# Interaction Styles - a great tool for understanding types



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

myst91 said:


> T and F are also on different ends of a spectrum yes? Yet both share one thing - Rationality.


I can't tell what crosscutting types, if any, you're claiming have MBTI-related personality tugs in common.

If you're talking about supposed dominant-function types and you use _Jung's_ type model (as shown here), all the "rational types" (J-doms) have J in common (the TJs and the FJs).

If you're talking about dominant-function types and you're using Myers' non-Jungian function model, then the J-doms are the EJs and the IPs, and that's full-on crosscutting, and I would challenge anyone to come up with either (1) a questionnaire where the EJs and IPs choose one side of the responses and the EPs and IJs choose the other, or (2) any MBTI correlational data pools of any kind where the EJs and IPs are on one side of the spectrum and the EPs and IJs are on the other.

On the contrary, and consistent with Reynierse's analysis in that previously-linked article, 50 years of MBTI data pools should lead any reality-oriented typology lover to expect that, when it comes to _any_ MBTI-related personality characteristic that EJs tend to share, the IPs will tend to exhibit the _opposite_ characteristic.

And although Myers talked about "dominant functions," etc. in her lip service to Jung in the first half of Gifts Differing, the fact is that, as further explained in the spoiler in this post, she pretty much stuck to the dichotomies (and dichotomy combinations) when it came to her type descriptions. And as I noted in my first post, Myers talked about virtually _all_ the possible preference combinations, and I would challenge anyone to find a single instance in Myers where she described any preference pair and its opposite (e.g., TJs and NPs) as having some personality characteristic in common, rather than as being opposites with respect to all the characteristics affected by those combinations.

ADDED: And it's maybe also worth noting that one of the things Keirsey got right was his dismissal of the cognitive functions, so it's not surprising that Interaction Styles crosscut the functions to an even greater degree than they crosscut the dichotomies.


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

reckful said:


> I can't tell what crosscutting types, if any, you're claiming have MBTI-related personality tugs in common.


I did not claim such a thing. I said something else.




> If you're talking about supposed dominant-function types and you use _Jung's_ type model (as shown here), all the "rational types" (J-doms) have J in common (the TJs and the FJs).


Yeah, I was talking about that pretty much.




> If you're talking about dominant-function types and you're using Myers' non-Jungian function model, then the J-doms are the EJs and the IPs, and that's full-on crosscutting, and I would challenge anyone to come up with either (1) a questionnaire where the EJs and IPs choose one side of the responses and the EPs and IJs choose the other, or (2) any MBTI correlational data pools of any kind where the EJs and IPs are on one side of the spectrum and the EPs and IJs are on the other.


I happen to fully agree with you on this being too arbitrary in the MBTI model. Not simply because it's "cross-cutting", though.




> On the contrary, and consistent with Reynierse's analysis in that linked article, 50 years of MBTI data pools should lead any reality-oriented typology lover to expect that, when it comes to _any_ MBTI-related personality characteristic that EJs tend to share, the IPs will tend to exhibit the _opposite_ characteristic.


Yeah, if the questionnaire is about what characteristics one actually exposes the most often, it will be like that. That's a no-brainer. 

There are other ideas on jungian function theory though that go beyond that. I'd like more research go into that because it did not happen yet in the USA.




> And although Myers talked about "dominant functions," etc. in her lip service to Jung in the first half of Gifts Differing, the fact is that, as further explained in the spoiler in this post, she pretty much stuck to the dichotomies (and dichotomy combinations) when it came to her type descriptions. And as I noted in my first post, Myers talked about virtually _all_ the possible preference combinations, and I would challenge anyone to find a single instance in Myers where she described any preference pair and its opposite (e.g., TJs and NPs) as having some personality characteristic in common, rather than as being opposites with respect to all the characteristics affected by those combinations.


How is this relevant to what I said?




> ADDED: And it's maybe also worth noting that one of the things Keirsey got right was his dismissal of the cognitive functions, so it's not surprising that Interaction Styles crosscut the functions to an even greater degree than they crosscut the dichotomies.


I wouldn't be sure if Keirsey was right on that. But we do not have very good tools yet beyond these self-reporting questionnaires so in my mind this question is undecided.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

myst91 said:


> How is this relevant to what I said?


It was just some further elaboration/clarification on what _I'd_ already said, since my mention of Myers' function model might have led someone to think that her type descriptions reflected crosscutting characteristics.


----------



## shameless (Apr 21, 2014)

myst91 said:


> You picked ENFP as "so me".


I will have to take your word for it I never sneak peeked on any of it just answered and posted


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

reckful said:


> It was just some further elaboration/clarification on what _I'd_ already said, since my mention of Myers' function model might have led someone to think that her type descriptions reflected crosscutting characteristics.


Yeah, right. Why didn't Myers cut out functions altogether btw?


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

myst91 said:


> Yeah, right. Why didn't Myers cut out functions altogether btw?


As I said in the spoiler in that previously-linked post:

Meanwhile, for anyone who thinks that the rejection of the functions that Reynierse advocates would represent a revolutionary shift as far as the "official" MBTI is concerned, I'd argue, to the contrary, that the MBTI has essentially been centered around the dichotomies from the beginning. Aside from the test instruments themselves, the analysis in Myers' Gifts Differing focuses substantially more on the dichotomies than the functions. Myers was a nobody who didn't even have a psychology degree — not to mention a woman in mid-20th-century America — and I assume that background had at least something to do with the fact that her writings tend to somewhat disingenuously downplay the extent to which her typology differs from Jung. So it's no surprise, in that context, that the introductory chapters of Gifts Differing, besides introducing the four dichotomies, also include quite a bit of lip service to Jung's conceptions — or, at least, what Myers claimed were Jung's conceptions — of the dominant and auxiliary functions. But, with that behind her, Chapters 4-7 describe the effects of the "EI Preference," the "SN Preference," the "TF Preference" and the "JP Preference," and those four chapters total _22 pages_. Chapter 8 then describes the eight functions — and that chapter consists _solely_ of a half-page table for each function, for a total of _four pages_. What's more, those four pages were simply Briggs' summaries of Jung's function descriptions, and Myers _ignored_ (and/or adjusted) substantial portions of those in creating her own type portraits. (As one example, as discussed in this post, Myers' IS_Js bear little resemblance to Jung's Si-doms. And for a detailed discussion of the surgery Myers performed on Jung's conception of Te, see this post.)
...
Buuut alas, Myers' lip service to the functions created what proved to be a significant _marketing opportunity_ for a handful of MBTI theorists who've made names for themselves in the last 20 years or so by peddling a more function-centric version of the MBTI. And for better or worse (and I think it's unfortunate), both the CAPT and the Myers-Briggs Foundation have long reflected the attitude that the MBTI "community" is basically all one big happy family, and — within certain limits — dichotomy-centric theorist/practitioners are free to be dichotomy-centric and function-centric theorist/practitioners are free to be function-centric, and everybody can sell their books and hold their seminars and it's all good.​


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

reckful said:


> Myers was a nobody who didn't even have a psychology degree — not to mention a woman in mid-20th-century America — and I assume that background had at least something to do with the fact that her writings tend to somewhat disingenuously downplay the extent to which her typology differs from Jung.


Eh, interesting explanation.




> What's more, those four pages were simply Briggs' summaries of Jung's function descriptions, and Myers _ignored_ (and/or adjusted) substantial portions of those in creating her own type portraits. (As one example, as discussed in this post, Myers' IS_Js bear little resemblance to Jung's Si-doms. And for a detailed discussion of the surgery Myers performed on Jung's conception of Te, see this post.)


Oh yeah, definitely.




> Buuut alas, Myers' lip service to the functions created what proved to be a significant _marketing opportunity_ for a handful of MBTI theorists who've made names for themselves in the last 20 years or so by peddling a more function-centric version of the MBTI. And for better or worse (and I think it's unfortunate), both the CAPT and the Myers-Briggs Foundation have long reflected the attitude that the MBTI "community" is basically all one big happy family, and — within certain limits — dichotomy-centric theorist/practitioners are free to be dichotomy-centric and function-centric theorist/practitioners are free to be function-centric, and everybody can sell their books and hold their seminars and it's all good.


Uh yeah nice soup of theories. :tongue:


----------



## charlie.elliot (Jan 22, 2014)

I am like not supposed to say which types go in which category...?

Anyhoo I actually really like this website and way the types are divided-- its really interesting. I think it adds a good element. 

I've always been confused as to whether my mom was INFP or ISFJ, which seem like every different types, but looking at this website, it makes more sense.

Also there's someone who I'm trying to type, and I think she's either ISTJ, INFJ, or INTJ, which all seem SO different, but again they're all in the same category here and the description makes sense to me.


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

charlie.elliot said:


> I am like not supposed to say which types go in which category...?


I said it already and someone else did too 




> Also there's someone who I'm trying to type, and I think she's either ISTJ, INFJ, or INTJ, which all seem SO different, but again they're all in the same category here and the description makes sense to me.


Haha, I've also been seen as each of all those three. It's certainly interesting how they are all in the same category here but can be just coincidence too.


----------



## OrangeAppled (Jun 26, 2009)

Octavarium said:


> The way it can be messy and rigid at the same time is that it is a set of discrete categories where each type is definitively placed into one of them, in which some of the decisions about how the types are placed is arbitrary unless viewed through the lens of the Keirsey temperament system, which is itself nothing more than a convenient way of grouping the types.


They're not definitively placed. Read my post again. It's a descriptive tool of behavioral patterns, not definitive of a type.
Maybe it seems to you that Berens presents it that way, but I do not have that impression. 
I don't think you need Keirsey to back this...and I am not a fan of the bulk of his theories.



> A better way of thinking about it would be that each preference pulls the type towards an interaction style, but some of those pulls can go in different directions and can vary with preference strength. An ISFJ, for example, differs from an ISTJ because of the F preference, which gives them more of a behind-the-scenes interaction style. However, there are also relevant differences between ISFJs and ISFPs even though Berens puts them in the same category; the ISFJ's J preference means that, compared to ISFPs, they are more chart-the-course and less behind-the-scenes.
> 
> In truth, an ISFJ's interaction style would be somewhere between ISTJ and ISFP, and where any particular ISFJ should be placed on the spectrum would depend on the strength of their preferences; an ISFJ with a strong F and mild J preference would be more behind-the-scenes than an ISFJ with a mild F and strong J preference.


The ISFP & ISFJ have their own distinct styles....there are the larger umbrella categories and then each type is given its own style. Even reading the ISFJ description shows that their style is a bit different from the other behind-the-scenes, who are otherwise IxxPs. That is the case for any P or J type surrounded by "opposites" on that spectrum - they are a bit unique in their category with some blurred lines implied. So of course, an ISFJ is typically bossier & more rigid than ISFP - but they are way less inclined to taking the reigns like an ISTJ.

And we already know from different ways of grouping types that ISFJs & ISTJs will have things in common (both Si-dom, both SJs, both introverts). This shows why some types, _which are not commonly grouped together_, may possess certain common qualities _which may cause people to mistype_. 

I have seen too many ISFJs mistype as INFP, and I suspect it is because of mistaking the interaction style for a P preference. When they realize their true type, they will even note this as a cause of the confusion_. They don't see themselves as "upight rigid SJs"_ (as SJs are painted, however true or not). 


reckful said:


> "Interaction Styles" are a goofy bastard child of David Keirsey by way of Linda Berens.
> 
> And although Keirsey deserves quite a bit of the credit, I think it's fair to say that it took Berens' breathtaking lenscrafting skills to realize their full gooftastic potential.
> 
> ...


I am not a fan of Keirsey, but I don't find his carve up arbitrary. I don't see how SJs cannot be a group and be quite opposite of NPs in many respects, and yet, we can still see overlap of personality qualities with NT types. 
The point is that there are MANY ways to validly group types and understand how personality APPEARS in reality and what kind of social roles/approach to life that types will tend to fall into/seek out. 

You seem to sort of admit this, yet want to take a broad brush and dismiss anything not supported by the MBTI institute. This seems just as black and white to me as much of Keirsey's reasonings. 

I honestly find most of the negative responses in here extremely black and white. There seems to be an insistence that because some aspect of a person's theory is flawed or is not definitive, that every aspect is not useful. Whatever Berens and Keirsey's motivations and larger theories, I think their groupings are _additional_ useful ways to understand type. They are not definitive - they are descriptive of how people appear in reality and how that can cause confusion in typing.

When people take the MBTI, they often get up to 2 letters wrong the first time! Some people don't investigate much and/or quickly get attached to a type that is not their best fit. When you understand how that confusion occurs, because of stereotypes about what a J attitude looks like or what it means to be a Feeling type, etc, then it is easier to clear up the confusion. I think Keirsey's temperaments CAUSE some confusion when taken too strictly, but when used well, all of these grouping systems can help understand type in a more robust way and not reduce it to a simple formula of cliches.

The problem with MBTI is that it is self-reporting, and people are notoriously bad at seeing themselves well. These other tools help people to consider themselves in different contexts, and the more they see themselves at different angles, the more likely I think they will see their whole self more objectively. 

None of this is very scientific, IMO, and I could give a monkey's butt because science is LIMITED. Jung was more of a spiritual philosopher than anything, IMO, and these ideas are mostly philosophies too. I have ZERO problem with that. Although, I will note that many of these ideas are based on _observation_, at least. MBTI is sort of "self-observation" which is arguably more biased. Whatever statistics they compile still boil down to whether someone can see themselves clearly enough to score as & identify with the correct type.

I prefer MBTI over these other systems too and find Myers far more insightful over all; just thought I'd clear that up in case it seemed otherwise.



> Keirsey's idea that there was something really fundamental about his NF/NT/SJ/SP carve-up was apparently accepted without much questioning or dissent as the MBTI grew in popularity


Of course it should be questioned, but throwing the baby out with the bathwater is going to the other extreme.
You don't have to accept these categories as any more fundamental than any other kind of grouping to find something useful and true about them. 

IMO, the Keirsey temperaments describe the typical life-focus a type will take - what the person seeks for _meaning_. Beyond that, other groupings are more informative to understand different aspects of a type's personality.



> Myers believed that the _most significant_ preference pairs — from the standpoint of overall personality impact — were the ones produced by the combination of your S/N and T/F preferences, with the result that the most meaningful way to divide the 16 types into four groups was NF/NT/SF/ST. And I think reasonable people can disagree about whether Myers was right, and anybody interested in a longer discussion of that issue — including a leetle Keirsey-vs.-Myers correlational study that I performed using a large official MBTI career sample, and that resulted in a dramatically lopsided win for Myers — can find it in this post (which also includes a bonus spoiler about why I tend to think of the INs as my peeps).


Something can be less significant and still be useful. There is no argument in here from anyone but you about what manner of categorizing types is most significant. I simply said that Berens is underused because it is useful for common mistypings (such as SFJs mistyping as NFPs; most may rightly wonder how in the world this would happen, given how different they are according to most categorizing systems, yet this ).

I'd advise no one to use any one form of group categorizing exclusively to type themselves, particularly if they are having trouble finding their type. 



> Myers thought there were significant things to be said about virtually _every_ preference combination.


And that is what is being said in this thread.




> And the most important two-letter combinations for purposes of understanding what Berens' goofy Interaction Styles are _really about_ are TJ and FP.
> So... how to accomplish that further subdivision? Well, as Myers had long ago pointed out, it's the T and J preferences that have the most impact on whether somebody's naturally inclined to "tell others what to do," and the F and P preferences that are most likely to incline somebody to take the opposite approach.


The problem here is assumption of motivation. Are FPs less likely to tell people what to do because they are "gentle"? You really find ESFPs GENTLE?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I find many (who are still appreciated by me) brash and rather pushy, albeit, not in a "directive" way. This has more to do with the FP tendency to value autonomy and individuality, which is shared by, guess who, TPs also (_introverted rational functions_). So you have MOST Ps as informative types, with a few exceptions, and those exceptions READ as exceptions. They DO stand out as different, showing the categories are NOT perfectly neat and pushing personality types into a pre-made mold regardless of reality.



> And that all pretty much makes sense, too — _if_ you interpret those categorizations as meaning no more than that the STPs, for example, are the directive types (relatively speaking) _as among the SPs_, and the NTPs, as another example, are the informative types (relatively speaking) _as among the NTs_.


And this is exactly why it is useful. It adds dimension to the other ways of grouping types. 
STPs are directive _as compared to_ other SPs, and I'd argue to other Ps in general, but they are less so as compared to most Js and especially TJs. And this is what you will get out of Beren's descriptions if you read them with a more open mind. 



> Buuut alas, Linda Berens loves her "lenses," and Linda Berens decided that it made sense to create an exciting new (with a hat tip to Keirsey) type lens by plucking the directive and informative types out of their Keirsey-foursome context and presenting them to the world as if STPs (for example) are not just directive _as compared to SFPs_, but are also directive as compared to, e.g., SFJs.
> 
> And that, not to put too fine a point on it, is just silly.



It is not too silly when you consider ESTPs reporting they mistyped as ENTJ initially (the 2 letter inaccuracy again...). 
Why in the world would they mistype as a type described as perhaps the most commanding personality there is?
Perhaps because they are more directive than most P types, so much so that they could mistype as Js?
*What is your explanation for this?*

I would say that ESTPs and ESFJs are directive in different ways, and they wind up being pretty equal for it.

The ESFJ style is very much about "consensus taking" and using "social influence" so that it appears as pseudo "inspiring" and not the intentional herding of people that it is. Then nature of Fe is to adapt to the social ideals, which means the more rigid 50s housewife prototype is outdated. 

ESTPs have more of a brashness (Se) and lack the emotional subtlety of dominant-Fe or even aux-Fi (instead have a blunt and more strategic Ti attitude). They are less exploratory with ideas than ENTPs & more likely to want to go into quick action (which looks more decisive). 

IMO, this model helps us understand why such confusion occurs with certain types. 




> ...the TJs are the ultimate "directive" types, the FPs are the ultimate "informative" types, *and the TPs and the FJs are more mixed types*, with the TPs having what you might call the "T facets" of directiveness combined with the "P facets" of informativeness, while the FJs have the "F facets" of informativeness combined with the "J facets" of directiveness.


Um, this IS what Berens does...the only ones to cross boundaries are TPs and FJs. All FPs are informative and all TJs are directive. After that, they get grouped by the I/E dimension. 




> But instead, here's what Berens' goofy groupings look like:
> *Directive:* TJs; NFJs; STPs
> *Informative:* FPs; SFJs; NTPs
> 
> ...


You just noted that FJs & TPs are more mixed than TJs and FPs. 




> As @_Octavarium_ has already (and rightly!) asked, why the fuck — OK, Octavarium didn't actually say "fuck," but it accurately reflects my take on the situation — why, as I say, the fuck does the S/N difference make the STPs directive and the NTPs informative, while having the _exact opposite effect_ on the FJs (N's directive; S's informative)? Eh? If that doesn't strike you, dear reader, as kind of a what-the-fuck thing, I would respectfully suggest that it may be time to refill your what-the-fuck tank.
> 
> And we really know the answer to that question, don't we? And the answer to that question isn't that an S preference makes STPs more _directive_ than NTPs while making SFJs more _informative_ than NFJs.


It's not about S/N. It's about combinations, which also hint at the functions they represent. 
As much as you dislike Keirsey, you seem inclined to toss out Jung's cognitive functions too.
STPs are a Se type, which is more active/aggressive than Si. 
T + Se preference is more aggressive than F + Si preference. 
Ne is more exploratory, playing with ideas more than pursuing immediate options. That makes the type more flexible, IMO. This is why NTPs are classic P types whereas STPs cross boundaries. 




reckful said:


> The Harold Grant function stack says that SJs and NPs tend to have things in common (as "Si/Ne types") that don't tend to be characteristic of SPs and NJs (as "Se/Ni types"), and that's a crosscutting pattern — and sure enough, it's *a pattern that never seems to show up in the real world. *It doesn't matter what you're correlating with type: if it's something that's affected by both your S/N and J/P preferences, and the SJs are at one end of the spectrum, you can reliably expect to find the NPs _at the other end_ — rather than finding the SJs and NPs together on one side of the spectrum, with the SPs and NJs at the other. Because _that never happens_.



And so what is your take on Dario Nardi?
He has not done anything scientific, but the little, er, explorations into people's brains he has performed seem to suggest that "opposite" types may have similar thinking patterns, even if their visible personalties and approach to life are markedly different. This is so much so that near opposites (ie ISTJs & INFPs or ISTPs & INFJs) start to look indistinguishable when noting their actual thought patterns.

However, I think we all do agree that in the "real world", these types still seem very different, especially in their, uh, life agendas. Perhaps this is due to how the thinking is applied and to what areas, as dictated by the _ego_, which is what Jungian type is _really_ about.

It seems this and socionics are spurring the ideas.

I am NOT a fan of "tandem" theories, ie, that someone is on some "Si/Ne axis". I believe the personality will be defined far more by the _actual preference_ (ie S or Si) than its opposite function lower down the supposed function stack.
This is another reason I see SFJs being mistyped as NFPs. 

I won't go into detail on that here though.


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

OK a few comments...




OrangeAppled said:


> And we already know from different ways of grouping types that ISFJs & ISTJs will have things in common (both Si-dom, both SJs, both introverts). This shows why some types, _which are not commonly grouped together_, may possess certain common qualities _which may cause people to mistype_.


Mistypes happen in way many more ways than this. It's hard to verify real patterns in that. Best not to use mistyping as proof for theories on type patterns - easily leads to cherrypicking.




> I have seen too many ISFJs mistype as INFP, and I suspect it is because of mistaking the interaction style for a P preference. When they realize their true type, they will even note this as a cause of the confusion_. They don't see themselves as "upight rigid SJs"_ (as SJs are painted, however true or not).


Case in point. How do we know the mistype is because of that?




> I am not a fan of Keirsey, but I don't find his carve up arbitrary. I don't see how SJs cannot be a group and be quite opposite of NPs in many respects, and yet, we can still see overlap of personality qualities with NT types.


I see no proof that SJ/SP is a better grouping than ST/SF. I saw @reckful actually show statistics on how ST/SF would be a better grouping.




> When people take the MBTI, they often get up to 2 letters wrong the first time! Some people don't investigate much and/or quickly get attached to a type that is not their best fit.


This is very true and a point that's often neglected.




> When you understand how that confusion occurs, because of stereotypes about what a J attitude looks like or what it means to be a Feeling type, etc, then it is easier to clear up the confusion. I think Keirsey's temperaments CAUSE some confusion when taken too strictly, but when used well, all of these grouping systems can help understand type in a more robust way and not reduce it to a simple formula of cliches.


