# Descriptions of the MBTI Step II� Facets



## Abraxas

PaladinX said:


> Nope. I am certified in Step I and II. My furthest academic achievement is a high school diploma.
> 
> Step III, on the other hand, requires at least a master's degree in an approved field.
> 
> 
> @_letter_to_dana_
> 
> www.opp.com is the distributor for MBTI in Europe, though it looks like all of their training is in the UK. But here is a link to recognized training partners that may offer something closer: Find a Training Partner


Oh!

Well that is very interesting to know then. Thank you. I'm not sure where I got that idea from exactly.

Now this makes me want to look into certification. If I may ask, why did you end up getting certified? What did/do you intend to do with your certs?


----------



## PaladinX

Abraxas said:


> Basically, there are the four "main" dichotomies, broken down into the facet sub-scales.
> 
> You take the aggregate of each sub-scale and add (or subtract) them to get your total score for that overall dichotomy.
> 
> If that overall score is somewhere in the middle, then your preference is unclear. If it's slightly in favor one way or the other, then it's slightly clear, etc.
> 
> For sake of simplicity, you can just assign a plus sign to the right of the scale, and a minus sign to the left of the scale. It doesn't really matter though, which side you assign plus or minus, they're just so you can do the math.
> 
> 
> So you could look at it like this:
> 
> + E/I -
> + S/N -
> + T/F -
> + J/P -
> 
> And just go down the list, and tally everything up in each dichotomy by scoring yourself on each facet.
> 
> For example, if you scored like, overall +28 on extraversion, that could be because you scored really high on gregarious and low on the other E facets (maybe even somewhat in favor of a few I facets), or moderate on each E-I facet but slightly more E on each one, or you know, whatever. It can be any combination, it's just that when you tally each sub-facet for a given dichotomy up it adds up one way or the other, and that gives your overall preference.
> 
> The idea is that the dichotomies are the abstract, general preference you have, where the facets represent the nitty gritty.
> 
> It's really similar to how the Big 5 works actually.


To add on to what you are saying and clarify some things:

The items in the step II questionnaire are weighted (as are the items in the online version of step I). It is possible to favour one preference overall, but score in more than half of the non-preferred preference's facets. These are referred to as 'out-of-preference' results. Step II scores also allow for mid-zone preferences.

Here is a sample report: https://www.cpp.com/Pdfs/smp267149.pdf




Abraxas said:


> Oh!
> 
> Well that is very interesting to know then. Thank you. I'm not sure where I got that idea from exactly.
> 
> Now this makes me want to look into certification. If I may ask, why did you end up getting certified? What did/do you intend to do with your certs?


I went primarily because of my general interest in MBTI and Jung's Psychological types. I saw an opportunity to get work to pay for it and seized it.

I am hoping to take this to my local autism support group use it as a mechanism for self-growth and development. I also hoped to do much more with it, like possibly run team-building facilitations for my work or for other businesses in general. There is also a small part of me hoping to talk the owner(s) of this site into offering MBTI as a service. I haven't worked up the nerve for that yet though.


----------



## letter_to_dana

@Abraxas: I do. Thanks.

@PaladinX: Thank you for the links. I'll check 'em out. =D


----------



## tanstaafl28

This is how I would picture myself, if I had taken the MBTI II test. 
*
Bold *indicates strong preference. No bold indicates mid range. *

E*/I
*Initiating*-Receiving 
*Expressive*-Contained
Gregarious-Intimate
*Active*-Reflective
*Enthusiastic*-Quiet

S/*N*
Concrete-*Abstract*
Realistic-Imaginative
Practical-*Conceptual*
Experiential-Theoretical 
Traditional-*Original*

*T*/F
*Logical*-Empathetic
*Reasonable*-Compassionate
*Questioning*-Accomodating
Critical-*Accepting *
Tough-Tender 

J/*P*
Systematic-*Casual*
Planful-*Open Ended*
Early Starting-*Pressure Prompted*
Scheduled-*Spontaneous*
Methodical-Emergent


----------



## PaladinX

These were my reported results:

INTP


*Step I (Clarity score out of 30)*
Slight clarity of preference for I (3)
Moderate clarity of preference for N (8)
Clear clarity of preference for T (16)
Moderate clarity of preference for P (13)


*Step II (Score out of 5 in favour of the bolded facet)*

E/I


Initiating-----|****-*Receiving*In-preference4*Expressive******|-----ContainedOut-of-preference5*Gregarious*---**|----- IntimateOut-of-preference2Active-----|*-----ReflectiveMid-zone1*Enthusiastic*--***|-----QuietOut-of-preference3


S/N


Concrete-----|*----AbstractMid-zone1Realistic-----|**---*Imaginative*In-preference2Practical-----|**---*Conceptual*In-preference2Experiential-----|*----TheoreticalMid-zone1Traditional-----|****-*Original*In-preference4


T/F


*Logical*--***|-----EmpatheticIn-preference3*Reasonable******|-----CompassionateIn-preference5*Questioning*--***|-----AccommodatingIn-preference3*Critical*-****|-----AcceptingIn-preference4*Tough*-****|-----TenderIn-preference4


J/P


*Systematic*---**|-----CasualOut-of-preference2Planful-----|***--*Open-ended*In-preference3Early-starting-----|******Pressure-prompted*In-preference5Scheduled-----|******Spontaneous*In-preference5Methodical-----|****-*Emergent*In-preference4

I self-assessed as ENTP especially given the close E/I score in Step I and the preference for E facets in Step II, among other reasons. I can definitely see myself being close to the mark on the E/I spectrum as most Introverts seem to assume I'm an Extrovert and most Extroverts seem to assume I'm an Introvert.


----------



## The Exception

@PaladinX it's interesting that you have 3/5 facets towards extraversion yet overall you typed as a slight preference for introversion. Perhaps some facets like initiating/receiving weigh more than others?


----------



## PaladinX

Fractals and Pterodactyls said:


> @_PaladinX_ it's interesting that you have 3/5 facets towards extraversion yet overall you typed as a slight preference for introversion. Perhaps some facets like initiating/receiving weigh more than others?


The items ("questions") are weighted in MBTI Step II and the online version of MBTI Step I.

I could be wrong, but I think it first looks at overall dichotomy scores to form a type, then it scores each facet individually. I'm not 100% on that though because I don't really understand the statistical lingo in my Step II manual.


----------



## Consolidated Potato

Interesting.


----------



## Ixim

Mine:

*EXTROVERTED*: Receiving, Expressive, Intimate, Active, Enthusiastic

*INTUITIVE*: Abstract, Conceptual, Imaginative, Experiental, Original*

FEELING: *Empathetic, Critical, Questioning, Tender, Compassionate

*PERCEIVING: *Emergent, Spontaneous, Open, Casual, Early

...
..
.

*I'M AN ENFP!!! Fascinating!*


----------



## linatet

E/I
Initiating-*Receiving* 
Expressive-*Contained*
Gregarious-*Intimate*
Active-*Reflective*
*Enthusiastic*-Quiet

S/N
Concrete-*Abstract*
Realistic-*Imaginative*
Practical-*Conceptual*
Experiential-*Theoretical *
Traditional-*Original*

T/F
*Logical*-Empathetic
Reasonable-*Compassionate*
Questioning-*Accomodating*
Critical-*Accepting* 
Tough-*Tender *

J/P
*Systematic*-Casual
Planful-*Open Ended*
Early Starting-*Pressure Prompted*
*Scheduled*-Spontaneous
*Methodical*-Emergent


----------



## roly poly

Thanks so much for posting this! It cleared up a lot of pre-and-misconceptions I had about MBTI. I actually think that anyone who is unsure about their MBTI type should just look at this together with the functions and the overall type and temperament. It shouldn't be too difficult to figure out your type after that.


----------



## StunnedFox

MBTI Step II Manual Supplement

Some time ago (maybe January this year?), I had a look at various sample reports and found that there looked to be some relationship between S/N and Questioning/Accommodating (though I put that to the side when I couldn't find enough sample reports to do anything in-depth, and found inconsistencies in where the averages were marked on sample reports notionally for the same type). For some reason, that - and the broader questions of how well the facets correlated to the preference they were supposed to and whether any unintentional correlations could be found - was what was on my mind this morning; the manual supplement linked above has some useful relevant data on the subject (Questioning/Accommodating seems to be the least reliable/valid dimension in a number of respects, actually, including the comparably high negative relationship with S/N that I'd spotted in the sample reports). Well worth a look for anyone interested in this sort of thing...


----------



## INTJake

Thanks for this so much, I want to take Step II some day.


----------



## Octavarium

PaladinX said:


> The difference is before and after judgment.


Can you elaborate on this? I'm still not clear on how the facets are different from each other, and the S/N facets seem especially indistinct. Is there any material that explains in more depth the differences between the facets, or could you give some examples of how different combinations of facet scores/preferences/whatever the word is would result in different kinds of personalities? For example, how would a logical and compassionate person differ from a reasonable and empathetic person, or how would a practical and theoretical person differ from a conceptual and experiential person?


----------



## PaladinX

Octavarium said:


> Can you elaborate on this? I'm still not clear on how the facets are different from each other, and the S/N facets seem especially indistinct. Is there any material that explains in more depth the differences between the facets, or could you give some examples of how different combinations of facet scores/preferences/whatever the word is would result in different kinds of personalities? For example, how would a logical and compassionate person differ from a reasonable and empathetic person, or how would a practical and theoretical person differ from a conceptual and experiential person?


The above are the in-depth descriptions. Can you elaborate on what you are unclear on? Can you provide some specific examples?


----------



## Octavarium

PaladinX said:


> The above are the in-depth descriptions. Can you elaborate on what you are unclear on? Can you provide some specific examples?


As I read the descriptions, I find that some of the same material is repeated in the descriptions for different facets, so it's not entirely clear to me how they are distinct. Examples:


Empathetic: "For Empathetic people, truth is not separate from people and their lives. It therefore makes no sense to apply logically consistent principles irrespective of the people involved. ... Truth for Empathetic people is both personal and universal, a view that is easily understood by Empathic people but difficult for Logical people to accept." 
Accommodating: "For people at this pole, reality is socially defined. Accommodating people are much more concerned with how truth is understood, valued, and used by others than with an assumed 'objective' truth. ... Truth is not separate from people, and groups cannot function well if different perspectives are not accommodated."
Accepting: "For people at this pole, truth is quite different. Accepting people want to affirm a truth that focuses on the value and worth of other people's ideas and viewpoints. "Objective" judgments about the truth are less important than the truth about other people and their relationships."
Tender: "For Tender people, there is no absolutely correct truth apart from the way things affect people."


Abstract: "For people at this pole, real and important meanings lie in ideas and abstractions. The tangible world merely provides the associations from which meaning is created. Physical reality does not have meaning in and of itself, and may be regarded at times as irrelevant, annoying, distracting, or misleading. Concrete reality is primarily a stimulus for directing attention to the more interesting realm of intangibles. Meanings arise from the relationships of "things" to one another, and from their power to generate additional ideas or associations. Abstract people find it appealing to consider the number and variety of possibilities that emerge when one abstracts the meaning of things."
Imaginative: "For people at this pole, tangible things are not nearly as important as the possibilities they suggest. Matters of fact are valuable mainly for the associations and images they bring to mind. Images are real and important; the material things from which they derive are only secondary."
Conceptual: "People at this pole look for meanings in what they see around them. Tangible things are primarily reflections of a reality greater than the world of the five senses. Their focus is therefore on inferences they can draw at a conceptual level rather than on what is immediately present. They are not content, however, just to make inferences. Inferences give birth to ideas, and ideas are what excite them. ... When people at this pole make or build something, it arises out of their mental images. These images include what they are trying to do as well as the meaning their creation has for them. 
Theoretical: "People at this pole generally operate a level or two removed from the immediately tangible. They search for patterns in what they see and discern meanings in those patterns. Their understanding and knowledge of the world are contained in an abstract series of principles, explanations, and theories."

Because of that repetitiveness, I don't have a clear sense of the implications of the Step II facets for personality differences, beyond what I already understand from the Step I dichotomies. To expand on the questions in my last post, how would a practical and theoretical person differ from a conceptual and experiential person, given that theoretical people "search for patterns in what they see and discern meanings in those patterns" while conceptual people "look for meanings in what they see around them" and focus on "inferences they can draw at a conceptual level"? Similarly with the T/F facets: what's the difference between being someone for whom "truth is not separate from people and their lives" (empathetic) and someone who believes that "there is no absolutely correct truth apart from the way things affect people" (tender)? Can you give any examples of how two people with different facet combinations might approach the same situation differently?

Also: How is Step II supposed to link up with the functions? If, for example, someone is an ISTJ but has three out-of-preference P facets, what are the implications for their functions? Are they still Si Te rather than Ti Se simply because they're still technically a J, just as any other ISTJ would be? Is their Si less introverted and their Te less extraverted than an ISTJ with five in-preference J facets?


----------



## PaladinX

@_Octavarium_

So if we back up for a moment, do the facet category descriptions make sense? These should be the first distinctions. The subsequent descriptions should be taken in context of their respective facet categories.

As for the ties to the cognitive functions, good question! I do not know the answer to this. Their functions would not otherwise change. 

The idea is basically that when considering a preference, sometimes people feel like they are their opposite types in certain situations. The facets are a way of looking at what some of those situations are. So you might have a general Feeling preference, but have a tendency to be more "Thinking" when approaching differences by questioning rather than accommodating.


----------



## Octavarium

PaladinX said:


> @_Octavarium_
> 
> So if we back up for a moment, do the facet category descriptions make sense? These should be the first distinctions. The subsequent descriptions should be taken in context of their respective facet categories.
> 
> As for the ties to the cognitive functions, good question! I do not know the answer to this. Their functions would not otherwise change.
> 
> The idea is basically that when considering a preference, sometimes people feel like they are their opposite types in certain situations. The facets are a way of looking at what some of those situations are. So you might have a general Feeling preference, but have a tendency to be more "Thinking" when approaching differences by questioning rather than accommodating.


The facet categories sort of make sense, I guess, but don't seem like very significant distinctions, and the descriptions of the facet poles go beyond what the category descriptions suggest. If the facets are about certain situations, does that mean, for example, that someone's view about whether there is objective truth separate from how things affect people might change depending on whether they're making a judgement or sharing that judgement? That just doesn't seem quite right; I'm struggling to explain why, but I suppose it's partly that it's a big change in values/outlook at an arbitrary time. I just can't quite imagine anyone saying that they think there is objective truth only when they have made their judgements.


----------



## PaladinX

Octavarium said:


> The facet categories sort of make sense, I guess, but don't seem like very significant distinctions, and the descriptions of the facet poles go beyond what the category descriptions suggest. If the facets are about certain situations, does that mean, for example, that someone's view about whether there is objective truth separate from how things affect people might change depending on whether they're making a judgement or sharing that judgement? That just doesn't seem quite right; I'm struggling to explain why, but I suppose it's partly that it's a big change in values/outlook at an arbitrary time. I just can't quite imagine anyone saying that they think there is objective truth only when they have made their judgements.


Maybe this will help. I've copied some of the bullet points from the manual. Each facet has many points, I just copied the first for each one. I've also omitted the midzone points.

*Ideal criteria to be used when making a decision:*

_Logical_ people tend to assume that applying universal criteria will lead to logical conclusions
_Empathetic _people tend to assume that honoring everyone's values will lead to desired harmony

*Criteria actually used to make and carry out a decision:
*

_Reasonable_ people tend to apply standards consistently and impartially
_Compassionate_ people tend to apply standards based on the unique qualities and needs of those involved

*Ways to approach differences:*

_Questioning _people tend to like to ask questions to clarify and understand the issues
_Accommodating _people tend to see maintaining relationships as more important than find objective truth

*Ways to communicate about differences:*

_Critical _people tend to want to correct what is wrong and improve what can be made better
_Accepting _people tend to want to affirm the value of other viewpoints

*Manner in which a decision is carried out:*

_Tough_ people tend to adhere firmly to their decisions
_Tender _people tend to focus on the impact of the decision on people


----------



## Octavarium

PaladinX said:


> Maybe this will help. I've copied some of the bullet points from the manual. Each facet has many points, I just copied the first for each one. I've also omitted the midzone points.
> 
> *Ideal criteria to be used when making a decision:*
> 
> _Logical_ people tend to assume that applying universal criteria will lead to logical conclusions
> _Empathetic _people tend to assume that honoring everyone's values will lead to desired harmony
> 
> *Criteria actually used to make and carry out a decision:
> *
> 
> _Reasonable_ people tend to apply standards consistently and impartially
> _Compassionate_ people tend to apply standards based on the unique qualities and needs of those involved
> 
> *Ways to approach differences:*
> 
> _Questioning _people tend to like to ask questions to clarify and understand the issues
> _Accommodating _people tend to see maintaining relationships as more important than find objective truth
> 
> *Ways to communicate about differences:*
> 
> _Critical _people tend to want to correct what is wrong and improve what can be made better
> _Accepting _people tend to want to affirm the value of other viewpoints
> 
> *Manner in which a decision is carried out:*
> 
> _Tough_ people tend to adhere firmly to their decisions
> _Tender _people tend to focus on the impact of the decision on people


Thanks, that does make things clearer... but still, it seems a bit strange that someone's view of the "ideal criteria to be used when making a decision" would differ from the "Criteria [they] actually use to make and carry out a decision" if the explanation isn't just that they're failing to meet their ideals. Why would someone purposefully use criteria other than the ideal ones to make a decision? Or is there a difference between "applying universal criteria" and "apply[ing] standards consistently and impartially"?


----------



## Silent Theory

10 E/I 22

2 Initiating-*Receiving* 4
2 Expressive-*Contained* 5
1 Gregarious-*Intimate* 5
2 Active-*Reflective* 5
3 Enthusiastic-Quiet 3

12 S/N 24

2 Concrete-*Abstract* 5
3 Realistic-*Imaginative* 5
3 Practical-*Conceptual* 5
1 Experiential-*Theoretical* 5
3 Traditional-*Original* 4

18 T/F 19

4 Logical-Empathetic 4
2 Reasonable-*Compassionate* 5
5 *Questioning*-Accommodating 3
4 *Critical*-Accepting 3
3 Tough-*Tender* 4

19 J/P 14

3 *Systematic*-Casual 2
4 Planful-Open ended 4
5 *Early Starting*-Pressure Prompted 1
4 *Scheduled*-Spontaneous 3
3 Methodical-*Emergent* 4

With this scaling I came out as INFJ, but if you look - T and F are incredibly close. Interesting and not surprising.


----------



## Super Luigi

E/I
Initiating-*Receiving*
*Expressive*-Contained
*Gregarious*-Intimate
*Active*-Reflective
*Enthusiastic*-Quiet

S/N
*Concrete*-Abstract
*Realistic*-Imaginative
*Practical*-Conceptual
*Experiential*-Theoretical
*Traditional*-Original

T/F
*Logical*-Empathetic
*Reasonable*-Compassionate
*Questioning*-Accomodating
*Critical*-Accepting
*Tough*-Tender

J/P
Systematic-*Casual*
Planful-*Open-Ended*
Early Starting-*Pressure-Prompted*
Scheduled-*Spontaneous*
Methodical-*Emergent*

looks like I'm ESTP :thinking:


----------



## Crystal Winter Dream

lets see...

E/I
Initiating-*RECEIVING*
*Expressive*-contained
Gregarious-*INTIMATE*
Active-*REFLECTIVE*
*Enthusiastic*-Quiet

S/N
*Concrete*-ABSTRACT
Realistic-*Imaginative*
Practical-*CONCEPTUAL*
Experiential-*Theoretical*
*Traditional*-ORIGINAL

T/F
LOGICAL-*Empathetic*
REASONABLE-*Compassionate*
*QUESTIONING*-Accomodating
*Critical*-Accepting
*Tough*-TENDER

J/P
Systematic-*CASUAL*
Planful-*OPEN ENDED*
*EARLY STARTING*-Pressure Prompted
*Scheduled*-SPONTANEOUS
Methodical-*EMERGENT*

...does this mean I have a T.
I would've never...


----------



## Justmeonhere

E/I
Initiating-*Receiving*
Expressive-*Contained*
Gregarious-*Intimate*
Active-*Reflective*
Enthusiastic-*Quiet*

S/N
Concrete-*Abstract*
Realistic-*Imaginative*
Practical-*Conceptual*
Experiential-*Theoretical*
Traditional-*Original*

T/F
Logical-*Empathetic*
Reasonable-*Compassionate*
*Questioning*-Accomodating
*Critical*-Accepting
Tough-*Tender*

J/P
Systematic-*Casual*
Planful-*Open-Ended*
Early Starting-*Pressure-Prompted*
Scheduled-*Spontaneous*
*Methodical*-Emergent


And of course, INFP.


----------



## The Exception

I’ve done this before but I think my preferences may have changed somewhat. Either that or I’m just more self-aware. I do think a few have shifted over time. For example, when I was younger I was more pressure prompted but now I prefer to be more early starting, having learned the hard way that tight deadlines cause me a lot of stress and I can get a better quality result by starting early. 
Also when I was younger I was strong on the reasonable side, you gotta be fair, no one gets special treatment but now I’m more in the center because there are extenuating circumstances that are worth considering , both for logical and for emotional reasons. 
I’m actually finding that going through all of these that overall I’m more F than T, yet from feedback with others and from my knowledge of the use of cognitive functions, I think INTP is more likely. Nothing is certain though and some have suggested INFP.

I put asterisks * around my preferences. Stronger preferences are in all capital letters. I’m still finding I’m closer to F overall than T. 

E/I
Initiating/*RECEIVING*
Expressive/*Contained*
Gregarious/*Intimate*
Active/*REFLECTIVE*
Enthusiastic/*Quiet*

S/N
Concrete/*ABSTRACT*
Realistic/Imaginative
Practical/*CONCEPTUAL*
Experiential/*Theoretical
Traditional/*ORIGINAL*


T/F
Logical/*Empathetic*
Reasonable/Compassionate
Questioning/*Accommodating*
*Critical*/Accepting
Tough/*TENDER*

J/P
Systematic/*Casual*
Planful/*Open ended*
*Early starting*/Pressure prompted
Scheduled/*SPONTANEOUS*
Methodical/Emergent


----------



## Eset

E/I
Initiating-*Receiving*
Expressive-*Contained*
Gregarious-*Intimate*
Active-*Reflective*
Enthusiastic-*Quiet*

S/N
*Concrete*-Abstract
*Realistic*-Imaginative
*Practical*-Conceptual
*Experiential*-Theoretical
Traditional-*Original*

T/F
*Logical*-Empathetic
*Reasonable*-Compassionate
*Questioning*-Accomodating
*Critical*-Accepting
*Tough*-Tender

J/P
*Systematic*-Casual
*Planful*-Open-Ended
Early Starting-*Pressure-Prompted*
*Scheduled*-Spontaneous
*Methodical*-Emergent

I'm usually a mixed bag with E/I, though these statements of I more so aligned with me, I am mostly E just due to my strong preference of Te over Si; as well as the overall positioning of the functions.


----------



## Wisteria

I'm going to select each side based on different situations

*Work/College/Formal*
E/I
Initiating-*Receiving*
Expressive-*Contained*
Gregarious-*Intimate*
Active-*Reflective*
Enthusiastic-*Quiet*

S/N
*Concrete*-Abstract
*Realistic*-Imaginative
*Practical*-Conceptual
Experiential-*Theoretical*
Traditional-*Original*

T/F
*Logical*-Empathetic
*Reasonable*-Compassionate
*Questioning*-Accomodating
*Critical*-Accepting
Tough-*Tender*

J/P
*Systematic*-Casual
*Planful*-Open-Ended
*Early Starting*-Pressure-Prompted
*Scheduled*-Spontaneous
*Methodical*-Emergent

ISTJ

*Home/Informal/Private*
E/I
*Initiating*-Receiving
*Expressive*-Contained
Gregarious*-Intimate*
Active-*Reflective*
*Enthusiastic*-Quiet

S/N
Concrete-*Abstract*
*Realistic-*Imaginative
*Practical*-Conceptual
Experiential-*Theoretical*
*Traditional-*Original

T/F
Logical-*Empathetic*
*Reasonable-*Compassionate
Questioning-*Accomodating*
Critical-*Accepting*
*Tough-*Tender

J/P
Systematic-*Casual*
*Planful-*Open-Ended
Early Starting*-Pressure-Prompted*
Scheduled-*Spontaneous*
Methodical-*Emergent*

ESFP


----------



## Darkbloom

E/I
Initiating-*Receiving*
*Expressive*-Contained 
Gregarious-*Intimate*
*Active*-Reflective
Enthusiastic-Quiet no clue about this one, more Quiet the older I get

S/N
Concrete-*Abstract* but communicate in more concrete way from what I've gathered, overall more abstract but not strongly
Realistic-*Imaginative*
Practical-Conceptual neither, relate to second part of conceptual though 
*Experiential*-Theoretical
Traditional-*Original*

T/F
Logical-*Empathetic*
Reasonable-*Compassionate*
*Questioning*-Accomodating
Critical-*Accepting*
Tough-*Tender*

J/P
Systematic-*Casual*
*Planful*-Open-Ended 
Early Starting-*Pressure-Prompted*
*Scheduled*-Spontaneous 
*Methodical*-Emergent never read directions fully and overall not this extreme but I think I have methodical tendencies


----------



## Allana

How can you practically use these facets?


----------



## Lunacik

_Bump / revive_


----------



## Lunacik

S - Concrete
N - Imaginative
? - Practical / Conceptual - ?
S - Experiential
N - Original


----------



## Lunacik

T - Logical
T - Reasonable
T - Questioning
T - Critical
T - Tough


----------

