Skip to content

What is this thing called “type” anyway? (New Introduction to the theory)

October 23, 2015

What is this thing called type? People liken it (and it’s predecessor, classic temperament theory) to “astrology”; where people are grouped, according to behavioral traits, into categories, which in that case are marked by the time of year you are born.

But type is really based on the way we cognitively divide reality.
It’s just like the way we divide spacetime between back and forth, up and down, left and right, and past and future. So likewise, we also divide reality into what is “I” (“subject” or the individual) or “not I” (“objects” in the “environment”). This forms the basis of what we can call “orientation” (also commonly called “attitude”).

We also divide our cognition into taking in information that comes to us (which is basically involuntary), and then making rational (voluntary) decisions with it. These modes of processing are also split.

So we divide the information we take in (perceive), into what is clearly observable by our physical senses (“tangible”, “visible” or “practical”), and what is not based on the senses, but rather inferred from other data in some way. (And thus, intangible, invisible, hypothetical).

We also make a distinction between “subject” and “object”* in our decisions, which stems from a sense of right and wrong (and usually leading to courses of action to make what’s deemed “wrong” to “right”), as determined by our reactions. Emotions (leading to our reactions; whereby we are making rational decisions) can tell us that the affect on us is from something about the object (which is “impersonal”), leading to a focus on the “mechanics” of things, or it can tell us that it is about our “soul” (the “subject”, and hence, “personal”). This will generally split the neutral “right/wrong” into the more impersonal “true/false” or the more personal “good/bad”.

These are the bases of the three main variables in type; two preferred functions (one perception, and one judgment), and orientation. Orientation then becomes split into a third and fourth variable, based on which orientation is dominant, and then, which function is oriented environmentally or individually. The dominant function will take on the dominant orientation, so this also tells us which function is dominant.
The other preferred function will be “auxiliary” (needed simply because we also must have a preference in other mode of process; both perception and judgment).

A Sensing type is one whose primary outlook is tangible, material or practical “at hand” data and/or experience, which they generally “itemize”, and thus think in terms of what simply “is” or “isn’t”, or the substance of reality (which is what sets the idea, or “could/couldn’t”).

An iNtuitive type is one whose primary outlook is the “filling in” of experience with [mental] “constructs” such as concepts, hypotheses, or theories, which all involve “larger contexts” or meanings behind things and [non-physical] “patterns”. Even physical or visible things, like in comparing one thing to something separate, but has some sort of inferred similarity. Focusing on a property to compare, like its shape; they have turned into an “idea”. This is what “could” or “couldn’t” be (which explains or improves what “is/isnt”, or “substance” of reality).

A Thinking type is one whose primary rational outlook is looking at the world “impersonally” or “technically”, in terms of objects and how they work, which we can call the “mechanics” of things. (including people), often with a focus on goals such as efficiency. They tend to think in terms of “true” or “false” (which is what will automatically determine “like/dislike”).

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”, which is basically what could be called “anthropic” (or “humane”), and ultimately deals with the “soul”, with its 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 the perspective of how we relate to them. This leads them to “think” in terms of “good” or “bad” (which will assume what is “correct/incorrect”).

An introvert is a person whose ego focuses on its own individual perspective through the dominant function. The perspective is described as approaching the environment and eliminating what is irrelevant according to his own internally held standard.

An extravert is a person whose ego focuses on the environment through the dominant function. Carl Jung described the ego or “subject” as essentially “merging with the object”. The environment itself, or its judgments (consensus of other people, efficent courses of action, etc) the are taken as his own.

A Judging type is one whose preferred judgment (decision making) function is oriented environmentally. They will tend to take on the “judgments” of a group (consensus, harmony, etc), or courses of action determined by the environment (e.g. what’s most efficient, etc) as their own values. Then person then seem to desire more “closure”, since he expects decisions to be “set” according to external factors. (His preferred perception is then what will be oriented individually, according to a storehouse of impressions).

A Perceiving type is one whose preferred perception (information gathering) function is oriented environmentally. The person tends to remain “open” to new, emergent (often variable) information, before making a judgment (which is what will then be individually oriented, according to a strorehouse or rational principles).

So the four letter type code comes together as follows:

1 Dominant orientation: introvert (individual-focused) or extravert (environment focused): I/E

2 Preferred perception function: Sensation (tangible or material focus) or iNtuition (hypothetical focus): S/N

3 Preferred judgment function: Thinking (impersonal, mechanical focus) or Feeling (“soulish” focus): T/F

4 Function orientation and position:
a) function of indicated letter (J/P) is environmentally oriented (deemed important in personal interaction)
b1) If this matches with dominant orientation (#1=”E”), then this is the dominant function.
b2) If not, (#1=”I”) then this function is auxiliary, and the other function is dominant and introverted.

*(Right here we see where two of the variables can be associated with the common terms “subjective” and “objective”, which may cause some confusion when these terms are encountered. One is dealing with an individual or environmental orientation, where only the individual is conscious of his own “soul”, and thus everything in the environment {including other people} become “objects”. The other is dividing all of reality directly between impersonal “objects” and personal “souls” {individual or environmental}, and making rational assessments based on which of these two categories we are reacting based on).

Since the dominant orientation shapes the functions (coloring the dominant function, and the auxiliary is then presumed to be opposite), then we can speak of eight different function-attitudes (also sometimes called “processes”), denoted with the function dichotomy letter in capital, with the attitude in lowercase: Se, Si, Ne, Ni, Te, Ti, Fe, Fi.

Again, these divisions are already implicit in all the data we run across in life.
In everything we process, there is some sort of tangible object or energy (light, sound, etc.), that can be taken in immediately or stored in memory. It can be intangibly connected to other objects, contexts, ideas or impressions, either directly or through less conscious means. We will think something about it is true or false, and this based either on external means we’ve learned from the environment or are dictated by the local situation, or internal principles we’ve learned individually, often through nature; and we may like or dislike it or something about it, again,based either on an external values we’ve learned from the environment, or internal values we’ve learned individually through nature.

What I find are the best definitions of them:

Se: awareness of material reality in the environment
(turn outward for attention to immediate at hand objects, such as physical/practical items, as it occurs)
Si: awareness of material reality filtered by individual knowledge
(turn inward to compare at hand data such as physical/practical items with a storehouse of fact and experience)
Ne: awareness of hypothetical reality inferred from the environment
(turn outward to “fill in” experience of objects with mental/ideational constructs such as connections or patterns)
Ni: awareness of hypothetical reality inferred by individual impressions
(turn inward to subject’s unconscious to “fill in” mental/ideational constructs with connections like “hunches”)
Te: assessment of “correct/incorrect” (mechanical “truth”) by an environmental/cultural standard
(turn outward to objects to determine their proper relationship to each other)
Ti: assessment of “correct/incorrect” (mechanical “truth”) by an individual/natural standard
(turn inward to internal “blueprint” of proper relationship between objects)
Fe: assessment of “like/dislike” or [soulish] “good” by an environmental/cultural standard
(turn outward to evaluate proper relationship involving/between people)
Fi: assessment of “like/dislike” or [soulish] “good” by an individual/natural standard
(turn inward to internal “blueprint” of proper relationship involving people)

Another way to look at them is in terms of an individual’s “images” of reality, for perception, (in addition to his assessments of it, for judgment).

Se: individual’s images match current environment
Si: individual’s images ONCE matched the environment, but currently can only be held among individuals sharing the experience
Ne: individual’s images never matched environment, but are still based on the environment (and thus they can possibly be shown to others)
Ni: individual’s images have never matched the environment, and can only be directly perceived by the individual.
(and hence, why this one is so notably hard to explain).

Te: individual’s assessment of true/false (mechanics of the situation) are determined by the environment.
Ti: individual’s assessment of true/false (mechanics of the situation) are determined by individual reflection.
Fe: individual’s assessment of good/bad (soul-affect of the situation) are determined by the environment.
Fi: individual’s assessment of good/bad (soul-affect of the situation) are determined by individual reflection.

Another way of looking at it is that in deciphering the two different attitudes of each function, the question to ask is:
WHAT is really creating the actual sensation? What inteprets what “is”?
(the object in the environment, directly, or the subject’s individual storehouse of memory)
WHAT is really creating the actual intuition [i.e. inference, pattern connection]?
(the object in the environment [directly implies connection to something else] or the subject’s individual unconscious impressions [which infers connections by some other means than the object itself])
WHO is really doing the actual Thinking? Who is determining “true” or “false”?
(the subject, or an object; i.e. Other person, group, computer; e.g statistics, etc.)
WHO is really doing the actual Feeling? WHO is determining “good” or “bad”?
(subject, or an object; i.e. other person, group, culture).

From here, we are able to identify 16 “types”.

So the MBTI questions basically measure, first, introversion or extraversion. Then, the two preferred functions, one perception, and one judgment. Then, it measures general “judging” vs “perceiving” behaviors, and from there is able to put together the type code. If you score high on Judging, then it must be the judgment function you scored highest on that is “extraverted”. The perceiving function must therefore also be introverted. The reverse for scoring high on “Perception”. The one whose orientation matches the first letter (I/E) must then be your dominant, and the other, the auxiliary. Which ever one is extraverted will color the general “J” vs “P behavior. Hence, that can be treated as a standalone dichotomy.

So, to recap the entire process:
Our ego chooses the inner or outer world (environment or individual), and begins choosing a dominant function to use in its world. First, the class of function is chosen: either an information gathering or decision making function. Then the specific function is chosen (tangible/material awareness {substance of “what is”} or hypothetical awareness {idea of “what could be”} information gathering), or technical/mechanical {“true/false”} or “soul”-focused {“good/bad”} decision making). An auxiliary function will be the opposite class of function in the opposite orientation.
And there, the type is set, and the rest of the functions will eventually fall into place!

Advertisements
18 Comments
  1. (Next part):
    What sets the order of the “function stack”?

    When the two functions are preferred by the ego, their opposites become suppressed into a less conscious position. Generally, in the opposite order. So the opposite of the dominant becomes “inferior”, and the opposite of the auxiliary becomes “tertiary”.

    The total “Stack” order (including the positions of all eight possible function attitudes for each type) is set by what are known as “ego-states“, or more familiarly “complexes“. The ego, which is our main sense of “I” also has many lesser senses of “I”, which are different emotinal states we encounter through the day. Examples can be anything from anger at someone, and another can be happiness, or sadness, amorous, etc. These all are kinds of “ruling patterns” (archetypes) connected to the limbic system of emotions. Through them, we can have different expressions of “I” that feel different things.These are separated by a dynamic known as “dissociation”, which we all do, but becomes a “disorder” (leading to “multiple personalities”) when the dissociation is too great.

    So for the states regarding the function stack, the dominant takes on a “heroic” connotation, being ego’s “main achiever”. The auxiliary becomes associated with “support“, since it supports the ego with balance, by taking the opposite rationality of function, and the opposite attitude.
    This “supporting” ego state (labeled by analyst John Beebe after the classic archetype known as the “Good Parent“) will then be “compensated” (or “mirrored”, basically) by a “child” complex, while will orient the tertiary function in the attitude opposite the auxiliary, or the same as the dominant. This “child (or “Puer”) will childishly try to maintain the ego’s dominant attitude, through the associated function.
    The dominant will be mirrored by an “inferior” complex, combining both the function and attitude opposite the dominant. It will be our weakest standpoint, and yet carry a sense of completeness.

    Since this common stack only involves all four of these function-attitude-complex combinations are further compensated by having their attitudes reversed, in what’s known as the “Shadow“. The shadow was originally Jung’s archetype of an “enemy” we project negative ego-states onto, and it also becomes associated with the unconscious.
    So the four functions in the oppoite attitude to the first four are associated with four other complexes, called by Beebe, the “shadows”. These deal (respectively) with obstruction of the ego, feelings of negation of the ego’s dominant standpoint, feelings of being double bound in situations, and the fear of the ego’s destruction. These ego-states will generally be manifested and felt by the ego through the lens of the four associated function-attitudes (called “shadow functions”) when the ego feels placed into those situations (this can be real or imagined). We tend to project the ego-states onto others, and respond to them in kind. (Hence, shadows often become associated with conflict). They also have good sides to them, that manifest more when the ego becomes mature.

    • Adding this further clarification:
      Basically, since everyone engages in all of the behaviors associated with all of the functions (current senses, memorized senses, external logic, internal ethics, etc). then the functions are differentiated as such when activated by a particular ego-state. They are determined to be the “preferred” functions (making up the “type”) when aligned with the particular “hero” and “supporting” ego states. The remaining functions fall into place, becoming aligned with other ego states that “constellate” in relation to these first two. So when looking at function “use”, and trying to figure how it figures in a person’s type, we must ask which “ego-state” (if any in particular) is operating. (If no particular one is constellated in the instance, then it is just an “undifferentiated” functional product and not a type-specific “Xy” function “use”. Like any type being able to “see/hear/smell/touch/taste” what is before them [Se “products”], not just “Se”-preferrers, and not just other types in a particular ego-state or archetypal “mode” that they tend to associate with Se).

  2. Typology Central finally has its own wiki: http://typologycentral.com/wiki/index.php (Been talking about it for a while, and it actually went up in Feb. but I’ve been busy, and not even on the forum much. Now, I’m adding to it. My opponent in the functions vs dichotomies debate already has some of his stuff up, there).

  3. Judgment attitudes’ applications for self and others. (It’s sometimes assumed that Ji is for “self” and Je is for “others” or external “application”, but the attitude is the standard of the judgment, not where it’s “applied”.

    Application for others Application for self
    Fi “if that were me; I would feel this way” What’s personally liked, important and congruent with personal values
    Fe “he feels that way, and thus so do I” Working to conform oneself to external values; being “accepted/able”
    Ti “If I were him, I would want the truth that I know” Applying one’s personal “principles”
    Te “This is efficient for the other person, so it is ‘truth'” Applying external principles for one’s own efficiency

    Framing them this way makes it easier to provide “lines” for the different ego states that make these judgments when they are activated.

    So for me, the main “heroic” state thinks others want the impersonal “truth” I know, and then I use these truths (i.e. “principles”, as put by others) to make my own personal decisions. The inferiority complex says “they feel this way, and so do I”, but then this usually pulls against the hero, so there is a stressful tug of war, with the ego resisting conforming to these external “values” if they don’t line up with the internally chosen “principles”.
    The Opposing Personality Complex says “this is what’s efficient for the other person, so it’s ‘truth'”, but this is generally used to somehow counter others sense of efficiency or agreed upon logic when their supposed need for application in my own life imposed on me.
    The Demonic Personality Complex” says “If that were me, gaining something at my expense, I would feel pretty contented”, and then I resent the person fror this as if they said they were. I then resist what’s supposedly ‘truly’ “important” or “good” for me, such as not feeling that way.

    Also, while Fi says “if that were me, I would feel this way”, in witessing others’ misfortune, Ti realizes: “That could have been me” (and then not even wanting to imagine the actual feelings).

