User Tag List

Results 1 to 4 of 4

  1. #1
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,912

    Default THE COMPLETE TYPE GROUPING ANALYSIS: By The Sponge.

    This thread is about some of what I consider to be important analytical findings I've made about the structure of the cognitive types. Many or all of them may also be known to some other users here, but I write this because I find that the majority is almost surely not acquainted with some of these ideas, or possibly any of them, and this is my best effort to say it all.

    What follows is partly mashed together out of things I have previously written on this forum and elswhere, collecting into this thread, as well as news things I've written just for this purpose.

    This is a multiple OP thread, and it's gonna be loooong, so keep that in mind.
    ____________________________

    So I'm going to start with various different ways to divide the types based on their dominant and auxiliary cognitive processes. In all of these cases I'm going to be dividing the 16 types into 4 groups, so there are no dichotomous or octotomous groupings in this list. Two groups is too obvious to need to dissect, eight groups is so small as to be almost pointless. This is likely why groups of four is by far the most popular way of dividing the types.

    There have been previous threads, many such threads, where people have suggested a different way to group the types. In this case, I try to be as comprehensive as I can with the different ways to groups in fours, and I give some explanations about the patterns involved between the different types within each group.

    I originally wrote it for myself and not public consumption, so it won't be the nicest thing you've seen, but here at last is the list.

    [If you want, you can skip this inventory and move on to the next posts, but they will make some reference to this]

    Attitude based quadrants.

    1st letter and 4th letter: X__X
    EP, EJ, IP, IJ.

    EP: NeTi, NeFi, SeTi, SeFi.
    EJ: TeNi, FeNi, TeSi, FeSi.
    IP: TiNe, FiNe, TiSe, FiSe.
    IJ: NiTe, NiFe, SiTe, SiFe.

    Pattern: All types within a X__X group have the same preference for Extraversion and Introversion, and Judgement and Perception. For example, as shown above
    , all EPs use a form of Pe first and Ji second. All IPs use a form of Ji first and Pe second.


    4 different processes within each quadrant.
    4 different functions within each quadrant.
    1 E/I order.
    1 J/P order.

    ----------------------------------
    Function based quadrants.

    2nd letter and 3rd letter: _XX_
    NT, NF, ST, SF.

    NT: TiNe, NeTi, TeNi, NiTe.
    NF: FiNe, NeFi, FeNi, NiFe.
    ST: TiSe, SeTi, TeSi, SiTe.
    SF: FiSe, SeFi, FeSi, SiFe.

    Pattern: All types within a _XX_ group have the same perceiving function and the same Judging function. For example, as shown above, all NTs use a form of
    N and a form of T. All SFs use a form of S and F.


    4 different processes within each quadrant.
    2 different functions within each quadrant.
    2 different E/I orders.
    2 different J/P orders.

    ----------------------------------
    Perception process based quadrants.

    2nd letter and 4th letter: _X_X
    NJ, SJ, NP, SP.

    NJ: NiTe, NiFe, TeNi, FeNi.
    SJ: SiTe, SiFe, TeSi, FeSi.
    NP: NeTi, NeFi, TiNe, FiNe
    SP: SeTi, SeFi, TiSe, FiSe.

    Pattern: All types within a _X_X group use a certain, exact perceiving process, and a judging process of the opposite attitude. For example, as shown above,
    all NJs use Ni and some form of Je. All SPs use Se and some form of Ji.


    3 different processes within each quadrant.
    3 different functions within each quadrant.
    2 different E/I orders.
    2 different J/P orders.

    ----------------------------------
    Judgement process based quadrants.

    3rd letter and 4th letter: __XX
    TJ, FJ, TP, FP.

    TJ: TeNi, TeSi, NiTe, SiTe.
    FJ: FeNi, FeSi, NiFe, SiFe.
    TP: TiNe, TiSe, NeTi, SeTi.
    FP: FiNe, FiSe, NeFi, SeFi.

    Pattern: All types within a __XX group use a certain, exact judging process, and a perceiving process of the opposite attitude. For example, as shown above,
    all TJs use Te and some form of Pi. All FPs use Fi and some for of Pe.


    3 different processes within each quadrant.
    3 different functions within each quadrant.
    2 different E/I orders.
    2 different J/P orders.

    ----------------------------------
    Perception/-version based quadrants.

    1st letter and 2nd letter: XX__
    EN, ES, IN, IS.

    EN: NeTi, NeFi, TeNi, FeNi.
    ES: SeTi, SeFi, TeSi, FeSi.
    IN: NiTe, NiFe, TiNe, FiNe.
    IS: SiTe, SiFe, TiSe, FiSe.

    Pattern: All types within a XX__ group use the same perceiving function, and have the same preference for Introversion and Extraversion. For example, as
    shown above, all ENs use an Extraverted process first, and some form of N. All ISs use an Introverted process first, and some form of S.


    6 different processes within each quadrant.
    3 different functions within each quadrant.
    1 E/I order.
    2 different J/P orders.

    ----------------------------------
    Judgement/-version based quadrants.

    1st letter and 3rd letter: X_X_
    ET, EF, IT, IF.

    ET: TeNi, TeSi, NeTi, SeTi.
    EF: FeNi, FeSi, NeFi, SeFi.
    IT: TiNe, TiSe, NiTe, SiTe
    IF: FiNe, FiSe, NiFe, SiFe.

    Pattern: All types in a X_X_ group use the same judging function, and have the same preference for Introversion and Extraversion. For examples, as shown
    above, all ETs use and Extraverted proces first, and some form of T. All IFs use an Introverted process first, and some form of F.


    6 different processes within each quadrant.
    3 different functions within each quadrant.
    1 E/I order.
    2 different J/P orders.

    ----------------------------------
    Secondary Function based quadrants.

    All but one letter appears. (this group has more than two letter variations between members in the code label)
    No F, No T, No S, No N.

    No F: NeTi, NiTe, SeTi, SiTe.
    No T: NeFi, NiFe, SeFi, SiFe.
    No S: TeNi, TiNe, FeNi, FiNe.
    No N: TeSi, TiSe, FeSi, FiSe.

    Pattern: all types in this group have the same preference order for judgment and perception, and use the same secondary function.


    6 different processes within each quadrant.
    3 different functions within each quadrant.
    2 different E/I orders.
    1 J/P order.

    --------------------------------
    Primary Function based quadrants. (this group has more than two letter variations between members)

    No T: FeNi, FiNe, FeSi, FiSe.
    No F: TeNi, TiNe, TeSi, TiSe.
    No S: NeTi, NiTe, NeFi, NiFe.
    No N: SeTi, SiTe, SeFi, SiFe

    Pattern: all types in this group have the same preference order for judgment and perception, and use the same primary function.

    6 different processes within each quadrant.
    3 different functions within each quadrant.
    2 different E/I orders.
    1 J/P order.

    ____________________________

    Moving on into the next post, I will begin discussing the relational differences of particular type groupings.
    Last edited by Magic Poriferan; 01-31-2010 at 01:00 AM.
    Go to sleep, iguana.


    _________________________________
    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

  2. #2
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,912

    Default Symmetry within the Cluster: Structural differences of attitude and function groups.

    So as I've shown so far, I could in theory group types on any two letters, be it XX__, or _X_X, or what have you, A lot of people know this. What most of them say is you can group it any way you like and it doesn't matter, because there is not a signficant enough difference between the qualities of any particular grouping.

    I must disagree with this.

    In all of the different groups I broke down, I found there is a very important difference between the functional (_XX_) and attitudinal (X__X) groups among the ones I' listed earlier. That the middle letters are funcitonal and the outer letters are attitudinal is something I already knew for some time, but when I compared the dominant and auxiliary function arrangements I noticed the imporant differences of structure.

    Let's say I only change the function determining letters, the middle ones. So let's go from INTJ to ISFJ.

    Their respective processes are: Ni-Te. Si-Fe. The functions, while aligned in the same way with the same attitudinal prefence, are clearly opposites. If I add INFJ and ISTJ, I have Ni-Fe and Si-Te, and what I can see is that both are (in different ways) 50% functionally the same as both INTJ and ISFJ (though they are opposites of each other). The point being that the differences or similarities are very clear cut. There's no confusion. The SF and NT functions clusters are authentic opposites.

    So, supposing the INTJ is in the upper-left corner and we're analyzing its functional similarity to other IJs, it looks like this:



    And the pattern is the same with any of the types. Two similarities/100% where you start, adjacent to two one similarity/50%s and a corner across from the zero similarity/0%. I can show this by focusing on the INFJ in the upper-left corner instead.



    See? The same thing.


    Now, let's look only at the X__X grouping, the attitudinal grouping, and we'll find it's not so clear as the functiona groupings. Again, let's start with the INTJ, and compare it to what the four letter code would at least make appear to be it's attitudinal opposite, the ENTP.

    Their respective processes are Ni-Te, and Ne-Ti. First you see that even in terms of their attitude, they aren't totally different. True, they introvert and extravert different functions, and the ENTP leads with E while the INTJ leads with I, but notice that they do both lead with a perceiving process, Ni and Ne. So the two types have two attitudinal differences, and one similarity.

    Just like I did with the INTJ and ISFJ, let's look inbetween. How does the INTJ relate to the ENTJ or the INTP.

    First with the INTJ-ENTJ comparison. Ni-Te and Te-Ni. Here we see the INTJ and the ENTJ differ in that one leads with P and the other with J, and that the one leads with E and the other with I, but they do have the same exact processes, if in a different order. So that's two differences, one similarity.

    Now with the INTJ-INTP comparison. Ni-Te and Ti-Ne. They do not have the same processes, and one leads with P while the other leads with J, but look, they do both lead with I. Two difference, one similarity.

    Here's a chart showing the INTJ in the upper-left corner again, but compared with its fellow NTs of attitudinal variation.



    The whole way around, it's one similarity out of three/33%. The only exception being that the INTJ is again 100% to itself (and duh, this should always be the case ). Keep that in mind though, because it will be important later.

    Just like with the function chart, I could reposition any other NT in the upper-left corner and the pattern of pluses and minuses would look the same, so I need not show another.

    So this is quite different from changing only the middle letters, isn't it? While I could say clearly that ISFJ is functionally 0% like INTJ, while the INFJ is about 50%, I cannot do that with INTJ, ENTP, and INTP. The INTJ winds up being equally similar to all of them, and had I started with any other NT and worked from there, the pattern would have been just the same.

    So it actually makes a huge difference whether or not we group people based on the middle letters or the book-end letters, because the two sets have completely different symmetry. Within all types of the same middle/functional letters, because they differ only on the attitudinal letters, they, like I demonstrated, are all roughly equal to each other in relation. INTJ, ENTJ, ENTP, INTP, none of them are particularly more or less similar to any of the others. Same goes for comparing ISFJ, ESFJ, ESFP, and ISFP.

    Within all types of the same outer/attitudinal letters, a group like ENTP, ESTP, ESFP, ENFP, we have clear and obvious opposition, again, as I demonstrated. ENTP is opposite to ESFP within the group, they are both half similar to ESTP and ENFP, and ESTP and ENFP are opposites of each other within the group. So some clearly are more or less similar to others in the group.

    In the X__X group, symmetry is achieved through balanced contrast, rather than the constant evenness of the _XX_ group.
    ____________________________

    Continuing from here, the next post will concern differences and similarities at a deeper, more type specific level.
    Last edited by wolfy; 05-31-2010 at 06:27 PM. Reason: edited in images
    Go to sleep, iguana.


    _________________________________
    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

  3. #3
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,912

    Default Siblings and Aliens: Perhaps not who you suspected.

    So then, based on the interplay between function and attitude as I've show it so far, we can already draw some counter-intuitive conclusions. For one, as an INTP, I cannot say any particular other NT is closer to me.

