Skip to content

Finally: Official tandem group names!

July 29, 2014

Cognitive Styles is a new model, being developed by Linda Berens and Chris Montoya. The four Styles correspond to the pairs of type groups denoted by the last-three-letters, which share in common the two function tandems formed by the preferred functions and their “mirrors” (dominant with inferior, and auxiliary with tertiary).
(I have made the comparison of them to the Socionics quadras since the groups use the same corresponding function-attitudes, though this new model is not based on Socionics, and the same atttitudes in that system sometimes mean something slighly different than in Western type):

NTP-SFJ: Enhancing™ Style (Ti/Fe, Si/Ne; Alpha)
NFJ-STP: Customizing™ Style (Ti/Fe, Ni/Se; Beta)
NTJ-SFP: Orchestrating™ Style (Te/Fi, Se/Ni; Gamma)
NFP-STJ: Authenticating™ Style (Te/Fi, Ne/Si; Delta)

Along with this, are group names for the individual tandems as well:

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

Here’s how they relate:

The Enhancing style has preferences for Inquiring and Aligning
The Customizing Style has preferences for Realizing and Aligning
The Orchestrating Style has preferences for Realizing and Ordering
The Authenticating Style has preferences for Inquiring and Ordering

The Inquiring Style is held in common by Enhancing and Authenticating
The Realizing Style is held in common by Customizing and Orchestrating
The Ordering Style is held in common by Orchestrating and Authenticating
The Aligning Style is held in common by Enhancing and Customizing

I had been saying for years that these groups should be named. It would help people in their type search (and also those helping them), as the groups are currently addressed by such clunky terms as “Ne-Si user”.
Like for a perfect example; I realized I fell into that group right away, but if we had these names back then, I could simply have said “I know I prefer Inquiring and think I prefer Aligning”. (Or overall: “I think I relate the most to the Enhancing style”).

So when I help someone with looking for the best-fit preferences, for the many supposed “NiTi” types in discussions, who often weigh between INTP and INFJ, because of high Ti and Ni in cognitive process tests; I can now say that they have an obvious “Realizing Awareness” preference (also phrased as a “Realizing mind“), since Ni and Se are high, and Ne is low. So INTP is very unlikely, though the person looks like it because of the Ti + “abstract” (N) focus. I can then suggest another Realizing type, such as ISTP. (In addition to INFJ). ISTP will be Ti dominant, followed by Se.
If they think their Ni is high, we can point out that it may actually be tertiary, which is said to often “inflate” itself, and appear preferred.

When discussing relationship type matches between an NFP and NTP, we can say “you both prefer ‘Inquiring’, so you’ll ‘perceive things the same way'”.
In a personality clash, instead of “the real clash is Ne/i-Si/e; not Te/i-Fi/e”; I can say “the real clash is between an Inquiring and Realizing mind rather than an Ordering and Aligning mind”. More to type, but easier to say or even think than all those “process” codes!

This model is realy still in development, and the tandem names not yet published (tentative, shared with permission). They hope to publish sometime within the next year.

You can keep up to date on this at:

Linda Berens Institute
http://www.lindaberens.com

Advertisements
14 Comments
  1. So likewise, I can now more easily point out that “pure temperaments” can be described as all having “Ordering” minds: Sanguine: ESFP, Choleric: ENTJ, Melancholy: ISTJ, Phlegmatic: INFP. Notice all are TJ or FP, preferring a Te/Fi tandem. This is due to the “responsive behaviors” lining up since the same temperaments are blended across the affective and conative areas; with Te as the most task focused and Fi as the most people focused.
    Blends of opposite temperaments, such as Sanguine and Melancholy, or others with opposite responsive behaviors, such as Sanguine and Choleric, all have “Aligning” minds (TP/FJ).
    This is something I’ve always wanted to be able to highlight with a simple term.

    Other observations along my correlation of the different temperament factors:
    Enhancing: high wanted Inclusion (“informative”) + low wanted Control (“structure”) — “like who people are, but not what they do”
    Customizing: low wanted Inclusion (“directive”) + high wanted Control (“motive”) — “don’t like who people are, but don’t mind as much what they do”
    Authenticating and Orchestrating: Responsively consistent (both high or low; common “Ordering”)
    Orchestrating: always pragmatic (high expressed Control)
    Authenticating: always Cooperative (low expressed Control)

    Expressive pure temperaments (Sanguine, Choleric) both fall into the Realizing part of Orchestrating (ESFP, ENTJ)
    Reserved pure temperaments (Melancholy, Phlegmatic) both fall into the Inquiring part of Authenticating (ISTJ, INFP)

    Here are my previous attempts to name the tandem styles, from the older Berens function descriptions:

    Tandem Berens/
    Montoya
    Function descriptions Old ETB suggestions Function “mottos”
    Si/Ne Inquiring
    Awareness
    relive” + “conceive from Circumspective (to “look around”) “take in emerging meanings, internalize the experience”
    Se/Ni Realizing
    Awareness
    experience” + “anticipate “Aspective” (to look AT: ad “to”, -spect “look”; “prostatospective” (to look at what “stands before” you) “take in emerging experience, internalize the meanings”
    Te/Fi Ordering
    Assessment
    evaluate” + “organize “Systemic”; “consistent” (same responsive behaviors) “I feel; we think”
    Ti/Fe Aligning
    Assessment
    analyze” + “relate to “Harmonic”; “enigmatic” (opposite “responsive” behaviors) “I think, we feel”

    (The quadras or groups represented by “Cognitive Styles” were to be combinations of the tandem names).

    I think there’s a good match here between
    “Circumspective (Looking around)” = “Inquiring”,
    “Looking at” = “Realizing”,
    “Systemic” = “Ordering”, and
    “Harmonic” = “Aligning”.
    So it looks like they have found the “group” name concepts I was looking for.

    People have claimed Socionics (the Eastern version of type theory from Russia) was better than Western MBTI because it has a more developed system of dynamics, but now, if you put together MBTI’s basic dichotomies and Berens’ entire CORE model (cognitive processes, Keirsey temperaments, Interaction Styles, Beebe archetypes) with this new Cognitive Styles model (and the tandem groups), and pair it with Type Logic’s intertype dynamics system (And why not throw in Team Technology’s “Mental Muscles” diagrams), and other groups (the various other letter combinations), then we would have pretty much everything Socionics has.

  2. Posting this topic on the main two typology boards I’m in, a lot of people “liked” it, but I did get one detractor, who (favoring a dichotomy based approach, including the Big Five) demanded I or Berens come up with a list of five or ten descriptive sentences that show INTJs and ESFPs are both likely to relate pretty strongly to (since they’re both into Realizing and Ordering) but that INTPs and ESFJs are both unlikely to relate to (since they have the opposite functions and are into Inquiring and Aligning). He kept citing the J/P uncertainty INT’s often express, and that on Nardi’s Keys 2 Cognition “cognitive process test”, INTJ’s often get high Ni and Ne, and Ti and Te.

    Again, the model is in development, so more will likely be released by Berens and Montoya in the coming months. For now, the descriptions of the function tandems will at least partially answer these questions. (INTJ and ESFP prefer Fi/Te and Ni/Se, and INTP and ESFP prefer Ti/Fe an Si/Ne). The new categories can serve as a shorthand for these function codes. The common preferences do mean something, whether the person is even aware of it or not.

    K2C and the other materials were done a long time ago, and it seems they are continuing to try and refine their models. Berens did a paper for a journal (“A Meta-Model for Types: Patterns, Polarities, and Autopoiesis” – Linda Berens Journal of INTEGRAL THEORY and PRACTICE: A Postdisciplinary Discourse for Global Action, volume-8-numbers-34 ), and what I’m seeing so far, is an emphasis on the concepts being “holistic” rather than PARTS making up a whole. (She even advised me that these terms shouldn’t be turned into nouns, like “Realizers”, as I was initially inclined to do. Funny, APT just posted to Facebook an article on introversion/extraversion that touches upon this. “Introvert or extrovert, normal or abnormal: the problem with personality types” http://theconversation.com/introvert-or-extrovert-normal-or-abnormal-the-problem-with-personality-types-28906. This is all part of a larger system called AQAL: “All Quadrants, All Levels”).