  4. Ongoing discussion on Ni.
    Good statements by a couple of posters, on Lenore’s descriptions:

    “In general, her classification of the perceiving functions is that they’re ALL about sensing and the senses, but each one processes sensing in a different way. Si tends to organize and classify sensations, while Ni strives to “interpret” the sensations to learn what they ‘really mean’.

    Si, pure and simply, is to understand ‘sensation’ as being wholly subjective. ‘Physicality’ is not something you apprehend as something you “submit” yourself to, or how you establish a connection with the world around you – it has the opposite effect of severing that connection. To ‘sense’ the world, in this sense, is to ground yourself in your own experience. This differs greatly from Se, which understands sensation and physicality to be wholly objective, and fundamentally about ‘connecting’ with the world around you – there’s a force and reactivity present in Se that Si lacks. Those that prefer Si, because of this, comes across as very grounded, accommodating, and tough to lead by the nose.

    Si predicts the future mostly by assuming that the future will work pretty much like the past.
    Ni doesn’t do that. Instead, what Ni is adept at doing is taking in brand new information that no one has analyzed before, figure out what it means, and make predictions that would appear to have no basis in reality. Making “predictions” based on known data is boring to Ni types such as INTJs, though the fact that the link exists is fascinating. Figuring out a completely new problem is where Ni types are at home.

    The reason that Ni types are good at that is that they register patterns that can’t easily be put into words. It’s why the patterns seem vague and undefined. But really, it’s no more vague or undefined than a dance or the taste of a pear: it just can’t be put into words AND it isn’t as concrete as a dance or a pear. Ni thinking tends to be in terms of these patterns, the ability to ‘just look at a problem’ and ‘see’ what is ‘really’ going on underneath the hood. Just as you can taste a pear blindfolded and accurately guess that it is a pear, an Ni type can take in a new problem and accurately see possible solutions to it.”

    Someone questioned “organize and classify”, which one would think only judgment functions could do. It initially concerned me as well, but Lenore likely understands this in terms of “undifferentiated functions”. For every bit of data, all functional products are there, but the function we consider being “used” is simply the products that have been abstracted (set apart) in consciousness. And particularly for Pi (left brain “J” perspectives), the “organizing and classifying” then would be the associated Je function in the background working with Si or Ni.

    You can also see the tandems in that Ne deals with external patterns stored in memory (working with Si), while Ni “taking in brand new information” is then working with Se.

    Also, interesting “white paper” on S/N:
    https://www.capt.org/journal-psychological-type/whitepapers/s-n%20whitepaper_02.2016.pdf

  5. Someone posts this page: https://www.quora.com/How-do-I-tell-if-Im-an-INTP-or-ENTP and it’s the first time I’ve seen someone fully explain the whole “ENP’s seem like introverts” claim:

    “Se- and Te-dominants are motivated by actions, and Fe-dominants are motivated by interactions, and Ne-dominants are motivated by ideas. You can see how that doesn’t necessitate as much active external stimulation compared to the others.”

    So, “There may be some ENTPs who do not fit the mold of being great talkers and debaters. But they will still like to talk about ideas. They will enjoy it, they may even go out of their way to seek out such communications or bring up their own thoughts unasked.”

    Also, on the difference between INTP and ENTP “INTPs are more personally invested in their ideas, whereas ENTPs are more flexible and willing to discard or jump around ideas: they may have difficulty prioritizing because they have a much larger quiver full of idea-arrows to shoot around, so it’s fine if some of them miss.”

    “Since an INTP’s Ne is their auxiliary function, it serves their Ti. It works within the bounds of where we tell it to go, and needs prompting and explicit direction to spread out beyond that.

    Since an ENTP’s Ne is their dominant function, they are going to cast their net far wider and range off in manifold directions and then their secondary Ti works to rein it in and sift out what will be most useful.”

    “ENTPs find it helpful to receive feedback earlier in the brainstorming stages, and conversing will help sharpen their ideas–external input is part of their process of refining those ideas, whereas a Ti-dominant requires solitude without external input to focus deeply enough on their ideas.”
    With me, when putting together my type correlation, I went and shared it as I went along, but then I was at the same time in the process of learning about type. Some people then thought I was Ne dominant. But the internal Ti work was pretty much already done, as far as framing personaity in terms of the “expressive” and “responsive” matrix, and it was just a matter of fiting type into it, with I/E fitting expressed Inclusion and T/F and J/P fitting responsiveness somehow. So I needed input as to what the type concepts were about, as well as introducing the temperament matrix which many were unfamiliar with.

    I think the Ti “solitude” is a bit over emphasized, though it may apply more to Phlegmatic INTP’s, not realizing there are also Supines, who will be more into people than a Phlegmatic. Solitude may help concentrate on the thinking, but what makes the function “internal” is that “true/false” is assessed by the individual, rather than being determined by an object in the environment (such as other people).

    “People with Feeling/Thinking as their dominant function will display far more polarized behavior because of this. Normally amicable INFPs become judgmental, cruel, and critical when their Te goes on a rampage. Normally calm/detached INTPs become self-pitying emotional wrecks when three-year-old Fe tries to get behind the wheel.”
    (They must be using the “Personality Hacker” concepts, in which the “3 year old” is the inferior).

    This would also correspond to the pure Supine’s fiery reactions when feeling unappreciated after awhile. (Te is what’s used, in its more positive form, to “serve” others, but then this must be acknowledged, or else “the Supine will feel used”, and react).
    An INTP Supine is both Supine and Choleric, and the Choleric in Control prevents him from relying on others’ appreciation for service [as much], but instead, has the tendency to step on others’ toes in pushing his own will on them, though the Supine still values their acceptance. This is what will lead to the inferior Fe reaction described. The Phlegmatic INTP will be the same, and the difference is that the Phlegmatic in Inclusion’s drive is keeping the peace, which is the path of least resistance. Still, the Choleric will go against this, and step on people’s toes (Keirsey even described both the NT along with the SJ as having an “annoying” trait, which would be connected with their common low wanted Control), and thus again, lead to an inferior Fe reaction when people react.

  6. Occurred to me, that the i/e attitude for each position in the “stack” should be associated with the ego state more than the function!

    I’ve said that the ego states “orient” the functions to the attitude, startng with the ego itself, with its dominant (via the “heroic” complex). Based on this, we consider the ego (the person) an “introvert” or “extravert”. This can be extended to the other seven ego states. (This is opposite of the direction Jung apparently went in, starting out associating the attitude with the ego, but then later associating it with the function).
    So (thinking in light of my recent article on how my Hero and Parent complexes worked in the old Trinity essay), I can say that my “parent” complex is extraverted. Like the Hero draws from the individual world and filters its Thinking perspective through this, the Parent draws from the environment, which becomes the source for its iNtutitive perspective.

    This will make it easier for people to recognize both introverted and extraverted “parts of themselves”, which the ego states are. Remember, the states are separated by “dissociation”, which is the same dynamic in multiple personality disorders, but only regulated better. So just as multiple personalities can have their own types or temperaments, the seven ego states in the full Beebe model have their own attitude and function. (And the “spine” complexes and functions are all reflections and shadows of the dominant, while the Parent is the ego’s best shot at attitudinal balance, and the remaining “arm” complexes and functions are reflections and shadows of it).

    It also makes it easier to understand the functions, by reducing them from eight (that are often confused as how to distinguish one attitude of the same function from the other), back to the original four. So the Parent prefers iNtuition. Taking in intangible data, of what “could” be rather than what “is”.
    But the primary Parent is an extravert, which means it introjects itself into the environment and essentially “merges” with (introjects into) “objects”, to perceive from them what could be in a situation. So the individual realm is suppressed from this. But it’s still there, creating a “negative” Parent that projects itself into objects, drawing from them only what is relevant to an individual wellspring of impressions to filter awareness of what could be. So the resulting “Senex” is an introvert, and lies underneath the “good” Parent.
    So we see how both the complex and the associated function splits (along more mature and primitive versions of the archetype, and the attitude), through suppression from consciousness.

  7. Wrote this from scratch on an old thread on a board, where a person claimed to have “developed all eight functions”. I had answered it three years ago according to the way I expounded this back then, and someone revived the thread (For some reason, “necroposting”, which is frowned upon on most boards, was always permitted on typology boards), but by now, of course, I’ve modified my views since this was started, and now I emphasize “ego states” as what carry the functions.

    You have a main ego centre (the main sense of “I”), which then takes upon the archetype of the “hero” as it pursues its own goals. There are also lesser senses of I, with a total of eight that specifically involve typological preference. These will all choose one function (S, N, T, F) and one orientation (i-individual, or e-environmental), thus pairing together a function and attitude. So the hero will embody what we call the “dominant function” (with the dominant attitude as well).
    For the sake of balance, you must also draw from the opposite orientation, and the opposite mode of processing from the dominant function (judgment or perception), so a lesser ego-state, that generally takes on a “supporting” role or “parental” archetype, will view things through this other function-attitude combo.
    This is what forms what we are calling “type”.

    The functions are basically divisions of reality (the tangible vs the intangible, the impersonal vs the personal, and the individual vs the environment), so the ones chosen will be “reflected” in the functions and attitudes they were chosen over, being lower down in consciousness. The two ego states are likewise mirrored, so that the parent will be reflected by a more “childish” ego state, that uses the tertiary function, and the hero will be mirrored by an “inferior” ego state using the inferior function.
    These are further reimaged by reversing the unchosen attitudes for each of the four functions, and these will be carried by even less conscious versions of the four ego states. (hegative her, negative parent, negative child of sorts, and a negative inferiority complex that becomes “destructive” in ways). These are what’s been called the “Shadows”. Really, it’s not so much the functions that are “Shadows”; it’s the ego states. The functions are less psychically conscious because of the ego states (but otherwise are conscious; else only an “SP” type would be able to recognize the current senses, for instance).

    What’s been called (perhaps misleadingly so) “developing the functions” would really be becoming more aware of the lower ego-states. So if you think you’ve “developed all the functions”, they you’re saying all of these ego-states are regularly coming into consciousness. I guess it’s hypothetically possible; bit the lower down you go, the more stressful situations it takes to make them become more regular like that. The ego states still bear their negative archetypal contexts, so it’s not like you now have all these “good”, positive uses of “all eight functions”. (and no one has “individuated” either, which would amount to being able to see undivided reality).

    More than likely, a person is taking instances of “undifferentiated” functions (like the “seeing, hearing, touch, taste, smell any type can do, apart from the typological ego-states), and mistaking this for “function-development”.

    Also, temperament related; just saw this:

    http://www.christianitytoday.com/gleanings/2016/july/tim-lahaye-dies-left-behind-coauthor-stroke.html

  8. Since the functions and attitudes represent divisions of reality, here’s an analogy I’ve been trying to make, using the four compass directions (which are spatial divisions of reality). Not coming out how I wanted, but it gives an idea:

    There are four different quadrants; SE, SW, NE, NW, items being carried on wagons are being distributed to.

    The main “pilot” will advance in the primary direction, while a guide will steer in the secondary direction.
    The primary direction can be pushed or pulled toward, and the guiding can also be push or pull. Let’s say that whatever the primary direction pilot does, the secondary direction guide will do the opposite.

    As an example we’ll use one quadrant. To cover the SE quadrant, you can have carts go primarily east, and secondarily south. And others go primarily south and secondarily east. To illustrate the push-pull process, we can look at the dominant eastbound wagon.

    So with primary “pushing” (with steerable front wheels), the pilot pushes forward from behind, and [to counter inertia] pulls backward to stop (e.g. pushes east and pulls west).
    The guide will be walking next to the front, and pulls south to steer, and pushes north to stop steering.

    With primary “pulling” (and rear wheel steering), the pilot pulls east to go forward, and pushes west to stop. The guide (riding on the back) has a stick, with which he pushes south to steer and pulls north (grabbing on things on the ground) to stop from steering too far.


    The original thinking, was someone facing one of the directions. One is clearly prominent, right ahead of them. Its opposite is behind them, totally out of view. The other two are right and left, and in the corner of their eyes. (Recall, Jung spoke at times of “two auxiliaries”). So right there, it works pretty much like the ego functional perspectives.
    The problem was trying to extend it further, and determine how one of the other two could be “auxiliary”. I could use “right/left handed”, but hen this will fix it to one definite direction. Like if we’re facing east, then south, as “right”, would always be auxiliary. Also, what to make of the “orientation”. And whatever the primary direction is, the auxiliary would have to be the opposite.
    So I came up with “looking” one direction, and perhaps “thinking” the other direction. (We could tie that to e and i, respectively). So you can have someone who predominantly “looks” east, and then, he must “think” south. You could also have someone who predominantly thinks east and secondarily looks south. It’s making less and less sense. So I came up with the above, but that’s kind of getting away from the focal point of the “division of reality”. It does show how the tertiary and inferior directions are reflections of the dominant and auxiliary. I also wanted to show how the “shadows” result too. The actual “shadows” of these cart operators would be facing the same directions, but there is no way to change pushing into puling and vice versa.

  9. A Thinker’s Confession: The Influence of Feeling Emotions
    http://www.personalityhacker.com/influence-feeling-emotions/

  10. Sharing my newfound knowledge of the Demonic Personality Complex from Beebe’s book (see https://erictb.wordpress.com/2016/09/18/book-review-beebe-energies-and-patterns-in-psychological-type) on the boards. I mentioned how the complex was obviously constellated and projected onto God by Donald Fagen, when his mother died and he wrote a song imagining teaming up with Satan and killing God. (see https://erictb.wordpress.com/2015/09/18/pretzel-emotions-a-musical-journey-through-the-images-of-life) It’s clearly evidence of a demonic Fi projection. God doesn’t work the way dominant Ti (through which ego aims to achieve its goals) says He should, and so, not only is He rejected, but upon a very traumatic experience (tied with what we expect from [the idea of] Him; a world without pain and death), He is deemed internally “bad” and deserving of death. (Even the Devil himself now becomes the ally, in carrying this out; clearly identifying the archetype that has constellated!)
    Again, I can understand this, but for one thing, since I perceive through Ne and not Se, I realize the possibility that He might not operate the way we expect, and so could still be real (despite all the seeming ‘evidence’ otherwise), even if it doesn’t look like it at times.

    In the process, I end up finding another adamant “Chicago/SteelyDan hater”, like the court file room supervisor I mentioned in last year’s article. (She’s INTJ, and this person now is INFP; both “Ordering Assessment” types with “ego syntonic” Fi). Throw in Stevie Wonder now, as well. He did mention liking old blues, but disliking other forms of “jazz”, especially with strong horns, which are what have influenced these three groups and many others I like, and thus probably what he’s not liking.

    So I then articulated that I myself could never figure why some people feel so strongly against certain forms of music. I can understand feeling strongly for them, but I see little reason to not “like” anything. (And even then, I’ve always found it next to impossible to name a “favorite” Stevie Wonder song, when asked. It’s like they all go into different categories, where different things are liked about them). The only stuff I would come closest to saying I don’t like was heavy metal, especially the so-called “death metal”. Not only is the sound loud and blaring (unpleasant harmony, and neither very rhythmic or melodic), but was also what was championed by those wishing “death” to disco, and a big part of this on racial reasons (ironically, “old-line” Christian fundamentalists believe all “rock” beats are bad because of the racial origin, basically).

    When I was very young, Simon & Garfunkel’s “Sound of Silence” and “Scarborough Fair” triggered very negative “sadness” emotions, where I would want to run away screaming. But when I grew up, that subsided, and now, I don’t “dislike” them; and they fall into nostalgic memories of music in the past (We were just watching a 60’s music CD infomercial on the PBS fundraising program last night as if it were a documentary).
    Occasionally, there might be a song I actually like that then comes to give me the willies for some reason. On my article, I actually mention an unreleased Steely Dan song, as well as a very early Earth, Wind & Fire song. This usually is when the song gets tied up with some sort of negative images of something. I recently did a 9-11 15th anniversary article, where I mention again how the SD song I first discovered last year around the anniversary, conjures an image of being trapped up in the towers, for some reason. I’m sure this involves a shadowy “Senex” Ni).

    So I guess that might tie into Fi as ultimately being very “unconscious”, where for this person, as well as the “Melancholic” types I knew of (ISTJ’s), they had more of a sense of “like” and “dislike”.
    I now would define Fi as “good/bad assessment according to an internal standard learned individually or from nature”. Or as Beebe cites Jung, “the archetype of good/bad”, that’s removed from the “object”. That’s why I can’t understand any “dislike” (“bad” judgment) “removed from the object”. It never made sense. (It also conveyed a sense of evil judgment of something I liked. Hence, why I’ve gone after the old IFB fundamentalists on that point). But now, I’m seeing it’s just another “division of reality” (or “consciousness”) from what I’m used to. (Though people are still wrong if they try to project their “dislikes” onto God, making it “bad” for everyone else, and then refuse to admit that their perspective could be limited or skewed/biased, which was what I was fighting against).

    Right as I’m typing, my wife is asking me how I “feel” about yesterday’s headline of the fresh new revelation of Trump not paying taxes. It’s really hard for me to articulate, though I’ve been long fervently vocal about economic injustice (which affects us and makes life difficult), and how “tax” rhetoric focuses on the “non-working” poor getting it all, while the rich’s excesses are either ignored, or deemed as “deserved”. So by now, it’s like “figures”, and there’s nothing else to “feel” (at least in terms of “expressing” it). It seems nothing can be done about it, though at least, the public is becoming more aware of it.

    So for me, Fi usually comes up in “undifferentiated” form (basically “instinctual”, “limbic”, or at least tied to the other functions), when something is threatening or disfavorable somehow. Positive Fi (“liking”) is generally tied to the things of Ti (like the mathematical symmetries), Ne (discovering possibilities of what can be done with sound) or Si (like the musical nostalgia).
    When the negative things become major “issues”, then the Demonic Personality may constellate, which then will “differentiate” (make conscious, via a sense of “I”, which is the complex) Fi more, but usually in the negative form.

  11. Really seeing that two of Jung’s alternate functions description (mentioned in Hunziker’s new book) really make the most sense:

    S: “registers reality as real”
    F: “sorts out our feelings”

    The first tells us what the S function does with tangible reality. The key word being “register”. The second distinguishes the Feeling function from what we commonly call “feelings” (which is often a source of confusion).
    Of course, N is still “where it’s heading” (or specifically associated with time), while T is “defining” (basically telling us what it is).

    So the notion of “sorting out our feelings” really explains what the function is. “Ordering our feelings” is sometimes associated with the introverted version, specifically, but both types sort out their feelings. Fi simply sorts them directly, internally, and uses them to gauge others’ feelings. The extraverted variant simply merges them with others, which are taken as their own (including providing environments that others are known to like).
    We may think of T as more “orderly”, while F is less controlled, as we watch F types be more “emotional”. But really, their emotions are more controlled than we think. This illusion comes from T types projecting their own weaker experience of F onto others. Our idea of “ordering” emotions is to stuff them, but then that is when they’re more likely to erupt in the fashion we think we see F’s display them. I know how I hate to feel negative emotions, like toward a sad story, and sometimes even don’t want to feel happy emotions, fearing I’ll be “caught off guard” when something bad inevitably happens. This is an avoidance of sorting through them! F types are better able to embrace the feelings, and are less ashamed to display them. Again, this is from sorting them out. The determination of “good” and “bad” comes from this. For me, the Inferiority Complex sorts out feelings in comparison to others, and feels I’m coming up short, or should be responding to others in a way I’m not (because it contradicts the Hero’s agenda). The Demonic Personality Complex handles the sorting out of negative emotions, which make situations feel destructive to the ego. Others’ strong emotions are a threat, as I project “if I were reacting that way, I would have to be feeling SO bad”. I even may get annoyed at them, thinking they should react rather than feel. Stories that evoke strong emotions are uncomfortable, because I just don’t want to sort those emotions, so I stuff them and shut down.
    Feeling good emotions, associated with gratification or moral self-contentedness, are sought as representing “integrity”, and thus are the source of “narcissism”. This too is projected onto people who seem to be self-contented, or have gained their way, especially at what I perceive to be my expense.

    Trying to come up with comparable terms for N and T, I think “how things work” is best for T. Not even sure why I didn’t decide on this earlier, especially given the “tells you about the object” and “technical” definitions. Really, I wonder why Jung didn’t put it this way! “Defining” is done basically by determining “what it is” by how it works, or what it does (as opposed to how we feel about it). This then yields the judgment of “true” that things are measured true or false by.

    Since Jung defined N in terms of “time“ (i.e. “where it’s heading”), I think of some N products that don’t seem to have a time element.

    •Archetypes are ruling patterns that play out as sequential behaviors
    •Typology looks at sequences of people’s behaviors based on the idea of an archetypal category.
    •Many analogies are comparisons of sequences.

    I was thinking of STATIC objects, which I also make parallels to other objects with. But I think the time element there lies in the fact that the objects still had to have come from somewhere. It’s just noted how they seem to have developed into the same or similar form, and from that, a connection is inferred or at least looked for.

    Another possibility, is like when I compare a symmetrical building for instance (with four segments that are mirror images of each other) to the similar symmetry of the E/R temperament matrix; while it’s comparing a pattern, it’s really more introverted Thinking than iNtuition. It’s looking at a tangible (not conceptual) object, and then comparing a conceptual matrix to it. The commonality lies in the logical “framework” (the mirror symmetry, which is a logical “archetype”) determining what’s “true”, moreso than any timelike “implications”.

    In addition to Beebe and Hunziker’s books, I was also partly inspired to refine the function definitions (especially Ni/e) when a person on one of the boards posted this description of Ni:

    Look at the original roots of the words introverted and extroverted. The reason Ni is often so misunderstood is because it’s usually misapplied to the realm that Ne occurs in, but Ni is in the internal realm. It’s intuition introverted. Jung called it the subject. So people actually do know its definition. What they’re still wanting are the right examples, but examples won’t tell you the real definition or essence of it–they break away from the fundamental cognition of what it simply means.

    The definition of Ni is as follows: Ni is grasping the essence of things in thought. It focuses on the big picture while turning inward, while intro-verting. Ni types are not great at grasping the essence and nature of things going on around them, they don’t have insight about reading the external situation like Ne types do. Ne on the other hand, grasps the underlying essence of things happening in the outside situation, the nature and big picture of what’s occurring and being seen in the moment. This is why we ultimately use multiple functions, and this is where the confusion comes from. Similarly with Ti, we grasp the logic and rationale behind things in thought, in inward reflection and contemplation, while with Te, we grasp the logic and rationale of things as they happen in action and order, as we work with and utilize them. They’re the same function “Logic,” just applied to turning our mind either inwardly, or turning our mind outwardly towards things in their external form as they’re happening. This is especially how Jung and the Socionicists recognize the functions.

    Ni is intuition of greater thoughts and insights about the big picture, while Ne attunes to the big picture of what’s happening with external stimuli–it spots opportunities and potential, and intuitively grasps what’s really happening behind a situation or moment, just like Se has a literal take on what’s happening in a situation.

    One good example for consideration is the difference between the INxJ vs the INTP, because both these types introvert, they both go frequently into the internal realm of thought. One however, the Ni, is primarily submerged in thinking about the nature and main idea behind things, the generalities of life, while the other, the Ti, is primarily submerged in pondering the logic, rationale and workings behind things. It’s a big difference. Neither Ni or Ti can view the nature or rationale of things as they’re occurring outside, in real life.

    Even defining the attitudes in terms of “individual” vs “objects” or “environment”, with iNtuition, still leaves things a bit ambiguous. The problem is that in every process we’re both referencing both external objects and internal impressions. And the functions work in tandem; Ni with Se and Ne with Si. So it’s hard to tell which is really internal or external a lot of times. And both forms of iNtuition “fill in” data with inferences of “where it’s heading”.

    But perhaps those tandems, as named by Berens and Montoya, are the key. Ni reaches awareness as sudden “realizations”, while Ne has to “inquire” to make its inferences of other objects. (Even if this may appear as a sudden realization). On the S side, Se also naturally works through automatic “realizations” of whatever is before you, of course, while Si has to inquire its “storehouse” of tangible reality to filter current data through.
    So both will look at an object and fill in its “possibilities” or “patterns” of, where it appears to be “going”, or “could” go. Ne will be more “open” and reference other patterns, while Ni will simply perceive “yes” or “no” (that is what I considered the elemental product of perception, where judgment is “right” or “wrong”) from an inner impression (that is not as tangibly focused as the inner “sense” of Si).

    N=time orientation
    Ne: I can see it’s possible paths by comparing similar objects
    Ni: I can see it’s possible paths by going on a “gut” feeling (often omitted)
    Se: it doesn’t matter where it came from or is going; it’s just there
    Si: it doesn’t matter where it could go, I’ve seen where it is

    So to put together all eight (using the common terms the functions are based on):

    Se: registers [sensory] reality as real in the immediate environment
    Si: registers [sensory] reality as real in comparison to individual recollection
    Ne: infers the [intuitive] implications of objects from comparison to the environment
    Ni: infers the [intuitive] implications of objects from individual “gut” feeling or imagery
    Te: directs our thinking to how things work, according to environmental determination
    Ti: directs our thinking to how things work, according to individual determination
    Fe: sorts feelings according to environment (merges with others’ feelings)
    Fi: sorts feelings according to individual reflection (and figures others’ feelings from this)

  12. Edited the “short version” (www.erictb.info/temperament2ss.html) with these new definitions:

    S registers tangible reality as real and reacts accordingly
    N registers the implications of reality and puts it out as an idea
    T Assesses, understands, and responds to the way things work
    F Assesses, understands, and responds to emotional affect

    Se registers tangible reality as it emerges in the environment
    Si registers tangible reality filtered through individual recollection
    Ne registers implications of things from the ‘environment’ of consciousness
    Ni registers implications of things by the individual’s subconscious
    Te responds to how things work according to an environmental necessity
    Ti determines how things work according to individual understanding
    Fe sorts out emotional affect based on an environmental necessity
    Fi sorts out emotional affect based on individual understanding

    I would redo Jung’s definitions as follows:

    S: what it is
    N: what are it’s implications
    T: how it works
    F: how it affects us emotionally

    (So perception is “what” and judgment is about “how”)

  13. Added a new “Intro to type” to my domain, based on the “Eight Step Intro To Type:
    http://www.erictb.info/typeintro.html

    This now replaces the function of the “Super Short” entry of the “Part 2” series, which has now been made into simply the “Short” version (with a redirect from 2ss.html to 2s.html)

  14. In determining how introverted Feeling really figures in the pure and next-to pure Sanguines (EFP’s), this is brought to mind by seeing someone like this airy, jolly person: https://www.youtube.com/user/bgirlambam (“Professionally Silly”) who’s likely ENFP.
    What makes us think a person like this is a type that prefers Fi?

    Fi is an evaluation of humane affect (“good/bad”) based on internal stimuli. (I had forgotten that this was one of the ways I had begun expressing the attitude, and I now think this one is best). So these types are focused on what’s “good” for humanity, as determined by an internal idea, rather than necessarily what others say is good. This is what leads to their friendliness and light nature. Still, how wxactly are they “parenting” others with this (as the auxiliary complex does)?

    In the description of auxiliary (“supporting”) Fi in Berens’ Understanding Yourself and Others: An Introduction to the Personality Type Code:
    “Like a supportive parent, they are helpful when they key in on their values and stay with what’s important to themselves and to other individuals. They…recognize what they want, what motivates them, or how they feel inside. They trust and stick with their personal belief system, staying focused on what they want for themselves or for others. They may evaluate how a belief applies to them personally and continually examine their choices to see if they match their inner value system and intentions.”

    This makes it sound like a conscious process (like they stop and think “now, hmmm… what do I like, that I can share with or do for these other people?”), but while the function is considered “conscious” from its high position in the stack (based on the associated complex), as an introverted function, the actual process itself of “keying in on their values” and “matching” to them is more likely [often if not generally] unconscious.

    So for EFP’s, it comes out as the desire to spread joy and laughter (among the subconscious “values” deemed “important” to themselves and others). That’s being “supporting” of others. It will be colored by the dominant function; where Se will be more about physical “fun”, such as partying and performing, and with Ne, it will be about more “abstract” nonphysical “fun” such as humor or general “silliness”.

    “Recognizing what they want” is really something everyone does, though “staying focused on it is more the clue, but I think even this might be more an unconscious “focus”. They’ll find it easier to make a decision for something based on simply whether they like it or not, with no other criteria that makes them like it. If I choose something I “like”, there must be a reason for it; usually a logical one. If not, then the “liking” will have to be weighed by a system of “pros and cons”. It became a bit difficult to tell Ti from Fi because “weighing” was associated with Fi by the Berens circle. But the “pros and cons” I mentioned are basically how things work (T), usually matters of “convenience” (defined as Ti in one of the books), where “this will lead to that”; where Fi will be “weighing one “like” by another. I find myself faced with this sometimes, and find it incredibly difficult. At times, I just have to “throw it to the wind” if I cannot find some logical benefit of one or the other.

    Fe in contrast seeks to spread joy and fun more through external organization based on what is known to please others, if not what they request directly.
    Ti, as an internal judgment like Fi, is described in Hunziker’s Building Blocks of Personality Type by one person’s example, as an internally organized “grid with labels at all the grid coordinates”. These grids consist of finer grids, which themselves consist of even finer ones, etc. with ever more precise category labels (p.88). This I believe is also most likely usually unconscious (and thus not recognized so explicitly), and this particular person simply analyzed it, bringing this into consciousness.


    So to do the eight function attitudes again:

    Se registers tangible reality from external (environmental) stimuli
    Si registers tangible reality filtered through internal (individual) stimuli
    Ne registers implications of things from external (environmental) stimuli
    Ni registers implications of things by internal (individual) stimuli
    Te responds to how things work according to external (environmental) stimuli
    Ti determines how things work according to internal (individual) stimuli
    Fe sorts out emotional affect based on external (environmental) stimuli
    Fi sorts out emotional affect based on internal (individual) stimuli

    Edit (alt):
    Se engagement of tangible reality is stimulated by the environment
    Si engagement of tangible reality is stimulated by individual reflection reference
    Ne engagement of the implications of reality is stimulated by the environment
    Ni engagement of the implications of reality is stimulated by individual reference
    Te determination of what’s correct (true/false) is stimulated by the environment
    Ti determination of what’s correct (true/false) is stimulated by individual reference
    Fe determination of what’s desired (good/bad) is stimulated by the environment
    Fi determination of what’s desired (good/bad) is stimulated by individual reference

  15. The 16 types based on dominant function (eight original Jungian “types”), distinguished by the focus shifted to by the auxiliary function. (Also show the difference between the same two functions as dominant and auxiliary or vice versa):

    Se Person’s drive is engaging with the current tangible world (stimulated by the tangible environment)
    +Fi directs this towards people, and what is universally pleasing to them (“fun”)
    +Ti directs this toward how things work, and thus may be into adventure (hiking, etc), sports, etc. and self-promotion

    Ne Person’s drive is engaging the implications of objects; what can be imagined from them (inferring is stimulated by objects)
    +Fi directs this toward people, and what universally brings smiles to one’s face (silliness, puns, stories, etc)
    +Ti directs this toward how things work, and thus may be into philosophical discussions, politics, etc. but delivered in a more “open” way

    Ti Person’s drive is toward an individual sense of how things work (stimulated by an individual models of what’s technically “true”)
    +Se directs this toward the current tangible world, and may be into mechanics, sports and dance moves, music production, other fine arts.
    +Ne directs this toward the implications of things, such as science and political theory, why things work the way they do

    Fi Person’s drive is toward an individual sense of what is unversally “good” for people (stimulated by individual models of what’s good)
    +Se directs this toward the current tangible world, and so may be into artwork and other “aesthetics”
    +Ne directs this toward the implications of things, and may be into ideals of altruism, self-care, etc.

    Si Person’s drive is referencing an internalized sense of the tangible world (stimulated by internal remembrances of what’s real)
    +Te directs this toward how things work according to environmental standards (good at “inspecting” to make sure things are being done right)
    +Fe directs this toward what is good to people in the environment and according to their obvious needs (good at acts of service)

    Ni Person’s drive is referencing an internal sense of the implications of things (stimulated by internal model of unconscious inferences)
    +Te directs this toward how things work according to environmental standards (may be into math theory and other sciences employing this)
    +Fe directs this toward what is good to people in the environment and according to their obvious needs (may be into counseling, personality

    Te Person’s drive is toward “objective” employing of the way things work (stimulated by the environment as determining what’s correct)
    +Si directs this toward creating order based on an internal sense of the way the tangible world is (good at managing people and institutions)
    +Ni directs this toward creating order based on an internal sense of the implications of things (good at envisioning goals and plans)

    Fe person’s drive is toward the environment of people (stimulated by the environment as the desired source of good)
    +Si creates harmonious order based on an internal sense of the way the tangible world is (good at hosting and caretaking)
    +Ni creates harmonious order based on an internal sense of the implications of things (good at inspiring and counseling)

  16. Eight complexes for each type using root function definitions:

    ISTJ

    Hero complex (main ego) engages tangible reality, stimulated by individual reference (Si)
    Parent complex determines what’s correct (true/false) as stimulated by the environment (Te)
    Child complex determines what’s desired (good/bad) as stimulated by individual reference (Fi)
    inferior (Anima/animus) complex engages the implications of reality, stimulated by the environment (Ne)
    Warrior/Amazon (oppositional) complex engages tangible reality, stimulated by the environment (Se)
    Witch (Crone)/Senex complex determines what’s correct (true/false) as stimulated by individual reference (Ti)
    Trickster complex determines what’s desired (good/bad) as stimulated by the environment (Fe)
    Demonic Personality complex engages the implications of reality, stimulated by individual reference (Ni)

    ISFJ

    Hero complex (main ego) engages tangible reality, stimulated by individual reference (Si)
    Parent complex determines what’s desired (good/bad) as stimulated by the environment (Fe)
    Child complex determines what’s correct (true/false) as stimulated by individual reference (Ti)
    inferior (Anima/animus) complex engages the implications of reality, stimulated by the environment (Ne)
    Warrior/Amazon (oppositional) complex engages tangible reality, stimulated by the environment (Se)
    Witch (Crone)/Senex complex determines what’s desired (good/bad) as stimulated by individual reference (Fi)
    Trickster complex determines what’s correct (true/false) as stimulated by the environment (Te)
    Demonic Personality complex engages the implications of reality, stimulated by individual reference (Ni)

    ISTP

    Hero complex (main ego) determines what’s correct (true/false) as stimulated by individual reference (Ti)
    Parent complex engages tangible reality, stimulated by the environment (Se)
    Child complex engages the implications of reality, stimulated by individual reference (Ni)
    inferior (Anima/animus) complex determines what’s desired (good/bad) as stimulated by the environment (Fe)
    Warrior/Amazon (oppositional) complex determines what’s correct (true/false) as stimulated by the environment (Te)
    Witch (Crone)/Senex complex engages tangible reality, stimulated by individual reference (Si)
    Trickster complex engages the implications of reality, stimulated by the environment (Ne)
    Demonic Personality complex determines what’s desired (good/bad) as stimulated by individual reference (Fi)

    ISFP

    Hero complex (main ego) determines what’s desired (good/bad) as stimulated by individual reference (Fi)
    Parent complex engages tangible reality, stimulated by the environment (Se)
    Child complex engages the implications of reality, stimulated by individual reference (Ni)
    inferior (Anima/animus) complex determines what’s correct (true/false) as stimulated by the environment (Te)
    Warrior/Amazon (oppositional) complex determines what’s desired (good/bad) as stimulated by the environment (Fe)
    Witch (Crone)/Senex complex engages tangible reality, stimulated by individual reference (Si)
    Trickster complex engages the implications of reality, stimulated by the environment (Ne)
    Demonic Personality complex determines what’s correct (true/false) as stimulated by individual reference (Ti)

    INFJ

    Hero complex (main ego) engages the implications of reality, stimulated by individual reference (Ni)
    Parent complex determines what’s desired (good/bad) as stimulated by the environment (Fe)
    Child complex determines what’s correct (true/false) as stimulated by individual reference (Ti)
    inferior (Anima/animus) complex engages tangible reality, stimulated by the environment (Se)
    Warrior/Amazon (oppositional) complex engages the implications of reality, stimulated by the environment (Ne)
    Witch (Crone)/Senex complex determines what’s desired (good/bad) as stimulated by individual reference (Fi)
    Trickster complex determines what’s correct (true/false) as stimulated by the environment (Te)
    Demonic Personality complex engages tangible reality, stimulated by individual reference (Si)

    INFP

    Hero complex (main ego) determines what’s desired (good/bad) as stimulated by individual reference (Fi)
    Parent complex engages the implications of reality, stimulated by the environment (Ne)
    Child complex engages tangible reality, stimulated by individual reference (Si)
    inferior (Anima/animus) complex determines what’s correct (true/false) as stimulated by the environment (Te)
    Warrior/Amazon (oppositional) complex determines what’s desired (good/bad) as stimulated by the environment (Fe)
    Witch (Crone)/Senex complex engages the implications of reality, stimulated by individual reference (Ni)
    Trickster complex engages tangible reality, stimulated by the environment (Se)
    Demonic Personality complex determines what’s correct (true/false) as stimulated by individual reference (Ti)

