Man…. I dunno who or what you are, but THANK YOU for that website of yours, erictb.info . As an INTJ, for me, that place is a fucking knowledge goldmine on MBTI and other stuff. You just got me busy for at least a week, so damn you, can I’m already busy reading too much stuff!! 😀 I can only assume that you’re an NT, maybe an INTJ, since only an NT would make this sort of thing. Really, I mean… You’re also crazy for just putting this stuff out just like that. You should turn this into a book ASAP. Just sayin’. Cheers, Jonathan.
You’re welcome. (INTP here; Ti models, not Te implementation). Someone needs to put this stuff out, since there is so much misunderstanding of it. Perhaps I’ll write a book sometime.
I was surprised to get this message here, as I have not done any articles on this blog about type. But I had been thinking of it; just didn’t get around to it yet.
Thought you were perhaps an ENTP too at first, but then saw the link to history subway lines. INTP to the bullshit.
You really should work with an INTJ to get some of this shit published hey. Not only for kicks but so people don’t have to read the longer articles on a screen.
Thanks!
Funny, that’s what I always said about ENTP John Beebe, who for a long time did not have a single volume for his theory (just articles scattered around, and otherwise, you had to attend lectures and webinars). I had wished he would team up with INTJ Lenore Thomson, who had adopted parts of his theory (since writing her book with her own tentative model), and had a good handle on Jung’s concepts, and would have provided some good balance. But the big news awhile ago this year; he finally put out his own book. (I wouldn’t mind having her help me write a book, though. But the thing is, I’m very picky about stuff. And I wouldn’t know how to set that up anyway).
Thanks for your site. Although I consider myself reasonably fundamentalist (that is, not to radical proportions), I am politically moderate, enjoy a variety of music, and am sometimes bothered by extreme legalism when it comes to these (and various other) issues; finding your site was a breath of fresh air. You really touch on a lot of things. Before, I only knew of your commentary on the CCM controversy, but I just recently located the link at your new domain, and have found that and a whole lot more. I’m bound to be making a few stops here, from time to time.
INTJ here. You’re an interesting guy although a little hard to follow. I’m sure that’s not the first time you’ve been told that 😀 You are obviously highly intelligent, but I think your intelligence has caused you to draw some faulty conclusions on a particular subject by way of others feeling you are beyond them and so they give up talking to you. Is there a way to speak with you privately to discuss my observation? It could of course be that I am wrong. I would also like to ask you some questions to see if you have considered them in your conclusions.
I teach a toned down class on temperaments… This is my second year and I am planning on giving each student the littaure’s wired that way assessment. What do you think? Do you have any tools you especially like that wouldn’t require certification and a lot of money?
I know that Littauer was associated with LaHaye, and gave nicknames to the temperaments (“Perfect” Melancholy, “Powerful” Choleric, “Popular” Sanguine, “Peaceful” Phlegmatic), but other than that, I don’t know anything about her assessment.
If you’re talking about administering something, I don’t know much in the way of temperament other than Arno Profile System (basically, the FIRO-B adapted for temperament; I think this is the best), which requires certification by taking their “Creation Therapy” course, which is a few hundred dollars.
A good system is Interaction Styles http://www.interactionstyles.com, which are pretty much the four temperaments built into MBTI 16 type theory (In Charge=Choleric, Chart the Course=Melancholy, Get things Going=Sanguine, Behind the Scenes=Phlegmatic. This is in addition to the well-known Keirsey temperaments. In fact, considering each type is a cross of one Interaction Style with one Keirsey temperament, this would match LaHaye’s temperament blends).
They too have certification, but type is something that is not dependent on the MBTI questionnaire or other official instruments to determine type; type is something that can be figured without them, and they have plenty of questionnaires online for the types, just as they do for the classic temperaments. I think they used to have a free assessment on that site, though I’m not seeing it now.
Otherwise, I don’t know of anything good that doesn’t require certification. The ones on the classic temperaments are all “pick the behavior traits out of the lists” (similar to LaHaye’s “blobs” in his books), and I find those to not be very good.
Just figured out how to split off a bunch of comments from a post, into a duplicate post of the same day (instead of creating a new post with new comments).
For those who don’t know how to move comment from a post like this, the common explanations are complicated, and involved an SQL editor, which I don’t even know how to begin using, or plugins, which I don’t even think I can have on this version of WordPress. It’s another one of those computer geek things where you have to already know everything, and the people giving the instructions forget that not everyone knows all this stuff.
So I simply used the export and import features.
I exported Politics, May 2013, and luckily, the Benghazi post I wanted to move comments from was the only one there. (Also exported whole blog as backup)
Then I opened the downloaded post file with Notepad or Wordpad, deleted the Benghazi related comments which are staying in the original article (comments begin and end with a comment id tag), and then, since each comment has its own comment id in series through the whole blog, I got the number of the latest comment, and then renumbered the exported comments in series beginning with the next unused comment id number.
(The comments weren’t in numerical order, for some reason. Perhaps based on edits? I put the numbers in order separately, and then applied the new numbers in according to the original numerical order).
I also renumbered the exported post id number to the next unused post id number after the original post, which was basically [post# + 1].
I also changed the exported time stamp to 23:59:59 the same day (The original post was already 23:41: something, so just making it anything later).
I did these last three steps, to avoid overwriting anything, or any other conflict problem. Don’t know if that’s what would have happened, but wasn’t taking the chance.
I also changed the title.
So then, importing this file, It created a copy of the post title after the first one. The “post slug” (their technical term for the permalink address, especially as it includes the title; see http://john.do/post-slugs) reflected the title change I did (I made it “good liberal responses” for the time being), though the actual title was still copied from the original. I then edited the title in the regular title field, by simply deleting “Right Focuses on Benghazi” and adding “…continued”, so that the current title “Left addresses economics, continued” was what remained. So now it’s a whole new article.
All the comments I moved over were copied to the new post; everything retaining its original date (I that’s why I moved them instead of just copying them and making new comments).
The one thing, was that comments containing only linked photo’s came up blank. All I had to do was go to the original comment and copy the image URL, and edit it into the copy comment.
I was at one point prompted to change the comment “user” name, but all the comments I was moving were by me, so I don’t know how it would have gone with posts by others.
Now, I can delete the comments from the original post, but for now, I’m leaving most of them up (no harm in having them twice; a lot of the stuff can not be repeated too much), and in a few of them, (to try to remove some clutter) replacing with the link to the new comment.
As this comment picked up with the next unused number, and not one of the earlier ones I used to renumber the duplicates; I know that one concern I had is not a problem!
I originally planned to move them to existing post “Latest Political Goings On”, but again, afraid of overwriting it or messing something up
The WordPress.com stats helper monkeys prepared a 2013 annual report for this blog.
Here’s an excerpt:
A New York City subway train holds 1,200 people. This blog was viewed about 7,100 times in 2013. If it were a NYC subway train, it would take about 6 trips to carry that many people.
Eric – really loved your NYC Subway line history. First printed a copy in 2008. Just got going again on the NYC subway and discovered the original link was kaput! Nor did I have an e-mail to send to.
After diligent googling, etc. I finally found your updated link to it. Quite an impressive work and it answers lots of questions I had from comparing various old maps I have.
I am a fan, for sure.
Hi Eric, this is some awesome information you have here and your website. I’ve only just started studying MBTI about a month ago and have read several books about it… I think I’m pretty solid as far as understanding it right now.
One thing that I did notice however is that I seem to be quite equal on both of the dichotomies in nearly all cases, especially T/F and J/P, and I’m still working on figuring out just how much equal I’m on the first two, but I’m pretty sure same goes for S/N. Otherwise, until proven otherwise, I’m pretty sure I’m INXX.
It’s not like I’m being conflicted mentally – on the contrary, I feel like I’m really truly able to use both opposites according to the situation. For example, I know I’m very logical and thinking, but many people confuse me for Feeling, since I really do take people feelings into account a lot, and sometimes exclusively.
To put it simply, i want to know this! It’s just that I really don’t know where to start.. I’m really having hard time keeping up with it and understanding it completely, so I’d really need your help if you could direct me in what steps to study whatever it takes to get to that point. I can get whatever books are necessary and study the material you can provide or recommend.
I’m also very versed in 4 temperaments theory (including DISC). A bit unrelated, and I realize this might sound strange, but I can easily figure out who is which temperament sometimes just by looking at them, and definitely by talking to them. But I don’t want to go way off the subject.
Thank you very much again and really hoping to get your answer and directions. You can also email me anytime. Thanks!
I wouldn’t go by that page. That was just this idea I had years ago, before I fully understood the dynamics of functions, and I was trying to add moderate scales like the APS temperaments (the five temperaments, three areas theory), and since a Socionics site mentioned “ambidextrous functions” (“X”), I figured I’d try to integrate that into type. When I learned that it wouldn’t work with functions, especially after the person credited on the page tried to break down the functions and five of the “types” couldn’t even be determined, as you can see on the page (and really, even APS “moderate” temperaments will lean to one side or the other), I set the whole notion aside, but left that page up as an interesting idea, and threw it to the back of the type series (it’s part 4).
The type dichotomies must be either/or (even if slight), so if you have INXX (and you do seem N to be inquiring on all this stuff), then what remains is which judging attitude you prefer (Ti, Te, Fe, Fe).
So you could read up on the eight function-attitudes to see which you prefer, or you could do it by dichotomies (T/F, J/P). If you have $8 and an e-reader, you could get the book I just reviewed, My True Typehttps://erictb.wordpress.com/2014/08/09/review-of-personality-junkie-my-true-type which is a very good, and relatively short, concise intro to type that breaks it all down. I’ll bet if you read that, you’ll be able to decide the last two. (It also has a little two-part assessment, for both functions and dichotomies).
For now, it seems to me like you’re on the P side (NP, or extraverted iNtuition; openly engaging these ideas), and possibly also T (seem to be focusing on the impersonal side of the theories for the intrigue of it, rather than only employing them for more “person”-focused reasons such as self-growth and relationships).
INP of either T or F stripe seems the same on the surface, fitting the “Steadfastness” (Passive, Open) group, or what’s known in type theory as “Behind the Scenes” (Interaction Styles; introverted, informing). The “informing” or “open” pole makes them softer than all the other Thinkers, so they often get confused as F’s.
Temperaments or types are evident in a person’s behavior, though it’s not infallible, and people can put on masks, or be affected by learned behavior (“nurture”).
I don’t have any contact info for you. Your name and avatar aren’t clickable.
This is most intriguing.. I’d really like to discuss this further if you’d be willing! I definitely got a lot of questions. The email is: light.beyond.horizon at gmail.com.
This is my “spam” email I use from time to time, since I’m worried I might get a lot of spam by just leaving the real one here in the open.
No, I don’t know him at all. He was Just someone I saw years ago in a sort of debate column in the newspaper, against a Jewish critic of Southern Baptist evangelism, (and so he was showing how the Gospel is the fruition of the Torah) so I was defending him against the charges of “intolerance”. This was the article you were referring to: http://www.erictb.info/judaism.html
(Are you related to him?)
You still write! I found one of your articles (http://www.erictb.info/archetypes.html) through a chain of random searching and investigating that is probably not worth recounting… I can’t find where it would be linked on your main site, so I guess I have to thank Google for taking me to it, and hope that it was not disowned 🙂
What brought me here is that your article on the archetypes and the functions was just… I find myself trying to summon so many positive words and synonyms for those words that hardly anything comes out. A great pleasure to read, I can say. I started out skimming (and as it became clear it would be a good resource, going back to other tabs and quickly digesting and closing them) and I think at this point, I’ve read the whole thing front to back (though some parts of it, backwards). It was thorough, and presented in a way that I actually found quite easy to follow — covered at precisely the pace in and precisely the kind of manner that makes for engaging, interesting, nicely-paced information.
I wonder whether if I asked for clarification, examples, and whatnot, you’d indulge me? There were a couple of examples where I struggled to imagine how something would work. (For instance:
“ExTP’s see opponent’s passion in a dispute and try to outdo it themselves in a childish fashion:
•HA! Got you! You’re trying to bind me [I feel bound by the personal side of situations such as universal values and project it onto you] so I’m going to bind you with individual ethical values.”
In this situation, does the ExTP simply try to demonstrate that they can get more upset than the other person? More passionate? More self-righteous/morally correct?). I don’t know how old that article was. I thought perhaps it was from a long time ago, since the site formatting looked like what I remember of browsing the internet in the 2000s… 🙂 (Not meant to insult at all, it was kind of nostalgic.) So it was a very delightful surprise to find that you still write on this stuff. And appear to have quite a bounty of other interests!
I’m going to stop rambling on your comments section now and… maybe get some sleep! Completely worth a bit of sleep deprivation though.
Hi; I actually updated that article last week, though the part you quoted is the same. (It’s fairly old, and I hadn’t been updating it that much, as I have been reformulating my definitions of the functions, and way of expressing the “archetypes” (they’re ultimately something called “ego-states”).
And I left it as just text, and didn’t embellish it with anything (other than a couple of relevant images). I began using the blog for newer, shorter articles, but will still add a new html page when a subject becomes big enough.
So on that one, I really had to stretch my imagination, since I don’t really know many ENTP’s to see offhand (And Beebe himself, who put together this theory is ENTP, but I’ve never seen him express his experience of his own Trickster).
I know that ENTP’s are pretty competitive, and can be aggressive about it (since they are Sanguine-Cholerics; and the Choleric-Sanguine ESTP’s, who have the same “arm” functions and same combination of expressive temperaments will be pretty much the same).
As an INTP, I can go by my own experience of Fi, which is the “Demonic” function, which is like a more extreme version of the Trickster, since both are the deepest “shadow” positions. For me, it’s about feeling a grave threat to the ego, which is because the function and archetype shadows inferior Fe, which concedes soulish (personal/interpersonal) matters to the environment of people. So this is affected by others’ passion, and if feeling too threatened, then it will degrade to its shadow (an individual assessment of personal/interpersonal matters projected onto the others in a very negative way). So then, yes, I pretty much do as you describe, in a subconsciously or unconsciously controlled fashion, usually; going after the threat and trying to outdo it. (It’s why in politics, I’ve been annoyed at how liberals never seem to match the emotional fervor of conservatives, and now; I’m reading a book that addresses that; Dog Whistle Politics; which really nails a lot of stuff. Will review this when I’m finished).
So for ENTP’s, it will be similar, as the Trickster shadows the tertiary or “Child” (which is also still fairly “vulnerable” and immature, but likely stronger than the inferior); but the difference is that it will be more associated with feelings of being double bound by others in some way, and not be quite as bad as the Demonic projection. So I think they’ll have a bit more of a composure to them in that state (and I imagine, may even come off as “taunting” the opponent, like a bully; hence a “bad child” connotation), that also goes with them being extraverts who are more comfortable in the environment anyway. (Since an introverted Trickster will belong to an extravert).
ENTP’s are said to be good as lawyers arguing a case.
I’m an ENFP (I think) Enjoying the Eripedia. I’m worried that i seem to be unable to disagree so far with a lot of what is being said (been stuck in the personality sections) but I am guessing time and growing in knowledge and understanding might change that. Great work. This feels like a gold mine and the clarity of thought makes it a much more interesting read. Great work and thanks
Hey, thank you for all your writings on personality and typology, it helps me a lot to clarify some complex topics, keep doing it. And please, write a book, it would be an amazing contribution for such a misinterpreted subject. As an INFJ, I “puerly” applaud your articles. Incredible work 🙂
Cheers from Brazil.
These are just e-reader versions of the main web articles. I wouldn’t mind having a more professionally published book someday, but for now, this how I can put them out.
I stumbled into your site looking for materials discussing being “in the grip.” And, frankly, I am still digging my way through your archetypes.html page. I have to say I am deeply impressed. I see you have put up a couple of pieces on Academia.edu which I will chase down soon. I am a student of Linda Berens (one of David Kiersey’s students) who is known for her work on Temperament and Interaction Styles. I am also a student of the late Dr. Hunter B. Shirley who developed a very interesting and detailed model of the human mind (emotional/cognitive) system that I have been actively studying for about 28 years.
Recently, since 2016, I re-entered the world of MBTI because I noticed that this model lined up with Hunter’s model on a macro level and that the insights of the Type community were muddied by the macro nature of the model as it is presented. (essentially two-dimensionally) Whereas the discussion of the functions is presented discretely, leaving the question of does a constraint exist that blocks interaction between these functions as implied by the S vs. N dichotomy or the T vs. F? (Not a question I am seriously asking.)
Hunter presented this material in a wholly different context, seeing the mind as having four competing “dimensions” of value that provide the ability to optimize decision making by applying simple decision-making rules based on prior experience. These rules vary based on the type of analysis being applied. In the cognitive range, these decisions are based on what we call reason. In the emotive range, these decisions are based on what could be thought of as decision markets that offer one to four competing solutions. Each of these “markets” has one of three outcomes, opportunity, threat or obstacle. Note that obstacle is necessarily a subset of the opportunity side, but requires a transition to a frustration level or aggressive state. This is a long discussion, but as such this model gives rise to a theory of emotion as well as a theory of reason. MBTI is essentially a theory of reason only which then imputes emotional and behavioral outcomes as if they “just happen” without any explanation of motivation.
Rather, the MBTI model is designed specifically to avoid discussions of “negative” aspects of personality because it was and is designed as a “preference” identification tool. It sorts only for the aspects of personality that respond to opportunity. It avoids the aspect that seeks to avoid threats and the aspect that is employed to overcome challenges, but in documenting the results, these other patterns become exposed as being associated with the opportunity-seeking style that the test identifies. But, because the model doesn’t allow for variations in these linked aspects of personality, sub-types seem to exist but are very difficult for practitioners of this theory to quantify or understand beyond simple arbitrary classification rules.
Kiersey’s work on Temperament exposes the fact that the impact of these four dimensions has been observed for at least two thousand years. But, there are complications as Temperament observations rise both from observed behavior patterns that depend on the underlying nature of the dimensions and their behavioral expression. This is too complex to drop into a note here.
Right now, I am still trying to find the “rosetta stone” that enables a clear rather than intuitive tie between these models. Its a bit of slug through because of the smearing of the types with respect to what one might predict via Hunter’s model which proposes seven basic sub-units that shockingly map on to seven of the sephirot, though in a non-traditional way. This mapping was proposed by several of my Rabbi friends on seeing his model, and I fought it for weeks before agreeing, as it was too odd. The sephirot though are meta-blocks, aspirational in nature vs. the physical/cognitive systems that Hunter was modeling. The missing three blocks turned out to be “software” that is loaded via religious practice, understanding and eventually intuitive acceptance that modifies the underlying system like a Virtualization or like Windows XP running on top of DOS. (yea, that’s how old I am.)
I really appreciate your work in your archetypes page because you really dig into Beebe in new and refreshing ways. And, Beebe’s model gives hints, though I am also concerned that it distorts. However, I am not to the point of really being able to say this or not, at least not yet. The language he uses implies things to me that others might not be seeing, and this just because of my background in Hunter’s work. (especially opposing, and critical parent which imply specific emotional states) Your discussion about this is incredibly rich. As I said, I am still slogging through it.
I took a look at your page on Jews and Christians. You certainly are passionate and well-read. The Lubavich point of view is not normative in the Jewish community. I find the Noahide formulation demeaning to non-Jews, though the underlying sorting rule is fairly good for a gloss understanding of what might be considered “good” for those not under the obligation of Brit (Birthright or Conversion). The problem that brought this forward is the injunction to “be a light to the nations” that Jews, for the most part, take seriously whether they are religious or not. The problem being that some non-religious glom onto various forms of idolatry as their definition of good, and then they attempt to work for that end. However, at the very depths of it I think that your analysis is off of the mark with regards to the nature of Judaism, and because of this the nature of the relationship between Judaism and Christianity.
This would be another discussion that might be better out-of-band. But, these systems cannot be fundmentally made to coexist without some “agree to disagree” as long as you eschew stepping into a forward-looking rather than backward referencing frame of value. And, this is not to imply progressivism, but rather looking to a God-centered ethical system based on our current understanding of humanity and creation in response to revelation. It is a subtle difference, not a great one, as it would sound. But, much of the craziness that surrounds is based on overgeneralizations that fly in the very face of what we know about humanity and the difference between norm or mode and distribution. And, it comes out of the very implications of the fact that each mind is biased to seek success in one of the four dimensions, and the competition for resources that this implies leads to the very clashes of values that lead to the rise and fall of civilizations.
I’m so sorry for not responding! I was on a major project last summer (not even type-related), and your post was so involved, I said I’d have to get back to it, and forgot.
I’ll have to look into that Shirley person. Are there any sites that give illustrations of his model? Not really seeing much on the Wiki article. I’m interested in how it would line up with MBTI, and what you mean by “macro level”.
Yes, Beebe’s model is one of complexes (the personalization of the “archetypes”), and so they all are describing emotional energies (and thus will touch on emotional states, and also expose more of the negative side of type, especially when we get into looking at the Shadows).
I wrote that page on Judaism trying to do my “duty” as a faithful evangelical to prove the Gospel of Jesus Christ to them, refuting the Lubavitcher arguments, as they were the strongest apologetic of Judaism against Christiatity I had ever seen.
But I’ve since changed my view to something called “The Fulfilled View“, which say the judgment, which evangelicals continue to look for in our future, was actually fulfilled in AD70, when the Temple (and the covenant of the Law) was destroyed along with it. Afterward, Grace (God no longer looking at man’s falling short of the Law because of Christ’s righteousness) spread to all unconditionally. So there’s no longer any urgency to convince Jews, or anyone else, of a need to place “personal faith” in Jesus Christ. The “faith that saves” was actualls HIS own faith, not our feeble and still fallible attempts to believe and obey.
Part of the problem of trying to be “The Light of the nations“ is man’s self-righteousness screwing it up (and people being unaware, and in fact in total denial of this), and not just the Jews, but also the Christians, who as you must know, often felt they superseded Israel as the new “Chosen nation”, when colonizing and trying to maintain control over others. It just leads to people judging others, while being corrupt, yet in ignorant of their own sins themselves. . This in fact, was precisely what the Law and the Gospel were showing us! (i.e. that people would be called to be the light of the nations, but no one would ever live up to it, so salvation must be by Grace).
Both groups have been just alike in this, though the Christians are the ones who should have known better.
And yet, now some 30 years after meeting and working with him, I seem to be his primary advocate. A large part of this is simply due to our stupid Copyright system that is actively, but without intension suppressing his work. He died intestate and his kids hated him. His prior ex-wife and one of this daughters were extremely helpful, but in the end, don’t really have that much a say except a negative ability to sabotage. The rights are a hopeless muddle. But, his canon expands 80% past what is in “Mapping the Mind.”
I write mostly on Quora, but I have been mostly quiet as I have been trying to get to a deeper understanding and have had some success, but I am also hitting walls of simply not having anyone to talk to and thus I kind of keep circling on introductory material. And, I want to be banging at the advanced stuff.
Here is some of the things I have written about/using Dr. Shirley’s model.
I struggled for some years questioning if there was proof of Dr. Shirley’s assertions as all of his actual observational notes are not available to me. I have literally almost every other word of his canon in my possession without the right to publish, including several manuscripts in hand writing that we have typed up, but not edited. But, it isn’t like a cult of personality. Hunter was a handful. I knew him for a single year when we studied together. He was just too far ahead of his time and I was too inexperienced to actually make a difference for him. (back in 1990)
The obvious path was to create a photographic record of facial affect, but it turns out this is tougher than you might think because the face wears displays from multiple levels of mental functioning, emotive displays are just a subset and even then, pure emotions are often only fleeting a have low energy. By pure, I mean one of the twelve basic emotions, see links above. Rather, we typically see emotions on a face as couples. Couples are two emotions coupled together responding to a specific cognition within a specific frame of consideration. These really seem to be the primary displays we see in normal ranges of emotional expression. So you learn to look for these and then you can work out the components. But, just as Ekman ended up attempting to use actors to create pictures for publication, I have hit that same wall. Its harder than you think to get these simple pictures because actors words and emotive displays often aren’t synchronous. Often the camera hides this in Hollywood content and copyrights arg. Taking the picture your self forces you to find a way to see what you are doing and do it at the same time. Arg.. And, trying to catch these emotions organically is to be recording constantly ala Google Glass. Its a pain.
This is when I rediscovered Type. I was answering a question on Quora about type and came across a presentation of the 16 types that sparked an insight and sent me doing the mash potatoes thing from “Close Encounters” as I tried to understand why this seemed to link to Hunter’s stuff.
After a few months of struggle with it, I re-arranged the blocks to match Hunter’s arrangement of the four dimensions from all of his diagrams.. and bang.. these lined up. Kinda. Much of this stuff is unpublished.
This is the diagram I came across.. but I can’t find who originally produced it.
This wasn’t up anywhere so I put it on Pinterest.. for now. You can see it is subtly different. This was produced in 2016. Lots of water over the dam since then.
In 2017, I joined ATPi and met with the folks who are most active in MBTI and Type. This was somewhat productive but of mixed outcome because I was in such a different world and struggling to deal with the MBTI mindset which is Behavioralist in its basic non-interest in cause, motivation or even clarity. MBTI is approached as a cluster of behaviors associated with personality types that are identified by a limited test that only measures a subset of the behaviors it goes on to opine about. Its easy to knock it but in fact, its not as bad as it seems on the surface.
The diagrams above are a classification by interior function. This maps to four corners that approximate Hunter’s four dimensions. But, by their nature these functions are lines, not points, S-T vs T-N vs N-F vs S-F. This is because it is actually a two dimensional presentation where the axis are S vs N and T vs F. This is beginner stuff for MBTI. Sorry to bang on it but Jung and MBTI crowd immediately ignore these axes and treat the four designations as discrete clusters. Si, Se, Ti, Te, Fi, Fe, and Ni and Ne. And, these eight mental processes are able to be reproduced by any individual experientially by guided training.
This is where my heart ache starts. Si and Se clearly map onto the Identity Dimension in Hunter’s work. Fe and Fi map onto Affinity, Ni and Ne map onto Diversity and Ti and Te map onto Sequentiality which Hunter called Mobility. And, yet they don’t. They are much more “smeary”
Hunter’s diagram of the “human control system” is below.
The MBTI functions smear this diagram together left to right being associated with the S-N axis, and up to down being associated with the F-T axis. (Mood and Libido are excluded from MBTI world) While also being linked to the four dimensions that are common to each of the blocks of the control system.
Hunter’s blocks are definitional rather than real functional blocks. They represent functional descriptions of mental processes that differ enough from the next block as to be separately identifiable. The neuroscientific reality is somewhat different, but models have their purposes and this one actually helps in conceptualizing and naming the various states and processes occurring.
I wanted to say I’m blown away by your work and incredibly grateful. Thank you.
I was curious — you mention the fact that you married an actual Fe, as opposed to projecting your Fe onto Si dominant women. That makes a lot of sense. I’ve been trying to understanding the Jungian perspective on this for a while. Is this phenomenon written about anywhere? i.e. Removing the anima projection but then actually finding someone of that type, genuinely?
Do you find the relationship offers you the opportunity to learn about your inferior function, and that is full of life and energy?
I can’t find the link right now, but did you ever read that bit by Jung about the patient who was looking to get married for a while, finally met someone, and had a dream where the Midgard Serpent emerged from behind a mountain? Jung then exclaims something like: “That! That is who you marry!” That’s the only place where I’ve seen Jung comment on who someone “should” marry, on what seems like a technical level, and now I can’t even find it.
Do you think that might be this same phenomenon? I could see that serpent representing the inferior function and the image showing up as authentic understanding coming into consciousness, but I’m not sure.
I’ve noticed many other MBTI sites seem to suggest pairs like INFJ – ENFP as the ideal love relationship. I’m guessing you disagree with that?
Any more info on this topic would be great, if you get a chance. And, thanks again so much for everything.
I’m not sure where it’s written about. Things like that you would usually find here and there in Jungian discussions by experts. Never heard of that analogy by Jung either, but yeah, that’s probably what he’s getting at.
I think it does give the opportunity to learn about the inferior function, because it’s now constantly in my face. It does make me feel guilty a lot of the time, since I feel I’m failing in what is her best area, and I’m used to SiTeFi types who basically punish you (in one way or another) for your shortcomings.
The key for me is Interaction Styles, where F+S falls on the “informative” (people focused, softer in communication), where anything Te (TJ) is purely “directive”, and can be cold/blunt/tough.
An NFP might be more drawn to a directive type, and many INTPs can handle it as well. What will be most important in those hookups is the common iNtuition, even though it’s oriented opposite ways (NJ=Ni; NP=Ne). With the attitudes reversed, you’re still drawn to the same sorts of topics, though you have to be aware of misunderstanding each other, since the perceptions (or judgments) are coming from different (internal/external) standards.
Again, NJ’s are directive, (and Ni in particular will jump to conclusions about your motives or character) so I would have a hard time relating to them. It depends largely on your experiences and life issues. My wife, however, has a strong tertiary Ne, and I have a strong tertiary Si, so that helps us meet on common ground. Otherwise, we would probably not click.
Thanks so much for the thorough response! I really appreciate it!
One other question I had was: What is the overall objective here? I don’t think I understand the purpose of “preferences.” Is it preferable to be more typed (acting in line with your preferences)? Or to try and see all perspectives absent complexes? I’m trying to understand this relative to the fact that we have limited time and resources.
Taking your example above of writing a book with Lenore Thomson. You said you’d like to do it but then ”And I wouldn’t know how to set that up anyway.”
I’m assuming you’re referring to the kind of networking / agenting involved in setting up a deal like that. Is that right?
I had a strong, affect-laden reaction to that. I was like: “Dude just be more of an ENTJ about this. You sound like such an INTP.“ (In my mind, ENTJ’s are pretty good at doing this kind of breaking down wall / deal-making type of thing). But then I was torn because I was like then you would have less time to be your wonderful self who digs in deep to actually understands this and provides all of this information for us and clearly has all these other interests. Then, I was like — Wouldn’t it be nice if he linked up with some more ENTJ kind of guy who just handled this for him? Or “What if he was just a littttle bit more ENTJ about this?” And then, who knows!
Is the underlying premise here that our collective interdependence is hinged on honoring one’s preferences / nature? And that that is the actual, unbiased, mechanical ordering of reality? And this is where the whole spiritual / astrological / Taoist component ties in? That if you continue to be as you are, putting stuff out there, and keep enjoying yourself, that is best?
Because like, if you try to be an ENTJ you’re going to just tire yourself out and be grumpy and ultimately less productive?
Or is it like — “Be more of an ENTJ about this! You’re so focused on the theoretical you’re getting eaten in the dog-fight that is real life!” And you’re stuck in your dominant orientation?
Even absent the complexes, are certain functions just more strenuous / energy consuming to use?
I get that it’s situation dependent, but I’m wondering if there is some guidance in here.
I realize I may have misconstrued / fantasized around your comment, and this is potentially / likely reflective of some issue of my own. But maybe the question is still clear without all my bias.
I also grew up in an SiTeFI household, so I thought understanding the basis of all this might be helpful for me.
I had had a correspondence with Lenore, and she’s the one who pointed out that Jung had seen these preferences as a “wound on the soul”. Reality in itself is undivided, yet our immersion into it divides it into these polarities. I compare it to the dimensions of space time; if we’re looking east, then whatever lies in that direction enters our consciousness, while west is totally unconscious, and north and south are partially conscious (up/down and past/future are also split).
So a hypothetical ideal would be to process all functional perspectives equally. But our ego structure won’t allow it. So the functions are either “undifferentiated” (which she also explained to me), like where we can all see, hear, touch, etc. in the present moment, but we’re not all necessarily “using Se”. It’s only differentiated, in Jung’s theory, when the function and attitude are taken up by the ego (where it becomes the “dominant function”), or, by extension (Myers/Grant/Beebe) the other complexes (starting with the auxiliary “caretaker”). These complexes are what pay special attention to the associated function-attitude.
So yes, it’s hard to go against the complexes and try to pay special attention to unpreferred functions. Again, hypothetically, it would be ideal if we did, but then that depends on growth. One way is that when we mature and become more aware of the lower complexes (the inferior and the Shadows) then we experience more positive manifestations of the associated functions.
Yeah, as for writing a book, that might come more naturally for a Te type, and is probably why Beebe was so slow in publishing one. I had before been saying it would be nice for Lenore (an INTJ) to collaborate with him. (She’s also a ghostwriter; not sure for whom or what type of books even, but then she is obviously good at getting books out, even though she only has one in her name, at least as far as type is concerned).
I look at the types in terms of classic temperament combinations, and ENTJ is the “pure Choleric”, while INTP is Choleric blended with something else. NT is the common Choleric, in the “leadership” area (where ENTJ is Choleric socially as well; that’s what the Interaction Styles are about). So I don’t have the surface level drive like the ENTJ, but I still have the NT independence, and having my own intuitive logical sense of how things should be. I feel I would just clash with an ENTJ, and they would be too forceful. i do essentially try to be one all the time, in debates, but ultimately still not good at it, because of the opposite Interaction Style. On the functional level, ENTJ/INTP are “Contrast” (Type Logic system), and our functions are each other’s shadows, so Te is my “opposing personality”, and Ni, my “Senex” (critical parent). The first one feels like an “obstruction” to my sense of Truth (Ti), and the second one is associated with feelings of negation of the ego. It would be good to take them into consideration more (the OP is supposed to “back up” the dominant so it doesn’t become “one sided”, and the Senex is supposed to become the “Wise Old Man” that also offers depth to one’s perspective).
Yeah; but trying to adopt the perspective of other types artificially would only take away from who you really are, and your natural talents. You just grow, and then becoming aware of the inferior function is supposed to be the bridge to the Shadow (still trying to fully understand what that’s all about).
Wow. This makes a lot of sense. Thanks for the detailed info. So cool you chatted with Lenore on all that!
Right — by “be more an ENTJ” I was also getting at forcing oneself to learn or discipline oneself in ways against ones nature (reading a bunch of business books, etc.). I think that lines up with what you’re saying about artificially taking away from who you are.
I’m pretty sure I was one of those forced away from their natural inclination in childhood. So, that’s what I was wrestling with a bit there and is always a little tricky for me. I am also pretty sure I am an INFJ (which it’s difficult to say given how many people online think they’re INFJ’s), which also makes this perspective-shifting tempting.
It sounds like what you’re saying is that even in hypothetical ideal, one of the perspectives would be a Ti perspective, right? Which would be telling one one’s natural inclination, typologically (or something similar related to one’s self)? As in, for an INFJ, the ideal view includes something like “Yeah dude, but you’re fundamentally an INFJ, so even though I’m showing you what’s logical about the situation, it’s MOST logical for you to trust your hunches and the patterns that seem to come from within, using my very developed mechanical perspective to inform that.” I think that’s what you’re saying, which is comforting.
By “ideal”, I meant, basically “XXXX” (all equally “preferred”, rather than an “ideal view” for each type). All of the type preferences are divisions (splitting) of reality. So yes, that would include a Ti perspective, but Te would be equal, as would Fi and Fe, and the perception functions.
Of course, there is no XXXX type that can see and process undivided reality like that, but the goal is to try to become more aware of unpreferred perspectives more, while still holding onto what’s preferred.
Yeah that makes more sense than what I was thinking thank you for the clarification. Maybe then that XXXX might be the source of dreams and the “compensation” Jung talks about occurring via the dream images, which I’ve never really understood, is towards that perspective.
Hey Eric, I would like to ask you some questions regarding a project that I am working on. Let me know if you can reach out to me by email or if there is an email I can reach out to you by. I could not find a publicly available email, so I figured this was my next best option. Keep me posted. Hope to hear back soon. Thank you.
Hi Eric. I appreciate your information on temperaments. I saw what you had written about a Choleric/Supine, that you’d never met one before and were curious. In our christian premarital counseling, my husband tested as a Choleric/Supine while I tested as a Melancholic/Supine. We are both devout believers with very similar goals, work ethic and ideals. We are very synergistic and work very well together. Spending time with one another never gets old for either one of us. He tends to be a little more quiet than the normal choleric, but he is still very much a Choleric. The world outside along with all of its outsiders can easily get tedious, frustrating and irritating to both of us in different ways, but our safety and trust in one another brings out an unusual sensitivity from both of us as well as brings our secondary servant supines. We have a very deep and loyal bond. If I, as a woman, were the Choleric and he the male Melancholic, I’m not sure it would work so well. I can be a leader for his home and have no problem executing tasks and responsibilities as I also am happy to fall under his leadership which I have so much trust in. He is receptive to my thoughts and opinions, and I respect his decisions. Our disagreements do not bring in too much emotion and are discussed with the purpose of a solution and therefore do not typically lead to quarrels or fights. It’s almost literally a match made in Heaven. Being that you had expressed a curiosity with the Choleric/Supine, I though I might give you a brief peek at what my life with one looks like as I simultaneously thank you for your blogs and writings on different temperaments and personalitiea.
Thank you very much! Not sure where or when I said that, but I’ve realized more that Inclusion (the “surface” or first temperament) is what we will look like at first glance. Control (the secondary one, which I’ve begun describing as our “resolve” tendency, or how much we defend our will in situations) is a deeper level of temperament, that you won’t see as readily, until you get into “control” situations with the person. So I’m sure you two will look pretty much like a normal Choleric and a Melancholy on the surface, but as both Supine in Control, you’ll both be more “receptive” (i.e. “responsive”; high “Wanted”; I believe my terms are more to the point) to the will of others (including each other, of course), in resolve. Overall, this will give a softer, more personable or sensitive disposition than either a pure Choleric or Melancholy (the low “receptive” temperaments; the Choleric being very competative, and the Melancholy very guarded), and the Choleric will be toned down a bit. And that’s how your descriptions sound.
I was curious because it’s the total opposite of my blend. I’m passive and agreeable on the surface, yet fight to the finish in resolve. It’s frustrating having the diametric opposite temperaments pulling in two different ways. I imagine having the Choleric out front might be easier socially, since “the surface” will tend to be what people judge you by, and only when closer will the people you’ve selectively allowed in see the more passive side (which then is described in the temperament manuals as getting people to basically take care of them).
I had also been over the years correlating the temperament system to the more popular MBTI, and Choleric/Supine and Melancholy/Supine would correlate to ENFJ and INFJ, respectively. (NF is the Supine in Control, and the other two letters would make up Inclusion). So do you know your types, and would they match like that? (That would also explain from the typological ‘lens’, your compatibility).
Making this correlation allowed me to look at ENFJ’s to get a sense of what Choleric/Supines are like. Oprah is universally recognized as ENFJ, and people close to her describe her in a way that is very Choleric. But overall, you see a blend of traits, as Choleric is a naturally “Thinking” type (T; more “impersonal”, as the temperaments descriptions agree), while she is a “Feeling” type (F; more “personal” in focus). The blend may look overall Sanguine, but in surface “inclusion”, she is in practice lower in receptivity. (She could also be Phlegmatic in Control, which will be similar). The purest Choleric matches ENTJ. (Choleric in both areas). So then there are other ENFJ’s I know, to see what likely C/S are like.
Now, if you were to swap Inclusion temperaments, that might go against the traditional marriage roles, as the male is ‘supposed’ to be more aggressive. Don’t know of any couples of those two types, so yeah, it might be more difficult. The pure Supine (INFP) male might be more drawn to a Choleric woman.
"ERIPEDIA" 
Man…. I dunno who or what you are, but THANK YOU for that website of yours, erictb.info . As an INTJ, for me, that place is a fucking knowledge goldmine on MBTI and other stuff. You just got me busy for at least a week, so damn you, can I’m already busy reading too much stuff!! 😀 I can only assume that you’re an NT, maybe an INTJ, since only an NT would make this sort of thing. Really, I mean… You’re also crazy for just putting this stuff out just like that. You should turn this into a book ASAP. Just sayin’. Cheers, Jonathan.
You’re welcome. (INTP here; Ti models, not Te implementation). Someone needs to put this stuff out, since there is so much misunderstanding of it. Perhaps I’ll write a book sometime.
I was surprised to get this message here, as I have not done any articles on this blog about type. But I had been thinking of it; just didn’t get around to it yet.
ENTP here. Very impressed.
Thought you were perhaps an ENTP too at first, but then saw the link to history subway lines. INTP to the bullshit.
You really should work with an INTJ to get some of this shit published hey. Not only for kicks but so people don’t have to read the longer articles on a screen.
Appreciate your work.
Thanks!
Funny, that’s what I always said about ENTP John Beebe, who for a long time did not have a single volume for his theory (just articles scattered around, and otherwise, you had to attend lectures and webinars). I had wished he would team up with INTJ Lenore Thomson, who had adopted parts of his theory (since writing her book with her own tentative model), and had a good handle on Jung’s concepts, and would have provided some good balance. But the big news awhile ago this year; he finally put out his own book. (I wouldn’t mind having her help me write a book, though. But the thing is, I’m very picky about stuff. And I wouldn’t know how to set that up anyway).
Thanks for your site. Although I consider myself reasonably fundamentalist (that is, not to radical proportions), I am politically moderate, enjoy a variety of music, and am sometimes bothered by extreme legalism when it comes to these (and various other) issues; finding your site was a breath of fresh air. You really touch on a lot of things. Before, I only knew of your commentary on the CCM controversy, but I just recently located the link at your new domain, and have found that and a whole lot more. I’m bound to be making a few stops here, from time to time.
Thank you very much. Happy to be of assistance!
INTJ here. You’re an interesting guy although a little hard to follow. I’m sure that’s not the first time you’ve been told that 😀 You are obviously highly intelligent, but I think your intelligence has caused you to draw some faulty conclusions on a particular subject by way of others feeling you are beyond them and so they give up talking to you. Is there a way to speak with you privately to discuss my observation? It could of course be that I am wrong. I would also like to ask you some questions to see if you have considered them in your conclusions.
I teach a toned down class on temperaments… This is my second year and I am planning on giving each student the littaure’s wired that way assessment. What do you think? Do you have any tools you especially like that wouldn’t require certification and a lot of money?
I know that Littauer was associated with LaHaye, and gave nicknames to the temperaments (“Perfect” Melancholy, “Powerful” Choleric, “Popular” Sanguine, “Peaceful” Phlegmatic), but other than that, I don’t know anything about her assessment.
If you’re talking about administering something, I don’t know much in the way of temperament other than Arno Profile System (basically, the FIRO-B adapted for temperament; I think this is the best), which requires certification by taking their “Creation Therapy” course, which is a few hundred dollars.
A good system is Interaction Styles http://www.interactionstyles.com, which are pretty much the four temperaments built into MBTI 16 type theory (In Charge=Choleric, Chart the Course=Melancholy, Get things Going=Sanguine, Behind the Scenes=Phlegmatic. This is in addition to the well-known Keirsey temperaments. In fact, considering each type is a cross of one Interaction Style with one Keirsey temperament, this would match LaHaye’s temperament blends).
They too have certification, but type is something that is not dependent on the MBTI questionnaire or other official instruments to determine type; type is something that can be figured without them, and they have plenty of questionnaires online for the types, just as they do for the classic temperaments. I think they used to have a free assessment on that site, though I’m not seeing it now.
Otherwise, I don’t know of anything good that doesn’t require certification. The ones on the classic temperaments are all “pick the behavior traits out of the lists” (similar to LaHaye’s “blobs” in his books), and I find those to not be very good.
Just figured out how to split off a bunch of comments from a post, into a duplicate post of the same day (instead of creating a new post with new comments).
For those who don’t know how to move comment from a post like this, the common explanations are complicated, and involved an SQL editor, which I don’t even know how to begin using, or plugins, which I don’t even think I can have on this version of WordPress. It’s another one of those computer geek things where you have to already know everything, and the people giving the instructions forget that not everyone knows all this stuff.
So I simply used the export and import features.
I exported Politics, May 2013, and luckily, the Benghazi post I wanted to move comments from was the only one there. (Also exported whole blog as backup)
Then I opened the downloaded post file with Notepad or Wordpad, deleted the Benghazi related comments which are staying in the original article (comments begin and end with a comment id tag), and then, since each comment has its own comment id in series through the whole blog, I got the number of the latest comment, and then renumbered the exported comments in series beginning with the next unused comment id number.
(The comments weren’t in numerical order, for some reason. Perhaps based on edits? I put the numbers in order separately, and then applied the new numbers in according to the original numerical order).
I also renumbered the exported post id number to the next unused post id number after the original post, which was basically [post# + 1].
I also changed the exported time stamp to 23:59:59 the same day (The original post was already 23:41: something, so just making it anything later).
I did these last three steps, to avoid overwriting anything, or any other conflict problem. Don’t know if that’s what would have happened, but wasn’t taking the chance.
I also changed the title.
So then, importing this file, It created a copy of the post title after the first one. The “post slug” (their technical term for the permalink address, especially as it includes the title; see http://john.do/post-slugs) reflected the title change I did (I made it “good liberal responses” for the time being), though the actual title was still copied from the original. I then edited the title in the regular title field, by simply deleting “Right Focuses on Benghazi” and adding “…continued”, so that the current title “Left addresses economics, continued” was what remained. So now it’s a whole new article.
All the comments I moved over were copied to the new post; everything retaining its original date (I that’s why I moved them instead of just copying them and making new comments).
The one thing, was that comments containing only linked photo’s came up blank. All I had to do was go to the original comment and copy the image URL, and edit it into the copy comment.
I was at one point prompted to change the comment “user” name, but all the comments I was moving were by me, so I don’t know how it would have gone with posts by others.
Now, I can delete the comments from the original post, but for now, I’m leaving most of them up (no harm in having them twice; a lot of the stuff can not be repeated too much), and in a few of them, (to try to remove some clutter) replacing with the link to the new comment.
As this comment picked up with the next unused number, and not one of the earlier ones I used to renumber the duplicates; I know that one concern I had is not a problem!
I originally planned to move them to existing post “Latest Political Goings On”, but again, afraid of overwriting it or messing something up
The WordPress.com stats helper monkeys prepared a 2013 annual report for this blog.
Here’s an excerpt:
Click here to see the complete report.
Eric – really loved your NYC Subway line history. First printed a copy in 2008. Just got going again on the NYC subway and discovered the original link was kaput! Nor did I have an e-mail to send to.
After diligent googling, etc. I finally found your updated link to it. Quite an impressive work and it answers lots of questions I had from comparing various old maps I have.
I am a fan, for sure.
Thanks! That was when AOL just dumped all the user space. No way to even put up redirect links or anything.
Hi Eric, this is some awesome information you have here and your website. I’ve only just started studying MBTI about a month ago and have read several books about it… I think I’m pretty solid as far as understanding it right now.
One thing that I did notice however is that I seem to be quite equal on both of the dichotomies in nearly all cases, especially T/F and J/P, and I’m still working on figuring out just how much equal I’m on the first two, but I’m pretty sure same goes for S/N. Otherwise, until proven otherwise, I’m pretty sure I’m INXX.
It’s not like I’m being conflicted mentally – on the contrary, I feel like I’m really truly able to use both opposites according to the situation. For example, I know I’m very logical and thinking, but many people confuse me for Feeling, since I really do take people feelings into account a lot, and sometimes exclusively.
So the actual reason I’m contacting you is this page here: http://erictb.info/dynamictype.html
To put it simply, i want to know this! It’s just that I really don’t know where to start.. I’m really having hard time keeping up with it and understanding it completely, so I’d really need your help if you could direct me in what steps to study whatever it takes to get to that point. I can get whatever books are necessary and study the material you can provide or recommend.
I’m also very versed in 4 temperaments theory (including DISC). A bit unrelated, and I realize this might sound strange, but I can easily figure out who is which temperament sometimes just by looking at them, and definitely by talking to them. But I don’t want to go way off the subject.
Thank you very much again and really hoping to get your answer and directions. You can also email me anytime. Thanks!
I wouldn’t go by that page. That was just this idea I had years ago, before I fully understood the dynamics of functions, and I was trying to add moderate scales like the APS temperaments (the five temperaments, three areas theory), and since a Socionics site mentioned “ambidextrous functions” (“X”), I figured I’d try to integrate that into type. When I learned that it wouldn’t work with functions, especially after the person credited on the page tried to break down the functions and five of the “types” couldn’t even be determined, as you can see on the page (and really, even APS “moderate” temperaments will lean to one side or the other), I set the whole notion aside, but left that page up as an interesting idea, and threw it to the back of the type series (it’s part 4).
The type dichotomies must be either/or (even if slight), so if you have INXX (and you do seem N to be inquiring on all this stuff), then what remains is which judging attitude you prefer (Ti, Te, Fe, Fe).
So you could read up on the eight function-attitudes to see which you prefer, or you could do it by dichotomies (T/F, J/P). If you have $8 and an e-reader, you could get the book I just reviewed, My True Type https://erictb.wordpress.com/2014/08/09/review-of-personality-junkie-my-true-type which is a very good, and relatively short, concise intro to type that breaks it all down. I’ll bet if you read that, you’ll be able to decide the last two. (It also has a little two-part assessment, for both functions and dichotomies).
For now, it seems to me like you’re on the P side (NP, or extraverted iNtuition; openly engaging these ideas), and possibly also T (seem to be focusing on the impersonal side of the theories for the intrigue of it, rather than only employing them for more “person”-focused reasons such as self-growth and relationships).
INP of either T or F stripe seems the same on the surface, fitting the “Steadfastness” (Passive, Open) group, or what’s known in type theory as “Behind the Scenes” (Interaction Styles; introverted, informing). The “informing” or “open” pole makes them softer than all the other Thinkers, so they often get confused as F’s.
Temperaments or types are evident in a person’s behavior, though it’s not infallible, and people can put on masks, or be affected by learned behavior (“nurture”).
I don’t have any contact info for you. Your name and avatar aren’t clickable.
This is most intriguing.. I’d really like to discuss this further if you’d be willing! I definitely got a lot of questions. The email is: light.beyond.horizon at gmail.com.
This is my “spam” email I use from time to time, since I’m worried I might get a lot of spam by just leaving the real one here in the open.
Thanks!!
Do you know Dan Kammerdiener. I read an article where you were quoting him as he was a Baptist standing up for the Torah.
No, I don’t know him at all. He was Just someone I saw years ago in a sort of debate column in the newspaper, against a Jewish critic of Southern Baptist evangelism, (and so he was showing how the Gospel is the fruition of the Torah) so I was defending him against the charges of “intolerance”. This was the article you were referring to: http://www.erictb.info/judaism.html
(Are you related to him?)
You still write! I found one of your articles (http://www.erictb.info/archetypes.html) through a chain of random searching and investigating that is probably not worth recounting… I can’t find where it would be linked on your main site, so I guess I have to thank Google for taking me to it, and hope that it was not disowned 🙂
What brought me here is that your article on the archetypes and the functions was just… I find myself trying to summon so many positive words and synonyms for those words that hardly anything comes out. A great pleasure to read, I can say. I started out skimming (and as it became clear it would be a good resource, going back to other tabs and quickly digesting and closing them) and I think at this point, I’ve read the whole thing front to back (though some parts of it, backwards). It was thorough, and presented in a way that I actually found quite easy to follow — covered at precisely the pace in and precisely the kind of manner that makes for engaging, interesting, nicely-paced information.
I wonder whether if I asked for clarification, examples, and whatnot, you’d indulge me? There were a couple of examples where I struggled to imagine how something would work. (For instance:
“ExTP’s see opponent’s passion in a dispute and try to outdo it themselves in a childish fashion:
•HA! Got you! You’re trying to bind me [I feel bound by the personal side of situations such as universal values and project it onto you] so I’m going to bind you with individual ethical values.”
In this situation, does the ExTP simply try to demonstrate that they can get more upset than the other person? More passionate? More self-righteous/morally correct?). I don’t know how old that article was. I thought perhaps it was from a long time ago, since the site formatting looked like what I remember of browsing the internet in the 2000s… 🙂 (Not meant to insult at all, it was kind of nostalgic.) So it was a very delightful surprise to find that you still write on this stuff. And appear to have quite a bounty of other interests!
I’m going to stop rambling on your comments section now and… maybe get some sleep! Completely worth a bit of sleep deprivation though.
Hi; I actually updated that article last week, though the part you quoted is the same. (It’s fairly old, and I hadn’t been updating it that much, as I have been reformulating my definitions of the functions, and way of expressing the “archetypes” (they’re ultimately something called “ego-states”).
And I left it as just text, and didn’t embellish it with anything (other than a couple of relevant images). I began using the blog for newer, shorter articles, but will still add a new html page when a subject becomes big enough.
So on that one, I really had to stretch my imagination, since I don’t really know many ENTP’s to see offhand (And Beebe himself, who put together this theory is ENTP, but I’ve never seen him express his experience of his own Trickster).
I know that ENTP’s are pretty competitive, and can be aggressive about it (since they are Sanguine-Cholerics; and the Choleric-Sanguine ESTP’s, who have the same “arm” functions and same combination of expressive temperaments will be pretty much the same).
As an INTP, I can go by my own experience of Fi, which is the “Demonic” function, which is like a more extreme version of the Trickster, since both are the deepest “shadow” positions. For me, it’s about feeling a grave threat to the ego, which is because the function and archetype shadows inferior Fe, which concedes soulish (personal/interpersonal) matters to the environment of people. So this is affected by others’ passion, and if feeling too threatened, then it will degrade to its shadow (an individual assessment of personal/interpersonal matters projected onto the others in a very negative way). So then, yes, I pretty much do as you describe, in a subconsciously or unconsciously controlled fashion, usually; going after the threat and trying to outdo it. (It’s why in politics, I’ve been annoyed at how liberals never seem to match the emotional fervor of conservatives, and now; I’m reading a book that addresses that; Dog Whistle Politics; which really nails a lot of stuff. Will review this when I’m finished).
So for ENTP’s, it will be similar, as the Trickster shadows the tertiary or “Child” (which is also still fairly “vulnerable” and immature, but likely stronger than the inferior); but the difference is that it will be more associated with feelings of being double bound by others in some way, and not be quite as bad as the Demonic projection. So I think they’ll have a bit more of a composure to them in that state (and I imagine, may even come off as “taunting” the opponent, like a bully; hence a “bad child” connotation), that also goes with them being extraverts who are more comfortable in the environment anyway. (Since an introverted Trickster will belong to an extravert).
ENTP’s are said to be good as lawyers arguing a case.
I’m an ENFP (I think) Enjoying the Eripedia. I’m worried that i seem to be unable to disagree so far with a lot of what is being said (been stuck in the personality sections) but I am guessing time and growing in knowledge and understanding might change that. Great work. This feels like a gold mine and the clarity of thought makes it a much more interesting read. Great work and thanks
Thanks a lot! Glad to be of interest!
Hey, thank you for all your writings on personality and typology, it helps me a lot to clarify some complex topics, keep doing it. And please, write a book, it would be an amazing contribution for such a misinterpreted subject. As an INFJ, I “puerly” applaud your articles. Incredible work 🙂
Cheers from Brazil.
Thanks/Your Welcome!
I technically do have books out, though on Academia:
https://www.academia.edu/35268715/PERSONALITY_MATRIX.docx
https://www.academia.edu/35452442/The_Dynamics_of_the_Four_Letter_Code_and_Function_Stack_putting_it_all_together
These are just e-reader versions of the main web articles. I wouldn’t mind having a more professionally published book someday, but for now, this how I can put them out.
I stumbled into your site looking for materials discussing being “in the grip.” And, frankly, I am still digging my way through your archetypes.html page. I have to say I am deeply impressed. I see you have put up a couple of pieces on Academia.edu which I will chase down soon. I am a student of Linda Berens (one of David Kiersey’s students) who is known for her work on Temperament and Interaction Styles. I am also a student of the late Dr. Hunter B. Shirley who developed a very interesting and detailed model of the human mind (emotional/cognitive) system that I have been actively studying for about 28 years.
Recently, since 2016, I re-entered the world of MBTI because I noticed that this model lined up with Hunter’s model on a macro level and that the insights of the Type community were muddied by the macro nature of the model as it is presented. (essentially two-dimensionally) Whereas the discussion of the functions is presented discretely, leaving the question of does a constraint exist that blocks interaction between these functions as implied by the S vs. N dichotomy or the T vs. F? (Not a question I am seriously asking.)
Hunter presented this material in a wholly different context, seeing the mind as having four competing “dimensions” of value that provide the ability to optimize decision making by applying simple decision-making rules based on prior experience. These rules vary based on the type of analysis being applied. In the cognitive range, these decisions are based on what we call reason. In the emotive range, these decisions are based on what could be thought of as decision markets that offer one to four competing solutions. Each of these “markets” has one of three outcomes, opportunity, threat or obstacle. Note that obstacle is necessarily a subset of the opportunity side, but requires a transition to a frustration level or aggressive state. This is a long discussion, but as such this model gives rise to a theory of emotion as well as a theory of reason. MBTI is essentially a theory of reason only which then imputes emotional and behavioral outcomes as if they “just happen” without any explanation of motivation.
Rather, the MBTI model is designed specifically to avoid discussions of “negative” aspects of personality because it was and is designed as a “preference” identification tool. It sorts only for the aspects of personality that respond to opportunity. It avoids the aspect that seeks to avoid threats and the aspect that is employed to overcome challenges, but in documenting the results, these other patterns become exposed as being associated with the opportunity-seeking style that the test identifies. But, because the model doesn’t allow for variations in these linked aspects of personality, sub-types seem to exist but are very difficult for practitioners of this theory to quantify or understand beyond simple arbitrary classification rules.
Kiersey’s work on Temperament exposes the fact that the impact of these four dimensions has been observed for at least two thousand years. But, there are complications as Temperament observations rise both from observed behavior patterns that depend on the underlying nature of the dimensions and their behavioral expression. This is too complex to drop into a note here.
Dr. Shirley’s book is still available on Amazon, “Mapping the Mind” ©1983 Nelson-Hall. The psychologists that I have suggested it to say it’s a psych book that only an engineer could love. That’s not a knock in my eyes.
Right now, I am still trying to find the “rosetta stone” that enables a clear rather than intuitive tie between these models. Its a bit of slug through because of the smearing of the types with respect to what one might predict via Hunter’s model which proposes seven basic sub-units that shockingly map on to seven of the sephirot, though in a non-traditional way. This mapping was proposed by several of my Rabbi friends on seeing his model, and I fought it for weeks before agreeing, as it was too odd. The sephirot though are meta-blocks, aspirational in nature vs. the physical/cognitive systems that Hunter was modeling. The missing three blocks turned out to be “software” that is loaded via religious practice, understanding and eventually intuitive acceptance that modifies the underlying system like a Virtualization or like Windows XP running on top of DOS. (yea, that’s how old I am.)
I really appreciate your work in your archetypes page because you really dig into Beebe in new and refreshing ways. And, Beebe’s model gives hints, though I am also concerned that it distorts. However, I am not to the point of really being able to say this or not, at least not yet. The language he uses implies things to me that others might not be seeing, and this just because of my background in Hunter’s work. (especially opposing, and critical parent which imply specific emotional states) Your discussion about this is incredibly rich. As I said, I am still slogging through it.
I took a look at your page on Jews and Christians. You certainly are passionate and well-read. The Lubavich point of view is not normative in the Jewish community. I find the Noahide formulation demeaning to non-Jews, though the underlying sorting rule is fairly good for a gloss understanding of what might be considered “good” for those not under the obligation of Brit (Birthright or Conversion). The problem that brought this forward is the injunction to “be a light to the nations” that Jews, for the most part, take seriously whether they are religious or not. The problem being that some non-religious glom onto various forms of idolatry as their definition of good, and then they attempt to work for that end. However, at the very depths of it I think that your analysis is off of the mark with regards to the nature of Judaism, and because of this the nature of the relationship between Judaism and Christianity.
This would be another discussion that might be better out-of-band. But, these systems cannot be fundmentally made to coexist without some “agree to disagree” as long as you eschew stepping into a forward-looking rather than backward referencing frame of value. And, this is not to imply progressivism, but rather looking to a God-centered ethical system based on our current understanding of humanity and creation in response to revelation. It is a subtle difference, not a great one, as it would sound. But, much of the craziness that surrounds is based on overgeneralizations that fly in the very face of what we know about humanity and the difference between norm or mode and distribution. And, it comes out of the very implications of the fact that each mind is biased to seek success in one of the four dimensions, and the competition for resources that this implies leads to the very clashes of values that lead to the rise and fall of civilizations.
I’m so sorry for not responding! I was on a major project last summer (not even type-related), and your post was so involved, I said I’d have to get back to it, and forgot.
I’ll have to look into that Shirley person. Are there any sites that give illustrations of his model? Not really seeing much on the Wiki article. I’m interested in how it would line up with MBTI, and what you mean by “macro level”.
Yes, Beebe’s model is one of complexes (the personalization of the “archetypes”), and so they all are describing emotional energies (and thus will touch on emotional states, and also expose more of the negative side of type, especially when we get into looking at the Shadows).
I wrote that page on Judaism trying to do my “duty” as a faithful evangelical to prove the Gospel of Jesus Christ to them, refuting the Lubavitcher arguments, as they were the strongest apologetic of Judaism against Christiatity I had ever seen.
But I’ve since changed my view to something called “The Fulfilled View“, which say the judgment, which evangelicals continue to look for in our future, was actually fulfilled in AD70, when the Temple (and the covenant of the Law) was destroyed along with it. Afterward, Grace (God no longer looking at man’s falling short of the Law because of Christ’s righteousness) spread to all unconditionally. So there’s no longer any urgency to convince Jews, or anyone else, of a need to place “personal faith” in Jesus Christ. The “faith that saves” was actualls HIS own faith, not our feeble and still fallible attempts to believe and obey.
Part of the problem of trying to be “The Light of the nations“ is man’s self-righteousness screwing it up (and people being unaware, and in fact in total denial of this), and not just the Jews, but also the Christians, who as you must know, often felt they superseded Israel as the new “Chosen nation”, when colonizing and trying to maintain control over others. It just leads to people judging others, while being corrupt, yet in ignorant of their own sins themselves. . This in fact, was precisely what the Law and the Gospel were showing us! (i.e. that people would be called to be the light of the nations, but no one would ever live up to it, so salvation must be by Grace).
Both groups have been just alike in this, though the Christians are the ones who should have known better.
Dr. Shirley wrote a book called “Mapping the Mind” – Nelson-Hall © 1983. He died in 2010. He had many students who went on to other things when he left the University of Wisconsin. Dr. Shirley was a problematic sort of fellow who tended to drive people away, including me in the end.
And yet, now some 30 years after meeting and working with him, I seem to be his primary advocate. A large part of this is simply due to our stupid Copyright system that is actively, but without intension suppressing his work. He died intestate and his kids hated him. His prior ex-wife and one of this daughters were extremely helpful, but in the end, don’t really have that much a say except a negative ability to sabotage. The rights are a hopeless muddle. But, his canon expands 80% past what is in “Mapping the Mind.”
I write mostly on Quora, but I have been mostly quiet as I have been trying to get to a deeper understanding and have had some success, but I am also hitting walls of simply not having anyone to talk to and thus I kind of keep circling on introductory material. And, I want to be banging at the advanced stuff.
Here is some of the things I have written about/using Dr. Shirley’s model.
Why do we need emotions?
https://www.quora.com/Why-do-we-need-emotions/answer/David-Powell-57
is there a simple classification/category system for emotion?
https://www.quora.com/Is-there-a-simple-classification-category-system-for-emotion/answer/David-Powell-57
When compared to a computer CPU is human brain single core or multi-core
https://www.quora.com/When-compared-to-a-computer-CPU-is-human-brain-single-core-or-multi-core/answer/David-Powell-57
There is some repetition i these answers.
I struggled for some years questioning if there was proof of Dr. Shirley’s assertions as all of his actual observational notes are not available to me. I have literally almost every other word of his canon in my possession without the right to publish, including several manuscripts in hand writing that we have typed up, but not edited. But, it isn’t like a cult of personality. Hunter was a handful. I knew him for a single year when we studied together. He was just too far ahead of his time and I was too inexperienced to actually make a difference for him. (back in 1990)
The obvious path was to create a photographic record of facial affect, but it turns out this is tougher than you might think because the face wears displays from multiple levels of mental functioning, emotive displays are just a subset and even then, pure emotions are often only fleeting a have low energy. By pure, I mean one of the twelve basic emotions, see links above. Rather, we typically see emotions on a face as couples. Couples are two emotions coupled together responding to a specific cognition within a specific frame of consideration. These really seem to be the primary displays we see in normal ranges of emotional expression. So you learn to look for these and then you can work out the components. But, just as Ekman ended up attempting to use actors to create pictures for publication, I have hit that same wall. Its harder than you think to get these simple pictures because actors words and emotive displays often aren’t synchronous. Often the camera hides this in Hollywood content and copyrights arg. Taking the picture your self forces you to find a way to see what you are doing and do it at the same time. Arg.. And, trying to catch these emotions organically is to be recording constantly ala Google Glass. Its a pain.
What did Paul Ekman find from his work with the Facial Action Coding System
https://www.quora.com/What-did-Paul-Ekman-find-from-his-work-with-the-Facial-Action-Coding-System-FACS/answer/David-Powell-57
This is when I rediscovered Type. I was answering a question on Quora about type and came across a presentation of the 16 types that sparked an insight and sent me doing the mash potatoes thing from “Close Encounters” as I tried to understand why this seemed to link to Hunter’s stuff.
After a few months of struggle with it, I re-arranged the blocks to match Hunter’s arrangement of the four dimensions from all of his diagrams.. and bang.. these lined up. Kinda. Much of this stuff is unpublished.
This is the diagram I came across.. but I can’t find who originally produced it.
This wasn’t up anywhere so I put it on Pinterest.. for now. You can see it is subtly different. This was produced in 2016. Lots of water over the dam since then.
https://pin.it/rjtqy75apoaisv
In 2017, I joined ATPi and met with the folks who are most active in MBTI and Type. This was somewhat productive but of mixed outcome because I was in such a different world and struggling to deal with the MBTI mindset which is Behavioralist in its basic non-interest in cause, motivation or even clarity. MBTI is approached as a cluster of behaviors associated with personality types that are identified by a limited test that only measures a subset of the behaviors it goes on to opine about. Its easy to knock it but in fact, its not as bad as it seems on the surface.
The diagrams above are a classification by interior function. This maps to four corners that approximate Hunter’s four dimensions. But, by their nature these functions are lines, not points, S-T vs T-N vs N-F vs S-F. This is because it is actually a two dimensional presentation where the axis are S vs N and T vs F. This is beginner stuff for MBTI. Sorry to bang on it but Jung and MBTI crowd immediately ignore these axes and treat the four designations as discrete clusters. Si, Se, Ti, Te, Fi, Fe, and Ni and Ne. And, these eight mental processes are able to be reproduced by any individual experientially by guided training.
This is where my heart ache starts. Si and Se clearly map onto the Identity Dimension in Hunter’s work. Fe and Fi map onto Affinity, Ni and Ne map onto Diversity and Ti and Te map onto Sequentiality which Hunter called Mobility. And, yet they don’t. They are much more “smeary”
Hunter’s diagram of the “human control system” is below.
https://pin.it/ejbz3f2l47xav7
The MBTI functions smear this diagram together left to right being associated with the S-N axis, and up to down being associated with the F-T axis. (Mood and Libido are excluded from MBTI world) While also being linked to the four dimensions that are common to each of the blocks of the control system.
Hunter’s blocks are definitional rather than real functional blocks. They represent functional descriptions of mental processes that differ enough from the next block as to be separately identifiable. The neuroscientific reality is somewhat different, but models have their purposes and this one actually helps in conceptualizing and naming the various states and processes occurring.
Hi Eric,
I wanted to say I’m blown away by your work and incredibly grateful. Thank you.
I was curious — you mention the fact that you married an actual Fe, as opposed to projecting your Fe onto Si dominant women. That makes a lot of sense. I’ve been trying to understanding the Jungian perspective on this for a while. Is this phenomenon written about anywhere? i.e. Removing the anima projection but then actually finding someone of that type, genuinely?
Do you find the relationship offers you the opportunity to learn about your inferior function, and that is full of life and energy?
I can’t find the link right now, but did you ever read that bit by Jung about the patient who was looking to get married for a while, finally met someone, and had a dream where the Midgard Serpent emerged from behind a mountain? Jung then exclaims something like: “That! That is who you marry!” That’s the only place where I’ve seen Jung comment on who someone “should” marry, on what seems like a technical level, and now I can’t even find it.
Do you think that might be this same phenomenon? I could see that serpent representing the inferior function and the image showing up as authentic understanding coming into consciousness, but I’m not sure.
I’ve noticed many other MBTI sites seem to suggest pairs like INFJ – ENFP as the ideal love relationship. I’m guessing you disagree with that?
Any more info on this topic would be great, if you get a chance. And, thanks again so much for everything.
Tim
Your Welcome!
I’m not sure where it’s written about. Things like that you would usually find here and there in Jungian discussions by experts. Never heard of that analogy by Jung either, but yeah, that’s probably what he’s getting at.
I think it does give the opportunity to learn about the inferior function, because it’s now constantly in my face. It does make me feel guilty a lot of the time, since I feel I’m failing in what is her best area, and I’m used to SiTeFi types who basically punish you (in one way or another) for your shortcomings.
The key for me is Interaction Styles, where F+S falls on the “informative” (people focused, softer in communication), where anything Te (TJ) is purely “directive”, and can be cold/blunt/tough.
An NFP might be more drawn to a directive type, and many INTPs can handle it as well. What will be most important in those hookups is the common iNtuition, even though it’s oriented opposite ways (NJ=Ni; NP=Ne). With the attitudes reversed, you’re still drawn to the same sorts of topics, though you have to be aware of misunderstanding each other, since the perceptions (or judgments) are coming from different (internal/external) standards.
Again, NJ’s are directive, (and Ni in particular will jump to conclusions about your motives or character) so I would have a hard time relating to them. It depends largely on your experiences and life issues. My wife, however, has a strong tertiary Ne, and I have a strong tertiary Si, so that helps us meet on common ground. Otherwise, we would probably not click.
Thanks so much for the thorough response! I really appreciate it!
One other question I had was: What is the overall objective here? I don’t think I understand the purpose of “preferences.” Is it preferable to be more typed (acting in line with your preferences)? Or to try and see all perspectives absent complexes? I’m trying to understand this relative to the fact that we have limited time and resources.
Taking your example above of writing a book with Lenore Thomson. You said you’d like to do it but then ”And I wouldn’t know how to set that up anyway.”
I’m assuming you’re referring to the kind of networking / agenting involved in setting up a deal like that. Is that right?