    The objector’s argument was that one division into ‘parts’ (dichotomies) is right, and the other (function dynamics) is wrong. But it doesn’t work like that. They can all be true at the same time. (Which is one reason why I like correlating the different models so much).
    The different models are just different “angles” of looking at the whole.
    (Though since the theories are constructed in terms of parts, I acknowledge that it’s hard to get out of that way of thinking).

    I came to realize that there was overlap in the definitions of the function attitudes in K2C (which is what causes the problem the objector described. Like both Fe and Fi can “evaluate importance” and “consider others”, etc.); and that’s one reason I’ve been trying to come up with better ideas of the essences of each function.

    All any N type getting high in both attitudes means that they are overall strong in iNtuition (and likely haven’t developed their tertiary or inferior), so it seems to “spill over” into both attitudes (according to how the test differentiates the attitudes, and remember, the test is not perfect).
    So I wouldn’t use K2C results to shoot down the new theory. Hopefully it will help clarify those old descriptions.

    The key to understanding this is realizing that these “cognitive processes” (more correctly, function-attitudes), are but the ways the ego divides reality. The objection seemed to be treating them as these standalone “things” that have nothing to do with each other (at least not when they’re “opposite”).

    If a person prefers Ti, that means his ego tends to separate out the impersonal side of situations for internal-based judgments. So then the more personal and external side of the data, “collects”, a bit lower in the consciousness (tertiary or inferior). It’s still there, in the background.
    So the two function-attitudes work in tandem, and will be held in common by all “Aligning” types, except that one will put more emphasis on the Ti, and the other, more emphasis on the Fe. So while Fe is my inferior; I’ll still tend to judge “[inter]personal” situations in a similar fashion to my Fe dom. wife (and in opposition to Te/Fi ⦅”Ordering”-minded⦆ friends and family. We’ve compared our reactions all the time, and it really explains a lot of our relationship dynamics). It will just be less mature (or more “primitive”), and perhaps more “shaky” or “vulnerable”.

    So that’s why I see these categories as good. If you read any description of the types’ four “primary” functions, you’ll see these “aspects of personality”.

    • Hello Eric B. I’m a fan! From typology central. And your suggestions, among those of others, helped confirm my use of Ne-Si (inquiring) over Ni-Se (Realizing). I started out strongly convinced of N dominance but now feel I am an ESFJ with very good use of Ne and Ti. I am wondering if you are aware of the Cognitive Type theory, not by Berens and Montoya, but by Juan Sandoval, also an INTP? I ask because of all the western models you have listed. I think there is one more that is very useful and judt wanted to see what you think about it. There is a book, website and forum on it: cognitivetype.com.

      Like you, they emphasise the tandems approach (calling them oscillations) so that SFJs and NTPs are most similar, rather than, for example, SFJs and STJs, as we are wont to think in many typology circles. In addition, he found certain correlations between these tandems and certain body language and facial expressions, so that a new typing system through visual reading has emerged that they call vultology. I thought it was fantastic. It helped confirm a type for me that slowly over time I feel fits better and better. Would really like to hear your thoughts!

    • Also wondering if this explains certain debates. I have suspected for a while now that those debaters who when they are cornered (from my perspective) turn the debate personal, may be high Fi users? I ask because I am a Ti-Fe (alignment) with I believe Fe dominance. But for me, many debates are about thoughts in my mind. They have nothing to do with actual people. So I find it very strange when people appear to get mad at me for having certain “thoughts” they think are bad or wrong. This to me, is taking things way too personally. They seem to assume a lot about my intentions, motivations and generally whether I am a good or bad person, from their discovery of certain “wrong” thoughts in a debate. Whereas for me, I usually am not even invested in the thought. It just is. I see that it follows from certain premises and simply state it. If this is true, then this is true or this isn’t true!

      To me, these “thoughts” are very easily separated from what I think or feel about the persons I am engaging. So I think I can have a very heated debate with someone I believe has crazy beliefs, for example, and feel absolutely nothing negative towards them personally. We can even be very good friends. This made me think during my search for a type at one point that I may have been a thinker over a feeler but I think it has more to do with my being aligning over ordering. I don’t fault anyone for having silly thoughts. I do fault people for having ill motivations (being willing to cause harm to others). For me, the latter seems my only criteria for deciding to dislike a person. Even when I misinterpret their behaviour, it will still come down to me believing that this person is capable of harming me or wishing me ill. Or where i am in their list of priorities, do they care about me? I actually have great difficulty imagining disliking or hating someone for believing the wrong thing or having the wrong thoughts.

      Do you think this has to do with an aligning vs ordering clash?

      • Are you ENTP/INFJgal?

        Never heard of this Sandoval person. Don’t even see much info on him beyond the book. Found this, though: http://i.imgur.com/jw90nBj.png Does look interesting

        The intentions thing might be an Ordering trait. I’ve often thought about that, as I have felt my intentions judged by TJ’s (including a certain person in the type field, who goes around typing people, and claims to be a certain Aligning type, but I believe is really an Ordering type. Wonder if it’s the same one mentioned in the “What am I” thread if that was you).
        Fi personaly relates from an internal sense of good/bad, judging someone else by “if that were me, I would have to be feeling this way”, and so projects this onto the person. For an FP’s dominant or auxiliary, this is likely to be more mature and used for good. Hence them being so accommodating (which often gets associated with Fe, but both attitudes can do many of the same things). For the TJ’s, it’s tertiary or inferior and most likely less mature, and so it will come out that way in a debate. (It’s not so much the “highness” of “use”, but actually, indicates a lower development. And for me, I have to be in a really low ego-state to start judging motives with Fi, which is why it gets listed as the bottom or #8 of the whole stack. And it’s often in defense, from feeling so threatened by others’ negative Fi judgment due to that low position, or just projecting my own, unconsciously controlled, onto them. Then, I usually do think very negatively about the person, but are usually indifferent when there is no such issue).

        I see ESFJ’s really don’t like debates. Though if you’re really ENTP (which is the next closest thing to ESFJ after ISFJ, cognitively), then you would be a debater. Though the ESFJ does debate in that heated fashion when it’s something really important to the Fe standpoint, and they often bring up the inferior Ti to question the other person’s logic.

      • Hello Eric! Yes it’s me! Entp/infj girl. I am very much a debater,no doubt. Though in the last few years I have eschewed that habit because it has historically caused me a great deal of pain with friends and such. It’s not looked upon as a feminine trait by anyone on this planet, in my experience, or as a positive trait to find in a woman: many people, both men and women, tend to judge it negatively in a female. But sometimes I can’t help it! If something isn’t true, it just ins’t and I may insist on that too much (thank God, not so much these days!)

        Oh wow, so those may be TJs who quickly presume certain intentions or perhaps unhealthy IFPs and EFPs…interesting! I thought Fi may be the culprit because while Fe is also all feely, I think its users use TI to debate and don’t confuse the debate on principles of logic (something is either true or false on its own, no matter anyone’s personal goodness or motives) with the issue of motives, intentions or goodness/badness of persons. There’s few things I dislike as much as a person turning things personal and acrimonious, when the debate itself is over abstract removed stuff, not our personal lives. And yes, while I am not beyond it, like you, I tend to use that negative Fi in counter-attacks, or tit-for-tat. At that point, the debate has degenerated, and I have ceased with the Ti logic and now engaged in full hand-to-hand combat as it were, you against me. It’s not a debate, it’s a fight or a quarrel. And while I am no saint, I am not usually the one who has started out on this trail off the debate…though I may be biased here and selectively remembering only those debates where I have done this.