    INTJ

    Hero complex (main ego) engages the implications of reality, stimulated by individual reference (Ni)
    Parent complex determines what’s correct (true/false) as stimulated by the environment (Te)
    Child complex determines what’s desired (good/bad) as stimulated by individual reference (Fi)
    inferior (Anima/animus) complex engages tangible reality, stimulated by the environment (Se)
    Warrior/Amazon (oppositional) complex engages the implications of reality, stimulated by the environment (Ne)
    Witch (Crone)/Senex complex determines what’s correct (true/false) as stimulated by individual reference (Ti)
    Trickster complex determines what’s desired (good/bad) as stimulated by the environment (Fe)
    Demonic Personality complex engages tangible reality, stimulated by individual reference (Si)

    INTP

    Hero complex (main ego) determines what’s correct (true/false) as stimulated by individual reference (Ti)
    Parent complex engages the implications of reality, stimulated by the environment (Ne)
    Child complex engages tangible reality, stimulated by individual reference (Si)
    inferior (Anima/animus) complex determines what’s desired (good/bad) as stimulated by the environment (Fe)
    Warrior/Amazon (oppositional) complex determines what’s correct (true/false) as stimulated by the environment (Te)
    Witch (Crone)/Senex complex engages the implications of reality, stimulated by individual reference (Ni)
    Trickster complex engages tangible reality, stimulated by the environment (Se)
    Demonic Personality complex determines what’s desired (good/bad) as stimulated by individual reference (Fi)

    ESTJ

    Hero complex (main ego) determines what’s correct (true/false) as stimulated by the environment (Te)
    Parent complex engages tangible reality, stimulated by individual reference (Si)
    Child complex engages the implications of reality, stimulated by the environment (Ne)
    inferior (Anima/animus) complex determines what’s desired (good/bad) as stimulated by individual reference (Fi)
    Warrior/Amazon (oppositional) complex determines what’s correct (true/false) as stimulated by individual reference (Ti)
    Witch (Crone)/Senex complex engages tangible reality, stimulated by the environment (Se)
    Trickster complex engages the implications of reality, stimulated by individual reference (Ni)
    Demonic Personality complex determines what’s desired (good/bad) as stimulated by the environment (Fe)

    ESFJ

    Hero complex (main ego) determines what’s desired (good/bad) as stimulated by the environment (Fe)
    Parent complex engages tangible reality, stimulated by individual reference (Si)
    Child complex engages the implications of reality, stimulated by the environment (Ne)
    inferior (Anima/animus) complex determines what’s correct (true/false) as stimulated by individual reference (Ti)
    Warrior/Amazon (oppositional) complex determines what’s desired (good/bad) as stimulated by individual reference (Fi)
    Witch (Crone)/Senex complex engages tangible reality, stimulated by the environment (Se)
    Trickster complex engages the implications of reality, stimulated by individual reference (Ni)
    Demonic Personality complex determines what’s correct (true/false) as stimulated by the environment (Te)

    ESTP

    Hero complex (main ego) engages tangible reality, stimulated by the environment (Se)
    Parent complex determines what’s correct (true/false) as stimulated by individual reference (Ti)
    Child complex determines what’s desired (good/bad) as stimulated by the environment (Fe)
    inferior (Anima/animus) complex engages the implications of reality, stimulated by individual reference (Ni)
    Warrior/Amazon (oppositional) complex engages tangible reality, stimulated by individual reference (Si)
    Witch (Crone)/Senex complex determines what’s correct (true/false) as stimulated by the environment (Te)
    Trickster complex determines what’s desired (good/bad) as stimulated by individual reference (Fi)
    Demonic Personality complex engages the implications of reality, stimulated by the environment (Ne)

    ESFP

    Hero complex (main ego) engages tangible reality, stimulated by the environment (Se)
    Parent complex determines what’s desired (good/bad) as stimulated by individual reference (Fi)
    Child complex determines what’s correct (true/false) as stimulated by the environment (Te)
    inferior (Anima/animus) complex engages the implications of reality, stimulated by individual reference (Ni)
    Warrior/Amazon (oppositional) complex engages tangible reality, stimulated by individual reference (Si)
    Witch (Crone)/Senex complex determines what’s desired (good/bad) as stimulated by the environment (Fe)
    Trickster complex determines what’s correct (true/false) as stimulated by individual reference (Ti)
    Demonic Personality complex engages the implications of reality, stimulated by the environment (Ne)

    ENFJ

    Hero complex (main ego) determines what’s desired (good/bad) as stimulated by the environment (Fe)
    Parent complex engages the implications of reality, stimulated by individual reference (Ni)
    Child complex engages tangible reality, stimulated by the environment (Se)
    inferior (Anima/animus) complex determines what’s correct (true/false) as stimulated by individual reference (Ti)
    Warrior/Amazon (oppositional) complex determines what’s desired (good/bad) as stimulated by individual reference (Fi)
    Witch (Crone)/Senex complex engages the implications of reality, stimulated by the environment (Ne)
    Trickster complex engages tangible reality, stimulated by individual reference (Si)
    Demonic Personality complex determines what’s correct (true/false) as stimulated by the environment (Te)

    ENFP

    Hero complex (main ego) engages the implications of reality, stimulated by the environment (Ne)
    Parent complex determines what’s desired (good/bad) as stimulated by individual reference (Fi)
    Child complex determines what’s correct (true/false) as stimulated by the environment (Te)
    inferior (Anima/animus) complex engages tangible reality, stimulated by individual reference (Si)
    Warrior/Amazon (oppositional) complex engages the implications of reality, stimulated by individual reference (Ni)
    Witch (Crone)/Senex complex determines what’s desired (good/bad) as stimulated by the environment (Fe)
    Trickster complex determines what’s correct (true/false) as stimulated by individual reference (Ti)
    Demonic Personality complex engages tangible reality, stimulated by the environment (Se)

    ENTJ

    Hero complex (main ego) determines what’s correct (true/false) as stimulated by the environment (Te)
    Parent complex engages the implications of reality, stimulated by individual reference (Ni)
    Child complex engages tangible reality, stimulated by the environment (Se)
    inferior (Anima/animus) complex determines what’s desired (good/bad) as stimulated by individual reference (Fi)
    Warrior/Amazon (oppositional) complex determines what’s correct (true/false) as stimulated by individual reference (Ti)
    Witch (Crone)/Senex complex engages the implications of reality, stimulated by the environment (Ne)
    Trickster complex engages tangible reality, stimulated by individual reference (Si)
    Demonic Personality complex determines what’s desired (good/bad) as stimulated by the environment (Fe)

    ENTP

    Hero complex (main ego) engages the implications of reality, stimulated by the environment (Ne)
    Parent complex determines what’s correct (true/false) as stimulated by individual reference (Ti)
    Child complex determines what’s desired (good/bad) as stimulated by the environment (Fe)
    inferior (Anima/animus) complex engages tangible reality, stimulated by individual reference (Si)
    Warrior/Amazon (oppositional) complex engages the implications of reality, stimulated by individual reference (Ni)
    Witch (Crone)/Senex complex determines what’s correct (true/false) as stimulated by the environment (Te)
    Trickster complex determines what’s desired (good/bad) as stimulated by individual reference (Fi)
    Demonic Personality complex engages tangible reality, stimulated by the environment (Se)

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: