Type Insights

I'm moving!

2008-10-28T16:41:00.001-07:00

Well, I'm moving my blog that is.

I've been convinced to move it to my website so it's got the same URL and is better partnered with my website information at "Type Insights.com." It's now up and running!

http://www.TypeInsights.com/blog

See you there!!

J or P ??

2007-12-03T11:24:00.000-08:00

I just got another message from someone who can't figure out whether they prefer INTP or INTJ.

Sigh!

The confusion they describe is soooo typical. It arises from common misunderstandings about type.

Most people suppose type is the same as the construction of the MBTI. Let me explain.

The MBTI rests on a foundation of "dichotomies":
E/I
S/N
T/F
J/P

Pretty simple on the surface. And that's the problem. Because when you start leaning into this "model" and try to grasp all the complexity of your personality, it starts getting confusing.

After all, dichotomies are based on a model of *preferences*. So where it falls apart is when we begin to realize, "Hey! I do BOTH" for every one of the options.

And it's true! We all *do* E/I, S/N, T/F, J/P.

And then we get dizzy trying to "measure" and "weigh" which ones fit us -- a particularly challenging assignment since it's nearly impossible to eliminate the conflating factors of culture, environment, relationships, background. Too many variables to handle!

So dichotomies are NOT the best way to figure out your type. :-/

Don't get me wrong -- the MBTI works great as an entry point! After all, it's accurate about 70% of the time, AND it introduces people to the notion of diversity. Before taking the MBTI, people usually suppose there are TWO kinds of people in the world: like-me / not-like-me. :-(

So the assessment is an entry point, but it is not a very sound type model over time. (And most people never question it, nor ever move past this first step. ~sigh~)

Fortunately, there are much more complex models available than these simple dichotomies which offer increasing support and complexity to match one's growing psychological comprehension.

In these other models, you start letting go of J/P altogether, and you ease up on the E/I part. Those two axes become much less significant in these other models, and are replaced by dimensions of greater richness.

Four models that all coincide at the 16 types level and support self-discovery more effectively include:
Temperament
Interaction Styles
Cognitive Processes
Archetypes

Many will testify to the worth of the effort to learn and understand each of these models, both in terms of applying it to oneself AND in applying it to your relationships with others. (My coaching clients wonder how they got along before they learned the models, and we're talking about a 2-hr investment in learning each one -- a pretty small commitment considering all the benefits they gained.)

So.... the point is -- there's lots to learn! And when you start to lean into the notion that you do BOTH "J" and "P," you become less satisfied with the dichotomies as a model of type. (And the average type enthusiast will keep sending you back to the dichotomies because they think that's the beginning and end of type models. If all you have is a hammer, everything must be a nail.)

When you re-visit the dichotomies, it's useful to remember what we as professional practitioners keep in mind: the dichotomies represent a set of *preferences*, and J/P merely indicates which of these processes we prefer to use In The Outer World. That's it!!! It does NOT identify which one you prefer overall -- in fact, if you are introverted, the one you prefer is the OPPOSITE of the letter in your code (no kidding).

Furthermore, dichotomies don't describe "who you are" -- they describe what you do *naturally*. So these other models are where you want to look for the "who you are" parts.

Discovering your best-fit psychological type pattern is not a one-step process ("take a test and be done"). As far as I'm concerned, that's great news, since I experience human beings as infinitely more complex than that.

-Vicky Jo :-D

Ti and Fi Differences

2007-10-01T21:40:00.000-07:00

I notice a couple of terms seem to come up frequently that get interpreted in a myriad of ways depending on a person's preferences. The two terms are "analyze" and "categorize."

What I notice is that many times INFPs will claim that they are "analyzing" and "categorizing." What they really SEEM to be doing instead is sorting out and examining their feelings about something, and weighing whether it is good or bad, right or wrong. And when they categorize, it is often just these categories they are considering -- whether they like it or dislike it, whether it feels nice or awful. Whether to move toward or away from; whether it is pleasurable or unpleasurable.

When a person is trying to weigh between INFP and INTP and they suppose they are "analyzing" and "categorizing," it's important to pay attention to whether the analyzing is employing impersonal frameworks to analyze from. An INTP is more likely to analyze an experience through neutral notions, such as whether a light is red or green, or a test result is malignant or benign. Whether a person is drunk or sober. Whether a glass is empty or full. These are all value-neutral frameworks. And when categorizing is done, it again reflects neutral categories: rainy weather or sunny; on time or late; up or down; liquid or solid. There are NO value judgments being made.

I remember some time ago I was delivering a class with somebody over the phone to explore cognitive processes. I asked them to organize several objects in some way and then let me know what ways they were organized. After a moment of silence, the client said, "I can organize them according to which ones I like best!" This did not reflect objective organizing -- he was betrayed by his favorite function (introverted Feeling), and drawn to do what he does best in place of the objectively organizing exercise I was asking of him.

So the thing to notice when you believe you like to do "analyzing" and "categorizing" is to notice whether these activities are impersonal or personal; whether they include values judgments or whether they are values neutral. That will provide the best indication as to whether the activity is rightly defined as Ti or Fi. To really drive the point home, make an effort to consciously perform each form of "analyzing" and "categorizing" in order to see how easily you can do it. That ought to burble up a sense of how unconscious one of the processes is for you.

Fe and Fi Differences

2007-10-01T21:27:00.000-07:00

My husband and I moved into a new house less than a year ago, and we're still settling in.

The downstairs bathroom seems to be the "guest bathroom," since it is closest to the guest bedroom and the living room.

A few weeks ago, I felt it should be furnished appropriately for guests! To that end, I collected together a number of bottles of shampoo and conditioner from various hotel stays, and put them in a plastic bin that I set in the shower. I chose shampoos & conditioners that featured a color scheme on the container that matched the house's color scheme, so as to stay in keeping with the theme. I thought this would have a subtle affect on any visitors, and make a nice impact.

I also got a wire toilet paper holder for spare rolls of tissue. That way, one could replace the toilet paper roll easily without having to rummage through cupboards looking for fresh rolls.

All very considerate, wouldn't you say......?

Well, as it happens, my husband often uses that bathroom. And one day I happened to notice that my supply of shampoo was mysteriously dwindling. I thought perhaps I had mis-remembered how many shampoos I had put there...? Then I noticed that the wire holder for spare toilet paper was nearly empty. And at last I connected the dots!

My husband supposed I had thoughtfully gone to all this effort on HIS behalf! He was delighted with these convenient supplies for his personal comfort.

It was a difficult conversation to navigate the understanding that this was intended for GUESTS, not my dearly beloved husband.

For me, I felt astonished that he wouldn't have known that, figured that out, or at least CHECKED with me about these generous gestures.

And such is the problem with introverted Feeling -- it doesn't have an awareness of other people's feelings. It's not trying to hurt anyone; it isn't evil-intentioned; it is simply oblivious to the presence of others' feelings. It doesn't automatically consider the "other," the intentions of the person making the effort. That's not where its attention goes.

Introverted Feeling is a very challenging process for me to be with, especially in its inflated form. In other words, I wanted to wring his neck! And yet, he was simply being himself. It can be deeply challenging to honor diversity sometimes when I feel "injured" by his "obliviousness." SIGH!

Maybe I will go eat all his dark choclate in a fit of introverted Feeling. But somehow that doesn't feel like the right thing to do either...

Portents

2007-05-26T20:27:00.000-07:00

My husband and I are both "DomNi," as we call it. That means we share a preference for introverted iNtuiting. (His preferences are for INTJ while mine are for INFJ.)

So the weirdest thing happened last night, and we're both quite distressed about it!

We were sound asleep in bed after a very long day, when CRASH! The picture mounted over our fireplace fell down. The glass shattered and the frame broke off at the bottom. Luckily nobody was hurt, and nothing else was damaged.

It isn't a terrible loss, because I paid a whopping twenty bucks for it at a hardware store.

But we're still upset.

And it isn't only because our sleep was disturbed.

