# Finally: Official tandem group names!



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Octavian said:


> Did Myers ever provide reasoning for her decision to turn the auxiliary to the opposite direction of the dominant?


I've been meaning to post a long discussion of the auxiliary's attitude for a while, so I took your post as my cue, but I've started a new thread on the subject.

Myers largely rested her case on a sentence in Psychological Types where Jung says the auxiliary function is "in every respect different" from the dominant function. And I'd agree that her interpretation of that sentence would appear to be the best one if all you do is look at that one sentence in isolation. But the trouble is, that interpretation seems inconsistent with way too much else in Psychological Types.

And you'll find a little speculation by me as to Myers' possible motivation in the last spoiler of the linked post.


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

reckful said:


> I'm not claiming that the cognitive functions — or Berens' "Cognitive Styles" — have been _definitively disproven_. I'm just pointing out that those Cognitive Styles categories (_especially_) are glaringly _inconsistent_ with the dichotomy-centric perspective I've described — which, as explained in that long INTJforum post, was essentially Myers' perspective, notwithstanding her lip service to some of the type-dynamics stuff — and that I'll be surprised if Berens can actually come up with descriptions that, if properly put to the test, would find INTJs and ESFPs together on one side of the divide and INTPs and ESFJs together on the other side.


Again, they're only inconsistent if you ignore the suppressed (unpreferred) functions and their attitudes. How does N and T play in an SFP compared to an SFJ? How does S and F play out in an NTP compared to an NTJ? That's what Cognitive Styles is based on. (along with the fact, as I've demonstated, and at least one observer noted in watching this, that the two groups will handle even their preferred N and T or S and F differently from each other).

Meanwhile, just curious if you say the same things about Socionics, which developed independently of MBTI and the rest of Western typology, and on one hand, many seem to uphold as better and truer to Jung. It already had developed a system, called quadras, which similarly link type groups by function tandems.



reckful said:


> As a quick supplemental point, the functions model that Berens is basing her Cognitive Styles on is unquestionably one that was "contrived" post-Jung and post-Myers. As further discussed in this post, both I and (as Myers acknowledged) most Jung scholars believe that Jung thought the auxiliary function would have the _same attitude_ as the dominant function, not the opposite attitude, making Jung's model for a Ti-dom with an N-aux Ti-Ni-Se-Fe.
> 
> But, setting the more controversial auxiliary function aside, virtually everyone agrees that Jung said the tertiary function would have the _opposite attitude_ to the dominant, and that was also Myers' position. And the official MBTI folks have always refused to take a position on that issue.
> 
> So Berens' position that, as one example, INTPs and INFJs share "Aligning" characteristics by virtue of the fact that they're both "Ti/Fe" types is inconsistent with Jung, inconsistent with Myers, and isn't a perspective that's supported by the official MBTI establishment.





Octavian said:


> Did Myers ever provide reasoning for her decision to turn the auxiliary to the opposite direction of the dominant?





reckful said:


> I've been meaning to post a long discussion of the auxiliary's attitude for a while, so I took your post as my cue, but I've started a new thread on the subject.
> 
> Myers largely rested her case on a sentence in Psychological Types where Jung says the auxiliary function is "in every respect different" from the dominant function. And I'd agree that her interpretation of that sentence would appear to be the best one if all you do is look at that one sentence in isolation. But the trouble is, that interpretation seems inconsistent with way too much else in Psychological Types.
> 
> And you'll find a little speculation by me as to Myers' possible motivation in the last spoiler of the linked post.


It doesn't even do any good to get into the debate of which attitudes Jung held each function to have, when first of all, Jung was so unclear a lot of times, and we've gone on about this for years here, with different interpreters saying different things, and no resolution ever being arrived at. If he's "NiTi", you even had those saying he was ISTP or INFJ, with a strong tertiary. (But then he mentions a definite preference for Thinking and iNtuition, so that calls those into question). 
Then, the notion that he held to a dominant and "two auxiliaries". I actually have begun to see some sense in this, and it goes along well with Beebe's representation of the dominant and inferior as the [vertical] "spine", and the auxiliary and tertiary as the [horizontal] "arms", and you even see the diagram in other sources besides Beebe.

The most likely reason the auxiliary was deemed to be opposite attitude was for the sake of *balance* (just as it being the opposite kind of function. We have to both perceive and judge, and so we have to deal with both the internal and external worlds).

But second and most importantly, it's really all moot, when your objection is that functions are illegitimate to begin with, and only dichotomies valid.
I'm actually still working on the other thread I started recently, on function definitions, and I've for a while been seeing it better to separate functions from attitudes, and see the ego choosing one orientation and a dominant function independently (so then the separated functions then are like undivided dichotomies), and then other *complexes* within the psyche that pair together functions and attitudes. 
So the "auxiliary" is simply the function and orientation chosen by the Parental Complex (or "Caretaker", whose purpose is to support ourselves and others with), which will tend to be the next to develop after the ego's dominant. So that is really the basis of dynamic type theory. The other six remaining function/attitude combinations (which are all reflections of the two identified so far from the ego splitting them off in chosing the first two) will all become connected with other complexes mirroring the first two complexes (i.e. the tertiary is oriented by the "Child" complex, which mirrors the "Parent", and the associated function mirrors the auxiliary, etc.)

Apart from these complexes (which you can actually think of as miniature senses of "I" alongside the main ego), the functions are *undifferentiated*. You just have a *mixed together* mass of data from which an ego structure *separates out* what it prefers to pay attention to (which is what "concretistic" and "abstracting" originally meant, before Myers and Keirsey lingo associated "concrete" and "abstract" specifically with the Sensing and iNtuition functions).

So I believe that looking at it in terms of different complexes is the solution to this debate. You can in a way sum up a "type" as an ego/caretaker combination, which covers our relation to self, and to others, the internal and external words, and information gathering and decision-making. That's the purpose of typology. To help us understand ourselves and [our relation to] others.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

Octavian said:


> Did Myers ever provide reasoning for her decision to turn the auxiliary to the opposite direction of the dominant?


Here is a topic I made arguing her logic. I included an unspoiled excerpt from Gifts Differing in the spoiler at the top of the post.


----------



## Octavarium (Nov 27, 2012)

It seems that, to make the cognitive styles model work, Berens would have to abandon the dichotomies and just say that INTJ = Ni Te Fi Se and INTP = Ti Ne Si Fe, even if the Ti Ne type tests J and the Ni Te type tests P. On the other hand, Berens might be putting types that have opposite characteristics that are mirror images of each other into the same category, perhaps on the basis that they have the same motivations or thought processes, which is what the Enneagram does. Let's take attitude towards authority as an example, and here are a few short Kroeger and Thuesen quotes to illustrate my point:



Kroeger and Thuesen said:


> It is the nature of all ENTPs to test the limits of any system or person, especially traditional ones.





Kroeger and Thuesen said:


> One ongoing dilemma for [ESTPs] is that they are often oblivious to established norms and procedures. As a result, they can be in continual trouble with those in authority. Some other types are specifically anti-authority and enjoy testing its legitimacy -- not the ESTP. This type is simply oblivious to authority.





Kroeger and Thuesen said:


> As both child and adult, ISFJs may be given to streaks of stubbornness that seem entirely out of character. But even that stubbornness will give way if authority, role definition ("I'm the teacher and I want it done this way"), or some other sense of responsibility can be appealed to. ISFJs respect authority and respond accordingly.


Do those quotes suggest that ENTPs and ISFJs have something in common that neither shares with ESTPs? Isn't there a case to be argued that ENTPs and ISFJs and, perhaps, all of the SJ and NP types, tend to pay attention to authority and tradition, though they react to it in opposite ways? After all, both are basing their actions on what the authority says. You've got to know the rules before you can break them, right? Could that then be contrasted with SPs and NJs, who tend to pay less attention to authority? In other words, couldn't SJs and NPs be put together in the "people who have strong reactions to authority" category? Could we even take it further and say both tend to test authority? Does that go some way towards meeting your challenge, @reckful?


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Octavarium said:


> Do those quotes suggest that ENTPs and ISFJs have something in common that neither shares with ESTPs? Isn't there a case to be argued that ENTPs and ISFJs and, perhaps, all of the SJ and NP types, tend to pay attention to authority and tradition, though they react to it in opposite ways? After all, both are basing their actions on what the authority says. You've got to know the rules before you can break them, right? Could that then be contrasted with SPs and NJs, who tend to pay less attention to authority? In other words, *couldn't SJs and NPs be put together in the "people who have strong reactions to authority" category?* Could we even take it further and say both tend to test authority? Does that go some way towards meeting your challenge, @reckful?


Well, it's a theory... :tongue:

I'm not persuaded by that example. I don't think a typical ENTP "pays attention to the rules" (so they "can break them") to a greater degree than a typical NJ. I'd say a typical anti-authoritarian NP is mainly concerned with doing their own thing (whether it breaks any rules or not) rather than specifically wanting to break rules. I don't mean to say that there aren't people who may (at times, anyway) delight in breaking rules partly for the sake of breaking rules, but I'd say the SPs and the NPs are the closest cousins in that regard — and that focusing on the fact that you have to "know the rules" to break them (and saying, hey, that makes NPs like those rule-knowing SJs) rather than focusing on the fact that the SJs are the likeliest rule-followers and NPs are (maybe) the likeliest rule-breakers is focusing on a (relatively superficial) tail at the expense of the dog.

And I certainly don't think a typical SJ has a greater tendency to "test authority" than a typical NJ or SP. (Less so, I'd say.)

In one of my earlier posts, I suggested that "_attitude toward change_ is one of those cases where two of the dichotomies can be viewed as contributing, each in its own way, to an aspect of personality, ... with SJs being the ultimate traditionalists (temperamentally over-pessimistic about change, and tending to over-value the way things are and/or 'always have been'), NPs being the ultimate change agents (temperamentally over-optimistic about change, and prone to err on the side of having too little respect for established ways), and SPs and NJs being somewhere in between." And it seems to me that you could do the same thing with that duality that you've done with "reactions to authority" and say that SJs and NPs are the types "who have strong reactions to change" — buuut, since their strong reactions are basically _opposite_ reactions, I don't think it makes sense to say they belong on the same side of a separate change-related duality where SJs and NPs are the kindred folks (because of the _strength_ of their reactions to change) and the SPs and NJs belong on the other side.


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

Here are some more examples of how these terms come in to play:


Ne, dealing with stuff not seen right before you like seeing an object, and imagining what could be done with it in terms of changing it (or even through makinng analogies) ends up engaging in more of a *trial-and-error* process of changing things. Se is not so much trial and error (or necessarily changing systems), because it's about "knowing" what actually can be done, from what's clearly at hand. 
You can see there where the "knowing" part sounds almost like Ni, and of course, the two work together, as "Realizing Awareness", where Ne and Si work together as "Inquiring Awareness" (which "trial and error" is a basically form of)! 
See how these names fit so perfectly? 


Se types "know" from paying more attention to the sensory detail before them, where I, as an Ne type, tend to gloss over things, looking for the overall meaning. So it's totally unconscious, and we may wonder how they do it. I realize this from playing Words With Friends, and my toughest opponents seem to be Realizing types who can easily see what can be done with the letters they have and what's already on the board, where I'm totally lost, (and end up thinking for sure I'm getting gipped with useless letters). I sometimes find there's these good words that I couldn't quite put my finger on, because I'm looking more at the intangible goal of "winning" (or at least catching up), and the multiple unseen possibilities (using the value increasing squares) than what I have in my arsenal.


Obviously, "Ordering" sounds so perennially Te (And Fi would go along with it), while "Aligning" sounds like what Ti does in refining its judgments (and Fe would go along with that). Even though all judgments technically "order", I guess these terms lean more to the T aspect of it, and Te orders externally and logically, and that's what we come to associate with "ordering".


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

Here both Berens and her colleague in this new model, Chris Montoya, have an article each on these concepts (Berens' article, from over 10 years ago, is on tandems in general, which is what forms the basis for this. Montoya's article describes the full Cognitive Styles directly, with some examples):

http://lindaberens.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/TandemPrincipleParts1-2.pdf
http://chrismontoya.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/CogStylesTeamworkMontoya.pdf


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

Just what we need, more convoluted function theories without any evidence to support them.


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

What other kind of evidence is wanted? (They do give examples of the dynamics at play).


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Eric B said:


> What other kind of evidence is wanted? (They do give examples of the dynamics at play).


Is that a serious question? The same kind of psychometically-respectable evidence that currently backs the Big Five and the (dichotomy-centric) MBTI.

Berens and Montoya claim there's something called "Fi" that (1) FPs use/exhibit first and foremost, but that — because of their non-Jungian (FWIW) and utterly unsupported (in terms of respectable studies/evidence) function model — (2) TJs _also_ significantly use/exhibit, while (3) TPs and FJs don't.

Here's the description of Fi from that Berens article you linked to:



Berens said:


> Valuing; considering importance and worth; reviewing for incongruity; evaluating something based on the truths on which it is based; clarifying values to achieve accord; deciding if something is of significance and worth standing up for. Stay true to how you really are.


What kind of evidence is wanted, Eric? You do a study involving a sufficiently large group of different types to reach statistical significance, and you produce results that indicate that the ESTJs (for example) tend to use/exhibit what you claim to be "Fi" to a degree that the INFJs (for example) don't.

You say Berens and Montoya "do give examples of the dynamics at play" — but you're surely aware that somebody can come up with cherry-picked _anecdotal evidence_ to back just about any theoretical notion. Jung himself discussed that issue in Psychological Types. Focusing on Ti-doms specifically, he noted that some people prioritized theories over facts, and were inclined to pay attention to "facts" only to the extent that they supported their theories — while tending to ignore any contrary facts. As Jung put it, "facts are collected as evidence for a theory, never for their own sake," with the result that this kind of approach "shows a dangerous tendency to force the facts into the shape of its image, or to ignore them altogether in order to give fantasy free play."

Decades of statistics involving large pools of mixed MBTI types have established that the MBTI (viewed from a dichotomy-centric perspective) has respectable levels of what's known in the psychometrics biz as "validity" — which basically refers to statistically significant correlations between type and other things. And guess what, Eric? In cases where MBTI statistics show notably strong correlations between, say, being a TJ and something else — e.g., career choices — you know what types tends to show up on the opposite side? Common sense might lead someone to guess the FPs, but common sense isn't always right. In this case, though, it turns out that good old common sense beats out the theoretical fantasies of Linda Berens and Chris Montoya. Where statistically significant correlations show up for particular preference combinations (e.g., TJs), and you plot the types along the applicable spectrum with respect to whatever characteristic is involved, what you virtually always find (in my experience) is the TJs at one end, the FPs at the other end, and the TPs and FJs in between.

By contrast, if Berens and Montoya are onto something significant with their so-called "Cognitive Styles," they ought to be able to review the _decades of data that already exist_ correlating types with innumerable other things and show that, in a significant number of those data pools — and with respect to things for which "Te/Fi vs. Ti/Fe" (or, to use Berens and Montoya's new terms, "Ordering Assessments vs. Aligning Assessments") is the main contributing type factor — the results show that the Orchestrating™ and Authenticating™ types (TJs and FPs, with Te/Fi) tend to group together on one side of the relevant divide and the Enhancing™ and Customizing™ types (FJs and TPs, with Ti/Fe) tend to group together on the other side.

And I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for that kind of respectable evidential analysis from Berens and Montoya, and neither should you.


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

reckful said:


> Is that a serious question? The same kind of psychometically-respectable evidence that currently backs the Big Five and the (dichotomy-centric) MBTI.
> 
> Berens and Montoya claim there's something called "Fi" that (1) FPs use/exhibit first and foremost, but that — because of their non-Jungian (FWIW) and utterly unsupported (in terms of respectable studies/evidence) function model — (2) TJs _also_ significantly use/exhibit, while (3) TPs and FJs don't.
> 
> ...


 As an "Aligning" (rather than "Ordering") type, I know I don't depend on statistics much for a theoretical idea, or just a way of *organizing* concepts. (Dependence on statistics are externally oriented Te. And perhaps that's why Berens and Montya don't either, though some of her colleagues, are TJ's).
Because what I always used to hear was that MBTI had no "empirical" evidence either, and that was why Big Five gained more of some sort of respect. Yet now, you're linking MBTI on the side of Big Five in having this evidence. Then, there's MBTI vs Jung. And then Jung or even typology altogether vs the rest of psychology, with people claiming it's _all_ unfounded.
Apparently different people have different interpretations of what constitutes valid "empirical" evidence. So I don't bother with that at all. It ends up (in practice) too 'neither here nor there', despite how everyone using it holds it up as absolute fact (almost like gravity). 
I used to hear how "taste tests" claimed Burger King was better than McDonald's; Sprite better than 7-Up; etc. But what did all of that mean? No one ever came and asked me. They only take a small "sample" and generalize it to the whole population.

You even _cite Jung's description of the pertainent function to this effect_. Here's the evidence right before you! 
Only, the world-view is not "dangerous". It may have its drawbacks, but then so does the TePi view (which likewise references its internal perceptions as the ultimate standard, for their own sake and tries to force the outer world into fitting an inner vision that only differs from "fantasy" in being more "closed").

Statistics are usually apart of psychometrics, but it's not the basis of the theories; it's just something to add validity.
It again is just a way to categorize personality traits that occur in interactions.

As I had explained before; this right here is one glaring example of the difference in tandem worldviews, even though we share three dichotomies. 

FP is so different because of the directing/informing and structure/motive dimension (connecting to Interaction Style and temperament). Yet, their worldview would tend to lean more to empirical logic, or at least they would be more willing to submit to it when so presented. 
As Berens said, this is all a holistic concept, and not something you can break into separate opposing parts. The parts are lookign at the same things through a different angle (And "looking at things from different angles" is another Ti description of theirs). In their _affective_ and _conative_ behavior (both of which dealing with the "*output*" so to speak), TJ's and FP's are opposite. But in their cognitive processing (starting witht he "input"), there is a lot of similarity (though still prioritized in an opposite fashion).

The weakness in the concept is the wording of some of those descriptions they use for the "processes", such as Fi="valuing". It's true that everyone values; I say it is more a property of the *ego*, rather than a particular function). I even thought of this as I posted the links, but that's the way they express them, and I only wanted to share the additional information. I've long noted this, especially when another associate of theirs once claimed I was "valuing" something, and therefore had to be an FP. That's one reason why I've been trying to come up with better root definitions of the functions, in another thread now.
Fi deals with "the proper relationships between [personal] subjects from an internal standard". That may lead a person to focus on "values", but it's not necessarily "valuing" itself.

And official MBTI sources, though starting with dichotomies, do use the function-attitudes. They're in the MBTI Manual, and the other Quenk and others' books. So you see where those opposite dichotomy groups will use the same functions, though in greater or lesser ways.

One of the things I like about these models is that you can slice them many different ways to look at different things. I'm not here putting down Big five or MBTI dichotomies or anything else and saying functions, and the Berens' models are the infallible "truth". So I don't understand what's the problem. It's just another way of looking at type, and we already know how you feel about it. It's not taking away from anything else, but offering another insight (and new terms to help improve converstation) for those who may have already stumbled with the dichotomies.


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

Montoya has put up a mini-course on Cognitive Styles FREE Mini-Course: Intro to Discover Your Cognitive Style


----------



## SilverRain (May 15, 2014)

More information on Cognitive Styles:

http://chrismontoya.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/CogStylesTeamworkMontoya.pdf

http://chrismontoya.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/CogStylesArticleDeeperTypeApplications.pdf


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

The tandem table on the second link, p7, is where the "Awareness/Assessments" tandem names (Inquiring, Realizing, Ordering, Aligning) were derived from, but here, they've omitted the names. I don't know whether this means they're rethinking them, or it's an older document from before they named them.


----------



## SilverRain (May 15, 2014)

"Published by the APTi Bulletin of Psychological Type, September, 2014"

Articles

It's possible they submitted the article before they came up with the names, or maybe they are in the processing of changing them.


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

OK. The one I saw with the names, was from last year. But she did say something about some of it being tentative.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

Eric B said:


> It doesn't even do any good to get into the debate of which attitudes Jung held each function to have, when first of all, Jung was so unclear a lot of times, and we've gone on about this for years here, with different interpreters saying different things, and no resolution ever being arrived at.


First of all, I tremendously respect the hard work you're putting into developing MBTI models and pushing the theory further to explain more and offer more productive results.

But, on this specific thing, I have to disagree. I think nothing could be more relevant to the new model Berens is suggesting, and you've presented in your OP.

If Myers was systemically wrong in her interpretation of the attitudes of the auxiliary functions, then that could potentially explain a tremendous amount of the dissonance that many people experience between functions and dichotomies. Furthermore, an interpretation of Jung giving the auxiliary attitudes as being the same as the attitude of their paired dominant and inferior function (i.e., conscious introversion = introverted dominant and auxiliary; unconscious extraversion = extraverted inferior and auxiliary) goes a long way in explaining this dissonance.

For example, I myself have long grappled with confusion as to why I never score very well on the J/P dichotomy, and upon arriving here at PerC, I was urged to delve into the functions and extensively study Jung. So, I did. And upon my prior arrival at the same conclusions, based on the much of the same information, and due to the fact that I experience the same conflict over my own type that _Jung himself_ expresses in his famous BBC interview c. 1959, what I came up with is essentially what @_reckful_ presents in this thread.

It is easy to see where that J/P dissonance comes from within a Jungian function perspective. Ti-Ni and Ni-Ti would be a very difficult thing to pry apart without looking closely at the inferior function, which would necessarily be difficult for a person to do to themselves, since that is precisely the point of a function being defined as "inferior" - they really are _unconscious_ of it, so they don't even know they are doing it in an inferior way. Their perception of themselves where the inferior is concerned would be grossly distorted by their ego, but since their inferior function is really the crucial thing that is going to make it apparent whether or not a person favors Ti-Ni or Ni-Ti, then that person arrives as a kind of dilemma insofar as their ability to type themselves correctly. And a sad one, I feel, since all the popular function models of our time support Myers' interpretation, which I absolutely could not disagree with more.

I am not trying to take reckful's side here, because I'm not convinced that your work is useless or doomed to failure, per se, but I do believe that as long as it clings to Myers' faulty interpretation of the auxiliary attitudes, it may inherit the same systemic mistake Myers made, and thus there is going to be a lot of tail chasing and going in circles trying to refine it and refine it and refine it, which I believe could be avoided_._


----------



## SilverRain (May 15, 2014)

Since I haven't been able to type myself using the typical MBTI/type dynamics model (I'd feel a greater comfort level with NeFeTiSi), not being sure whether the model is incorrect or that I can't see myself clearly, I'm leaving the new method open to either show it is correct or for the method to be workable even if it doesn't correlate with MBTI.


----------



## SilverRain (May 15, 2014)

I finished the course with Enhancing first, then Authenticating, Customizing and Orchestrating. That would put me in the ENTP category, and while I don't feel that I'm enough like ENTP to say it's my type, per their definition I do clearly Enhance throughout my life. If the question "what do I do" rather than "what am I like" is asked, the answer is easier to see.


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

Just like “Ordering/Aligning” leans towards the T attitude (as I mentioned on the previous page), I’m seeing more and more that “Realizing/Inquiring” leans toward the N attitude.

“Inquiring” is the perfect name for the Ne/Si tandem of NP’s and SJ’s. I’ve noticed what what we do a lot is ask questions. Lots of questions, sometimes. My wife is always asking me questions about everything, and I’m always asking other people questions. What I had noted is that some NJ’s I’ve communicated with sometimes get put off by my questions, and [in written communication] begin glossing over them.

I ask questions to gain a sense of who the person is (in a more personal “friendship” interaction), or what their beliefs are (in a more intellectual sharing of ideas). I have noticed that they don’t ask that much. They apparentely form all the picture of me they need from what they already see on the table.

This realization comes in conjunction with my continuing to refine the definitions of the functions.

All perception deals in what we could call “imagery”. (See http://personalitycafe.com/cognitive-functions/399402-taking-again-top-root-defiitions-functions-3.html#post20517242)

Sensing is about the “material” world, and iNtuition is about the “ideational” world. Extraverted iNtuition deals in ideational images from the environment. What “could be”, discovered from outside of the observing subject (the world of “objects”). Like comparing one pattern to another, which I do all the time. Introverted Sensing deals with images of the material world that have been “stored” individually (in memory), which we then use to compare current sensation with. Notice, both Ne and Si end up “comparing” things. I could have usd that term to name the tandem.
This comparing is what leads them to need to seek more ideational data (possibilities, contexts, etc.) from the outside. The material data is safely stored within, but all material or “concrete” information needs some sort of “abstract” framework or “story” behind it.

We tend to assume that the way we process information, others do also, but apparently, NJ’s and SP’s don’t depend of question asking as much. Of course, everyone asks questions, but I’m seeing that for Inquiring Awareness, it is our main way of taking in information, while for Realizing Awareness, the sort of information they deem important to begin with is different.
What they take in from the environment (the world of “objects”) is the material data, through extraverted Sensing, where they just take whatever comes as it is. What they take from the individual world of the “subject” is the ideational data, which are images that come from within, via introverted iNtuition, where information just comes to them, up from the individual unconscious. This is used to inform judgments, but neither perception function deals so much in comparison. Both just take what comes. So likewise, there is not as much need to to have to request information from the outside. Hence, “Realizing” is also the perfect term for this tandem, as “Inquiring” is for the other.


----------



## allisreal (Mar 23, 2010)

Interesting stuff! This system actually reminds me of one of the CelebrityTypes "Determining Function Axes" articles. They did a similar thing in which they identified the similarities between types that have both function axes in common.

Their break down is like this:

NTJs/SFPs: Bayesian Committers
NTPs/SFJs: Frequentist Connectors
NFPs/STJs: Divergent Perceivers
STPs/NFJs: Convergent Perceivers


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

Never realized someone else had those groups (other than the Socionics quadras). I had never given that site much mind, as I was not sure about many of the celebrity typings. 
This, I believe, is Michael Pierce. I've been hearing his name a lot recently.


----------



## goamare (Feb 27, 2014)

Don't understand why a year old thread had to get bumped up all of a sudden. The so-called "function axes" or "tandem" theory seem to get rejected recently, gradually more and more by lots of forumites here.

I've personally never seen anyone who says "Help! I'm not sure if I'm INFP or ESTJ" (apparently they are both in the exact same category here) Such phrase just doesn't seem likely to me.


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

I've been focusing on the individual tandems (rather than the funn two-tandem Intentional Styles), because you do get many people who know they may prefer one tandem, but are not sure about the other. Like people stuggling between NFJ and NTP. So it's good for them to be able to identify as an "Aligning" type (rather than the clunky and largely inaccurate "FeTi user").
Most people who are sure of both tandems end up knowing which side they are on both.


----------



## goamare (Feb 27, 2014)

Over the past few months, I've noticed a pattern here - that those who subscribe to the so-called "function axes" or "tandem" theory, are the victims (many times voluntary..) of black/white logic. Those who doubt this theory are mostly the ones who try to see the spectrum in between the types, the "grey."

This is because "function axes" or "tandem" theory successfully eliminates the existence of middle groups, and reinforces the idea that one HAS TO belong to a single type only.


----------



## allisreal (Mar 23, 2010)

Eric B said:


> Never realized someone else had those groups (other than the Socionics quadras). I had never given that site much mind, as I was not sure about many of the celebrity typings.
> This, I believe, is Michael Pierce. I've been hearing his name a lot recently.


Yeah, I too was once skeptical. Their typings can be pretty jarring, but after reading the info on their site and learning about their conception of typology, I definitely agree with most of the ones I thought made no sense initially.

But yeah, Michael Pierce has a lot of his video transcripts featured on the site, but that particular article was written by others who write for it.


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

goamare said:


> Over the past few months, I've noticed a pattern here - that those who subscribe to the so-called "function axes" or "tandem" theory, are the victims (many times voluntary..) of black/white logic. Those who doubt this theory are mostly the ones who try to see the spectrum in between the types, the "grey."
> 
> This is because "function axes" or "tandem" theory successfully eliminates the existence of middle groups, and reinforces the idea that one HAS TO belong to a single type only.


 The reason why it seems black and white is because these functions are but the way we divide reality. When we are embedded in spacetime, there is either forward or backward, or past and future. "inbetween" is where we are, but (in space, at least) we are looking from that central position to one way or the other.
And while we all do all of these functional perspectives, they become associated with ego states or "complexes", and the type-defining complexes are simply the ones closest to the ego. (i.e. the "hero" and the "parent"). If someone seems to be more "grey", then perhaps they are in the grip of other complexes (such as the "inferior"). This is what will allow for more flexibility with people's behavior.



allisreal said:


> Yeah, I too was once skeptical. Their typings can be pretty jarring, but after reading the info on their site and learning about their conception of typology, I definitely agree with most of the ones I thought made no sense initially.
> 
> But yeah, Michael Pierce has a lot of his video transcripts featured on the site, but that particular article was written by others who write for it.


I think the site used to be only those celebrity typings, but now it looks like he's added a lot more. Looks interesting.


----------



## He's a Superhero! (May 1, 2013)

This is fantastic! I jotted the main points down in my personal notebook on psychology/typology for easy reference.