      • Yeah, you sound ENTP, and keep in mind, being female will push the behavioral expectations toward F, and then having Fe as tertiary on top of that will also make you seem like you prefer it.

        But the key clues are the “debating”, which stems for the need to determine what’s “true or false” (which is how I define T judgment, while F is “good or bad”, which is not determined by debating). Also, dislike “turning things personal”. T is basically IMpersonal, while F is more personal, and thus the weak spot for T’s.

  3. [cont’d]
    What really figures, is the suppressed (unpreferred) functions and their attitudes.
    How does N and T play in an SFP compared to an SFJ? How does S and F play out in an NTP compared to an NTJ? That’s what Cognitive Styles is based on. (Along with the fact, as I’ve demonstated,that the two groups will handle even their preferred N and T or S and F differently from each other).
    So, for example, when an ESFJ (like my wife) needs to access intuitive products, it will tend to be more “open” (emergent), while an ESFP will prefer it more settled.

    So to put it in terms of dichotomies, the reason why NTP and SFJ will fall into one group, that would exclude NTJ and SFP, is because of the splitting of those “pairs” of functions. For an NTP, N, T and P are preferred together, and S, F and J are suppressed together. So S, F and J are still “together” in the psyche, even though less conscious. For NTJ, N and T are preferred, but not P. J is preferred instead. S and F are suppressed, but not J. P is, instead. So the NTJ will not have a whole NTP or SFJ “image” (so to speak) in the ego-syntonic part of his psyche.

    So you will have some surface similarity (in preferring iNtuitive and logical data), but something will be missing. The orientations (or where the energy is directed, which is what J and P are telling you) will be different. He will have to go into the “shadow” (meaning below the inferior) in order to access one or two of the preferences, to put together a SFJ or NTP perspective (and according to another version of the theory, it is various complexes that will put these together. Functions are otherwise really “undifferentiated”, outside of the dominant).
    I guess it’s like a kind of “dissonance” in mixing together preferred and unpreferred elements, so that all unpreferred poles together will be more palatable than a mixture.

    So It all works together (dichotomies and dynamics), and is not “either/or”.

    One person tried to come up with a similarity of her own: that SJ’s respect authority most, NP’s challenge it the most, and NJ and SP’s are inbetween. So the “Inquiring” types all have in common “paying the most attention to (or having strong reactions to) authority and tradition”, though respond to it in opposite fashions.
    This is something I’ll have to look into more.

    I myself have been trying to get back to a focus on singlar (“natural” or “whole”) functions (rather than strictly eight function-attitudes or “processes”).
    So if you look at it that way, then you have two of your “dichotomies”, and the dominant orientation (held independently of the functions) would be a third (or actually, first) dichotomy.

    All the e/i at the end of the function letter is telling you is that the person tends to turn to an inner or outer orientation or standard when engaging the function. (Which is what the fourth dichotomy is indicating). This does create significant differences in overall perspective.

    Like this objector himself proved the point of the theory. What he (an INTJ) was doing is what another INTJ had once described to me, regarding the dominant Ni perspective, of looking at “what a theory doesn’t take into account”, and then, from that, (as Nardi’s definition would put it), “forecasting” (i.e. he just “knows” Berens will not be able to come up with descriptions, as he repeatedly stated).
    I don’t usually think like that. My perspective is Ne. I look at what a theory could take into account. I say “hey, this looks interesting, it looks like it could fit, now let’s see what happens. I think Berens is refining the theories, so she probably will come up with more definitions and descriptions, but let’s wait for more information before making a final judgment“.
    Reflecting the J/P dichotomy, one is more “closed”, and the other, more “open”.

    Both perceptions are iNtuitive products: observation of intangible data or “concepts”. One simply looks at the object and sees multiple possibilities, and the other starts with an internal “awareness” used to filter the data. That’s all the function-attitudes are.

    And as we see, it shapes our perspectives and approach to the issue. My wife, though not as geared toward Ne as I am, handles data in a similar fashion. An SFP would likely think all of this is a waste of time, but if they had to deal with it, they would probably handle it more like the INTJ.
    So that’s something “TP’s and FJ’s have in common with each other and not with TJ’s”!

    And this is precisely what these new terms were made to address. My approach is more of “Inquiring” (gathering multiple emergent intangible connections {Ne}, and measuring them against a storehouse of tangible data {Si}). His approach is “Realizing” (from an internal intangible connection, along with emergent tangible facts {Se}). The SFJ’s and SFP’s will take the same respective approaches, but simply place more of an “accent” on the [respective] S.

    This would be the basis of the “descriptions” he was asking for. I say just give them time to publish the stuff more.

  4. Here are some more examples of how these terms come in to play:

    Ne, dealing with stuff not seen right before you like seeing an object, and imagining what could be done with it in terms of changing it (or even through makinng analogies) ends up engaging in more of a trial-and-error process of changing things. (This came up, from a private discussion I was having on the topic). Se is not so much trial and error (or necessarily changing systems), because it’s about “knowing” what actually can be done, from what’s clearly at hand.
    You can see there where the “knowing” part sounds like what’s usually described for Ni, and of course, the two work together, as “Realizing Awareness”, where Ne and Si work together as “Inquiring Awareness” (which “trial and error” is a basically form of)!
    See how these names fit so perfectly?

    Se types “know” from paying more attention to the sensory detail before them, where I, as an Ne type, tend to gloss over things, looking for the overall meaning. So it’s totally unconscious, and we may wonder how they do it. I realize this from playing Words With Friends, and my toughest opponents seem to be Realizing types who can easily see what can be done with the letters they have and what’s already on the board, where I’m totally lost, (and end up thinking for sure I’m getting gipped with useless letters). I sometimes find there’s these good words that I couldn’t quite put my finger on, because I’m looking more at the intangible goal of “winning” (or at least catching up), and the multiple unseen possibilities (using the value increasing squares) than what I have in my arsenal.

    Obviously, “Ordering” sounds so perennially Te (And Fi would go along with it), while “Aligning” sounds like what Ti does in refining its judgments (and Fe would go along with that). Even though all judgments technically “order”, I guess these terms lean more to the T aspect of it, and Te orders externally and logically, and that’s what we come to associate with “ordering”.

    • Just like “Ordering/Aligning” leans towards the T attitude, I’m seeing more and more that “Realizing/Inquiring” leans toward the N attitude.

      “Inquiring” is the perfect name for the Ne/Si tandem of NP’s and SJ’s. I’ve noticed what what we do a lot is ask questions. Lots of questions, sometimes. My wife is always asking me questions about everything, and I’m always asking other people questions. What I had noted is that some NJ’s I’ve communicated with sometimes get put off by my questions, and [in written communication] begin glossing over them.

      I ask questions to gain a sense of who the person is (in a more personal “friendship” interaction), or what their beliefs are (in a more intellectual sharing of ideas). I have noticed that they don’t ask that much. They apparentely form all the picture of me they need from what they already see on the table.

      This realization comes in conjunction with my continuing to refine the definitions of the functions.
      All perception deals in what we could call “imagery”.
      Sensing is about the “material” world, and iNtuition is about the “ideational” world. Extraverted iNtuition deals in ideational images from the environment. What “could be”, discovered from outside of the observing subject (the world of “objects”). Like comparing one pattern to another, which I do all the time. Introverted Sensing deals with images of the material world that have been “stored” individually (in memory), which we then use to compare current sensation with. Notice, both Ne and Si end up “comparing” things. I could have usd that term to name the tandem.
      This comparing is what leads them to need to seek more ideational data (possibilities, contexts, etc.) from the outside. The material data is safely stored within, but all material or “concrete” information needs some sort of “abstract” framework or “story” behind it.

      We tend to assume that the way we process information, others do also, but apparently, NJ’s and SP’s don’t depend of question asking as much. Of course, everyone asks questions, but I’m seeing that for Inquiring Awareness, it is our main way of taking in information, while for Realizing Awareness, the sort of information they deem important to begin with is different.
      What they take in from the environment (the world of “objects”) is the material data, through extraverted Sensing, where they just take whatever comes as it is. What they take from the individual world of the “subject” is the ideational data, which are images that come from within, via introverted iNtuition, where information just comes to them, up from the individual unconscious. This is used to inform judgments, but neither perception function deals so much in comparison. Both just take what comes. So likewise, there is not as much need to to have to request information from the outside. Hence, “Realizing” is also the perfect term for this tandem, as “Inquiring” is for the other.

      • Oh, the questions! Someone once accused me of asking more questions than any body else he had ever met. It was not intended as a compliment. Ouch!!! I also notice people’s eyes glazing over when I am confused (which means I am inquiring…needing to ask a question!) or suggesting possible answers off the cuff. From this post, I now realise these are SFPs and NTJs. I think people who prefer inquiring get spurred on by questions rather than annoyed. I know an STJ for whom the best compliment (I realised, he didn’t say it) is to ask him questions about subjects he is interested in or knowledgeable about. He can spend all day volunteering information, don’t get him started! I also know that so e other people appreciate it, but some are quite irritated by it.

        I was just saying to someone that I think how I deal with details or facts is that I am consciously looking for the “story” that will make sense of them. If I don’t find the story then the details are painful to sort through. Rather, if I am not motivated to find the story (to inquire) then I can’t handle the details because they are dismembered and painful. Again, the assumption is that this makes one an intuitive, as if sensors and SJs in particular are rote or robotic memorizers. But it is the story itself that makes the detail-recollection possible! The story makes the details meaningfik and interesting. I cannot remember dismembered facts. But I can remember a great deal of about a subject I have delved in with maximum interest, including tiny or otherwise insignificant details. The details are not stored away mechanical ally. In my mind, they are all pinned to a certain story. I remember details about people because the people are important, not the details. The details all help paint a picture of this person. So they are easily recalled. But without the need to understand the person, without the hunt for the story, none of those details will be recalled. When the story is important, there is no effort to store or recall the details. It simply happens on its own.

  5. Since I keep seeing discussions about Socionics (whose advocates insist it is truer to Jung), I just decided to find out what all the Reinin dichotomies were, by type (I only knew about Serious/Merry and Judicious/Decisive, since they connect to the tandem functions; see above).

    There are supposed to be 15 dichotomies, and the first four are actually “the Jungian Foundation”, or the four dichotomies of the direct type code (from Wikisocion):

    Extraversion / Introversion (sometimes called ‘Extratim / Introtim’) I/E
    Sensing / Intuition (Sensing is sometimes called ‘Sensory’) S/N
    Ethical / Logical T/F
    Rational / Irrational (occasionally called ‘Schizotyme / Cyclotyme’ or ‘Rigid / Labile’) j/p

    [Keep in mind, that Jung’s original “rational/irrational”, refers to the dominant, rather than preferred extraverted function. So for the extraverts, the types prefer the same functions; but for the introverts, the functions are completely different; like the type with the opposite J/P. So INTP—TiNe is really “INTj”]

    Here are the other 11:

    carefree types are EN or IS, farsighted types are ES or IN
    democrats are NT or SF, aristocrats are NF or ST
    positivists are ENT, ESF, IST, INF; Negativists are ISF, INT, ENF, EST*
    process types are NTp, SFp, NFj, STj. Result types are SFj, NTj, STp, NFp
    yielding types are ET or IF, obstinate types are EF or IT
    tactical types are Np or Sj, strategical types are Nj or Sp
    constructivists are Tp or Fj, emotivists are Tj or Fp
    statics are Ep or Ij [MBTI “P”], and dynamics are Ej or Ip [MBTI “J”]
    judicious types are Alpha and Delta [NeSi], Decisive types are Beta and Gamma [NiSe]
    Merry types are Alpha and Beta [TiFe], Serious types are Gamma and Delta[FiTe]
    Asking: NeTi NiFe SeFi SiTe [Merry iNtuitives; Serious Sensors]; declaring: SiFe SeTi NiTe NeFi [Merry Sensors; Serious iNtuitives]

    *(extroverted democrats with introverted aristocrats; and introverted democrats with extroverted aristocrats)

    I notice in ALL of these dichotmies, the poles tie together opposite groups!

    And how three of these groups follow j/p, but not E/I, so that INTj and ENTj, which have no functions in common, both end up as “result”, “Strategical”, and “Emotivist”, for example. (What they do have in common is the TNSF order). This might explain in part why some advocates will claim that someone who identifies as INTP might be INTp after all.

    (I also see how they have “process/result”, which sounds just like “process/movement” from the Interaction Styles —Which actually ties together the opposites in that model, but it’s totally different groups).

    So this is like if we took the four MBTI dichotomies, and added the other dichotomies discussed in different models as an extension of them:

    cooperative/pragmatic (SJ-NF / SP-NF)
    directive/informative (ST-NJ/ SF-NP)
    structure/motive (SJ-NT / SP-NF)
    process/movement; intersecting/interlinking (IST-INJ-ESF-ENP / ISF-INP-EST-ENJ)
    Then, our new catrgories:
    Realizing/Inquiring (SP-NJ / SJ-NP)
    Aligning/Ordering (TP-FJ / TJ-FP)
    Then, we could add dichotomy combinations (by dichotomy and not opposite)
    E/I + J/P (Sociability temperaments)
    S/N + T/F (preferred functions)
    S/N + J/P (perception attitudes)
    T/F + J/P (judgment attitudes)
    E/I + S/N (“Learning Style”)
    E/I + T/F (I call it “social image”)

    Grigoriy Reinin (St. Petersburg, Russia), a mathematician and psychologist claimed to mathematically prove the existence of these dichotomies. The usefulness of many or most of the dichotomies is questioned by many socionists.

    Each half of a dichotomy is called a “trait”. Any pair of traits (such as E and P) may be combined to produce a third (static).

    They are combined according to the relation *, defined as follows.
    X*Y = (X & Y) or (~X & ~Y)
    where ~X denotes the opposite of trait X (~E = I, etc.)

    Thus,
    static = E*P = E&P or I&J

    This seems to be like the sole basis of thse dichotomies. Interesting, but this by itself (which seems to explain why the dichotomies end up all opposites) doesn’t seem to be a good way to create real dichotomies.

    “Above is the mathematical definition of the Reinin dichotomies. Whether they have empirical content, on the other hand, is a completely separate matter. Whether they are well-defined at all is one of the main criticisms of Reinin dichotomies.”

  6. Here’s an article showing the table I saw the tandem names on: http://chrismontoya.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/CogStylesArticleDeeperTypeApplications.pdf table on p.7

    Only in this version, the tandem names aren’t used. It only says for each, “Awareness tandem” and “Assessment tandem”. (Someone who saw this and my pondering of whether that meant the names were being dropped even wrote and asked if that was the case, and was told no; but they are doing more work to refine and describe them more. So that’s good!

    Here’s a Bulletin Of Psychological Type article Montoya wrote on the Cognitive Styles:
    http://chrismontoya.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/CogStylesTeamworkMontoya.pdf

    Also, see my two new articles on my observations of the differences of both the Awareness and Assessment tandems:
    https://erictb.wordpress.com/2014/11/15/realizing-vs-inquiring-the-nise-vs-nesi-difference-in-my-experience-and-in-others-observations/
    https://erictb.wordpress.com/2014/11/15/ordering-vs-aligning-the-tefi-vs-tife-difference-in-my-experience-and-self-help-teaching/

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. Socionics/Beebe correlation | "ERIPEDIA"

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: