# The Fine Art of Clarifying Type: Why Some Types Look-A-Like



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

_*The following descriptions come from the best fittype.com website. These are based on Dr. Linda V. Berens’ Fine Art of Clarifying Type:*_

*When does an **ESTP** look like an **ENTJ**? When does an **ENTJ** look like an **ESTP**?*

These two types can often look very much like each other.

*Same Interaction Style.* What makes them look so much alike is the In-Charge™ Interaction Style. Both of these types want to get things accomplished and get that achievable result as quickly as possible. They have a fundamental belief that it is worth the risk to go ahead and decide and trust they can take care of anything that comes up. They tend to make quick decisions. For them, there is no such thing as a wrong decision, just one that didn’t work. Both tend to be very Directing in their communications and Initiating in the roles they take with others.

*Different temperaments*, but much in common. ESTP is a variation of the Artisan pattern and ENTJ is a variation of the Rational pattern. Artisans have a core need for having the freedom to choose the next thing they are going to do with a drive to action and to make an impact, whereas Rationals have a core need for mastery, self-control, knowledge and competence. 

The Rational need for competence also resonates with the ESTP. However, for the ENTJ, being competent ahead of doing something is crucial and they will want to understand something completely before they go ahead and act. The ESTP, on the other hand, will be more likely to quickly grasp the essence of something and then go ahead and take action, gaining competence as they go. When hearing descriptors, they may interpret competence in terms of their love of skillful performance.

_Roles:_ Both temperaments have a preference for taking Pragmatic Roles so the freedom to choose the next action resonates to both types, as autonomy is the hallmark of pragmatic role taking. Pragmatism means doing what ever it takes to reach a goal, often ignoring rules or social norms. For the ENTJ, that freedom is around devising and getting others to follow a strategy. For the ESTP, that freedom is more often about the necessary tactical actions to get something accomplished.

_Language:_ The temperament differences come in noticing their use of language, with the ESTP more likely to use language that describes things tangibly and the ENTJ language describes things conceptually.

_Interest:_ Also note that ESTPs easily tune in to other’s motives and ENTJs are much more interested in structure than motive.

*Cognitive Dynamic Differences*. The cognitive dynamic pattern for ENTJ is Te, Ni, Se, Fi, with extraverted Sensing as relief role (tertiary) process and they often engage in quickly reading the external environment and are drawn to act on and shape that environment. This can easily look Artisan as they respond and adapt to what is going on, especially enjoying some of the more exciting Se activities. The ESTP pattern is Se, Ti, Fe, Ni; with Ni as the aspirational role (inferior) process. This can make them quite tuned into future payoffs and quite optimistic about what will happen in the future. They often get a sense of what is just around the corner and then want to seize the opportunities.


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

*When does an **ESFP** look like an **ENFP**?*

These two types can often look very much like each other.

*What would make the difference?*
I’ve found many who had identified with ENFP for a long time, yet decided ESFP was a better fit.

*Same Interaction Style*. ESFPs and ENFPs seek involvement of themselves and others and tend to have the natural facilitative attitude of the Get-Things-Going™ style. When I did the Interaction Styles research, I noticed all four types (ESFJ, ESFP, ENTP, and ENFP) with that style tend to easily fall into facilitative roles, not just those with NF preferences. Both tend to use informing language, but ESFPs will have a little more of a drive to immediate tangible action. ENFPs are more willing to talk about things for a while when talking is moving things along. Both want an upbeat mood and love to make others happy. 

*Different Temperaments*. Differentiating Artisan versus Idealist is key. Often those with ESFP preferences will talk a lot about helping people so they relate to much in the ENFP (Idealist) descriptions. For the ENFP, there are always new potentials to be explored. For the ESFP there are always new possibilities for action and ESFPs don’t want to miss opportunities.

_Roles_. Very often the first clue in recognizing the ESFP pattern is pragmatism. Pragmatic means having autonomy and calling the shots on your own actions. It means taking a utilitarian approach to things rather than seeking consensus or adherence to norms—taking independent action. 

_Language_. It helps to listen for the abstract language of the ENFP, which is about meaning and purpose, using metaphors that many people can relate to while keeping their own unique meanings. ESFP language tends to reference tangibles with specific details when relevant.

_Interest in Motive_. Both types are interested in why people do things. The ESFP tunes in to what is in it for the other person, whereas the ENFP is interested in their deeper motives. 

*Different Cognitive Dynamics.*ENFPs lead with Ne—Interpreting meanings. ESFPs lead with Se—Experiencing and Noticing subtle changes. Both “read” the room. ESFPs notice physical clues to people’s feelings, picking up the actual physical energy. ENFPs may not even notice the physical cues and energy, but will just “know” the meaning of what is or has been going on. Both types will describe the experience as getting a feeling of what is going on. You have to probe a little to get identify which process is being engaged. 

It makes sense that those ESFPs identified with many ENFP descriptors. They were pleased to finally have recognition of their Artisan core needs, values, and talents. And understanding the richer definitions of Se that are now available, they felt much more validated than before.


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

*When does an **ENFJ** look like an **ESTJ**,*
*ESTP**, or **ENTJ**? *

I had a client who in the workshop Self-Discovery Process® sorted first as Artisan, then as Guardian, then as In-Charge™. Her behavior looked ESTJ like and even ENTJ like in the workshop. Her MBTI® instrument results pointed her to ENFJ and she said the descriptions of ENFJ from various sources fit her perfectly.

All of these share the In-Charge™ Interaction Style and in a time and task situation will move quickly to focusing on getting an achievable result as soon as possible. ENFJs in counseling, coaching, and OD often don’t recognize their own In-Charge™ style, but this woman was different. She was clear on that style. Her background was business, with many years as a successful senior executive where time and task and quick decisions rule. These four types also share the In-Charge™ style of straightforward and direct communication and although ENFJs will soften the message at times, they still tend to be directing and determined in their verbal and non-verbal behavior.

ENFJ-ESTJ: Both are affiliative and seek a sense of community and interdependence. Both want to have roles clearly defined.

ENFJ-ESTP: ENFJs often have a sense of style and aesthetics that looks more Artisan than Idealist. They also can get into that fun-loving place of experiencing and enjoying the physical moment. Both of these behaviors may be evidence of engaging their tertiary cognitive process of Se in a relief role.

ENFJ-ENTJ: Cleary the business background played strongly in how this woman typically behaved and is a clear case of the environment influencing type development. She may have acquired a great deal of TJ (Te) skill in her work. However, these two types share Ni and so the sense of foreseeing and visioning would appear similar in both. Also, my client disclosed that she had overachieving parents whom she continually wanted to please and connect with (Fe) so the very strong achievement orientation we often see in _NTJs was there. Additionally, Ti plays an Aspirational role in ENFJ and we often see a seeking of clarity around definitions and principles that is usually a characteristic of the Rational temperament. 

Te: If she had not been free to be her ENFJ self growing up and in her work, she may have been forced to develop skill in Te in a way that we might not expect from a process that usually plays a somewhat Devilish role in the personality. She may have tapped into it in a more transformative way as she structured her life to be who she thought she needed to be. This would explain both the ESTJ and ENTJ look to her behavior.


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

*When does an **ISTP** look like an **INTP** or **INTJ**? *

What would make the difference?

Of all the Artisan types, ISTPs most look like and most often identify with the Rational temperament, often reporting preferences for INTP or for INTJ on assessments.
*Interaction Styles*. ISTPs have a Chart-the-Course™ Interaction Style, which goes with a desire to enter a situation with some sort of course of action in mind. It doesn’t have to be a detailed plan and ISTPs often seem planful as they analyze a situation in anticipation of what is likely to happen. ISTPs and INTJs share this Interaction Style and so would look alike in that way.

The Chart-the-Course™ style often seems like the Strategic intelligence that is an important aspect of the Rational temperament pattern and ISTPs often relate to the description of the Rational temperament over the Artisan temperament. This is especially true when the Artisan description focuses too much on freedom and spontaneity.

*Temperament*. Differentiating Artisan versus Rational is key. Artisan desire for skillful performance often leads ISTPs to identify with the Rational’s core need for competence. In presenting the two temperaments, it helps to contrast the difference between skillful performance as a value and competence as a core need. For the 
Artisan skill often comes from the drive to action and they hate being clumsy or awkward. They get involved in an activity, get caught up in the pure joy of doing, and thus become skilled. Rationals need to feel competent and often want a measure of competence before they even do something. To practice or “do” means failure and that often can strike at the core need. 

_Roles_. ISTPs, INTPs, and INTJs share a desire to act independently and tend to take pragmatic roles with others, seeking autonomy. This makes the differentiation harder to discover. 

_Language_. It helps to listen for the concrete language of the ISTP, which often creates a picture in the listener’s mind. Such language is likely to be full of specific examples and stories. INTP and INTJ language tends to reference abstract concepts with a focus on precision. ISTPs often get at the essence of something rather succinctly, whereas, INTPs and INTJ go into more depth.

_Interest._ ISTPs are more likely to zero in on someone’s motives than INTPs or INTJs (unless in the business of understanding people!)

*Similar Cognitive Dynamics*. ISTPs and INTPs have the same Leading Role process (dominant) of introverted Thinking and are likely to approach situations with an analytical perspective and like to know the principles of how things work. The difference shows up in their Supporting Role processes (auxiliary). An INTP described his preferred work style as exploring problems and sub-problems (Ne), while his ISTP colleague described a tactical trouble shooting approach with a focus on getting the task done (Se).

Also, ISTP’s frequently engage their Relief Role process (tertiary) of introverted iNtuiting and enjoy looking at whole systems and patterns and getting a sense of what will happen in the future.


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

This look-a-like description was written by *Vicky Jo Varner*. Although these two types should be considered look-a-likes, I remain skeptical as to whether this passes what I see as the principles of “look-a-like”. Based on what I have read there are three contingencies that must take place:

Same interaction style;
Share at least one component of temperament;
The dominant and auxiliary functions must appear as look-a-likes per Berens/Nardi;

Granted INTJ/INFJ share identical dominant functions (Ni), but have different auxiliary functions except that they are both judging functions (Te/Fe). It is possible that Berens/Nardi expect at a later date, to show similarities of Te/Fe, but has not as of yet. Yet since Ni is identical, I can see the similarity:


*INFJ or INTJ?​*
*Temperament*

INFJs have the Catalyst temperament, while INTJs have the Theorist temperament. Their core needs are different, their values are different -- and so are the skills and behaviors you might see in the outer world. Just a little bit of delving into the differences in Temperament is the fastest route toward discerning which type pattern is the better fit. (Brief Temperament descriptions and their core needs may be found here.) INTJs tend to display a scientific bent, while INFJs tend to display a humanistic bent.An important distinction between INFJs and INTJs is that the "intelligence" or "skill-set" INTJs excel at is Strategic, followed by Diplomatic; while for INFJs the order is reversed: Diplomatic, followed by Strategic. So INTJs typically consider Logic first, people second; while INFJs tend to consider people first, Logic second.Interaction StylesINFJs and INTJs share the same interaction style, which contributes mightily to the misunderstanding -- however, there are slight differences within the way the style gets expressed. Either way, both type patterns will naturally "anticipate" (which is sometimes conflated with either Strategic or Diplomatic intelligence in the Temperament model).

*Cognitive Processes*

Here again, as with the Temperament model, the differences come into better focus.INFJs and INTJs share the same dominant cognitive process: introverted iNtuiting (Ni). This is commonly called "foreseeing." Thus, both INFJs and INTJs are both interested in synthesizing, integrating, conceptualizing, understanding complex patterns, and focusing on the future.Where the divergence occurs is around the auxiliary process. Here's where Thinking and Feeling pop into view.INTJs have a preference for extraverted Thinking as their auxiliary process. Thus, they are given to "segmenting" -- which includes measuring things with objective criteria. They will naturally calculate how long something will take, how soon the next event will occur, and enjoy telling you about these measurements. They like organizing for efficiency, systematizing, structuring. INTJs like to work with challenges that occur in the moment -- the ones right before their eyes. 

INFJs have a preference for extraverted Feeling as their auxiliary process. Thus, they tend to be "charming" and are given to "connecting. They are given to adjusting to and accommodating others, deciding whether something is appropriate or acceptable to others. INFJs sometimes speak in the "Royal We" -- meaning they feel qualified to say what the group needs or wants. They may take on the role of spokesperson for the entire group, and experience the group as an "entity" unto itself (rather than a collection of individuals). At the same time, INFJs typically know what each member of the group personally likes or dislikes. 

*Teritiary*

In the INTJ pattern, the tertiary process is for introverted Feeling. Thus, they habitually consider importance and worth, clarify values, and decide whether something is of significance and worth standing up for. ("This doesn't match our priorities so we should refuse that assignment.") They have a strong sense of what's important to them or the project. Sometimes they can be seen as "selfish."In the INFJ pattern, the tertiary process is for introverted Thinking. Thus, they habitually analyze. They devote energy to deciding whether something fits a framework or model, and will often clarify definitions to get more precision. ("Let's define our terms before we get more deeply involved in this conversation.") They enjoy categorizing, and figuring out underlying principles. Sometimes they can be seen as "critical."


----------



## kibou (Apr 22, 2010)

I really relate to the ESFP or ENFP? description! I have a lot of ESFPs in my life, and when I'm a more "aggressive" (extroverted mode) ENFP, I tend to socialize or relate more with ESFPs than ENFPs (real ENFPs in my experience tend to be softer and introverted-seeming, or have a STJ bent from being in an administrative role), but the difference really shows up in what we respond to make our decisions. ESFPs have a romantic notion of foreseeing (Ni) and ENFPs have a romantic notion of relating present experience to past memory (Si) but this doesn't make ESFP an ENFP or vice versa.


----------



## adelissa (Nov 3, 2010)

Does anyone have any insights why I masked as an INFJ for so long but now am completely sure I am an ESFJ? I am probably just weird but am curious if they have similar traits.


----------



## SilentScream (Mar 31, 2011)

This thread is brilliant. Thank you for clearing up my ENFJ vs ENTJ issue that I've been having lately.


----------



## SuperDevastation (Jun 7, 2010)

Functianalyst said:


> *When does an **ISTP** look like an **INTP** or **INTJ**? *
> 
> What would make the difference?
> 
> ...


Another thing about ISTPs, INTPs, INTJS, and also ISTJs is that they can all be good with computers in somewhat different ways.


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

I've come to simply things and bring out these points by using the classic temperament names. Both the Keirsey temperaments and the Interaction Styles correspond to the old "humors". 
You can think of the four temperaments as being a whole profile for each, and the behaviours can be divided between social skills (affective) and leadership skills (conative). While some people will have the same temperament needs in both areas, most will be a blend of temperaments. 
In both areas, the temperaments are defined in terms of expressive and responsive behaviour. Expressive is how quick a person is to act or approach others, and responsive deals with the criteria he has in accepting approach by others. It is also known as people vs task focus. 

Sanguine; expressive, people-focused
Choleric: expressive, task-focused
Phlegmatic: reserved, people-focused
Melancholy: reserved, task focused.
(Phlegmatic can also be seen as moderate in both scales, while a fifth temperament called Supine is then truly reserved and people-focused. For the sake of correlation, they both seem to fit the same place).

In the social area (Interaction Styles), expressive is extroversion, reserved is introversion, people focused is informative and task-focused is directive

In the conative area (Keirseyan) expressive amounts to pragmatic, reserved is cooperative, people-focused is motive and task focused is structure 
(Only Berens identifies this dimension. S/N would then end up tying together opposite temperaments; ie Sanguine and Melancholy--SP/SJ).

This differs from Keirsey's humor assignments for the N's, because he used a general dichotomy of "emotional vs calm" to define them, instead of expressive/responsive.

So to translate the above to this:

ESTP: *Choleric* Sanguine; ENTJ: *Choleric* Choleric (i.e. "pure")
ENFJ: *Choleric* Phlegmatic; ESTJ: *Choleric* Melancholy
ESFP: *Sanguine* Sanguine; ENFP: *Sanguine* Phlegmatic
INTJ *Melancholy* Choleric; INFJ: *Melancholy* Phlegmatic
ISTP: *Melancholy* Sanguine; INTJ: *Melancholy* Choleric 

This tells you right away where the types have something in common!

These latter two pairs will be "lookalikes", because the Interaction Style or social skill is what we first see on the surface. The conative difference, in these cases marked by the S/N, T/F or J/P differences, will come to light when we see more of the persons' behavior.

The connection of INTP (Phlegmatic Choleric) to those others is more by functional preference (Either attitudes in the J/P difference; or Se/Ne for the S/N difference) than temperament. The similarity in temperaments with ISTP and INTJ is that they are both introverted and pragmatic, and thus the same in the expressive area (reserved socially, yet aggressive in conative skills); yet differ in the responsive area (directive/informative vs structure/motive). For INTP/ISTP, it is like the same factor combinations, yet swapping responsive behaviors in the social and leadership areas. (INTP/INTJ differ only in D/Inf.)


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

adelissa said:


> Does anyone have any insights why I masked as an INFJ for so long but now am completely sure I am an ESFJ? I am probably just weird but am curious if they have similar traits.


That's probably not temperament/Interaction Style, since they are so different for those two types (sharing only cooperativeness).
So it's most likely functional, and it would mean you identify with Fe, and probably also picked up your tertiary Ne and thought you were an N. You may have also acted more reserved when younger for whatever reason. This is like my wife, and she also even came out as ISFP on the cognitive process test (which I believe is due to overrepresentation of Fi and Ni from Forer effects in the definitions the questions are based on, and perhaps also people confusing Si for Se).


----------



## emerald sea (Jun 4, 2011)

this thread is awesome!! interesting comparisons...


----------



## DJeter (May 24, 2011)

ENFJs also are often confused to be ENTPs. Fe-Ni looks like Ne-Fe or even Ne-Ti. This is the case with Jawz, Jon Stewart, and Barack Obama. There are others too.


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

WSidis said:


> ENFJs also are often confused to be ENTPs. Fe-Ni looks like Ne-Fe or even Ne-Ti. This is the case with Jawz, Jon Stewart, and Barack Obama. There are others too.


This is true. As I laid out *in this thread* a couple of years ago, based on Dr. Berens and Dr. Nardi's theory of "look a-likes", many function-attitudes can be confused because they are similar in nature. When I attempted to explain this to other ENTPs years ago, there was an adamant disagreement that their Ne-Ti can never be mistaken for Fe-Ni. INTJs were equally adamant that Ti-Se could never be mistaken for Ni-Te. Nevertheless I have been referred to as an INTJ type on many occasions.


----------



## DJeter (May 24, 2011)

Functianalyst said:


> This is true. As I laid out *in this thread* a couple of years ago, based on Dr. Berens and Dr. Nardi's theory of "look a-likes", many function-attitudes can be confused because they are similar in nature. When I attempted to explain this to other ENTPs years ago, there was an adamant disagreement that their Ne-Ti can never be mistaken for Fe-Ni. INTJs were equally adamant that Ti-Se could never be mistaken for Ni-Te. Nevertheless I have been referred to as an INTJ type on many occasions.


Ti doms always appear to use Te more often than they probably do, same with any function that's the same as the dominant. And yeah, auxs often look like their opposite, because their opposite is usually playing a role in its function.


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

WSidis said:


> Ti doms always appear to use Te more often than they probably do, same with any function that's the same as the dominant. And yeah, auxs often look like their opposite, because their opposite is usually playing a role in its function.


A complete fallacy and misuse of how the principles of function-attitudes work. Dr. Jung specifically states that the general attitude is with us at birth.


