Skip to content

Personality glossary

March 15, 2012

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.

“annoying”: the unofficial name of a passing trait Keirsey identified in his last two books Brains and Careers and Personology, connecting the “tranquility” of Rationals and the “seriousness” of Guardians, which temperaments otherwise had nothing in common. Corresponds to “Structure focus” (q.v.; c.f. “contagious”).

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, of four groups (each a pair of Intelligence Variantsq.v.) determined by sharing the same primary function tandems (which makes them similar 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)

Model is being renamed to “Intentional Styles” (q.v.)

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. As such, it forms a sense of “I”, with the ego being the primary one, and various others, forming lesser senses of “I” that can take control at times. (They are separated by a state of “dissociation”, which becomes “multiple personality” disorders when too great).
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. (See also, “Patterns”)

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.

Constructs (mental): the products (basic perceptions) of the iNtuition function, which puts things and experiences together into a “larger” pattern or “big picture”. (see also “conceptual; cf. “items”)

“contagious”: the unofficial name of a passing trait Keirsey identified in his last two books Brains and Careers and Personology, connecting the “enthusiasm” of Idealists and the “excitability” of Artisans, which temperaments otherwise had nothing in common. Corresponds to “Motive focus” (q.v.; c.f. “annoying”).

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”.
(Socionics: “Weak, unvalued”. 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).

Environmental focus: The common functional awareness of the extraverted orientation. Se, Ne, Te and Fe all filter respective data through environmental (“objective”) dictates rather than individual (q.v.) understanding

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“, which is expressed in terms of “good” vs “bad” (or “like” vs “dislike”).
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”)

General: the everyday, “undifferentiated” form of sensation, intuition, thinking and feeling we all do, that serves the ego’s dominant perspective, rather than indication a person’s particular functional preference or position in the function stack. (cf “special”).

Good vs bad (and “dis/like”): the basic products (judgments) of the Feeling function, as it deals in how things affect people. (see also “humane”; cf. “true/false”).

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

Hippocratic temperament [ETB]: Another name for the “humors” or “social” temperaments, “Interaction Styles” of type, or “area of Inclusion”, where the Sanguine (blood), Melancholy (black bile), Choleric (yellow bile) and Phlegmatic (phlegm) more closely matches the classic four temperaments, in contrast to the “Platonic temperaments” (q.v.) covering the conative (leadership) area.

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”)

Impressions: our receipt of data through perception, and the effect it has on us (i.e. the cognitive processes it begins in us).

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.

Individual focus: The common functional awareness of the introverted orientation. Si, Ni, Ti and Fi all filter respective data through individual (“subjective”) understanding rather than environmental (q.v.) dictates

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.

Intentional Styles: Renaming of Cognitive Styles (q.v.) The premise is that the title of each group is the common “intention” of the types in the group.

The “intelligences” are what each does with information:

Enhancing: synthesizes information (also integrates)
Customizing: adapts information (also distills)
Authenticating: validates information (investigates
Orchestrating: regulates information (coordinates)

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 (basically, mental “constructs”), or “where [something that “is”] is heading”, according to Jung.

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

Items (physical): the products (basic perceptions) of the Sensing function, which observes things and experiences as individual items (“itemizes” experience) before putting them together into larger meanings. (see also “tangible”; cf. “constructs”)

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.
They can be named:
ST “Realist”
SF “Aesthete”
NP “Dreamer”
NJ “Visionary”
(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. (see also “contagious”).

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”.

Nature: What’s inborn about type and temperament. (cf “Nurture”)

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. (Socionics: “Strong, Unvalued”. 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. (Socionics: “Weak, valued”) 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. (Socionics: “Weak”. 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”.

Nurture: The aspects of our personality shaped by upbringing, other circumstances, and physolological (neurological, etc). factors. (cf “Nature”)

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 [Berens/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.

Patterns: The invisible or “conceptual” impressions
picked up by the iNtuition function. “Storylines” so to speak, or “big pictures”, extracted from experience, that gauge “meaning” in situations. (c.f. “point-by-point”). Will ask “what does it mean?” or “why?”, and put together two similar events as having a likely common cause behind them.

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

Platonic temperament [ETB]: An alternate generic term for the temperaments steming from Plato’s “four kinds of men”: Guardian (pistic), Artisan (iconic), Idealist (noetic) and Rational (dianoetic), corresponding to the four affections: trust (pistis), conjecture (eikasia), understanding (noesis) and thinking (dianoia), making up his “forms” of human perception: material things and image representations (eikones), and higher idea forms (eide) and mathematical objects (mathematica). This would mark the division between Sensing and iNtuition (S/N), which not only became two of the dichotomies of type, but based on that, Keirsey’s “temperament” mappings that he named after the four kinds of men. This would be the “conative” area of temperament, covering action and leadership, and thus correspond to the “area of Control”, in contrast to the “Hippocratic temperaments” (q.v.), which are the more familiar “social” temperaments based on the “humors” (In APS temperament theory, the humor names are used for both areas).

Point-by-point focus [ETB]: The direct, “at-hand” impression of the Sensing function. Takes events and objects as they are, withough putting them together as having a meaning not implicit in what it is. Will say “it is what it is”, and think of similar events as “coincidences”. [c.f. “Patterns”]

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, with their attitudes), which define the type. (Socionics: “Strong, valued”. [ETB]: these make up the “preferred block”; representative card suit: diamonds: the ego’s most cherished goals).

Can also refer to the “natural” functions without the attitude, which would include the shadows (opposite attitudes) of the first two. (Socionics: “Strong”)

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

Proper relationship [ETB]: The goal of the judging functions; what they determine or establish. It can be proper relationships between [impersonal] objects (T), or regarding personal “subjects” (F).

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.
(1) The most pure will be the same temperament in both affective and social areas.
(2, 3) 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 people or task-focused. 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.

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”.
(Together, being dubbed the “Ordering Assessment” typesq.v., while the remaining ones are “Aligning Assessment”q.v..

(4, 5) The next pure type will be the one sharing expressed behaviors (extrovert + pragmatic and introvert + cooperative). They will be doubly introverted or extroverted.
These are the FP’s and TJ’s differing from each other by S/N. Example is Choleric Sanguine ESTP and Sanguine Choleric ENTP.
(6, 7) The least pure will be blends of diametric opposites. EFJ’s and ITP’s. (See also “enigmatic types”)

All the types are listed in purity order for each temperament in the “Octave” entry(qv) [blend type factors held in common with pure temperament type]:
1) eI, wI, eC, wC all 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 basically “itemizes” the physical things and experiences it encounters, leading into more attention to “detail”. 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. (Socionics: “Unvalued”) 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

Special: type specific “uses” of the functions, or position in a type’s functional stack (dom. aux, the archetypal positions, etc.) as opposed to the “general” (q.v.) uses we all do regardless of type preferences of function complex positions.

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.

Stack: the relative position of each function in a given type. Dominant, auxiliary, tertiary and inferior, with the other four possible function-attitudes often being associated with various archetypes within the psyche.

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

Strong: [Socionics] The “preferred”(q.v.) functions and their shadows
In general discussion, it’s any function-attitude that’s deemed well-used by a person, though this may vary dependent on the person’s development.

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. (see also, “annoying”).

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”. (See also “Point-by-point”)

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. Its jusgments ultimately boil down to “true/false” (or “correct/incorrect”) rather than “good/bad”). According to Jung, it is the function that gives it a name [i.e logically categorizes “what is”, and what’s “true to the category, or else, “false”]. 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”.

True vs false (or “in/correct”): the products (basic judgments) of the Thinking function, as it deals in the impersonal properties of things, rather than how they affect people. (see also “technical”; cf. “good vs bad”)

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.

Unvalued: [Socionics] The “shadow” functions (q.v.)

Utilitarian: Alternate term for pragmatic.

Valued: [Socionics] The “primary”(q.v.) functions

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”.

Weak: [Socionics] The “non-preferred”(q.v.) functions and their shadows
In general discussion, it’s any function-attitude that’s deemed not well-used by a person, though this may vary dependent on the person’s development.

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.

  1. Just browsing on Yahoo and saw Personality glossary erictb . Thanks for the info.

  2. I’m impressed, I should say. Genuinely rarely can i encounter a
    blog that’s both educative and entertaining, and without a doubt, you’ve hit the nail on the head. Your concept is outstanding; the concern is something that too little individuals are speaking intelligently about. I am extremely pleased i always stumbled across this during my try to uncover something regarding this.

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. Personality glossary
  2. Master Directory of Articles « erictb
  3. Stevie Wonder INFJ/ISTP analysis « erictb
  4. Does Lenore Thomson's model of the psyche support Socionics Model A? - Page 4

Leave a Reply to cryoglobulinemia Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: