Skip to content

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 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 “exposes” 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” againstt “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 loner 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.

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”. 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 descent (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 ceased), 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 relationships)
conceptual (background, contexts; transcendant 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.

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” 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” 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 immanent relationships experiencing life as it comes
Si: observing through a storehouse of immanent relationships filtering life through familiar fact
Ne: observing immediate transcendent relationships exploring conceptual contexts as data arises
Ni: observing through a stored sense of transcendent 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 immanent (each one “is what it is”), or are they transcendent (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 immanent (static) words on the page, and refusing to place them in a larger “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:

A Walk Through the Fourth Dimension

Doing all this thinking and research on the Five Points has me wishing I could see the area not just in one time, but several times.
If I could go back, or maybe restore parts of the past, which would I choose? Perhaps the 1890’s in the last days of the 24 Baxter distillery building. Or maybe before the bowling alley was added, like in Riis’ photo, and then we could pick up from there and fix the whole area up. (I could picture a Fairway looking good in the building, and why not go far enough back so the main Old Brewery would be apart of it as well). Maybe even earlier, when it was all the little gable houses, or maybe leave the Collect Pond in place and build around it. Lower Manhattan would then resemble a Florida city like Orlando, with the downtown lakes.
But it would also be nice in the last days of the neighborhood, like that last new Mission building photo, when it probably resembled the Village across town with all the turn of the century larger tenements (including the ones that replaced the distillery).

Don’t even get me started on Norfolk. Downtown looks nice now with the Tide, MacArthur Mall, and Waterside Dr., the suburban looking new Huntersville, but old Main St. looked interesting as well, and the old Huntersville could have been fixed up into a nice looking old neighborhood.

With the actual timeline laid out as the fourth space dimension, we could have them all, at the same time!
(Remember, “time” and “space” are both media of displacement of objects and events; just that time is the direction of entropy, where one event causes the next, while space is a random access connection between objects relative to one another in multiple dimensions; i.e. you can go back and forth between points and measure the displacement with a fixed ruler).

So it has me thinking what it would be like if we could walk back through passed time as the fourth dimension.

When we talk about the “fourth” dimension, first, we number specifically the other three. Whichever dimension you are in, you must start with “back and forth”. You have to be able to look “ahead” into your dimension. So what we call “depth” is actually the first dimension.
The next fixed dimension for those anchored to a gravitational body is “up/down” or height.
So “left/right” or width is the “third” dimension; a sort of “extra” degree of freedom we have.

So if a Flatlander on a board could rotate to look out into our dimension, only his “depth” direction would change. (It would match ours, as we look at him at a perpendicular angle to his entire space).
Up and down would still be the same.

So likewise, if we could rotate into the fourth dimension, only our back and forth would change, and both up and down and left and right would be the same. (Rotation about a plane rather than just a line). If we didn’t move off of the hyperplane, one 2D slice of us would still be in the same slot, and one 2D slice of the rest of the universe to the right, left, above and below us (looking like a 1D line in each of these directions), would still be in those same positions from our perspective. By themselves, they wouldn’t be visible, because we would see them as having no thickness.

Now, if we were to lay out the timelike world line of the universe as a fourth spatial dimension we could walk through to reach other times, then as we look through the new dimension (“ahead” or “forth” of depth becomes the past), the 2D slice of the universe would smear out into the distance. Sort of like the older versions of Windows, when a window or application hangs, and you try to move it, its borders (or graphics, even text, etc) sweep out this 2D field of endless copies of itself.
Each “copy” of the image piled onto the next represents each instance of time.

Perhaps now it would be visible, though it would still be hard to make out what you’re looking at, since it’s just a smeared out 1D image for each direction. You would just see smeared out colors.
If you were in a room, it would become an endless tunnel. If you were outside between two walls or other large objects, it would look like you were in an endless ditch, with the sky above you, and whatever clouds were right overhead stretched out.
You would lose the ability to see into 3D objects (as you would have if you were looking at them from hyperspace and they had no hyperthickness) because the swept out surfaces would cut off your vision just as if you were still in 3D. The extended boundaries would now be able to enclose 4-space, at least in the immediate area.

If you then began walking into the direction representing the past, you would eventually see the smeared out surfaces around you end; when you reach the distance representing the time they were formed or at least moved there.
That would be the only place where you could look around the surface and see inside of the objects.

All of this is assuming we are still 3D, with 3D vision projected onto 2D retinas. If we were 4D, with 3D retinas, then each 2D slice of the universe stacked into the distance would still have the third dimension attached to it. This would be aligned in the new dimension.
So of the four dimensions visible, height and width would still be the same, depth would still be “past”, and now the fourth dimension would be what was originally depth; meaning the direction you rotated out of to turn toward the past.
As you walked, you would still pass each 2D slice for each instant of time, and for each one, you would also see the distance that was in “front” of you in this space regress. It wouldn’t be directly approaching or receding; you’d only be “passing” it, like the other dimensions.

Also think what it must be like to be in the act of rotating. As only your “forward” is changing, you see objects appear to get further away, as you’re looking at them further along the new dimension (past or future). They appear to reach the horizon, and then you see the other two dimensions form the “tunnel” or “trench” as mentioned, as you’re looking only at their history, totally parallel 0° in the new dimension.

So this is what 4D existence would be like. I use time, because it gives us something familiar to “fill” the new dimension with, so we could get the idea of what vision and motion through it is like.

The remaining problem with experiencing free motion through time as 4D like that is that 3D would not look the same. It would become an infinitely “thin” membrane in the new visual matrix, so we would always see the hyperspace “around” it. And then, the near impossibility of aligning ourselves perfectly with one particular “brane” of an instant; let alone staying there.
(I always say it’s just as difficult to visualize true 2D vision as it is for 4D!)
The eyes would have to have some mechanism to shut out the extra dimension, and the both the body and the fabric of space would have to have something to anchor one to a particular instant.

So America’s tough “no whining” attitude comes to THIS?

South Carolina woman who lost husband, son on 9/11 asked to halt emotional museum visit for VIP party.
Susan Simon planned months ahead to spend a quiet Tuesday at the National September 11 Memorial & Museum to see where her family’s unidentified remains were kept. She was initially barred because of Tuesday’s VIP party.

“The staffers claimed the museum was being cleared out for final preparations ahead of Wednesday’s public opening.

It wasn’t until 24 hours later that Simon learned the museum was closed early for an invite-only party attended by former Mayor Michael Bloomberg and a bevy of big shot donors.”

I hear about this story, and am a bit alarmed, but in some ways it figures, as the corporate and government “ivory tower” mentality is out of control, and as reflected in many of the political issues I’ve discussed, the elite really think of everyone else as just “little people” who don’t matter. Much of society is totally unaware of this mindset, because they’ve bought into this notion of “freedom”, where the higher-ups all legitimately “deserve” their domination, and they don’t really that they too are seen as “little people” and screwed by them, but they’ve been led to blame those even further below them, and so it goes.

My sentiment had been echoed by this one commenter:

“Influential people who repeatedly misuse their power at the expense of others are as much a threat to society as criminals who act out because of them.”

But before I even got to that, and was reading the first comments, I was shocked by what I was seeing. It’s right out of conservative “Tea Party”-style ranting on government assistance programs or the income gap (and this, not Wall Street Journal, New York Post, or the conservative websites and Facebook pages, but rather New York Daily News):

“Go the next day or check the schedule before you go. Without these ‘Party People’ and the money they donated, there would be no museum.”

“Very well said–enough of the whining. These people were given money by generous US taxpayers and should either shut up or give the money back.”

“Totally agree. Without these donations there would be no Memorial Museum.
My heart hurts for all the people that lost their lives and their families, and be thankful that you have a place to visit.”

Thankfully, there were a handful of people responding to this:

“You all are a bunch of jerks….she wanted to go before it opened to the public so she could have some privacy and be with other’s who lost people on that day…you jerks do not read…..and she traveled from South Carolina to visit the remains of her son and husband… can you be so rude to her, bet you would all be singing a different tune if it had been someone you loved who died that day. I feel so sorry for you, and yeah without the money there would be no museum, but without the tragedy of that day, there would be no need for a museum… does not trump human loss, I am sorry….”

A response to this says that this third commenter
“was on here just the other day whining because she says her husband ‘almost’ died that day in his office in the WTC. Cold, nasty and hypocritical.”

When one person says:

“Lets see the guest list of the Uber-Progressive One-Percenters dancing on the grave of 9/11 victims… Which big donors were at the big party? Print the big money creep list.”

We get:

“Why? So you can complain that they donated THEIR money?”

“Actually, I’d prefer to see a list of all the whiners and complainers who donated any time, money, or effort into this museum. Something tells me that it will be a very short list.”