See, here's the thing. My husband's relatives have been visiting us for the past three weeks from Australia. And last night, we put all of them on planes to go home. Buh-bye!

So... when this picture CRASHED in the middle of the night, we naturally INTERPRETED its meaning in terms of, "What crashed?" That naturally led to a concern that a plane carrying relatives may have crashed. Yikes!

Interestingly, I checked in with my own iNtuition after my husband explained what had happened, and I quickly dismissed the possibility that it was the relatives. I just "knew" that wasn't it. My husband, however, checked his iNtuition and "knew" that wasn't it either, but he jumped online and checked all the flights just to be sure, before returning to bed. That's how concerned he was.

This morning, once we woke up and got moving, we surveyed the damage of the broken frame and glass. That's when my husband confessed his concerns to me. I laughed, and confessed my concerns back. We were amused by how they were identical (almost).

In that instance, we both felt very grateful to have a DomNi spouse who understands how our mind works.

And here's the thing: we still don't know what it means! As we picked up the pieces, I found myself feeling more and more distressed.

Does this crash presage a different "crash" in my life? Could there be an oncoming financial "crash"? Might there be a car crash? Could an earthquake be eminent?

Who knows??

Likewise, my husband is tiptoeing on eggshells somewhat. His driving improved significantly today, and he was more conscientious about his choices behind the wheel.

He wonders whether the crash is a foreshadowing of our next tropical vacation, given the subject matter of the picture. (I retorted that perhaps the Universe was making an insulting comment about my taste in art.) It's amazing how many ways you can interpret an event.

Today we're both walking around with a nagging sense of doom and gloom that we can't quite shake. We're waiting for the other shoe to drop, and wondering what it is.

Someone else would no doubt laugh at us, and simply say we used the wrong-sized picture hook. No big deal. Pound in a new hook and hang a new picture. Get over it!

Sometimes I wish life were that easy...

Don't Be Too Nice

2007-05-23T21:40:00.000-07:00

I was reading the APTi "Bulletin of Psychological Type" today. They reprinted a keyote address given by Isabel Briggs Myers at the first-ever national conference on uses of the MBTI in 1975.

One of the remarks Isabel made jumped out at me. She describes a trap that feeling types fall into, and she advises them, "Don't be nicer than you're going to be able to keep up."

BOY DID THAT LAND. My jaw dropped open.

The past three weeks, my husband's family has been visiting from Australia. We have had two family get-togethers and done more sightseeing than you can imagine. We even took them with us to San Francisco when we drove up there over a weekend so that I could participate in a workshop with Dr. John Beebe. We have given them complete access to our home; we have taken them shopping in the garment district; we have driven them out to Venice Beach; and we went to see "Spiderman" at the Cinerama Dome. (Friday we are seeing "Pirates of the Caribbean" in the El Capitan.)

WHEW!

The trouble is, whenever I have visitors like this, I put EVERYTHING aside so that I may attend to their needs. Like, when my parents visited a few years ago, I swept my whole life under the rug in order to give them my undivided attention. I chauffeured them everywhere; I got them in to see stage shows (the famous Christmas show in the Crystal Cathedral, for instance), they slept in my living room -- I knocked myself out! After they left, I collapsed AND needed to put my life back together since it had been on hold for so long. (Mind you, I'm an entrepreneur, so I had the freedom to do all that BUT I can't afford to take much time off or I'll go bankrupt. I also prefer introversion!)

Sometime after they returned home, my father made a casual comment about how he might like to come out and live in California. I nearly had a nervous breakdown! I wondered if he thought he would get such special treatment all the time if he relocated here!

I still harbor a little fear that someday he might appear on my doorstep, expecting to be taken care of.

And here I was doing it again -- this time with my husband's family! It's not like they're terrible people or anything -- they're not! In fact, you couldn't ask for better houseguests. Really! (This isn't about them; it's about ME. I've got that straight!)

The trouble is, when I have guests around, I don't know whether I'm feeling MY feelings or theirs! It's very challenging for me to separate out, since I have a preference for extraverted Feeling.

