J/P Differences

There are a bunch of inaccurate stereotypes floating around about J/P, and they're just plain wrong. I don't know where they came from, I don't know why they persist, but they're false, inaccurate, and unreliable. (Have I stated that strongly enough?!) People forget about all the other letters, they forget about the theory, they forget it's about a personality pattern not about traits -- and they hone in on two letters: J & P, as if the mysteries of the world can be solved with just these two letters. Argh!

The first stereotype is the notion that J's are always on time, and P's are always late. IT'S NOT TRUE!

Two J's live together in my household, and we're often late for appointments. In fact, the standing joke around here is that "J" stands for "Just One More Thing!" -- meaning we invariably try to accomplish one additional thing before we charge out the door. We do not have a reputation for reliably being on time (ask my sister!).

In contrast, I've met P's who arrive at the airport several hours ahead of their flights, and arrive well in advance of any meetings. (Interestingly, one P admitted to me that he arrived early as a way of compensation for an acknowledged tendency to be late. Viva le compensation!)

The point is, if you're using a stopwatch to distinguish P and J, you are wasting your time.

Another myth is about Js being tidy and Ps being messy. Whoa again!

The messiest house I've ever seen in my life belonged to an ESFJ. It looked like a garage sale gone mad -- with a layer of dust everywhere to boot! The "J" house I live in with my husband looks like a tornado went through it last week.

Do you know who's probably the tidiest person I know? My ISTP dad, of course. (Notice the last letter, willya?) I also spent 8 years living with an ENFP -- and he would win the neatness award long before I would even be eligible. So saying J's are tidy and P's are messy is FALSE!

Then there's the added problem of people who try to figure out whether they are J or P based on these same criteria! Well, as the Mafiosos say, "fuhgettabouttit!"

Linda Berens has said that NJ often looks like P. And boy is that ever true in my NJ household. What's interesting is that my husband and I score equally on any questions of early-starting and pressure-prompted -- because we do both! Since the two of us possess the Chart-the-Course interaction style, we tend to put just enough energy into an event early on in the process to figure out what must be done to arrive at the goal point. But then we forget about the whole matter until we're "pressure-prompted" to actually set the wheels in motion for the event. Invariably, we cut the margin too finely, and quality of life can be rather questionable until the event has ended.

One of the big mistakes people make with J/P is by confusing it with directing and informing communication styles. This type difference is very powerful, but it does NOT map to J/P, despite many assumptions that it does. (It's worth your while to educate yourself about this dimension in order to take advantage of its powerful revelations.)

There are other stereotypes around J/P -- you probably know what they are. I've heard that "Js are determined and energetic while Ps are unmotivated wimps." Whuh?! Where is that written, I wonder? Does that describe a healthy attribute of Type, as Isabel Myers intended? I don't THINK so!! And it's about as accurate as pretending men are from Mars and women are from Venus.

Dr. Berens says that if we spend too much time talking about J, before long we're really talking about SJ (extreme SJ!)... and if we spend too much time talking about P, we're really talking about NP (extreme NP!). So it's not good to single out and focus on J/P alone for drawing lots of Type conclusions.

The only generalization I'm comfortable with about J/P differences is that J's like to approach the world in the style of an orderly marching band -- with structure; they feel better following a plan; they like closure and want things completed. P's like to approach the world in the style of a jazz band -- spontaneous, flexible, preferring to keep their options open. And that's as specific about J/P as I'm willing to get!

Whenever I see conversation deteriorate to the point where J and P are the only letters I'm hearing, then I know the conversation isn't about type theory anymore -- it's about bias and stereotype, or it's being conflated with functions -- and that means there's not enough knowledge about type theory overall to keep the conversation going properly. I personally don't have patience for that, and I believe it's ignorant and inappropriate.

The bottom line is that you can't point at that last letter and make a boatload of assumptions about it -- because whatever you assume will likely prove untrue for some portion of Earth's population. So don't do it.

Right?