> The fact that often in their earliest years children display an unmistakable typical attitude forces us to assume that it cannot possibly be the struggle for existence, as it is generally understood, which constitutes the compelling factor in favour of a definite attitude. We might, however, demur, and indeed with cogency, that even the tiny infant, the very babe at the breast, has already an unconscious psychological adaptation to perform, inasmuch as the special character of the maternal influence leads to specific reactions in the child. This argument, though appealing to incontestable facts, has none the less to yield before the equally unarguable fact that two children of the same mother may at a very early age exhibit opposite types, without the smallest accompanying change in the attitude of the mother.


For some goofy reason people cannot overcome the fact that the function itself develops out of habit at a much later part of life, not something that we are born with. The development of the function is what distinguishes us from other introverting and extraverting types. Thus Dr. Jung makes it clear that Te and Ti are completely different:


> Whenever the chief value is given to the subjective process, that other kind of thinking arises which stands opposed to extraverted thinking, namely, that purely subjective orientation of thought which I have termed introverted. A thinking arises from this other orientation that is neither determined by objective facts nor directed towards objective data -- a thinking, therefore, that proceeds from subjective data and is directed towards subjective ideas or facts of a subjective character.


Thus to the contrary Ti does not resemble Te, Fi does not resemble Fe, Ni does not resemble Ne and Si does not resemble Se because the E/I has the greater influence. This is indicative of the also goofy notions where a particular type will ask others of the same type if something is exclusively done by that particular type. All one has to do is go around the forum to observe that other types dominating with the same general attitude but a different function, claim to do the same thing.

It was also noted by Marie Louise von Franz that two types using the same function (i.e, feeling), but different attitudes (E or I) will have nothing in common. Dr. Beebe made clear as well when describing as an ENTP type, how negative his use of Ni was. Dr. Berens and Dr. Nardi describes the INJ type using Ne this way:


> They can become stubborn about responding to emerging information and locking into a hidden meaning. Yet they can be quite good at times reading emerging trends, perceiving multiple interpretations of the current context, and going with the flow.


As for dominant Ti types (ISTP/INTP), their use of Te is generally described this way:


> They can become stubborn about how things are organized and insistent on a very systematic approach to something. Yet they can be quite skilled at times with establishing order based on the principles they've recognized.


Surely someone will respond that then I am saying Ti dominant types use Te. Of course we do. Every function-attitude is present in us all. But we also have use of our opposite hand. The problem is you cannot will yourself to do some things with your opposite hand even when circumstances may call for its use. Instead we automatically react by using the hand we dominate with. The same principle applies in the use of function-attitudes, we will use our most differentiated function by habit. I have to actually stop and focus when using Te.


----------



## DJeter (May 24, 2011)

Functianalyst said:


> A complete fallacy and misuse of how the principles of function-attitudes work. Dr. Jung specifically states that the general attitude is with us at birth.
> For some goofy reason people cannot overcome the fact that the function itself develops out of habit at a much later part of life, not something that we are born with. The development of the function is what distinguishes us from other introverting and extraverting types:
> Thus to the contrary Ti does not resemble Te, Fi does not resemble Fe, Ni does not resemble Ne and Si does not resemble Se because the E/I has the greater influence. This is indicative of the also goofy notions where a particular type will ask others of the same type if something is exclusively done by that particular type. All one has to do is go around the forum to observe that other types dominating with the same general attitude but a different function, claim to do the same thing.


I didn't mean to say Ti resembles Te. I was thinking more about how on cognitive function tests, your dominant function is usually accompanied by its same function, different attitude in having a high score. So in that way Ti resembles Te. In reality Ti is easy to differentiate from Te; one's introverted; one's extraverted.


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

WSidis said:


> I didn't mean to say Ti resembles Te. I was thinking more about how on cognitive function tests, your dominant function is usually accompanied by its same function, different attitude in having a high score. So in that way Ti resembles Te. In reality Ti is easy to differentiate from Te; one's introverted; one's extraverted.


First of all it's a test. Do we really need to go into how skewed results are based on the takers biased opinion of how they perceive themselves? Feeling types will respond to anything remotely related to feeling in general. The same goes for those claiming to be thinking types as well as intuiting types. It's simply an over exaggerated response in claiming to relate to the function.

Put a simpler way, if one dominates with Ti or Ni, they will have use of their inferior functions as well (Fe and Se respectively). There are no pure types and anyone claiming the use of their dominant at 100% capacity are essentially admitting they're imbalanced. Nevertheless if you have use of the inferior, the principles of type indicate you must suppress it's opposite. In this case Te cannot be readily used if Fe compensates the dominant function, and Ne cannot be readily used when Se compensates the dominant function.


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

WSidis said:


> I didn't mean to say Ti resembles Te. I was thinking more about how on cognitive function tests, your dominant function is usually accompanied by its same function, different attitude in having a high score. So in that way Ti resembles Te. In reality Ti is easy to differentiate from Te; one's introverted; one's extraverted.


In the Beebe/Berens model, the dominant in the opposite attitude also *“backs up”* the dominant, so that is why it might appear to come out “strong”.


----------



## DJeter (May 24, 2011)

Functianalyst said:


> First of all it's a test. *Do we really need to go into how skewed results are based on the takers biased opinion of how they perceive themselves? *Feeling types will respond to anything remotely related to feeling in general. The same goes for those claiming to be thinking types as well as intuiting types. It's simply an over exaggerated response in claiming to relate to the function.
> 
> Put a simpler way, if one dominates with Ti or Ni, they will have use of their inferior functions as well (Fe and Se respectively). There are no pure types and anyone claiming the use of their dominant at 100% capacity are essentially admitting they're imbalanced. Nevertheless if you have use of the inferior, the principles of type indicate you must suppress it's opposite. In this case Te cannot be readily used if Fe compensates the dominant function, and Ne cannot be readily used when Se compensates the dominant function.


Nope. I can't even take those tests anymore, because they don't do anything you can't do yourself. In fact, they do it worse, if you actually know the theory.


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

Eric B said:


> In the Beebe/Berens model, the dominant in the opposite attitude also *“backs up”* the dominant, so that is why it might appear to come out “strong”.


Since WSidis gives his reason for believing the function-attitudes are alike because of the misnomer, then it remains clear that some believe the function is more important than the attitude. But as far as your connotation of the 5th function processing as a “backup”, I know where you got the coined phrase. Although Dr. Berens and Dr. Nardi used the phrase in naming the 5th process, they also used part of the phrase from Dr. Beebe “opposing”. So one should not infer that Dr. Berens and Dr. Nardi implied the 5th function backs the dominant function up in a complimentary way. Although Dr. Berens used that term at one point, she subsequently changed the term by merely referring to it as “opposing role”. Never theless this is how she describes that role:


> The Opposing role is often how we get stubborn and argumentative – refusing to “play” and join in whatever is going on at the time. It might be easy for us to develop skill in the process that plays this role, but we are likely to be more narrow in our application of the skill, and it will like take more energy to use it extensively.


I think the final sentence in her description is key since like any dominant introverting type expending energy, they become quickly exhausted when using extraversion, regardless of whether it is the same function of the dominant.

Beebe also calls his 5th processing function “Opposing” and describes the process in himself this way:


> My introverted intuition, shadow in attitude to my superior extraverted intuition, has decidedly oppositional traits: it expresses itself in ways I could variously describe as avoidant, passive-aggressive, paranoid and seductive, in all cases taking up a stance that is anathema to the way my superior extraverted intuition wants me to behave. I decided to call the archetype carrying this bag of oppositional behaviors the Opposing Personality.


Finally, it was Dr. Jung who originally referred to the 5th functions as “opposite-attitude functions” and described them as being “incessantly at war.” So to the contrary, Dr. Beebe doesn’t imply there is anything complimentary are related about the 1st dominant and 5th functions. He says, “the Opposing Personality archetype represents an entire personality hiding in our shadow that sometimes pushes back against the conventional wisdom of the conscious personality.” Also again although Dr. Berens and Dr. Nardi originally started off using the word “backup” when naming the 5th function, their description never implies it actually backs up the dominant function. This once again should be an indicator that it is the attitude that dictates how the function-attitude works, not the function itself.


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

In Beebe and Berens' view, each archetype has a positive _and_ negative side. The ego-syntonic quadrant (primary) are primarily positive, but with negative sides to them, and the ego-dystonic quadrant (shadows) are primarily negative, _but with positive sides_. The positive side of the Opposing is "backup". I don't think Berens ever withdrew that.
In the very next sentence after the quote, Berens continues:


> In its positive aspect, it provides a shadow or depth to our leading role process, backing it up and enabling us to be more persistent in the pursuit of our goals


As for Beebe himself, he doesn't go into the positive sides of the shadows in "Evolving the 8 Function Model" (he's discussing his initial discovery of the archetypes, and probably didn't discover positive sides of them until later), and the thing with Beebe is that it's hard to get the full volume of his theory, since it is so piecemeal, but you can see hints of the positive side in Mark Hunziker's work (like where it "fills in the blind spots" of the hero/dominant, lest one assumes Berens made it up).


----------



## Emerson (Mar 13, 2011)

@Functianalyst this is awesome. Would it be possible for you to do one differing between INTP's and INTJ's? Having a bit of trouble making the distinction myself. And since you're obviously in possession of superior knowledge and junk?


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

Just found a good example, directly from Beebe himself:
"TYPOLOGY IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF INTEGRITY"



> But now, what really is the introversion that comes out of me at those moments? Is it just my balance-seeking auxiliary introverted thinking function? Sometimes that’s the function I use to take care of others and to put things in Tao. Maybe you also, with your auxiliary introverted feeling. Or could it be my inferior function, an introverted sensation that doesn’t know what to say? Or is it one of my own shadow functions? Often as not, because I am frightened and challenged by the force of the other, I have to confess that the extraverted shadow in them brings forth the introverted shadow in me. In which case, we may not be speaking of the inferior function or the auxiliary function at all, for I don’t call these shadow functions in my model. Instead what has come up in me is what I call the opposing personality - the function that but for its attitude of introversion or extraversion is the same as the superior function. I use that rather broad term, opposing personality, to represent the part of us that is *used on a regular basis to defend ourselves*, precisely when we are frightened. It is the shadow side of our superior function. *It stands, **as it were, behind the ego, in a posture of defense*. This defense is not described in this way in Jung‘s description of the types, but it is something I have observed over time in myself and in other people.


This is showing the function/complex, used negatively against others, but positively in favor of the ego; thus "backup". And notice "_on a *regular* basis_". Hence, the function can come up "strong". What makes it not to be mistaken for a "preferred" function is the context it comes up in.


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

Emerson said:


> @Functianalyst this is awesome. Would it be possible for you to do one differing between INTP's and INTJ's? Having a bit of trouble making the distinction myself. And since you're obviously in possession of superior knowledge and junk?


Thanks Emerson, but I did not write these. They were written by Dr. Linda V. Berens. They were based on Dr. Berens' and Dr. Dario Nardi's theory of specific function-attitudes resembling one another. Those definitions are found *here*. 

These look a-like descriptions were based on several factors to include the comparisons are different temperaments (i.e., SP-NT, SP-NF, etc), but the same interaction style (In Charge, Chart the Course, Get Things Going and Behind the Scenes), and the two dominant function-attitudes are similar (Ti-Se looks like Ni-Te or vice-versa, etc). Thus INTP/INTJ may look a-like in MBTI based merely on codes. But in this system, they should appear somewhat a-like since they share the same temperament (NT). If INTP looks like any other type based on the system, it would closely resemble INFJ (Ti-Ne looks like Ni-Fe or vice versa). But since INFJ shares the Chart-the-Course interacting style with ISTJ, INTJ and ISTP, and INTP shares the Behind the Scenes interacting style with ISFJ, ISFP and INFP, male INFJ types may look like INTP and female INTPs may look like INFJ.


----------