Ironically, only yesterday I had a conversation with my husband wherein I expressed my fear that in short order one of the youngsters might decide to move to L.A. and take up permanent residence here. After all, we showed them such a good time -- why shouldn't every day be that great? (~shudder~)

So when I read what Isabel Myers had to say, "Don't be nicer than you're going to be able to keep up," it REALLY landed. I saw how hard I am pretending not to have a Real Life, and am making myself completely available, and I never gripe and I never complain. (I AM A SAINT!)

Luckily, Robin's sister also has auxiliary extraverted Feeling, so I know that she "gets it" how I am striving to make their visit wonderful, but I do have limited reserves to draw on. She is VERY GRATEFUL. (It's so gratifying when another extraverted Feeling type "gets" and supports you.)

Nevertheless, it seems to me there is some room for VJ development to be done here -- though I don't know yet what that might look like.

It's possible it will show up as needing to create healthy boundaries should any of them choose to re-locate here. We may have to engage in authentic conversation should that ever transpire. And I may have to do the unthinkable -- stand up for myself (~gasp!~).

That peculiar extraverted Thinking lesson seems to show up again and again and again in a thousand different forms. I guess some problems are never "solved."

Relationship Type Combinations

2007-05-14T11:39:00.000-07:00

A primary issue for many people is their relationships. Relationships are both paradise and hell for some individuals. So it's no surprise that many people are anxious to learn more about type models so they can improve their relationships! For some, it may seem like a life saver.

I confess. It felt like that to me! A self-help junkie, I read David Keirsey's book, Please Understand Me in one day sitting at a temporary job assignment. Apparently it didn’t have much impact. The book that hooked me was 16 Ways to Love Your Lover by Otto Kroeger and Janet Thuesen. (I stumbled across it at another temp job.) I still treasure my autographed copy. It analyzed and explained the failure of every relationship I'd ever been in. That got my attention, since relationships are the most important thing in the world to me. Speaking as a Catalyst, I was hooked!

It's safe to suggest I've spent the past ten years soaking up new type knowledge and greater awareness on the strength of that one "aha" experience. To this day, even while I downplay the J/P scale in my own work, I still revere one golden nugget of Otto’s advice:

"When giving a J a new idea, drop the information in his or her lap, get out of the way, and come back and discuss it later." This gives the person "moan space."

I strive to live my life according to that caution, and even train others to use this strategy with me to benefit our mutual relationship. I am protective of my "moan space."

Because people struggle so much with relationships ("can't live with 'em; can't live without 'em"), it's common for new type users to inquire about what types they should foster relationships with, and which types to avoid. (I did!)

Here's a catalog of every type relationship formula I have encountered. (I've been collecting them for a decade, so I believe my list is comprehensive.)

First, let's look at friendships. Friendships tend to be qualitatively different from romantic relationships and less emotionally charged, so we'll explore them first.

Most friendships are based on "common ground." Sometimes that means there's instant affinity and friendship between people with identical type patterns, such as INFJ + INFJ. But it's not a rule! I've also seen two INFJs dislike one another on sight, or react to another INFJ with vicious criticism, or engage in flame wars on internet type lists.

It's possible Perceiving types are less inclined to "butt heads" with representatives of their identical type pattern, but there’s still no guarantee. I’ve similarly seen a number of perceiving types display animosity and turn on “their own kind.” Simply matching type patterns does not reliably predict a friendship made in heaven.

This notion of "common ground," however, is a fairly consistent and reliable formula. So the obvious question then is, "What qualifies as 'common ground'?" And the definitive answer is, of course, "it depends." Certainly the answer changes depending on which type model you look to!

Having a Temperament pattern in common between two people often creates instant rapport. After all, their core Temperament needs match; their Temperament values match; their talents and behaviors match – so rapport is likely to breed easily. Thus, Catalysts are likely to gravitate toward other Catalysts, Theorists toward other Theorists, etc.

Having similar or complementary Interaction Styles may also produce relationships with magical common ground. In the past month, I’ve heard two ENFJs report thriving relationships with ESTJs, probably due to their having similar Interaction Style energies. (They may make wrong-headed decisions sometimes, but at least they make them quickly together!)

The Interaction Style model is an "energetic" model – it’s about the way we express our joi de vivre. So enthusiastic people are drawn to other enthusiastic people; reserved people are drawn to other reserved people, etc. Sometimes we see enthusiastic people try to jolly up reserved folks; and reserved people try to settle down enthusiastic people – but overall it’s easy to see how matching innate energy levels creates a sense of instant compatibility.

Let's now turn to the familiar psychological type model, first identified by Carl Jung and later popularized by Isabel Briggs-Myers' venerable MBTI. This model has been traditionally taught as a model of four basic functions: Thinking, Feeling, Sensing, iNtuiting. Naturally, each of these processes holds the possibility of being "common ground." Because this model is relatively unsophisticated at this generalized level, it's nearly impossible to suggest any bulletproof algorithms or draw too many precise conclusions about precisely what attracts people to one another. It seems like anything goes!

There is a more complex version of this model now, based on the pioneering work of Dr. John Beebe, that adds some refinements germane to this exploration of relationships. This more sophisticated version of Jung's model presents us with eight "components" to explore common ground with. So an INFJ and an ISFJ [say] might experience affinity around sharing the extraverted Feeling ↔ introverted Thinking dimension. Or an INTJ and an ENFP might experience affinity around sharing the extraverted Thinking ↔ introverted Feeling dimension. Or how about ENTJ and ISTP around extraverted Sensing ↔ introverted iNtuiting? It becomes easier to notice which functions attract and which ones repel using this eight-function lens.

Overall, it seems reasonable to conclude that nearly any common ground may serve as a basis for friendship, and there seems to be a lot of "common ground" featured in the psychological preferences model. There are many innate predispositions that may attract others. And that has been pretty well borne out by my own real-life experience.

So let us now turn to the topic of romance, of soulmates -- the sine qua non of many a Catalyst’s existence.

It's amusing to note that many people discover the type model and leap instantly to the conclusion that finding a mate with an identical code guarantees a match made in heaven! However, while it is true that many type-alike couples thrive blissfully together, it appears they are generally the exception rather than the rule.

There was a short-lived dating service that began matching up couples according to similarities, all the way down to precisely matching their type codes. And it fizzled. In the flesh, each of the pairings they suggested liked each other well enough and seemed to get on tolerably, but there was no attraction, no heat, no fire, no passion. By the time the dating service figured out its mistake and began MISmatching couples, it was too late. They closed their doors and went out of business.

The moral is surely obvious: setting your cap for a mate with an identical type pattern will not necessarily kindle romantic interest, much less ensure success or happiness. As a gambler would lament, "it’s not a sure bet."

Probably the most infamous type combinations for romantic involvement are those decreed by David Keirsey in Please Understand Me. In this book, Keirsey takes the resolute stance that "opposites attract." The algorithm he outlines for each type in painstaking detail simply consists of mismatching every letter of a pair’s type code so these couples have no alphabet in common.

His prescription has subsequently met with every possible reaction -- ranging from shock and horror to raging success.

What few people know is that Keirsey changed his formula in a lesser-known sequel, Portraits of Temperament. In this treatment, Keirsey presents a different ideal. In the updated algorithm, he dismisses the first letter of the code as unimportant, matches the second letter, and MISmatches the third and fourth letters. This brand-new formula pairs NFJs with NTPs and STJs with SFPs, and so on.

With this new sequence, Keirsey seemed to highlight the importance of matching couples on their Perceiving preferences, perhaps so they would "see" things in the same way. (It also reflected his own choice of marriage partner more accurately.) But it mismatches them in some areas, so there is enough difference to create attraction and interest.

Before he died, Terence Duniho (of DDLI fame) corresponded privately with me to share his own algorithm (nearly identical to Keirsey's). His formula was to match the first two letters of the type code and MISmatch the last two letters. Terence believed this was the ideal combination, and his own choice of spouse reflected this conviction. This particular combination matches couples together around an overall preference for introversion or extraversion, and (just like Keirsey), seems to allow couples to "perceive" in like fashion.

If you’re keeping score, that's now two type experts recommending this same essential formula as the prescription for relationship success.

Dr. John Beebe, curiously enough, happens to agree with Keirsey's original formula in his own investigation of relationships. He reprises Keirsey's first algorithm of having no letters in common. However, Beebe’s reasoning is vastly different! Far from setting up type "opposites" (more about that later), Beebe labels this particular kind of matching opposed codes "inverse relationships." Let me provide a sample diagram.

ESTP --- INFJ
If I compare these two type codes of ESTP and INFJ, it seems apparent to anyone that these are "opposites" simply because they have no letters in common. It seems like a safe assumption. However, if I extend the diagram so it reflects the entire pattern of all eight cognitive processes, what do you notice?

ESTP =	INFJ =
Se	Ni
Ti	Fe
Fe	Ti
Ni	Se

down into the Shadow processes

Si	Ne
Te	Fi
Fi	Te
Ne	Si

Beebe classifies this mismatched pairing as an "inverse relationship" because the order of preferences are the same albeit inverted with one another. The favorite process of the ESTP is the inferior process of the INFJ, and vice-versa. The order of processes "mirror" one another, both on the top and on the bottom.

Using Jungian terms, Beebe states that in this combination, each partner will "cradle" the other's anima/animus "gently." (Ooh, that phrase makes me swoon!) In other words, due to the strengths and weaknesses inherent in this particular combination, each partner will have buckets of patience with their mate's inferior process, or "inferiority complex." (This sounds like a lovely and highly desirable quality to have!)

Complexifying matters significantly, Beebe concurrently introduces a competing algorithm. He states that "seduction" most often occurs when a person meets their favorite process as the 5th process in another person. He indicates there is an overwhelming attraction between two processes in this combination: 1 + 5.

Let me clarify with an example. An INFJ’s overall favorite cognitive process is introverted iNtuiting. Their 5th process is its diametric opposite: extraverted iNtuiting. (It's the same process in a different attitude – meaning, the opposition manifests from whether a particular process is used in the inner or the outer world. A difference of direction here typically generates conflict, since what one person shares with the world is what the other person believes should be kept to oneself.)

According to Beebe, when dominant introverted iNtuiting encounters dominant extraverted iNtuiting, it’s as if they magically combine to form a “giant iNtuition” together. (Surely this characterizes an instance where opposites overwhelmingly attract!) Beebe suggests this compelling attraction is far more common than the inverse relationship he previously described, and claims that the sensation can be highly seductive. (I know what he means; I was in an intoxicating relationship of that sort for several years.)

There are also archetypal attractions that Dr. Beebe has identified which create various forms of relationship, up to and including codependence!

According to Beebe, we all use our auxiliary function to support others and help other people rather than using it on or with ourselves. Thus it is possible to stumble into situations where we feel "needed" because it gives us an opportunity to express our auxiliary process. As Dr. Beebe has said, he tends to "think" for other people; I know that I often "feel" for other people; one of my ENFJ clients tends to iNtuit for other people; and I’ve noticed that my ISTJ sister tends to do Sensing for her family, as does my ISFP friend! It’s easy to see where we can get codependent with others when we feel we are contributing something so fundamentally necessary. It's an easy place to get "hooked" and validated, even when the rest of the relationship is unfulfilling.

Ta daaaa! Those are all the formulas and combinations I encountered during my research into relationships of attraction based on various type algorithms.

Now let's explore its corollary: the type "opposite." Here we switch from attraction to repulsion as we delve into what constitutes "type incompatibility."

Once again, this notion of "type opposites" appears in each of the models.

David Keirsey caused mass confusion within the Temperament model about what constitutes a "type opposite." In one analysis, he implies that Catalysts and Improvisers are "opposites"; in another treatment he declares Catalysts and Theorists to be opposites. Which are we to believe?!

In the Interaction Styles model, whatever style is listed on the grid diagonal from our preferred style in the matrix causes us the greatest social styles stress. It might therefore be considered our "opposite." Thus, Chart-the-Course and Get-Things-Going would be opposites; and In-Charge and Behind-the-Scenes would be considered "opposites." And it’s true: I’ve seen (and experienced!) great stress from these dissimilar styles.

People who prefer Jung's original type model (as represented by 4 functions rather than 8) still interpret entirely mismatched codes as "opposites." Using that framework, INFJ and ESTP would once again be opposed in every way.

This stance apparently overlooks (Jung's contemporary) Marie Louise von Franz's assertion of Jung claiming that the hardest thing to understand is the same function type with the other attitude.

Bob McAlpine of Type Resources specifies two kinds of "opposites" derived from Dr. Beebe's 8-function model. The first opposite has been named "Opposing Personality." In this version of "opposites," an INFJ's "opposing type" would be the ENFP pattern. Betwixt these two particular patterns, all eight of the processes are entirely mis-matched, albeit not in precisely opposite order. They might be diagrammed thus:

INFJ =	ENFP =
Ni	Ne
Fe	Fi
Ti	Te
Se	Si

down into the Shadow processes

Ne	Ni
Fi	Fe
Te	Ti
Si	Se

Surmising that mis-matches such as this in the 8-level model would generate tension was verified recently through research done by Ken Liberty. He took an intimate look at what he calls "attitude-antagonistic couples." This description fits couples who have matching letters in their codes, but their favorite processes are in opposing attitudes, as displayed above. These particular combinations report more challenges within their marriages than couples who are not attitude-antagonistic. John Beebe characterized an attitude-antagonistic relationship he was in once by saying, "there was a fight every other minute."

I don't mean to imply this sort of relationship will never work – I'm merely reporting how certain combinations appear to be fraught with greater challenges than less-opposed combinations do.

The second "opposite" Bob details is called a "Dynamic Opposite." With this pairing, an INFJ's dynamic opposite would be the ISTJ type pattern. Betwixt these two patterns, all eight of the processes are also entirely mis-matched, albeit not in precisely opposite order. They are diagrammed thus:

INFJ =	ISTJ =
Ni	Si
Fe	Te
Ti	Fi
Se	Ne

down into the Shadow processes

Ne	Se
Fi	Ti
Te	Fe
Si	Ni

What's different about this pattern is how the INFJ's favorite process is the ISTJ’s 8th, or least-favored process, and vice-versa. These types seem uniquely configured to bring out the worst in each other. (Just my rotten luck; that's the formula of the relationship I have with my sister.)

One model not detailed at length in this examination is Beebe's Archetypes model. That's because it introduces too many variables to summarize succinctly here. Using this model, we would explore Shadow and all our complexes and the impacts they have upon relationship. From the perspective of this model, it seems only one conclusion may be deftly drawn, which is that:

Each individual loves in the other sex what he lacks in himself.
-G. Stanley Hall

Through the lens of the Archetypes model, we might explore the burning philosophical question: what is the purpose of relationship? Is it to make us happy? Is it to complete us in some fashion? Is it somehow our destiny, for the sake of some indefinable concept called "true" or "unconditional love"?

What is the reason so many people (especially Catalysts) long to know which type is "best" for them and chase the perfect type "formula," much as Ponce de Leon sought the Fountain of Youth? Frustratingly, we also have a culture which offers us dysfunctional models of relationship so that people generally evaluate their relationships with an eye toward what they get out of them.

Relying on Jungian concepts and leaning heavily into the framework of psychological types, it seems the true purpose of relationship is to create mirrors. Our relationships act as mirrors of ourselves. Thus, relationships are one of our most powerful tools for growth. The people we are in relationship with act as mirrors, reflecting back our beliefs; and we are their mirrors, reflecting back their beliefs. We tend to project onto others what we cannot (as yet) accept in ourselves.

One benefit of being in conscious relationship is helping one another retrieve these lost and rejected parts. Recognizing how one aspect of relationship is to heal wounded parts of ourselves goes a long way toward making that process less confusing, since this is uncomfortable, frustrating work. This is where an understanding of the psychological types model supports us and fortifies us with courage to face the daunting challenges that confront us.