“Oh please. Enough with milking this non-story.”

“Seriously, what a sense of entitlement these people have. One year, I took a friend who was visiting NY for the first time (and came all the way from another country, BTW, not another state) to the Hayden Planetarium. The day we went, it was closed to the public that evening, because every so often it had to hold special events for the donors that were keeping it financially afloat. All I and my friend did was have a friendly five minute chat with the hostess, shrug our shoulders, and then walked away. I guess what we should’ve done was thrown a temper tantrum like a pair of 5 year olds and scream to the press about it, about how this friend traveled thousands of miles across the Atlantic to be shut out by ‘snobby elites’.”

“How can you compare a pedestrian visit to the Hayden Planetarium to this situation? This woman was not a tourist she was coming because she lost both her son and husband in the towers and it was her moment to pay respects – not really any different from visiting a cemetery – except that she has no remains of her son to put in a cemetery.. That is a big difference – if a person were to judge all of humanity from the coldness of some of the posters on these blogs they would lose all hope in humanity.”

“9/11 families and responders seem to have this sense of entitlement that they can enter places whenever they please. Fair enough. If the 9/11 Museum one day has a special event where only they are allowed to enter, I’ll make sure to show up unannounced and then make a big stink to the press about how I wasn’t allowed to enter, too. Fair is fair.”

“They did not let anyone know they were closing early….IT WAS NOT PUBLICIZED….people seem to miss this little bit in every story…guess you can’t read…and she was never given all of her husband or any of her son…that is her only place to go…..and 9/11 families have more rights as far as I am concerned….it is amazing, right after it happened the families were embraced and loved…now they are slammed and berated. I think that is what is wrong with this world….unless we are the center of the story, we don’t care about it….”

“Her poor planning is her own fault.”

“She did not know, no one knew they wanted to close it early……and if not for those who died, there would not be a museum either……wow I can tell you didn’t lose anyone close to you….so sad….Americans have turned into callous jerks……”

Then, an argument about refreshments at gravesites. As was pointed out, “refreshments” are a far cry from a full blown party!

In this next one we can get a sense of why these responses sound so much like the conservative economic defenses:

“This is headline news? REALLY???? Yes, tragic. But people die tragically every day in car accidents and by other means unexpectedly. Yet their families don’t get trust funds or continuing monies unless they had their own life insurance policies or other financial means. 9/11 was a tragic day, but I don’t think a woman being asked to come back tomorrow deserves front page booking. Wasn’t their some other injustice or postive story in NYC yesterday that the NYDN could have highlighted? Maybe some random act of kindness by a first responder somewhere else in NYC???”

So that’s what this is about, and the common thread in all such rhetoric: 9-11 victims are among the economic “takers”, and they really haven’t “earned” anything like those funding the museum.

All of this, mind you, as I’m going down my Facebook feed, and I had also see a Fulfilled View friend cite Bill gates as saying “The most unhappy customers are your greatest source of learning.” and then ask:

“If that is true, why are most evangelicals and fundamentalist Christians quick to say, ‘Those leaving the church are just not committed to Christ.’ Or, worse, to quote the words of Thom Rainer, CEO of Lifeway Christian Resources, ‘I would therefore suggest that the main reason people leave a church is because they have an entitlement mentality rather than a servant mentality‘.”

My response to that was:

They might object to using a secular corporation as an example of how they think, but they should consider the fact that their organizations are technically corporations (“non-profit” ones, albeit), and many of them reap the some of the benefits of being “CEO’s” in these corporations.
So they go by the old adage from revivalist Sam Jones that “the Pastor is King and the pulpit is his throne”, so they believe they are the only ones “entitled” to anything. (Rather than them being the “servants”. —Just like many of their secular counterparts; except that their positions don’t even usually pretend to be “ministers” to others).

The utter irony is that the ones saying stuff like this would probably be the very ones to hastily leave if they thought these “ingrates” weren’t giving enough!

Everyone in this society, from the conservative Church down (the supposed “top-down” source of “morality) accuses those with less as feeling “entitled”.
It’s pure shadow-projection!

One good observation in the 9-11 article comments:

“The REAL VIP’s are the families and friends of those who were murdered on 9/11….I knew as soon as they announced that there would be something built at Ground Zero that those who lost loved ones and those who perished in the line of duty were being disrespected. I knew it would only be about $$$ for those who dared to profit off what happened on that terrible horrible day!


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.