Temperament Discrimination -- the Improviser's Burden

The last thing I want to do is take sides in any "most persecuted temperament" struggle, but I think it's only fair to pipe up and tell you that Improvisers (sometimes known as "SPs") are routinely discriminated against in the type world.

A while back I witnessed an online training program through a company my husband was working with. It openly tried to make the CASE that few Artisans (as Improvisers used to be called) worked at the company, and certain management techniques were in the company PURELY for the purpose of corralling these undesirable sorts, but because *statistics* demonstrated this population was nearly non-existent, those management techniques were unnecessary.

In 1997, Scott Blanchard (ESFP son of Ken Blanchard) delivered a keynote at APT in Boston titled "An Artisan Among You." (I suspect if he didn't come right out and say that, people wouldn't have believed it. Sometimes Improvisers seem like the Loch Ness Monster. People have HEARD the myth, but sightings are rare. You wouldn't suppose that would be true in the type community, but it is.)

Dr. Linda Berens built on Scott's keynote with an article on the Interstrength website found here: article

Every training workshop I've done with Linda, at least one (sometimes more) person realizes they are a mis-typed Improviser. It's amazing to watch them get up and move across the room to sit with "their people" and the self-awareness that springs from that.

I just took a college student through my Temperament self-discovery process over the phone. She told me she didn't know if she'd ever met any Improvisers. I told her to take another look. On the next call, she laughed and said they were "everywhere." Even her brother appears to have the Improviser temperament. (I'm not sure why they're so invisible to everybody -- until I remember how much bias there is against them, and how much Keirsey portrays them as "blue-collar thrill-seekers." And the MBTI rarely catches them.)

Another example -- I was working with starting up a new volunteer organization for which an ISFP ended up in a leadership role. Another person asked me about him, and in the midst of my description of him, I casually said he had ISFP preferences. And this individual (who shall remain nameless) said to me, "ISFP? Are we sure that's the kind of person we want in a leadership role?" I was stunned into silence. I honestly did not know how to respond to such blatant bigotry.

I've been on several type-related electronic bulletin boards and Yahoo Groups where members insist they've "never met" an Improviser. One guy kept complaining about his Catalyst grandmother being "in the grip" all the time. And yet, it seemed as though he was describing a perfectly normal Improviser. Saying she was "in the grip" was the only way he could forgive her tactical intelligence and pragmatic behavior.

Probably the only reason I belong to a certain Temperament-related Yahoo Group (and recommend it to others) is because I feel Improvisers are represented and treated fairly there, UNLIKE nearly everywhere else where horror stories abound. I recall one Improviser saying once she used to get private emails from people on this list trying to talk her OUT of having Improviser preferences because she was "too nice" or "too smart" or any of a number of bigoted reasons why she "couldn't" be an Improviser. So she's got reasons to complain about bias.

I think in this situation, unless you are one, it's probably not fair to judge what it's like to be one -- any more than a man should assume he knows what it's like to be a woman who can't own property; or a white man should presume to identify with a person of color who is treated as a second-class citizen.

Now, don't get me started on how hard it is to be a Catalyst!

Essence is Embedded in the New Temperament Names

Temperament theory has been around thousands of years, and given a new lease on life by Dr. Linda Berens, who recently coined new names for the four Temperaments.

So we get to say again, “There are four kinds of people in the world.” Put aside all your preconceptions, your biases, your judgments, and lean into these new names along with their definitions.

Following are synopses of the Temperaments as described by Dr. Berens in her book, Understanding Yourself and Others®: An Introduction to the 4 Temperaments—3.0, along with their new names:

If you are an Improviser™, your aim is to vary your actions to get a result using whatever is at hand. "Improvising" is the ultimate expression of the freedom to respond to the needs of the moment. It is also the means to create pleasant aesthetic experiences. (You may be familiar with this pattern as "Artisan," "Red," or "SP.")

If you are a Stabilizer™, your goal is to prevent groups and institutions from falling apart. "Stabilizing" is fundamental to creating an environment where one can be secure in a sense of belonging. It provides the means to economic security. (You may be familiar with this pattern as "Guardian," "Gold," or "SJ.")

