Skip to content


General discussion about the blog.

  1. Jonathan Bluestein permalink

    Man…. I dunno who or what you are, but THANK YOU for that website of yours, . 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).

  2. Anonymous Sister in Christ permalink

    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.

  3. Diana permalink

    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.

  4. 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, 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.

  5. 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 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

  6. The 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.

    Click here to see the complete report.

  7. Tony Roeder permalink

    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.

  8. Dino permalink

    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:

    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 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.

      • Dino permalink

        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

        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.


  9. 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:
      (Are you related to him?)

  10. You still write! I found one of your articles ( 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.

  11. Evans permalink

    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

  12. 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.

  13. 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 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.

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. Left Addresses Economics, continued | "ERIPEDIA"

Leave a Reply to Diana Cancel reply

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

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

Google photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: