)

Process: (1) a function-attitude.
(2) (formerly “movement”): one pole of the cross-factor Berens discovered for the Interaction Styles.™ Linking Chart the Course™ with Get Things Going™, it denotes a person who prefers working towards a goal. Corresponds with Keirsey’s “intersecting” and APS’ “congruent” temperaments.

Projection: when we generally see what is unconscious within our own psyches in others. It often leads us to react toward them in different ways. In the theory promoted by Beebe, we generally project the different complexes onto others, and the complex’s associated function-attitude will tend to be the lens see see the situation through.

Psyche: the seat of the “larger Self”, including the ego (what is conscious), plus the shadow or unconscious. The ego thinks its the center of the psyche, but the Self really is, and shadow complexes will often emerge from the unconscious as the Self attempts to assume its rightful place.

Puer (m)/puella (f) [Beebe]: the archetypal complex associated with the tertiary function. Like the associated function, it is a reflection of the auxiliary or “parent”. With it, we tend to look up to others and find relief through recreation. It can “inflate” itself and appear as “strong” as a preferred function at times.

“Pure” temperament: someone who has the same temperament in all areas. See also “typologically pure”. “Pure” can also refer to within an area, for Phlegmatic or other temperaments not blended with each other.

Purity order [ETB] The order, starting from most pure to least pure, in the temperament blends.
The most pure will be the same temperament in both affective and social areas. (1)
The next pure will be blends of temperaments sharing wanted behaviors plus expressed Inclusion (three out of four factors). Since wanted behaviors are “what a person really wants”, the two temperaments will be most alike, and the person will also be doubly introverted or extroverted. In the corresponding type code, it will be the type differing only in S/N from the pure type. They will look very similar on the surface. Example is pure Sanguine ESFP and Sanguine Supine ENFP. (2, 3)
These two groups will comprise all of the FP’s, who are both “informative” plus “motive-focused”, or TJ’s who are “directive” plus “structure-focused”.
The next pure type will be the one sharing expressed behaviors (extrovert + pragmatic and introvert + cooperative)
These are the FP’s and TJ’s differing from each other by S/N. Example is Choleric Sanguine ESTP and Sanguine Choleric ENTP. (4, 5)
The least pure will be blends of diametric opposites. EFJ’s and ITP’s. (6, 7) (See also “enigmatic types”)

All the types are listed in purity order for each temperament in the “Octave” entry(qv):
1) eI, wI, eC, wC congruent (same temperament in both areas)
2) eI, wI, wC
3) eC, wI, wC
4) eI, wI, eC
5) eI, eC, wC
6) eI, wI
7) eC, wC

Quadra: [borrowed from Socionics]: a group of four types consisting of the two intelligence variants (last three letters; q.v.) sharing the same four primary function-attitudes.
(See also, Cognitive Styles)

Rational: a decision making function (Thinking or Feeling), or a type whose dominant is one of these functions.

Rational content [ETB]: the “judging” content of data or discussion. Determines whether the perspective is technical (Thinking) or humane (Feeling)

Rationality [ETB]: the class of a function as either perceiving (S/N) or judging (T/F)

Rationally compatible/incompatible [ETB]: types sharing or not sharing the same judging functions.

Realizing Awareness [Berens/Montoya] Tentative name for common preference of types sharing primary perception functions of Se and Ni. SP’s and NJ’s. {ETB: Earlier attempt; tried “aspective” (ad “to”, -spect “look”)}.
Can be thought of in terms of “take in emerging experience, internalize the meanings”.

Reflection/mirroring [ETB]: the method in which one function and/or attitude, and associated archetypes, are compensated by their opposites in a stacking order.
The inferior is a reflection of the dominant, with the opposite function and attitude. The “Daimon” function is also a reflection of it, with the opposite function, but in the same attitude.

Regrettable block [ETB]: The Trickster and Demon processes, whose actions tend to be regretted, from being deep in the unconscious and acted upon erratically and with little control. It shadows the vulnerability of the child and anima (tertiary/inferior) and reflects the energy (though in an unconscious way) of the hero and parent (dom/aux). Hence, the functions also coming out as the “right/left brain alternatives” and whose behavior are detected strongly on Nardi’s cognitive process test. Representative card suit: ♣ clubs (blunt weapon).
(See also, “deep shadow”)

Reserved: a type or temperament with low expressiveness. Introvert or cooperative.

Reserved Phlegmatics[ETB]: collective term for Phlegmatic blends with low expressiveness and moderate responsiveness. Supine Phlegmatic and Melancholy Phlegmatic

Resistant [ETB]: a task-focused type or temperament who does not respond much to people, having a high criteria for interaction. (low responsiveness; directive, structure-focused)

Resistant block [ETB]: the Opposing Personality and Witch/Senex processes, which tend to resist others, shadowing the confidence of the dominant and auxilary and compensating for the vulnerability of the tertiary and inferior. Representative card suit: ♠ spades (sharp weapon).
(See also, “Near shadow”).

Responsive: a type or temperament who has high responsiveness or people-focus. (role-informative, motive-focused).

Responsiveness: the other dimension in the temperament matrix besides expressiveness. It involves how much a person wants interaction from others.
Originally mapped to the elements by Galen as a “wet/dry” dimension. (Coincidentally, those low in this dimension will tend to be more “dry” in speech). Also described in terms of long or short “response-time sustain”.
The term is used for the corresponding dimension in the Social Styles model.

Responsiveness Phlegmatics[ETB]: collective term for Phlegmatic blends who express as one of the other temperaments, and respond as a Phlegmatic. Wanted scores are 4 and 5. These are moderate temperaments who are solid introverts or extroverts, but can relate to either people or tasks, and have a “noncommittal” take ‘em or leave ‘em attitude.

Right brain alternative: The “Crow’s Nest” functions for a P type, whose dominant functions are said to stem from the right side of the brain, so these are the other “P” (extraverted perception/introverted judgment) functions.

Role-directive: a task-focused type who tends to define the relationship with others. Represented by ST and NJ groups. Likely corresponds with low Wanted Inclusion and low responsiveness.

Role-informative: a people-focused type who tends to allow others to define the relationship. Represented by SF and NP groups. Likely corresponds with high wanted Inclusion and responsiveness.

Roles of interaction: Keirsey’s designation of the affective groups (commonly known as Interaction Styles™), which he eventually arrived at by dividing his intelligence variants by I/E.

Sanguine: a classic temperament (blood or air—hot/wet) defined as both expressive and responsive. Thus, loving of interaction with people, and very expressive of it, often being charming and friendly.
Represented in type as the ESF/ENP affective groups, and the SP conative temperament.

Self: see psyche

Senex [Beebe]: the “witch” (q.v.) or “negative parent” complex for males. Conveys the sense of a cranky old man, and positively, a “wise old man”.

Sensing (Sensation, S) the perception (information gathering) function that deals with tangible data taken in through the senses. It tells you “What it is”, according to Jung.

A Sensing type is one whose primary outlook is factual data and/or “at hand” or memorized experience.

Set[ETB]: the external standards referenced by extraverted judgments. Works with stored data. (cf “variable”)

Shadow: originally a single Jungian archetype covering what is unconscious; and then used in four-process theory to designate the inferior (which is often less than conscious in younger people), it has been used in eight-function theory, particularly by Beebe, to represent the functions and associated archetypal complexes that are the negative and opposite-attitude versions of the primary four functions. As a verb, those functions and archetypes “shadow” their primary counterparts. They are considered “ego-dystonic”.

Beebe cautions us that it is not always a hard division, and that all eight functions could be shadow (as in a very young child, where none have differentiated yet).

Shadow type: the “opposite” type whose preferred or primary functions are unconscious to a given type.
In four-process theory, it’s the type with all four letters opposite, and all four primary functions are in the opposite order. One’s dominant is the other’s inferior; one’s auxiliary is the other’s tertiary, and so on. (Proposal for new term: “syntonic shadow type”).

In the eight-process model of Beebe, it’s a type for whom all primary functions are mutually dystonic.
The “opposing personality” or “attitude antagonistic” type (or “Contrast”; see “Intertype Dynamics”) will have the same two middle letters (same natural function (q.v.) preference), but both E/I and J/P will be opposite. The types will have the same four natural function order, but the attitudes will all be reversed (by the opposite J/P, of course). So one’s “hero” (dom.) will be the other’s “opposing personality” (5th place), and the “good parent” (aux.) will be replaced by the “critical parent” (6th place). (Proposal: “projective shadow type”).

“Dynamic Opposite” or “Enigma” type will share I/E and J/P but the middle two letters (the functions) will be opposite. The common J/P will be orienting opposite functions into the same attitudes. The result is that all eight function-attitudes will be in reverse order, according to the Beebe “1-8″ archetype order. (hero=daimon(#8), parent=Trickster(#7), etc. (Proposal: reflective shadow type).

Ship Model: The eight-process stacking devised by Lenore Thomson, in which the four “shadows” are placed inbetween the preferred and vulnerable (q.v.; [i.e. tert/inferior]) blocks. The “inferior” then ends up as the eighth, instead of the fourth in the order.
This actually closely matches the results of many people’s “cognitive process test” (usually Nardi’s “Keys 2 Cognition”) results. It is based on BTI’s “brain lateralization theory”.

In the theory, the dominant is the captain, the auxiliary is the first mate (who often suggests other courses, representing the opposite orientation), the tertiary and inferior have been thrown off the ship, with the tertiary water skiing from the ship (thus in the same direction or orientation) yet “shouting insulting remarks”, and the inferior taking a lifeboat back to shore, having tied a rope to the ship, and then trying to pull it back inland with a power truck. (Opposite orientation). The other blocks are “Double Agents” and “Crow’s Nests”, who serve as lookouts.

In the book, she says “We all use our crow’s nest functions to support our dominant agenda in situations that require more than our preferred skills. When it’s time to grow, however, implementing our standard agenda won’t work. Expanding our dominant identity requires a different kind of effort.” (p.98) This then leads to the tertiary, which had been less developed, “along for the ride, coasting on our dominant energies”, and can “tell us exactly what we want to hear”, and bring us under the influence of the inferior function, which pulls us backward.
Hence, either the crow’s nests or tertiary can be seen in different places described as the first we run to, depending on our development.

simulation or “smearing-out” [ETB] when a single temperament is simulated by combinations of expressed and wanted behaviors of different areas.

Supine/Choleric is low eI + low wC, which simulates Melancholy (low e and w), and also correspond with I + T, which is the Melancholic “Social image temperament” (qv) where I[N]P is the Supine Interaction Style (Behind the Scenes). INTPs often look like, identify with, and test as Melancholic.

Likewise ESFJ Sanguine/Melancholy is high eI + low wC, which simulates Choleric (high e low w; sociability temperament EJ), and they are often seen as “controlling”. On the other hand, high wI + low eC simulates Supine, fitting Fe’s tendency to acqiesce and serve others.

ENFJ Choleric/Supine high eI + high wC simulates Sanguine (EF social image) and they often come out as such on simple tests, and it also matches Fe’s outgoingness.

These further explain why temperament may not always line up with type.

Sociability temperaments: Named by George Frisbie writing in JPT; the four type groups represented by E/I + J/P (EJ, IJ, EP, IP). These are said (Brenda Muller,Personality Page) to be the first letters to develop in a child. No functions have been differentiated yet, and all that is known is the child’s expressiveness, and part of their responsiveness. Thus loosely corresponds to affective temperaments. For N types, does match the Interaction Style.

Social image temperaments [ETB]: The name I have given to the four types represented by E/I + T/F. (ET, IT, EF, IF). While not discussed by anyone else (outside brief sections in the MBTI Manual, and now, Nardi’s Neuroscience of Personality p.158, where he calls them “communication styles”), these groups can be said to be what we see in a person socially. Their expressiveness, and whether they are a Thinker or Feeler, to represent part of their responsiveness.
So it, like the Sociability temperaments, loosely corresponds with the affective temperaments. Three types sharing these letters will have the same Interaction Style, but the fourth one will have the other Style sharing the same I/E but opposite in directing/informing.
As an example of this, three of the IT’s—ISTJ, ISTP, INTJ are “Melancholic” (known as “Chart the Course™” in the Interaction Styles™), but INTP is “Behind the Scenes™” (Phlegmatic or Supine). However, all four IT’s do look Melancholic on the surface, because of being introverted and Thinkers. Thinking carries a task focus, and for two of the types (the S’s), both the I and T are apart of Interaction Style (IST), but for INTP, T’s “Task focus” is apart of of the conative temperament (NT) instead of the affective one (INP). For INTJ it is too, but since that also has the task-focused J, then it (as an INJ) is directive like the IST’s.
So for S’s, these groups correspond with the Interaction Style.

Social Styles: A temperament-like system created by David Merrill. Factors are Assertiveness and Responsiveness, and types are Analytical (low assertiveness and responsiveness—Melancholic), Driving (high assertiveness, low responsiveness—Choleric), Expressive (high assertiveness and responsiveness—Sanguine), and Amiable (low assertivness, high responsiveness—Phlegmatic or Supine). Berens (q.v.) has compared her Interaction Styles™ mapped to MBTI type, to it.
A similar system is “Personality Styles” by Tony Alessandra; as well as LIFO, CPI, some variations of Type A theory, Adler’s four styles of life, Fromm’s four types of character, and DiSC (q.v).

Socionics: The Russian version of type theory, said to have developed independently of the American system. It on one hand uses a three letter system (where dominant function is determined by the order of two of the letters), but there is also a version using MBTI dichotomies. However, J/P are replaced by a lowercase j/p, which represents, not extraverted function, but rather dominant function. —like Jung’s original “rational/irrational”. This can cause confusion, where for extraverts (whose dominant is extraverted), the letters are the same, but for introverts (Whose dominant is introverted, and thus not represented by MBTI’s J/P), the last dichotomy is switched.
While the same function-attitudes are used as in MBTI (though sometimes it is claimed the definitions are different, to the point that J=j and P=p after all!) there is also a version of the theory representing them by shapes.
The system has a more developed intertype dynamic system (in addition to trying to be truer to Jung), leading some in type discussions to prefer it over MBTI

Spine/”the spine of consciousness” [Beebe]: The tandems formed by the dominant and inferior (and their shadows), which are said to deal with the ego’s relation to self. (cf. “Arm”)

Stacking order: the order in which the four or eight functions or function-attitudes are listed, to highlight their roles in each type. Generally, the dominant and auxiliary are always stacked as #1 and 2. The tertiary and inferior can be stacked as #3 and 4, and the same four functions, but with the attitudes reversed are stacked as 5-8. However, other models, such as Socionics and Lenore Thomson’s “ship” model, stack the tertiary and below differently.
Stacking order should not be assumed to reflect relative “strengths” of the functions, as is often assumed.

Stored[ETB]: the internalized data referenced by introverted perception. Works with set judgement standards (cf “emergent”)

Structure-focus: part of a cross-factor Berens discovered for the Keirseyan temperaments, defined as “focus on structure, order, and organization to gain a measure of control over life’s problems and irregularities and not be at the mercy of random forces”. This would appear to correspond to low wanted Control.
It pairs what were opposites in Keirsey’s S/N and cooperative/pragmatic matrix: SJ and NT.

Subjective: Oriented toward subjects. This can indicate an introverted (i) orientation where the subject turns within itself to process data, or it can focus on “subjects” in general, as living things (and not simply as “objects”) with personal/interpersonal (F) needs.

Supine: The fifth temperament, discovered in the 1980’s by the Arno’s. Rather than having a body fluid connection like the ancient temperaments, it was named after body positions: “lying on the back”, or “with the face turned upward”.
It is defined by an expressed score of 0-4 (i.e. low) factored with a responsive score of 5-9 (i.e. “high”. Both 4 and 5 represent the moderate “Phlegmatic” variations of it).
It has a high need of interaction and acceptance like the Sanguine, but does not express it. He is thus described as often being frustrated and wanting people to “read his mind” to know he wants interaction. This is likely why the temperament went unrecognized for so long. On the surface, they will look like Melancholies, from being so reserved.
When he does take action, it is generally to use tasks to “serve” others to gain acceptance. Thus, he is said to have a “servant’s heart”. He will also eventually become angry if not given this acknowledgement. But he may regard his anger as “hurt feelings”.
Represented in type by the same groups associated with the Phlegmatic: the ISF and INP affective groups, and the NF conative temperament. It was previously inferred as a “passive/wounded Sanguine”, reportedly referred to as such by LaHaye, but I cannot find a citation. The similar WorleyID Profile (q.v.) reverts it back to “Introverted Sanguine”.

Tandem: any pair of functions in a stacking order that work together or compensate each other.
See: Arm, Spine, Face, Block, Loop, Shadow (as verb for function)

Tandem Styles [ETB]: Four groups I have been suggesting, defined by function tandems: Te/Fi, Fe/Ti, Se/Ni and Ne/Si. No one had developed these groups, and the only thing I could find corresponding to them were in Socionics, four out of 15 “Reinin Dichotomies”:

Merry: Fe/Ti (FJ/TP)
Serious: Te/Fi (TJ/FP)
Judicious: Si/Ne (SJ/NP) aka Caregiver/Infantile Romance Styles
Decisive: Ni/Se (NJ/SP) aka Victim/Aggressor Romance styles

Linda Berens (q.v.) and associate Chris Montoya are developing a new model (independent of Socionics) called “Cognitive Styles” (q.v.) which is comparable to the Socionics quadras (q.v.), which are basically full pairs of judgment and perception tandems shared by opposite Intelligence Variants(q.v.). This new model includes an unpublished matrix containing two-word groups representing the tandems by themselves. (These are tentative):

Inquiring Awareness: Si/Ne (SJ/NP)
Realizing Awareness: Ni/Se (NJ/SP)
Ordering Assessments: Te/Fi (TJ/FP)
Aligning Assessments: Ti/Fe (TP/FJ)

Tangible [ETB]: the empirical focus of the Sensing function. Often called “concrete”. It is a focus that pays attention to what is perceived through the senses or the data of what’s “at hand”.

Task-focused/oriented: a type or temperament who responds less to people, and thus more to tasks; generally not wanting unsolicited interaction initiated by others. They thus have stronger boundaries or criteria for accepting such interaction.
Represented in type by “directive”-ness (affective) and structure-focus (conative), corresponding in either fashion to T and/or J.

Technical [ETB]: the “impersonal” focus of the Thinking function, often called “logic” or “objective”. Characterized by a “linear” “if this then that” focus, irregardless of affect on people.

Temperament: a disposition of people toward certain behaviors, which then affect our interaction with each other. Specifically, one of four (or now, five) archetypes of such behavior.
In typology, it generally refers more commonly to the Keirseyan groups. It has also been used for other, various letter combinations. In modern mainstream psychology, it has been dissociated from behavioral archetypes, but instead applied to generally nine individual factors (mood, activity, rhythm, approach/withdrawal, adaptability, intensity, attention span, distractibility, sensory threshold), which are usually focused specifically on children’s behavior.
They do seem to be able to fit into categories of “Expressed” and “Wanted” behavior [q.v.], which classic temperament matrices are based on. Sensory threshold, in particular, is the one being mapped to introversion/extroversion, in brain studies.
They aren’t as frequently factored together into temperament “types” as in classical theory, but three groups that were put together were:

Easy children (40%): positiveness in mood, regularity in bodily functions, low or moderated intensity of reaction, adaptability and positive approach to, rather than withdrawal from, new situations. (i.e. Regular sleeping and feeding schedules, generally cheerful and adapted quickly to new routines, new food and new people).

Difficult children (10%): irregular in bodily functions, usual intensity in reactions, tendency to withdraw in the face of new stimuli, relative slowness to adapt to changes in the environment and general negativity in mood. (i.e. irregular in feeding and sleeping, slower to accept new foods, took a longer time to adjust to new routines or activities and tended to cry a great deal and have violent tantrums from frustrations).

Slow to warm up (15%): relatively low activity levels, tended to withdraw on their first exposure to new stimuli, were slower to adapt, were somewhat negative in mood and responded to situations with a low intensity of reaction. But their reactions gradually become more positive with continuous exposure.

A remaining 35% had mixtures of the nine traits that did not seem to allow classification into these groups.

The four factors used 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 “expreessive” factor being used), and rhythm not specified.

Thinking (T): the judgment (decision making) function that covers technical or “impersonal” elements of objects, such as “if-then” evaluations, regardless of affect on people. According to Jung, it is the function that gives it a name [i.e logically categorizes "what is"]. This is the function that captures our [personal] detachment from things evaluated.

A person’s “Thinking” function is their perspective of the technical side of things, and their attention to and evaluation of things by impersonal logic.
A Thinking type is one whose primary rational outlook is looking at the world in terms of objects and how they work (including people), often with a focus on goals such as efficiency.

Thomson, Lenore: (often addressed by first name, from “Greenlight Exegesis Wiki” on her). Jungian theorist who devised the Ship Model (q.v.) in her book Personality Type: An Owner’s Manual, and later moved toward a modified discussion of Beebe’s model.

Towards [ETB]: Borrowed from Karen Horney; it is a direction of desire of people, either in expressive behavior (approaching then), or in responsive behavior (wanting them to approach you). (cf “Away”).

Trickster [Beebe]: the archetypal complex associated with the tertiary function in the opposite attitude. Basically, a “bad child” who binds others (and often the ego itself), especially when the ego feels bound in some way. Its positive side is “comedic”.

Type: A whole set of behavior patterns or cognitive preferences, defined by dichotomies or temperament blends. Particularly, one of the sixteen such patterns outlined by the MBTI.

Type binary [ETB]: a theory I’ve proposed, mapping type preferences to four of the six FIRO factors. This is an extension of E/I (expressed Inclusion) as believed to be neurologically based, in terms of stimulatability, with overstmulatability leading to withdrawing within (introversion), and understimulatability leading to seeking more stimulation from without (extraversion).

By extending this principle to expressed Control and the two Wanted scales, you would have a neurological basis for complete type.

It figures, then that if how you “express” can be determined by stimulatability, then so can how you “want”, or respond to.
And that the two dimensions are apparently different. A person can be understimulated by the external world, and thus move toward it (approach others), and yet can either want the interaction in turn, or not want it (uncsolicited), unless a stricter criteria is met. One will allow the other person to define the relationship and tend to communicate in a softer “informative” fashion (as Keirsey said) or aim to work with people (through their motives) instead of forcing them into a structure (as Berens said), while the other will want to define the relationship themselves, and dry their speech into a “directive” form, or fit people into structures which serve as their criteria for accepting control.

Therefore, this “criteria” could possibly come from another dimension of stimulatability to the outside world. (APS terms it as “responsing as an introvert or extravert).
Expressiveness could be extended to another level as well (control rather than just surface interaction), of how quick one takes action, which would be Keirsey’s Cooperative/Pragmatic.

These poles could be used (apart from the type code or functions) to denote all 16 types.

We can make 1 a need for more stimulation, and 0 a need for less stimulation.

The values of each digit represent:

The way it translates into the type factors:
eI = extraversion (1)/introversion (0)
wI = informing (1)/directing (0)
eC = pragmatic (1)/cooperative (0)
wC = motive (1)/structure (0)


ISTJ: 0000 ISFJ: 0100 ESTJ: 1000 ESFJ: 1100
INFJ: 0001 INFP: 0101 ENFJ: 1001 ENFP: 1101
INTJ: 0010 INTP: 0110 ENTJ: 1010 ENTP: 1110
ISTP: 0011 ISFP: 0111 ESTP: 1011 ESFP: 1111

(X is the general variable; Y and Z will indicate that the values must be different from each other, and it can be either way: Y=0, Z=1 or Y=1, Z=0).

S: –XX– (xx00xx—SJ/Si, xx11xx—SP/Se)
N: –YZ– (xx01xx—N+F, xx10xx—N+T)

T/F and J/P must meet two of the three parameters for the last three letters (-xxx):
T: directive (0–-), pragmatic (-1-), structure-focused (–-0).
F: informative (1–-) , cooperative (-0-), motive focused (–-1).
J: two or three “0”s
P: two or three “1”s

These I imagine, could possibly represent areas of the brain, where stimulation occurs.

Type-specific [ETB]: Properties specific to a type; especially behavior, and especially regarding the functions, which people often associate with behavior.
People may associate some behaviors with a type or function, but it may not always be the case. An example is the need for socialization, which is associated with extraverted Feeling, or memory, which is associated with introverted Sensing. Only four of the 16 types will prefer any given function-attitude, and another four have it as tertiary or inferior, while for the other eight, it is in the “shadow”.
Yet people of any type can connect socially, or remember things. The actual preference will determine how much they pay attention to the functional perspective in perceiving or judging situations. So for the types not paying attention to it, the behavior is not type-specific. If the function is really involved at all, it is in a state called “undifferentiated” (q.v.).