Unfortunately it never helped me. I relate to SP, SJ, NT. Not to NF. Which does indicate ST would be the best grouping for me.




> None of this is very scientific, IMO, and I could give a monkey's butt because science is LIMITED.


Sure, science is limited still, but your way of thinking about issues matters. I think you need to strive for the purest possible thinking without biases as much as possible. Such as, no cherrypicking, no making up of hypotheses then never checking if they keep consistent with other ideas, let alone confirming them with painstaking precision in reality.




> IMO, the Keirsey temperaments describe the typical life-focus a type will take - what the person seeks for _meaning_. Beyond that, other groupings are more informative to understand different aspects of a type's personality.


I haven't heard of this interpretation before, in terms of seeking for meaning. Can you elaborate on this, I'm curious. (Regardless of how skeptical I am of Keirsey's "system".)




> The problem here is assumption of motivation. Are FPs less likely to tell people what to do because they are "gentle"? You really find ESFPs GENTLE?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


ESFP isn't simply FP anymore.




> And this is exactly why it is useful. It adds dimension to the other ways of grouping types.
> STPs are directive _as compared to_ other SPs, and I'd argue to other Ps in general, but they are less so as compared to most Js and especially TJs.


Hmmmm.... which would you say my mix of "INTP, ESTJ, ESTP, ISTP, ISTJ, INTJ" is more like? roud: (Directive or not, etc.)

Just curious, again.




> It is not too silly when you consider ESTPs reporting they mistyped as ENTJ initially (the 2 letter inaccuracy again...).
> Why in the world would they mistype as a type described as perhaps the most commanding personality there is?


Tbh I find it funny that ENTJ is seen so commanding by some. Sure, in a sense. In another sense, not so much. Seems like it depends on who you ask... I do agree that Se brashness can be confusing in this sense.




> You just noted that FJs & TPs are more mixed than TJs and FPs.


Yes, he had a problem here, because: _"why, as I say, the fuck does the S/N difference make the STPs directive and the NTPs informative, while having the exact opposite effect on the FJs (N's directive; S's informative)? Eh?"_

Make sense now?




> It's not about S/N. It's about combinations, which also hint at the functions they represent.


Yes but to @reckful this is too goofy speculative mixing up of functions. And I'm inclined to agree in terms of there being risk of working with too many unverified "patterns". Or there are patterns but without principles to explain them so they'll be this speculative mess when put together. (My POV. I understand that many N's don't mind working with patterns without the use of strict logic, while still ending up at the right place sometimes. I just don't find it precise and neat enough.)




> As much as you dislike Keirsey, you seem inclined to toss out Jung's cognitive functions too.


Yeah, well, the 4-function Grant model is what he tosses out and I can understand why. I think Si is fucked up as a definition in MBTI fucking up many other things as well if one were to reason logically about the model.




> And so what is your take on Dario Nardi?
> He has not done anything scientific, but the little, er, explorations into people's brains he has performed seem to suggest that "opposite" types may have similar thinking patterns, even if their visible personalties and approach to life are markedly different. This is so much so that near opposites (ie ISTJs & INFPs or ISTPs & INFJs) start to look indistinguishable when noting their actual thought patterns.


A couple warnings about Nardi's results.. he does not have 100% reliable patterns. He uses the MBTI Si definition. He uses the MBTI J/P notation. Of course Grant model as well. All this is a problem. (I can explain why.)

I'm skeptical about this near opposites thing (ISTP/INFJ, ISTJ/INFP), can you show me more data on this? How reliably has this pattern been shown?




> However, I think we all do agree that in the "real world", these types still seem very different, especially in their, uh, life agendas. Perhaps this is due to how the thinking is applied and to what areas, as dictated by the _ego_, which is what Jungian type is _really_ about.


Yep. @reckful does not seem to get this one, about the ego.




> I am NOT a fan of "tandem" theories, ie, that someone is on some "Si/Ne axis". I believe the personality will be defined far more by the _actual preference_ (ie S or Si) than its opposite function lower down the supposed function stack.


I think this is a sensible approach.


----------



## Im FiNe (Oct 17, 2013)

My guesses:

* *





*Behind-the-Scenes Styles:
*
1. Becoming an expert. Seeing new patterns and elegant connections. Talent for design and redesign. Crossing the artificial boundaries of thought. Activate the imagination. Clarifying and defining. Making discoveries. Reflect on the process of thinking itself. Detach to analyze. Struggle with attending to the physical world. INTP

2. Noticing what’s needed and what’s valuable. Talent for careful and supportive organization. Know the ins and outs. Enjoy traditions. Work to protect the future. Listening and remembering. Being nice and agreeable. Unselfish willingness to volunteer. Feeling a sense of accomplishment. Exasperated when people ignore rules and don’t get along. ISFJ

3. Going with the flow. Knowing what is behind what is said. Uncovering mysteries. Exploring moral questions. Talent for facilitative listening. Relate through stories and metaphors. Balancing opposites. Getting reacquainted with themselves. Have a way of knowing what is believable. Struggling with structure and getting their lives in order. INFP

4. Taking advantage of opportunities. Stick with what’s important. Talent for pulling together what is just right. Creative problem solving. Building relationships. Attracting the loyalties of others. Being their own true self. Have their own personal style. Play against expectations. Struggle with nurturing their own self-esteem. ISFP


*Get Things Going Styles:
*
1. Stimulating action. Have a sense of style. Talent for presenting things in a useful way. Natural actors-engaging others. Opening up people to possibilities. Respect for freedom. Taking risks. A love of learning, especially about people. Genuine caring. Sometimes misperceive others’ intentions. ESFP

2. Being inventive. Talented at building prototypes and getting projects launched. Lifelong learning. Enjoy the creative process. Share their insights about life’s possibilities. Strategically formulate success. An inviting host. Like the drama of the give and take. Trying to be diplomatic. Surprised when their strategizing of relationships becomes problematic. ENTP

3. Accepting and helping others. Managing people. Hearing people out. Voicing concerns and accommodating needs. Admire the success of others. Remember what’s important. Talented at providing others with what they need. Keep things pleasant. Maintaining a sense of continuity. Accounting for the costs. Often disappointed by entrepreneurial projects. ESFJ

4. Inspiring and facilitating others. Exploring perceptions. Talent for seeing what’s not being said and voicing unspoken meanings. Seek to have ideal relationships. Recognize happiness. Living out stories. Want to authentically live with themselves. Respond to insights in the creative process. Finding the magical situation. Restless hunger for discovering their direction. ENFP


*In-Charge Styles:*

1. Talent for bringing order to chaotic situations. Educating themselves. Industrious, work-hard attitude. Balance work with play. Having a philosophy of life. Having the steps to success. Keeping up traditions. Being well balanced. Connecting their wealth of life experiences. Often disappointed when perfectionistic standards for economy and quality are not met. ESTJ

2. Being a leader. Maximize talents. Marshal resources toward progress. Intuitive explorations. Forging partnerships. Mentoring and empowering. Talent for coordinating multiple projects. Balance peace and conflict. Predictive creativity. Often overwhelmed by managing all the details of time and resources. ENTJ

3. Communicate and share values. Succeeding at relationships. Realizing dreams-their own and others. Seek opportunities to grow together. Heeding the call to a life work or mission. Enjoy the creative process. Intuitive intellect. Reconcile the past and the future. Talent for seeing potential in others. Often find living in the present difficult. ENFJ

4. Taking charge of situations. Tactical prioritizing. Talent for negotiating. Want a measure of their success. Keep their options open. Enjoy acting as a consultant. Winning people over. Caring for family and friends. Enjoy exhilaration at the edge. Disappointed when others don’t show respect. ESTP

*Chart-the-Course Styles:
*
1. Actively solving problems. Observing how things work. Talent for using tools for the best approach. Need to be independent. Act on their hunches or intuitions. Understanding a situation. Taking things apart. Making discoveries. Sharing those discoveries. Unsettled by powerful emotional experiences. ISTP

2. Personal growth. Sustain the vision. Honoring the gifts of others. Taking a creative approach to life. Talent for foreseeing. Exploring issues. Bridge differences and connect people. Practical problem solving. Live with a sense of purpose. Living an idealistic life often presents them with a great deal of stress and a need to withdraw. INFJ

3. Drawing up plans and being prepared. Take responsibility. Getting work done first. Being active in the community. Loyalty to their roles. Cultivating good qualities. Doing the right thing. Bear life’s burdens and overcome adversity. Talented at planning, sequencing, and noticing what’s missing. Having to learn so much in hindsight is painful at times. ISTJ

4. Maximizing achievements. Drive for self-mastery. Build a vision. Very long-range strategizing. Realizing progress toward goals. Systems thinking. Talent for seeing the reasons behind things. Being on the leading edge. Maintaining independence. Find it difficult to let go in interacting with others. INTJ




Checking the site…(Interaction Styles)all 4 types in the correct groups. [_After some finagling on the site, finding that the styles as groups under the header are the correct links to use…_] Got ‘em! All 16 correctly connected, type to descriptions provided. [_Why did she have to assign titles? Why can’t they just be left with the 4-letter designations?_]

I relate to aspects of the descriptions for (Behind the Scenes) INTP, ISFJ, INFP, ISFP; (Get Things Going) ENFP; (Chart the Course) ISTJ, and INTJ. I agree with a higher percentage of the INFP description statements than with the statements of the others. Strangely the INFJ statement just didn’t seem to touch me at all today.

In reading the patterns pertaining to the 4 styles, I relate from best to worst:
Behind the Scenes

* *





The theme is getting the best result possible. People of this style focus on understanding and working with the process to create a positive outcome. They see value in many contributions and consult outside inputs to make an informed decision. They aim to integrate various information sources and accommodate differing points of view. They approach others with a quiet, calm style that may not show their strong convictions. Producing, sustaining, defining, and clarifying are all ways they support a group's process. They typically have more patience than most with the time it takes to gain support through consensus for a project or to refine the result.



Chart the Course

* *





The theme is having a course of action to follow. People of this stylefocus on knowing what to do and keeping themselves, the group, or the project on track. They prefer to enter a situation having an idea of what is to happen. They identify a process to accomplish a goal and have a somewhat contained tension as they work to create and monitor a plan. The aim is not the plan itself, but to use it as a guide to move things along toward the goal. Their informed and deliberate decisions are based on analyzing, outlining, conceptualizing or foreseeing what needs to be done.



Get Things Going

* *





The theme is persuading and involving others. They thrive in facilitator or catalyst roles and aim to inspire others to move to action, facilitating the process. Their focus is on interaction, often with an expressive style. They Get-Things-Going™ with upbeat energy, enthusiasm, or excitement, which can be contagious. Exploring options and possibilities, making preparations, discovering new ideas, and sharing insights are all ways they get people moving along. They want decisions to be participative and enthusiastic, with everyone involved and engaged.



In Charge

* *





The theme is getting things accomplished through people. People of this style are focused on results, often taking action quickly. They often have a driving energy with an intention to lead a group to the goal. They make decisions quickly to keep themselves and others on task, on target, and on time. They hate wasting time and having to back track. Mentoring, executing actions, supervising, and mobilizing resources are all ways they get things accomplished. They notice right away what is not working in a situation and become painfully aware of what needs to be fixed, healed, or corrected.



In a past work role I was very much in a Chart the Course position, but it was not devoid of Behind the Scenes approach. I found that role to be very enjoyable overall. In my personal life, however, I take a much more evidently Behind the Scenes approach.


----------



## OrangeAppled (Jun 26, 2009)

myst91 said:


> Mistypes happen in way many more ways than this. It's hard to verify real patterns in that. Best not to use mistyping as proof for theories on type patterns - easily leads to cherrypicking.


Yes, they do happen in many ways, and I am interested in exploring these. This is one way.
I am not using mistyping as proof, but an example of how this is a useful tool.
The pattern is NOT constructed _from_ the mistyping, but in what, say, SFJs _report about themselves_, as well as what is observed about them, much as MBTI is largely self-reporting. From that, we can see how mistyping occurs with certain types, yet not so much with others. 



> Case in point. How do we know the mistype is because of that?


Because the people report that. 
We don't know for sure yet, but it is an emerging pattern.

Yes, it would be nice to have data on this, but the typing community is not the world of science, and almost none of it holds up to real science, and I have no problem thinking of it as psycho-spiritual philosophy. Yes, I trust my own intuitive hunches.




> I see no proof that SJ/SP is a better grouping than ST/SF. I saw @_reckful_ actually show statistics on how ST/SF would be a better grouping.


No one said it is better. I spent half my last post explaining that.




> Sure, science is limited still, but your way of thinking about issues matters. I think you need to strive for the purest possible thinking without biases as much as possible. Such as, no cherrypicking, no making up of hypotheses then never checking if they keep consistent with other ideas, let alone confirming them with painstaking precision in reality.


But this IS consistent with other ideas. It actually harmonizes many ideas which seem contradictory. The MBTI Si-dominant is rather structure-oriented and conservative (not in a political sense) and the Jungian type forms subjective impressions and reviews them to get form a focused view of what is consistent reality - this could seem almost contradictory, as if one is stuck on implementing an impression and the other is more preoccupied with forming it, but we tend to just see the output of Si, which is heavily "shaped" by the auxiliary (this is an MBTI idea also). So if you add Te & Fe, then you easily see the divergence of ISTJs and ISFJs in their styles.
The interaction styles illustrate this sort of thing.

If you do toss out functions, then yes, it will seem a lot more arbitrary. I guess that is the point of contention here.



> I haven't heard of this interpretation before, in terms of seeking for meaning. Can you elaborate on this, I'm curious. (Regardless of how skeptical I am of Keirsey's "system".)


Will address this later...

edited: It is later... I found the older post where I briefly mentioned this. 
For context, read it here.

_I don't have a big problem with Keirsey anymore, as I don't view his categories as being literal. I think he is noting typical social roles _[or mentalities]_, not prescribing skills. SPs arguably __approach life as an art - everyday life is an art. NFs arguably approach life as something to be imbued with meaning. NTs approach it as something to be understood, analyzed, etc. SJs approach it as something to be organized for survival. If you use his temperaments beyond that, then you just get stereotypes, not archetypes._




> ESFP isn't simply FP anymore.


Yes, but this is the point!
I agree with @_reckful_ that FPs are the least directive, but it is not due to "gentleness", which is probably more of an IxFx thing anyway.
So what is the overlapping feature? IMO, it is the autonomous, boundary-maintaining aspect shared with xxTPs (an introverted rational quality). These types resist affect _and_ affecting others - which Jung notes.



> Hmmmm.... which would you say my mix of "INTP, ESTJ, ESTP, ISTP, ISTJ, INTJ" is more like? roud: (Directive or not, etc.)


This is someone taking stuff too literally. 

Probably an S type? /flippant





> Tbh I find it funny that ENTJ is seen so commanding by some. *Sure, in a sense. In another sense, not so much*. Seems like it depends on who you ask... I do agree that Se brashness can be confusing in this sense.


I am speaking more of their description... I agree with this. The question is why ESTPs would relate to that.





> Yes but to @_reckful_ this is too goofy speculative mixing up of functions. And I'm inclined to agree in terms of there being risk of working with too many unverified "patterns". Or there are patterns but without principles to explain them so they'll be this speculative mess when put together. (My POV. I understand that many N's don't mind working with patterns without the use of strict logic, while still ending up at the right place sometimes. I just don't find it precise and neat enough.)


MBTI notes the 4 letters indicates the top two cognitive preferences. The speculation is more about the lower order functions or if there is an order there at all (besides the inferior as discussed by Jung). All of this harmonizes when considering just the dominant and auxiliary. Even if you want to view it as "FP" instead of Fi or as "FJ" instead of Fe - different label, same basic idea. 




> Yeah, well, the 4-function Grant model is what he tosses out and I can understand why. I think Si is fucked up as a definition in MBTI fucking up many other things as well if one were to reason logically about the model.


I don't find MBTI gets it wrong, it just can be too narrow at times, and people take stuff waaaaay too literally. I see no contradiction between MBTI and Jung, for instance, if understood well.

Some of the cliches that abound are poor interpretations from people who do not understand the difference between illustrating a _general mindset_ and dictating insanely specific traits, even if we can find some remarkable patterns in traits.

An example is the ISFP as an artist, instead of the ISFP as a mindset with an artistic approach to reality (ie physical exploration to create meaning aka value, not necessarily "art" or anything close to it).




> A couple warnings about Nardi's results.. he does not have 100% reliable patterns. He uses the MBTI Si definition. He uses the MBTI J/P notation. Of course Grant model as well. All this is a problem. (I can explain why.)
> 
> I'm skeptical about this near opposites thing (ISTP/INFJ, ISTJ/INFP), can you show me more data on this? How reliably has this pattern been shown?


It's in Nardi's book, which I also already noted is not 100% reliable (because it is not scientific, no, but I don't think it has no value). 
I don't see what is the problem with his using the MBTI definitions here. 
I am not familiar with Grant (is this the typical 4 function model?), but those ideas have been floating around for some time. When taken to an extreme, they become problematic also, such as leading to those tandem-function ideas. On the other hand, without any model, we would likely end up with extremely literal people who might insist that, say, an N type "never uses sensing". I think the function models are just noting that although not a _preference_, there is still some, er, experience of this cognitive process in someone's mind. MBTI puts it very simply (that when either is an option, a person shows a preference, but can still "use" the non-preferred dichotomy if necessary; IMO, they may also avoid things which demand it), but it seems to go over people's heads still.

What function models basically suggest is that some non-preferred functions are less threatening to the ego than others, which makes them accessed more and colors the personality more or in a different way (as the repression of other functions can affect how the person appears, but their absence or unconscious nature). Of course, functions are not real, literal processes at all, but more like mentalities.

But yes, if you're not onboard with the ego & function stuff, then it may all seem disconnected. That is the foundation of MBTI, though, IMO.


Linking @_Eric B_ 's post related to this, which explains some of how the functions connect to the style given to each type. I don't agree with all of it (particularly the melancholic/supine/blah blah stuff), but the explanation of how the top two functions influence the overall psychology and appearance of personality in someone, which leads to a tendency for a "style" is broken down pretty well.


----------



## CBC (May 9, 2011)

Behind the Scenes: #3 Going With the Flow (and might I say, if I had to choose one out of all groups, this one sounds most like me, deep down).

Get Things Going: #4 Inspiring and Facilitating

In Charge: #3: Shared Values

Chart the Course: #2: Personal Growth


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

Wow; I had fallen away far too long!

Since the whole "functions vs dichotomies" war has just been fired up again (which is how I found this); I should point out that my take on Interaction styles relies more on dichotomies that functions (in fact, the model itself is based strictly on dichotomies).

Both Interaction Style and temperament stem from the old classic temperaments, which are based on expressiveness and responsiveness. The main expressiveness factor is I/E. Both T/F and J/P figure in responsiveness. But the temperament models were not designed with MBTI dichotomies in mind, so they don't line up perfectly, but do _parallel_ in definite ways. Myers had started out trying to create another "four-temperaments-renamed" system like Social Styles or DISC, but then as she integrated Jung's concepts, then eventually put together the four factor system known as MBTI.

Really, there were two strains of ancient temperament; Hippocrates and Plato. Hippocrates is what became the 'classic" social temperaments, now embodied int he Interaction styles, while Plato was more about trades (think "leadership" styles), and included something that would amount to a perception factor ("observant vs imaginative"), which of course was picked up by Keirsey (using Plato's names). 
So the two temperament theories come together in the typology through Berens' models, which include Keirsey and Interaction styles along with both MBTI dichotomies and Jungian functions.

This gives us a clue that the S/N factor is apart of one version of temperament theory, while I/E is apart of the other. T/F and J/P end up apart of both, but in a sort of mixed up fashion.
So *across the board, F and P will tend to be more "people focused" (called "informing" in the Interaction Styles, and "motive focused" in the Keirsey groups according to Berens). T and J tend to be more "task focused" (called "directive" in the Interaction Styles and "structure focused" in the Keirseyan temperaments).* 

*Structure/Motive* was not mentioned in the breakdown on p.2, as regarding certain groups being "more" directive and informative than others, which then makes this look all "arbitrary", as it was portrayed, but that factor is the key to all of this, and what led me to finally figure how type matches up to a full model of classic temperament (which includes "blends" on at least two levels of interaction; social and leadership). 
Structure/Motive is not as well known, because Keirsey did not recognize it, but concluded "opposite" temperaments in his matrix (S/N plus "cooperative/pragmatic") had "nothing in common". It was Berens who introduced that, and then in Keirsey's last two books, he finally acknowledged SJ and NT having in common traits he called "annoying", and SP and NF being "contagious". (in addition to finally dividing the eight last-three-letter groups by I/E, forming what h called the "roles of interaction", which were the same as Berens' groups). Berens' model _completed_ what Keirsey started.

Since S/N is tied to the Keirseyan groups (which is "blind" to I/E), this is what figures in which of the other factors end up part of which model. In Plato's system, the "Guardian" and "Artisan" were both "observant", and the Idealist and Rational were "imaginative". When Keirsey mapped these groups to the MBTI types, it so happened that the "observant" types connected to J/P (which also indicated the attitude of Sensing, though Keirsey ultimately rejected that) and the "imaginitive" types connected to T/F (the other preferred function). 
The Interaction Styles would happen to connect to T/F and J/P in the opposite fashion, but even more intertwined, as I/E becomes the other factor, and being "blind" to S/N, you end up with one three letter group for both S and N indicating whether the "directing/informing" factor is determined by T/F or J/P.

Again, this at this point has nothing to do with functions, except that for the N's, Interaction Style is connected with the attitude. However, since the T/F dichotomy is pointing to functions, and F/P is pointing to the attitude of the functions, pairing the two dichotomies then indicates function-attitudes. So the "people-focused" F plus the "people-focused" P then is double people-focused, and the task-focused T plus the task-focused J is doubly task focused.
TP and FJ then end up as "somewhere inbetween" (which I have long realized from this site: Achilles Tendencies, the Essay) People-focused F plus task-focused J or task-focused T plus people-focused P.

Again, this is not really about the functions, but does happen to correspond to them.
It automatically figures why the "human-affect" focused F would be "people-focused", and the "impersonal" T would be "task"-focused. J, which from the simple "dichotomy" perspective, is more about "closure", will also end up more "task" focused (right as I write, having another discussion with ESFJ wife about how she's essentially a "doer", even with the F). P is more "open", and thus will tend to be less demanding or critical of people. The same by looking at it from functions, where using an external standard for judgment and an individual standard for perception will tend to be more "closed" and less responsive to people, and an external perception will be more "open" to the emergent data.


----------



## Teen Rose (Aug 4, 2018)

Yes Behind the scenes.


----------