Thank you for sharing, @Eric B!


----------



## Teen Rose (Aug 4, 2018)

This unnecessary discussion reminds me of what i read - immature NTs are the most irrational, illogical and stupid paradoxically. They go overboard beyond the obvious logic and make their own personalised ''logics''. Iam an extreme Infp and i can easily tell my process of Fi - Ne- Si - Te as i visualise it as i do. I always knew i preferred human feelings much more than logic unlike most others, even more than other feeling based people. When i saw MBTI and cognitive functions, it only assured what i've been experiencing but clarified that iam not abnormal and others are not evil like i thought. Myers clearly got what Jung said and i agree with her. We Infps can get what a person actually means almost instinctively. We INFPs can go deepest in any subject and reach the core. Jung's assistants which u didn't even state got it wrong. Most are on the same boat doesn't make it correct.

Also how can u use the same names if their attitudes are different?


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Teen Rose said:


> Myers clearly got what Jung said and i agree with her.


Just so you know, Myers said an INFP's stack was Fi-Ne-Se-Te.


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

I'm happy that these dichotomies got names, and I think they are far less useful than the MBTI ones.

What do I share in common with SFJs that I don't with others? *Nothing*.


----------



## Drecon (Jun 20, 2016)

While I love the direction that they're taking here I'm skeptical of it working the way they intended. Even if we presuppose that these groupings are actually a thing (which I do, but I know not everyone does), the way that Fe (for example) exhibits in a higher position is completely different from lower positions. So while I do think this model is closer to the truth, it's probably a lot less useful for typing in this form since an ISFP and an ENTJ come off completely differently even though they share the exact same functions. 

It's a good step, but I think it needs some work to 'get there'. 

I do actually agree that we need new words to talk about these things too, so I like that, but I'm not sure if the chosen words are resonant enough.


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

Yes, the fact that the different position changes the way the function manifests is an important point, that actually answers some of the objections to this theory, because people are expecting the *behavior* of two comparative types (such as NTP and SFJ) to be _exactly_ the same in order for the theory to be correct, but that's not what the theory is saying at all. It's about _perspectives_; not (directly) behavior.

So an INTP's Fe will be inferior, which will cone off in a more "primitive" form, but the key similarity to an SFJ is that it will still nevertheless be turning toward an external standard in determining good or bad. Dominant and auxiliary Fe will be more mature and proactive in "merging with the environment" of people, and then putting it to use in responding to their needs or desires. tertiary and inferior Fe will still feel this pull, but Ti (their own standard of impersonal "true or false") will be more important, and so it will be a tug of war between sticking with the preferred logic, or giving in to Fe, and the maturity level will determine how balanced they are.
This will be different from TJ's and FP's, for whom the sense of what's good or desired will be inferred from within, and logic dictated from the environment.


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

@Eric B the problem is I have an internal standard of determining good and bad, and an internal standard of logic too. Both of these seem to be in conflict with the normal ESFJ that I run into.


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

My wife is that way too. Dominant Fe is "backed up" by its shadow, Fi, and this apparently can be shaped by personal experience ("nurture", on top of "nature"), so it may seem like you can have both (and really, the same with INTP's appearing to "use Te" a lot as well).
So the ego main drive will be external, but when this is obstructed, then an internal standard will rise to back it up (it's all still there, in everyone, in the background), and part of it may also be that everything our egos do has an "internal" component (otherwise, it wouldn't be our ego), and so that can make the Feeling judgment seem [technically] "internal" as well.


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

@Eric B nah I'm pretty sure it's just internal, just like my other 3 functions too. If anything, my F is *more internal* than my T.

Thankfully, the MBTI test exists which was able to give me a solid letters type, cause I never would've been able to figure it out with this function magic.

See: What's a cognitive function? (link)


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

I'm sorry; but for some reason I kept thinking you were claiming to be ESFJ. (So that's what I was responding to). You're INTP and were saying your feeling doesn't match ESFJ.

For an INTP, for one thing, the inferior is the least conscious of the "ego-syntonic" functions, and then using BTi theory (as popularized by Lenore Thomson), Fi is our "right brain alternative", and so may come up more than Fe. (The "stack" is not about relative strength, as your other thread assumes, but rather tied to the complexes; i.e. archetypes, and can have other "uses" outside of them). 
So a lot of INTP's seem to notice their Fi use more than Fe (and so many end up struggling on the T/F pole), and if often comes up high in cognitive process tests, while Fe often comes out "weakest"; and in the case of the brain hemisphere theory, Fi is simply filling in for its similar, fellow introverted judging function, Ti when it can't solve a problem. (This later gets replaced more by the tertiary function, carried by the "child" complex, which also bears the dominant attitude).


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

@Eric B I think I lean "right-brained" (if not, basically in the middle) on "brain hemisphere" theory (which is pretty much disproven anyway) and Fi as well as Ti seem "ego-syntonic", not just "strong" or whatever. If there's actually one which seems like it is more at the core of my ego it'd be the Fi probably. You could say what the model says, according to Thomson or whoever, but it doesn't seem to fit.

I really would like to know how I would go about typing myself in accordance with this theory when nothing fits. However I would assume I should start with throwing my MBTI test result out the window which is how I arrived at INTP.


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

Well, what makes you think Fi is so "core" to your ego? (and keep in mind, it's not simply about "liking" things or "knowing what you want" as it often gets generalized into.

Or might you be INFP (with Ti as right brain alternate)?

If you took the official MBTI, then do you remember what your T/F score was? (Which is actually the "preference clarity index", and not even necessarily about "strength"). There are various reasons the preference may be unclear.


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

Eric B said:


> Well, what makes you think Fi is so "core" to your ego? (and keep in mind, it's not simply about "liking" things or "knowing what you want" as it often gets generalized into.


Because everything can be sort of traced back to my personal sense of value and significance. From my earliest years I always felt like the world was unfair and wrong, like "how could people even think this is okay?" But at the same time a lot of this was logically developed. So I think that logic and F stuff is sort of intertwined in my "introverted ego" where I am not likely to care much at all what the group thinks.

I intentionally reached out to defend and make friends with the kids who were being picked on and bullied by others, it's like my natural instinctive way to take an anti-group stance when it concerns "what's right".

I'm mentioning early years because generally in function models you're supposed to show your first function first. But I was like a combination of all of Fi/Ti/Ni and I could make a case for any of them being up there dominating my ego.


> If you took the official MBTI, then do you remember what your T/F score was? (Which is actually the "preference clarity index", and not even necessarily about "strength"). There are various reasons the preference may be unclear.


I think I was like 100% I, 95% N, 71% T, 73% P. But I don't know why MBTI scores would correlate very high with whatever these function models are.

And I think INFP is pretty much equally bad from that function model because it ignores the Ti and possible T preference. And my ego seems to lack any strong sensing components, being more Ni > Ne >>> Si > Se.


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

Sound more like INFP; dom. Fi. You say "a lot of this was logically developed", but the data is all intertwined, and the preference is about how we divide it, and which side of the division we focus on. So there will always be "logic" involved, but you clearly seemed to focus on the "human" side of things, and not just impersonal mechanics.

Like I had developed this strong sense of things being unfair and wrong, but this was strictly from negative experiences with people, which stemmed, largely from me being so "impersonally" focused and not knowing how to deal with people (and only wanting to be in my world of technical details). Otherwise, I didn't think in terms of the way people should be (i.e. "values"), nor really trying to reach out to others, such as you describe. For me, the F was all reactive. (Yet it did care about what the group thinks, though not usually capitulating to them, and as other Fi-syntonic types told me to ignore that and just do self-acceptance, that always just left me cold).


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

@Eric B what would be the main difference between INFP and INTJ then?


----------



## Eren Jaegerbomb (Nov 13, 2015)

reckful said:


> Just so you know, Myers said an INFP's stack was Fi-Ne-Se-Te.


Se. What's that!? :crazy::laughing:


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

Creator 22 said:


> Se. What's that!? :crazy::laughing:


Black sensing


----------



## Eren Jaegerbomb (Nov 13, 2015)

Ocean Helm said:


> Black sensing


I don't quite get the joke...?

Ahaha. Honestly though my Se is pretty low.


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

What INFP and INTJ have in common is "Ordering Assessments" (FiTe), but of course, INFP has the Fi out front, and INTJ has Te as auxiliary.
The differ between NeSi ("Inquiring Awareness") and NiSe ("Realizing Awareness"). Se and Ni tend to take the data as it comes directly from their respective realms (internal, abstract or external, tangible)
Ne and Si references patterns stored in memory to draw a comparison of data. Hence, may ask more questions.
(Se as the INP's tertiary is apart of the default state the non-dominant functions take, but the actual "stack" is formed by the *complexes*, and the "Child" complex is what re-orients the tertiary function to the dominant attitude).

Also, both Ni and Te in preferred positions (NJ; TJ) lead to "directing communications" in the Interaction Styles, which tends to be "drier", and the person defines the relationship with others (Keirsey); while both Fi and Ne (FP; NP) lead to "informing communications", which is "lighter", and the person allows the other person to define the relationship.
So INFP is Behind the Scenes" (introverted, informing), and INTJ is "Chart the Course" (introverted, directing).

Then, of course, the basic Keirsey temperament differences. NF is "cooperative" and "motive focused" (i.e. more "people-focused" when it comes to taking action, and leadership, where "informing" is the social level), while NT is "pragmatic" and "structure focused" (more task focused, like "directing").

So, "the main" difference? All of these are significant, but it seems the Ne/Ni one affects how we divide reality, so while both drawn to intuitive topics, one will be externally focused, and the other pay more attention to internal imagery (that comes up more suddenly with the "aha! moment".

(INTP is actually inbetween, as you have NP, which makes it "informing", but it's still a T, and thus has more of a critical edge than an INFP. But compared to the "directive" TJ's and STP's, may possibly resemble an F; hence why so many NTP's struggle with T/F).


----------