Also, a function in a preferred position will be different from the same function in a tertiary or inferior position. Like introverted Feeling is often described as stubborn and standoffish, while FP’s will be described almost in the opposite fashion by other profilers. Yet the former description is more likely the tertiary or inferior Fi of TJ types. So there are different type-specific manifestations of the function.

Typologically pure [ETB]: someone who has the same temperament in the two areas corresponding to type: Inclusion and Control. (Affection may still be a different temperament). In some people, this may be Control and Affection instead.

Undifferentiated functions: functions not set out by the ego as distinct perspectives of processing data. They either support the ego’s agenda (by connecting with the neurological network formed around the dominant function), or remain tied to the archetypal complexes at the limbic level of emotional response, where they are felt through emotionally freighted images.

This is important to keep in mind, as many behaviors have become associated with the functions, such as introverted Sensing with referencing memory, extraverted Sensing with tangible experience, introverted Feeling with liking and valuing and extraverted Feeling with connecting socially. But everybody does all of these things. These can be called general, non-type-specific manifestations of the functions.
So it is misleading to express these behaviors as “using” particular functions, and doing so creates Forer effects (q.v.) when trying to define a type.

However, when a type tends to prefer referencing memory, or referencing emergent experience, over other forms of perception, or using internal values or external local social values for rational decision-making, then it may be a type-specific preference for a function. It can also come up as part of a complex, where under [usually] stress, you pay attention to functional perspectives other than the ones you normally pay attention to.

Utilitarian: Alternate term for pragmatic.

Variable[ETB]: the changing, often universalistic data referenced by the internal standards of introverted judgment. Works with emergent data (cf “set”)

Vulnerable/Vulnerable block [ETB]: the tertiary and inferior, being the area of the ego associated with vulnerability (the “child” and “anima” complexes).

Wanted: The FIRO dimension corresponding to Responsiveness. Covers how much interaction a person wants from others. (In the WIDP, it is renamed “Desired”).

wanted Affection (wA): The FIRO dimension determining how much a person tends to want to be approached by others for deep personal interaction.

wanted Control (wC): The FIRO dimension determining how much a person tends to want or at least allow others to control them, or impose self-initiated decisions on them. Likely corresponds to Berens’ “Structure vs Motive”.

wanted Inclusion (wI): The FIRO dimension determining how much a person tends to want to be approached by others for surface social interaction. Likely corresponds to Keirsey/Berens’ “informative/directive”.

Witch [Beebe]: the archetypal complex associated with the auxiliary function in the opposite function. “Witch” is sometimes used for either gender, but it is more accurately for females, while “Senex” is for males. A more comparable archetype (from having a “wise” but not “magical” connotation) is “the Crone”.
It is basically a kind of “negative parent” (called by Berens, “critical parent”), which tends to attack others when the ego feels negated. (She also calls it “Immobilizing”)
Its positive side conveys a sense of “wisdom”.

Worley Identity Discovery Profile (WIDP): An unrelated temperament instrument using the same structure as FIRO/APS, but not under a license agreement. It thus uses a different questionnaire, and shares with the APS only the four anciently known temperaments (including the Phlegmatic blends). The fifth temperament, the three areas of interaction, and the two dimensions are all renamed.
Its site has been down for years, though the last time I asked, the owner says it’s still available.

Modern Temperament vs Classic Temperament factors

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
difficult” and

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”
attention span,
sensory threshold

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®) 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).

Review of Personality Junkie “My True Type”

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

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.”

Other points:
•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!

Finally: Official tandem group names!

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

Steps to the Keirsey classic temperament mapping

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.
Sanguine: hot-moist
Choleric: hot-dry
Melancholic: cold-dry
Phlegmatic: cold-moist

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”.

Emulation: The forgotten sin (Oneupmanship)

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)*

*positive uses
** 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
to envy

It’s translated:
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).

Another Crack at Function Definitions: “Relationships” of Objects

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: “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 [ or, 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.

Backlash against the “Nice Guy” in light of “Virgin Rampage”

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:


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.