If you are a Theorist™, you are driven toward understanding and developing theories that provide the basis for mastery and competence. "Theorizing" is the means to having an understanding of objective truth on which to build a path to achievement. (You may be familiar with this pattern as "Rational," "Blue," or "NT.")

If you are a Catalyst™, your life purpose is to engage with others in a way that promotes their identity without losing your own identity. "Catalyzing" is natural to those who need to have a meaning and purpose to their lives. It is the means to self-actualization. (You may be familiar with this pattern as "Idealist," "Green," or "NF.")

These new names avert previous confusion about the core values of each Temperament pattern, and lend a clarity that previous names somehow missed.

I heard someone complain the minute she heard the new "Theorist" name. She said, "I do more than that!" And she’s right. She does!

I submit that there is no one single name that can captivate all the complexity of who we are as human beings. (Thank goodness!)

These four names were selected because they captured the "essence" of the pattern -- the "can't-help-themselves" identifying essence. The essence of each Temperament is "hard-wired" into our psyche -- it's the thing we can't help doing. Engaging in this essential behavior makes us feel alive, and gives us a sense of purpose.

So if you pay attention to behaviors and inner drives, you might notice if you're a Theorist (for example), you canot NOT theorize any more than an Improviser cannot NOT improvise; a Stabilizer cannot NOT stabilize; and a Catalyst cannot NOT catalyze. And if you're not doing that essential thing enough in your life or feeling appreciated for it, you probably feel dead inside.

I submit to you that these new names are actually synonyms for our life purpose. In other words, if somewhere in your life you are NOT doing the “thing” your particular name describes in some fashion, you are probably not fulfilling your purpose. It’s that important.

Now if you are a "Theorist," you surely do more than merely "theorize"; and if you are a "Catalyst," you surely do more than merely "catalyze." But these names were never intended to summarize or reduce one’s personality. Instead, they are designed to capture an “essence” peculiar to that Temperament.

These new names also provide us with newfound appreciation for the contributions of all the Temperaments.

I shared these new names with a coaching client who’s been through the entire Self-Discovery process on the phone with me. Even after all that, it was as if a light bulb turned on! When I said the new name, he suddenly realized that was what was missing in his act. He’s a Catalyst, and he’s been feeling dead around his job and about his life. Learning this new name gave him profound insights about what was missing. He now knows what he MUST have in his life and in his work in order to feel fulfilled. Months of coaching crystallized in that single transaction.

Similarly, I shared these new names with my girlfriend. She lately began a relationship with someone, and they’re probably going to get married. She started describing their differences, and sharing surprise that they get along so well. She was giddy as a schoolgirl. It occurred to me that learning the new names might grant her some additional understanding. So I let her know that her pattern was called “Catalyst.” She lit up as she related to it immediately! (It seemed like an instant replay of the previous conversation with my client.)

Then I let her know that her fiance’s pattern is called “Stabilizer.” She rolled that term around for a while, and suddenly she began connecting the dots. She realized how much he stabilizes her, and what changes have been occurring in her life since meeting him. She’s found someone she can lean into about creating stability for the first time in her life, even though that’s not what she might have ever called it without my help. She lost 40 pounds since meeting him. She’s exercising regularly, and even wakes up at a different time of day now. These are some of the subtle impacts his stabilizing has on her.

She also got to notice how her catalyzing affects him, and recognize her own gifts. She appreciates him, which in turn allows him to grow more into who he is. She honors and acknowledges him for who he is at heart, not for what he can do for her. I’m not certain he’s ever had that before... When we hung up the phone, she was still rolling the word “Stabilizer” around in her mouth, finding more and more richness for how it was benefiting their relationship. She now had a whole new way to appreciate him.

These new names have created transformational experiences for at least two people – and I’ve barely started talking about them. I can hardly wait for word of them to get out there!

I hope others begin to learn and embrace these new terms. If they have continue to impact like they did these two -- having such dramatic effects on their outlook -- they will be irresistible.

The Value of Facilitation

Has anybody else noticed the stampede to take free online quizzes that give you an "MBTI-style result"? Or how about the proliferation of cheap assessments, such as those on the Keirsey and other websites?