I had a strong, affect-laden reaction to that. I was like: “Dude just be more of an ENTJ about this. You sound like such an INTP.“ (In my mind, ENTJ’s are pretty good at doing this kind of breaking down wall / deal-making type of thing). But then I was torn because I was like then you would have less time to be your wonderful self who digs in deep to actually understands this and provides all of this information for us and clearly has all these other interests. Then, I was like — Wouldn’t it be nice if he linked up with some more ENTJ kind of guy who just handled this for him? Or “What if he was just a littttle bit more ENTJ about this?” And then, who knows!
Is the underlying premise here that our collective interdependence is hinged on honoring one’s preferences / nature? And that that is the actual, unbiased, mechanical ordering of reality? And this is where the whole spiritual / astrological / Taoist component ties in? That if you continue to be as you are, putting stuff out there, and keep enjoying yourself, that is best?
Because like, if you try to be an ENTJ you’re going to just tire yourself out and be grumpy and ultimately less productive?
Or is it like — “Be more of an ENTJ about this! You’re so focused on the theoretical you’re getting eaten in the dog-fight that is real life!” And you’re stuck in your dominant orientation?
Even absent the complexes, are certain functions just more strenuous / energy consuming to use?
I get that it’s situation dependent, but I’m wondering if there is some guidance in here.
I realize I may have misconstrued / fantasized around your comment, and this is potentially / likely reflective of some issue of my own. But maybe the question is still clear without all my bias.
I also grew up in an SiTeFI household, so I thought understanding the basis of all this might be helpful for me.
Thanks again for everything, Eric! So amazing!
I had had a correspondence with Lenore, and she’s the one who pointed out that Jung had seen these preferences as a “wound on the soul”. Reality in itself is undivided, yet our immersion into it divides it into these polarities. I compare it to the dimensions of space time; if we’re looking east, then whatever lies in that direction enters our consciousness, while west is totally unconscious, and north and south are partially conscious (up/down and past/future are also split).
So a hypothetical ideal would be to process all functional perspectives equally. But our ego structure won’t allow it. So the functions are either “undifferentiated” (which she also explained to me), like where we can all see, hear, touch, etc. in the present moment, but we’re not all necessarily “using Se”. It’s only differentiated, in Jung’s theory, when the function and attitude are taken up by the ego (where it becomes the “dominant function”), or, by extension (Myers/Grant/Beebe) the other complexes (starting with the auxiliary “caretaker”). These complexes are what pay special attention to the associated function-attitude.
So yes, it’s hard to go against the complexes and try to pay special attention to unpreferred functions. Again, hypothetically, it would be ideal if we did, but then that depends on growth. One way is that when we mature and become more aware of the lower complexes (the inferior and the Shadows) then we experience more positive manifestations of the associated functions.
Yeah, as for writing a book, that might come more naturally for a Te type, and is probably why Beebe was so slow in publishing one. I had before been saying it would be nice for Lenore (an INTJ) to collaborate with him. (She’s also a ghostwriter; not sure for whom or what type of books even, but then she is obviously good at getting books out, even though she only has one in her name, at least as far as type is concerned).
I look at the types in terms of classic temperament combinations, and ENTJ is the “pure Choleric”, while INTP is Choleric blended with something else. NT is the common Choleric, in the “leadership” area (where ENTJ is Choleric socially as well; that’s what the Interaction Styles are about). So I don’t have the surface level drive like the ENTJ, but I still have the NT independence, and having my own intuitive logical sense of how things should be. I feel I would just clash with an ENTJ, and they would be too forceful. i do essentially try to be one all the time, in debates, but ultimately still not good at it, because of the opposite Interaction Style. On the functional level, ENTJ/INTP are “Contrast” (Type Logic system), and our functions are each other’s shadows, so Te is my “opposing personality”, and Ni, my “Senex” (critical parent). The first one feels like an “obstruction” to my sense of Truth (Ti), and the second one is associated with feelings of negation of the ego. It would be good to take them into consideration more (the OP is supposed to “back up” the dominant so it doesn’t become “one sided”, and the Senex is supposed to become the “Wise Old Man” that also offers depth to one’s perspective).
Yeah; but trying to adopt the perspective of other types artificially would only take away from who you really are, and your natural talents. You just grow, and then becoming aware of the inferior function is supposed to be the bridge to the Shadow (still trying to fully understand what that’s all about).
Wow. This makes a lot of sense. Thanks for the detailed info. So cool you chatted with Lenore on all that!
Right — by “be more an ENTJ” I was also getting at forcing oneself to learn or discipline oneself in ways against ones nature (reading a bunch of business books, etc.). I think that lines up with what you’re saying about artificially taking away from who you are.
I’m pretty sure I was one of those forced away from their natural inclination in childhood. So, that’s what I was wrestling with a bit there and is always a little tricky for me. I am also pretty sure I am an INFJ (which it’s difficult to say given how many people online think they’re INFJ’s), which also makes this perspective-shifting tempting.
It sounds like what you’re saying is that even in hypothetical ideal, one of the perspectives would be a Ti perspective, right? Which would be telling one one’s natural inclination, typologically (or something similar related to one’s self)? As in, for an INFJ, the ideal view includes something like “Yeah dude, but you’re fundamentally an INFJ, so even though I’m showing you what’s logical about the situation, it’s MOST logical for you to trust your hunches and the patterns that seem to come from within, using my very developed mechanical perspective to inform that.” I think that’s what you’re saying, which is comforting.
By “ideal”, I meant, basically “XXXX” (all equally “preferred”, rather than an “ideal view” for each type). All of the type preferences are divisions (splitting) of reality. So yes, that would include a Ti perspective, but Te would be equal, as would Fi and Fe, and the perception functions.
Of course, there is no XXXX type that can see and process undivided reality like that, but the goal is to try to become more aware of unpreferred perspectives more, while still holding onto what’s preferred.
Yeah that makes more sense than what I was thinking thank you for the clarification. Maybe then that XXXX might be the source of dreams and the “compensation” Jung talks about occurring via the dream images, which I’ve never really understood, is towards that perspective.
Hi! A quick note:
Some people on myspleen.org completed a collection of Looney Tunes cartoons with the information from your .info website. The result can be viewed at here
https://pastebin.com/rVTKBGpV
or alternatively
https://bin.disroot.org/?a0a66833b7c399e4#AptCZYqVDZxQfnSkEFppBZiWhyjjdQY489kwUzopAbdp
Hey Eric, I would like to ask you some questions regarding a project that I am working on. Let me know if you can reach out to me by email or if there is an email I can reach out to you by. I could not find a publicly available email, so I figured this was my next best option. Keep me posted. Hope to hear back soon. Thank you.
What’s your e-mail?
You can reach me at pagoada.jgp@gmail.com.
Hi Eric. I appreciate your information on temperaments. I saw what you had written about a Choleric/Supine, that you’d never met one before and were curious. In our christian premarital counseling, my husband tested as a Choleric/Supine while I tested as a Melancholic/Supine. We are both devout believers with very similar goals, work ethic and ideals. We are very synergistic and work very well together. Spending time with one another never gets old for either one of us. He tends to be a little more quiet than the normal choleric, but he is still very much a Choleric. The world outside along with all of its outsiders can easily get tedious, frustrating and irritating to both of us in different ways, but our safety and trust in one another brings out an unusual sensitivity from both of us as well as brings our secondary servant supines. We have a very deep and loyal bond. If I, as a woman, were the Choleric and he the male Melancholic, I’m not sure it would work so well. I can be a leader for his home and have no problem executing tasks and responsibilities as I also am happy to fall under his leadership which I have so much trust in. He is receptive to my thoughts and opinions, and I respect his decisions. Our disagreements do not bring in too much emotion and are discussed with the purpose of a solution and therefore do not typically lead to quarrels or fights. It’s almost literally a match made in Heaven. Being that you had expressed a curiosity with the Choleric/Supine, I though I might give you a brief peek at what my life with one looks like as I simultaneously thank you for your blogs and writings on different temperaments and personalitiea.
Thank you very much!
Not sure where or when I said that, but I’ve realized more that Inclusion (the “surface” or first temperament) is what we will look like at first glance. Control (the secondary one, which I’ve begun describing as our “resolve” tendency, or how much we defend our will in situations) is a deeper level of temperament, that you won’t see as readily, until you get into “control” situations with the person.
So I’m sure you two will look pretty much like a normal Choleric and a Melancholy on the surface, but as both Supine in Control, you’ll both be more “receptive” (i.e. “responsive”; high “Wanted”; I believe my terms are more to the point) to the will of others (including each other, of course), in resolve. Overall, this will give a softer, more personable or sensitive disposition than either a pure Choleric or Melancholy (the low “receptive” temperaments; the Choleric being very competative, and the Melancholy very guarded), and the Choleric will be toned down a bit. And that’s how your descriptions sound.
I was curious because it’s the total opposite of my blend. I’m passive and agreeable on the surface, yet fight to the finish in resolve. It’s frustrating having the diametric opposite temperaments pulling in two different ways. I imagine having the Choleric out front might be easier socially, since “the surface” will tend to be what people judge you by, and only when closer will the people you’ve selectively allowed in see the more passive side (which then is described in the temperament manuals as getting people to basically take care of them).
I had also been over the years correlating the temperament system to the more popular MBTI, and Choleric/Supine and Melancholy/Supine would correlate to ENFJ and INFJ, respectively. (NF is the Supine in Control, and the other two letters would make up Inclusion).
So do you know your types, and would they match like that? (That would also explain from the typological ‘lens’, your compatibility).
Making this correlation allowed me to look at ENFJ’s to get a sense of what Choleric/Supines are like. Oprah is universally recognized as ENFJ, and people close to her describe her in a way that is very Choleric. But overall, you see a blend of traits, as Choleric is a naturally “Thinking” type (T; more “impersonal”, as the temperaments descriptions agree), while she is a “Feeling” type (F; more “personal” in focus). The blend may look overall Sanguine, but in surface “inclusion”, she is in practice lower in receptivity. (She could also be Phlegmatic in Control, which will be similar). The purest Choleric matches ENTJ. (Choleric in both areas). So then there are other ENFJ’s I know, to see what likely C/S are like.
Now, if you were to swap Inclusion temperaments, that might go against the traditional marriage roles, as the male is ‘supposed’ to be more aggressive. Don’t know of any couples of those two types, so yeah, it might be more difficult. The pure Supine (INFP) male might be more drawn to a Choleric woman.