One way to become conscious around relationships is by accepting only one purpose for relationships (and for all of life!), and that is to decide and be who you really are. Let relationship be about deciding what part of yourself you want to "show up," not what part of another person you can capture and hold. Relationships provide a "contextual field" in which you choose and declare, express and fulfill, experience and become who you really are. Relationship is not about having another complete you; but to have another with whom you share your completeness.

Relationships (your relationship to all things, in fact) were designed as the perfect tool for individuation. They represent ongoing opportunities for growth. Any time we believe relationship is about anything other than that, the Universe makes fools of us.

Of course, the irony is that our ego has no control over what we are attracted to. We’re attracted to what we’re attracted to, and that’s that!

Put another way, you don’t fall in love with a “type”; you fall in love with a person. There’s no telling why one person will hook up with another, and it’s a fool’s game to control or predict what you or anyone else is drawn to.

The culmination of all my research seems to indicate that type is not a divining rod; it cannot help you accurately identify an ideal romantic partner for yourself. But when a relationship materializes through whatever magical mystical means it may, type is an invaluable tool for understanding oneself, working on oneself, and consciously grappling with one’s own Shadow and personal development.

Once you become involved in relationship, type provides an excellent system for support, understanding, and forgiveness with each other. It goes a long way toward showing where conflicts and blind spots occur in relationship, and points unerringly to where our developmental issues lie.

And this, too, has been borne out by my real life experience.

The meeting of two personalities is like the contact of two chemical substances: if there is any reaction, both are transformed.
-C.G. Jung

Common Misconceptions

2007-05-14T11:00:00.000-07:00

On the type lists that I frequent, there is often a lot of buzz about the MBTI "test." As a type professional, I would like to clarify a few common misconceptions.

The MBTI "test" is not a "classification system" -- it's an "indicator" that points to one's preferred cognitive processes as defined by Carl Jung's theory of psychological types. It is an admittedly flawed tool, in that the official MBTI is accurate at best 75% of the time, based on psychometric testing and according to its
own manual.

The MBTI does not tell us "who we are" -- it suggests what we are good at. Ergo, all INFJs are naturally good at introverted iNtuiting, extraverted Feeling, introverted Thinking, extraverted Sensing (in descending order, so to speak). (And by definition,
INFJs are NOT so good at extraverted iNtuiting, introverted Feeling, extraverted Thinking, introverted Sensing.) This algorithm holds true across all the type patterns, and that's the framework at the heart of the model, and naturally it is in our own best interest to learn more about what these processes are.

As for the question,"what shapes us," Jung postulated that our type pattern is innate, and is genetically inherited, like eye color and handedness. (There's a great deal of scientific research to support this hypothesis...)

However, it is certainly true that environment and upbringing also play a part. In addition to your "core" self -- the one that holds your innate type preference, there are additional layers, consisting of the "adapted" self -- that part of you that learns to behave in certain ways based on continued environmental reinforcement, such as family and societal norms, peer pressure, etc. For example, you were not born knowing how to tie shoelaces, but I imagine it's something you can do nowadays without thinking about it.

Additionally, there are shifting environmental needs that require different behaviors depending on the context, leading to a concept known as the "contextual" self. For example, your behavior is probably different when you are at a party from when you're at work, and when you're cleaning your room, and when you're talking to your best friend on the phone... In each of these examples, you are still the same person, and your core personality type is still the same, but you are drawing upon different cognitive processes to suit the situation.

One aspect of the type model that is often overlooked is that it is at its heart a developmental model. None of us have personalities that are "stagnant" -- we are all of us developing, growing, changing. And we are all of us on our own unique path of actualizing our type and exercising our preferences.

J/P Differences

2007-03-07T13:55:00.001-08:00

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

2007-03-06T21:56:00.002-08:00

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

2007-03-06T21:54:00.000-08:00

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

2007-03-06T21:52:00.000-08:00

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

2007-03-06T21:51:00.000-08:00

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

2007-03-06T21:49:00.000-08:00

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

2007-03-06T19:23:00.000-08:00

"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.