Speaking as someone who is professionally qualified and certified to administer the MBTI™, I don't think it's worth taking ANY assessment that does not come with professional feedback and validation. After all, research shows us that even the venerable MBTI is accurate at BEST 75% of the time. (The statistics are printed in the manual.)

If merely one letter comes back wrong on any of these copycat assessments, it's useless. So it's foolhardy to rely on such results to inform your self-perception -- or worse, make important life choices.

Test results are always a consequence of GIGO -- garbage in, garbage out. That's a technical term from computer technology. It means whatever you answer is what you get back. Assessments are just little voting machines, with no interpretation. All your results can possibly reflect are how you felt that day, how you perceived the questions, the way you see yourself, etc. Obviously, a test has never met you, and your responses could be skewed for any of a variety of reasons. But the test doesn't consider any of that.

A myriad of factors may affect the results you get back, and it takes an experienced professional to recognize when things don't add up. They have the training to guide you to a best-fit outcome. They've been taught what to look for. (The good ones have, anyway.)

Now the MBTI is what they call a "Level B" psychological instrument. You're supposed to undergo professional training to administer it properly, or have an equivalent amount of education. The distributors of the instrument want to prevent your taking the questionnaire without a qualified professional to assist you, and every qualification training emphasizes that verification of the results by the client always overrides the test score.

The truth is, people who don't take the instrument under the guidance of a facilitator (as is the case with online personality quizzes) are usually not motivated to investigate whether another type code might fit them better, much less have a clue what other codes to look at!

In fact, many people think they "get" their type from these tests, rather like the sweater Aunt Martha gives you at Christmas. You don’t discuss whether it fits you well or not, you’re just stuck with it. Even if you hate it!

My ISFP brother-in-law "tests" ENFJ. An INFJ trainer I know consistently "tests" INTJ. An ISTP friend always "tests" INTP. Several ENFPs sent me emails recently saying they got every result imaginable with free online tests. I’ve met INFPs who "test" ENFP, and INFJs who "test" INFP and vice-versa. Whew! It’s a virtual comedy of errors!

Sometimes people don't like their result, so they change a letter here or there to suit, or pick a different code by reading an appealing type description on some armchair psychologist's website.

Such issues are exacerbated when folks join online communities for "their" type. Then they get indoctrinated about how they should see themselves, and may become intensely ego-identified with a type pattern that doesn't suit them. They invest in a group identity about how attractive this type code is.

As Dr. Linda Berens says, "Type becomes the story people tell themselves about who they are and the lens used will lead people to confirm what they expect." The longer someone spends thinking they're a particular type, the more they become defensive toward any suggestion they might have tested inaccurately or mis-chosen. Sometimes people who claim their preferences the loudest are folks who are the wrongest!

There are three simple remedies to the problem of faulty assessment results. One is to work with a qualified type professional who can provide you with expert feedback and guidance about which pattern truly fits you best. (That’s the remedy endorsed by distributors of "Level B" assessments.)

Another remedy is to undergo a "Self-Discovery Process" over the phone with an experienced professional who will teach you about the model, and then invite you to interact with each of its dimensions. Through this experience, you will select your own best-fit pattern, but you will do it from a position of knowledge and understanding. This can then be compared with an assessment result in order to provide additional datapoints. Anything that still seems puzzling to you may be explored during your sessions together. (This is the method I use.)

The final remedy is to learn the type model thoroughly on your own – and I mean all the way down to recognizing the sixteen patterns in real-life circumstances! On your own, this might take decades. For all that effort, you might as well go through a qualifying program and become a facilitator yourself!

The bottom line is, the only part of any assessment that counts is the validation. It's not about the "score" – it's about accurate verification of the results.

Relying on "test-and-tell" methods using these internet MBTI copycats reduces type to the "parlor game" Carl Jung deplored. Without having the trained and knowledgeable support a professional facilitator can give you, the free quizzes people take online are just that: worthless.

Personality vs. Psychology

I was cruising online message boards the other day when I came across a post from someone who said they have INFJ preferences, and claimed most of his friends also had INFJ preferences. Somebody expressed jealousy in reply how anyone could "peg" the types so easily.

I got that sinking feeling. Do you know the one I mean? The irrational one where you fear you're incompetent? I was triggered right into that place of wondering whether I was a fraud or an imposter and had no business calling myself a Self-Discovery Specialist. After all, I can't spot the types that fast.

I focused on my self-doubt to see how true it might be. Was I really an imposter? Or maybe I'm really bad at what I do, and have no talent for it? Could that be the case...?

In a flash, it was if I heard a voice in my head: I suddenly remembered how Jungian Dr. John Beebe has oft quoted James Hillman: "The types are not easy to spot." The types are not easy to spot!

If I'm a fraud, I guess I'm in good company. Me, Hillman, Beebe. All us frauds together.

The sinking feeling went away.

But still... what's going on that some civilian can spot types so easily? (Assuming they peg them accurately, of course.) I've been at this for ten years now, and I still find it challenging. What gives?

Then I realized: chances are the speed-typers are using models of personality – they look at personality types, not psychological types! Things started making better sense.

Everyone knows what a personality is. After all, there are radio personalities and TV personalities. There are personalities in grade school classrooms, and personalities at work. Let's not overlook personalities at parties – sometimes those are the most vivid personalities of all.

But personalities are not models of psychology. Personality may or may not mirror one's psychological type -- at least not in the stereotypical sense that "personality" usually means.

Let me share an example: Steve Martin. Probably most people know who Steve Martin is. From making a splash on "Saturday Night Live," to his comedic film roles, to hosting the Oscars, I expect most people are familiar with Steve's popular personality. With his big, well-known personality, he must surely be an extravert!

But I've met another side of Steve. Steve is a writer. He authored several sketches one year to present at the HBO Comedy Festival in Aspen, Colorado. They were previewed at a theater I work with in Los Angeles. As it happens, I was house manager for those previews.

Let me tell you about big extravert Steve. I helped him find a place to hide (yes, hide) upstairs. I arranged to come get him after the house lights went out and sneak him into the back of the theatre. Likewise, we arranged to return him to hiding once the show ended but before the house lights came up so he wouldn’t be seen. He didn’t want anyone to know he was there. I don't know that comparing him to a scared rabbit is entirely accurate, but it's not so far off.

So this big extravert was behaving a lot like an introvert. Which are his true preferences?

I don't know. "The types are not easy to spot." Perhaps Steve has an extraverted personality and an introverted psychology. It's possible. He wouldn't be the first.

I'm brought to mind of a quote from Oliver Wendell Holmes. He said, "The young man knows the rules, but the old man knows the exceptions." Now I don't want to be accused of age bias here, but if we think of "age" as a measure of experience, it seems that the longer a person spends working with type, the less likely they are to jump to quick conclusions about what type any given person is.

In other words, I suspect that people who rapidly identify others as being any particular type are actually perpetuating and trafficking in bias and stereotype. They sort people according to obvious traits: i.e., only introverts are quiet; only extraverts are noisy. Thinking types are all cold and critical; feeling types are all warm and friendly. Perceiving types are all flaky and judging types are all bossy. And my favorite of all: "S" stands for Stupid; "N" stands for iNtelligent.

Stop the presses! It's all figured out. Who says the types aren’t easy to spot? Personalities are obvious. See how easy it is.

I believe I'll leave personality typing to the amateurs. Me, I’ll stick with trying to identify psychological types, along with Beebe and Hillman.

Clash of the Feeling Functions

I have an obvious preference for extraverted Feeling. It’s so clear that I can easily trace a boatload of systemic problems I’ve experienced in my life to over-using this process. I confess it’s an area where I can readily get co-dependent. There are plenty of times when I have acted contrary to my own best interests when I might have been better served by accessing the introverted Feeling process. But I avoid doing it because that’s an ego-dystonic function I resist using and generally avoid accessing.

Nevertheless, I find myself in the curious position of “redeeming” the process of introverted Feeling.

I’ve noticed there’s a lot of bias floating around against introverted Feeling, and many have even “demonized” it. It’s been called the “selfish” function, or the “bad” type of Feeling. It’s little wonder many people don’t want to claim it as a preference with that cloud hanging over it. This bias has even gotten in the way of people recognizing their own best-fit pattern, which in turn challenges my effectiveness as a type practitioner. (Bias is always a challenge to overcome.)

Here are some common complaints frequently lodged against the introverted Feeling process:
*Concentrates too much on personal feelings (is “self-centered”)
*Attached to uncommon ideals which may be out-of-step
*Quiet or retreating; hard to reach or influence (read “change”)
*Unforgiving

To complexify the problem further, my understanding is that Jung was so flummoxed with defining the introverted Feeling process that he quit trying (and that’s saying a lot!). I have heard Fi compared to the Tao – the more you try to describe it, the more it changes and becomes something else. Fi seems to defy defining! I am fond of one type expert’s definition of introverted Feeling as “things that bring a lump to your throat, or make you cry.”

Now, I need to make it clear that I prefer to deal with people as "whole patterns" -- I don't believe functions such as Fe and Fi operate independently outside the rest of the personality. And I also recognize that not everyone is a healthy representative of their type.

Having established that premise, let me zoom in on an isolated comparison of Fe and Fi for theoretical purposes. Here are some fresh ways to consider these two processes.

Introverted Feeling is all about "valuing." That might even be a synonym for this process. Extraverted Feeling is all about "connecting." That might even be a synonym for this process.

How well someone succeeds in using these processes, or whether they use them in ways you personally agree or disagree with has no bearing over what function you're observing. It's useful to keep that in mind and not let your own filters mislead you. It’s a mistake to suppose that anyone who uses a process differently from the way you do must therefore be a different type.

Here's the thing: one hallmark of introverted Feeling is to withdraw, to end relationships. This process is the one most likely to treat another as persona non grata when a value has been violated. So look back over your life now and notice all the times you've walked away, turned your back on someone, ended a relationship. Those would be manifestations of introverted Feeling.

And we've all done it. Every one of us (I believe) has felt obliged to end a relationship for one reason or other that probably had to do with our values. By extension, we may rely on those examples as proof that ALL of us can and do use ALL of the processes. Nobody got overlooked when it came to the introverted Feeling function.

The piece to notice is how readily doing that comes to you, and how easily or gracefully you do it. Chances are that people with introverted Feeling as a preferred process do it with greater style and grace than those of us who (like me) prefer extraverted Feeling.

I know in my own case, I still suffer over a relationship I ended in my twenties. I still feel haunted by it from time to time. An older homosexual neighbor began calling in the middle of the night drunk and telling my boyfriend he was in love with him. I endured several occurrences, but the behavior continued, and finally I cut him out of my life and demanded my boyfriend cut him out too. Some bit of self-preservation burbled up within me and said "no!" to this kind of disturbance. I still believe I was justified, but I confess it continues to haunt me and I still feel remorseful over it. I worry he didn’t “deserve” my ill treatment.

What’s also interesting is that of all the men I’ve had intimate relationships with, those who prefer extraverted Feeling are still friends, while those who prefer introverted Feeling severed our relationship completely (and, to me, painfully).

I suppose because introverted Feeling is the "opposite" of extraverted Feeling (which has a need to be connected) this feeling of "disconnection" is, ah..... disconcerting. It's difficult to let relationships go. It’s like losing some part of ourselves.

I’ve come to admire people who seem to let go of relationships easily and naturally. There's always a new horizon, a new friendship to be had. No problem. People who prefer introverted Feeling don’t generally hang on and struggle to maintain connection in spite of everything.

On the other hand, people with introverted Feeling as a preferred function sometimes struggle to stay "connected." This can be a challenging domain for them. It's not that they don't prize relationships -- it just seems to be an especially difficult issue with them. When there is stress in the relationship, the temptation is to simply end it and walk away rather than “work through” the problem. People who over-use introverted Feeling may leave behind a trail of failed relationships in their wake.

To demonize introverted Feeling as a "selfish" function is to miss the value of the process. It's important to see ALL the processes as valuable, useful, important. Only then can we appreciate our differences the way this model was designed to help us do. To lapse into the one-sidedness of making other processes "wrong" or "bad" misses the boat. Introverted Feeling may not come readily to me, but that doesn’t make it bad – it simply indicates it’s something I need to get better at using. It’s a useful self-preservation tool that I would benefit from using more – in fact, it’s a resource I lean into whenever I do coaching. When I ask my clients what’s really important to them, this is the process I expect to answer back. And it may be a question they’ve never been asked before!

If you have a preference for extraverted Feeling, I invite you to find positive ways of experiencing introverted Feeling -- both in others and in yourself. What are the benefits of the introverted Feeling process? How can this process serve you? What's it good for? Who would you be if you didn't have any personal values? Who would you be if you didn't cultivate your own personal identity, or ever consider what’s important?

Perhaps answering those questions will give you a greater appreciation for this process. You may even discover it’s a preference you weren’t aware of.

The Dangers of Nominalizing

"What's nominalizing?" you may ask.

nom•i•nal•ize (past and past participle nom•i•nal•ized, present participle nom•i•nal•iz•ing, 3rd person present singular nom•i•nal•iz•es) transitive verb
Definition:
1. form noun from word: to change a part of speech into a noun by the addition of a suffix

Now to the more important question: why would anyone discourage nominalizing about type? What’s the big deal?

In a nutshell, it alters the psychological type model from being a theory of preferences into something rigid and dogmatic. It treats people as "things" (nouns) instead of whole beings capable of great versatility (verbs).

All of the cognitive processes/functions/consciousnesses/complexes/archetypes (these are interchangeable terms, by the way) are best expressed as verbs. They are things we DO -- not things we ARE. In a way, they represent choices we can make.

So take, for example, iNtuition. When we access our iNtuition, we are iNtuiting. It is an active verb. When we nominalize that word, it becomes "intuitive." So to say we're "intuitives" removes us from the active-ness of the verb. It makes it a "thing" rather than an "action." It makes us a "thing" rather than a "doer."

How many times have you met someone who boasted they were an "intuitive," and they didn't have a clue what that really meant? If you asked them for an example of what that looks like for them, they probably couldn't tell you. It's a meaningless concept they got hold of. They don't know iNtuiting as a verb, an active process. They don't know how they access it, or how it works for them. All they know is that some "test" told them they were "intuitive," and now they're going to crow about it. (They may be using it to put down people who aren't that "thing.")

Now, I have a friend with ISFP preferences. Her name is Sarah. I submit to you that, while Sarah has a preference for Sensing, in fact she iNtuits quite effectively.

So if I label her a "Sensor" to distinguish her from my being an "iNtuitive," the implications seems to be that she is incapable of accessing iNtuition. And nothing could be further from the truth!

In fact, because iNtuiting is her Tertiary process, it can become quite inflated at times. I daresay there are times her iNtuiting looks more impressive than mine, and it's my favorite process!

So the problem with nominalizing psychological type terms is that it gives the impression we cannot all access and use all eight processes. Instead, we have Thinkers and Feelers, Judgers and Perceivers, Introverts and Extraverts. And that does not align with a model of preferences. Then we have people walking around labeling people "intuitives" and "sensors" like it's some variation of that "blue-eyed" and "brown-eyed" classroom experiment -- as if the room can be divided along these simplistic arbitrary lines. (Ouf, I'm certain Jung would not like that!)

Because of this kind of rigid categorization, there are now companies (and of course individuals) who refuse to work with this model any more (some of them very high profile!). They have found it creates more negative stereotype than it offsets. So there are negative consequences for speaking about the type patterns in this fashion. The model becomes restrictive rather than empowering. Our range of choices seem limiting, not freeing.

As neuro-linguistic experts know, the way we speak shapes the way we think. So take care to use terminology that represent the model the way it was intended to be used.