    Up to this point I've been comparing types within the function cluster (_XX_) and within the attitude cluster (X__X). But what can my analysis so far told us about relations between types who are from differen function clusters and different attitude clusters?

    It can tell us a bunch of things that defy conventional wisdom on this forum, and beyond the forum, into the general realm of the MBTI.

    Which type is the opposite of the INTP? You are going to say ESFJ, yes? But remember everything I just said about the attitude relations. This still applies to types with different functions just as much as types with the same function. I__J is equally similar to I__P, E__P, and E__J. So then, that must mean that while the ESFJ is as different from an INTP as any type can get, it has to share that claim with the ISFJ and the ESFP. All three types are equally plausible opposites to the INTP (opposites can only exist concerning functions, right?). Of course, I said that I__J is 100% like itself, and therefore more similar to itself than it is to the other attitudes. Because of that, the ISFP is not a candidate for the role of INTP's opposite. The INTP clearly has more in common with the ISFP than it does with the other SFs.

    Let me break this down into the processes:
    First, we know that in all cases, there will be 0% functional similarity, so just assume that much.
    INTP vs ESFP. Ti-Ne vs Se-Fi. They have the same funtionally equivalent processes (Pe and Ji), but one prefers Extraversion and the other prefers Introversion, and the one prefers Judgement while the other prefers Perception.
    INTP vs ESFJ. Ti-Ne vs Fe-Si. Do not have functionally equivalent processes, and differ on the 'version preference, but both prefer Judging,
    INTP vs ISFJ. Ti-Ne vs Si-Fe. Do not have functionaly equivalent processes, both prefer Introversion, but they differ on prefering Judgement and Perception.
    INTP vs ISFP. Ti-Ne vs Fi-Se. This one breaks the pattern, as I promised. They have functionally equivalent processes, they both prefer Introversion, and they both prefer Judgement. That's three lemons! Cash will pour from the machine at any moment now.

    So there you have it. Anima and Animus are not so cut and dry, eh? So who are your friends, anyhow?

    Now would be a good time to mention dominant against auxiliary processes. I'm one inclined to believe that with all types, the dominant process is the more important of the two. If we consider that, then going back to my chart with the 4 IJs in post # 2, we realize that saying the types are 100%, two 50%s, and one 0% isn't even quite accurate. It's not even that balanced! This is because the one function the INTJ shares with the INFJ is in the dominant process, while the one function the INTJ shares with the ISTJ is in the auxiliary process, and thus, the INTJ has more meaningful similarity to the INFJ than it does to the ISTJ.

    How one values this is totally arbitrary, it could be like INTJ: 100%, INFJ: 75%, ISTJ: 25%, ISFJ: 0%. Or it could be like INTJ: 100%, INFJ: 66%, ISTJ: 33%, ISFJ: 0%. Again, it does not really matter what exact numbers you use, I just want to acknowledge in some way that the dominant process is worth more than the auxilary.

    Based on all of this junk then, I determine the pairs of types that are most similar to each other. Now I'm making things octotomous. Which two types each are the most similar counter parts? Simply, I'd say the types that share the dominant process, or to put it in a more important way, types that only differ on their auxiliary function (that's a wimpy difference). Yet, like other things I've said so far, the fact that it is logically sound may run up against the fact that it defies typical belief on this forum. Here would be the list of most similar type pairs:

    INTP - ISTP: Ti-Ne & Ti-Se
    INTJ - INFJ: Ni-Te & Ni-Fe
    ENTP - ENFP: Ne-Ti & Ne-Fi
    ENTJ - ESTJ: Te-Ni & Te-Si
    INFP - ISFP: Fi-Ne & Fi-Se
    ISTJ - ISFJ: Si-Te & Si-Fe
    ESTP - ESFP: Se-Ti & Se-Fi
    ENFJ - ESFJ: Fe-Ni & Fe-Si

    I know that some of those may seem very strange. I intentionally listed INTP - ISTP first because I figure it's one of the least likely to be accepted (especially if this were, say, INTPcentral). In general, due to this communities artificially wide S/N divide, the pairs that cross that line are probably seen as more strange. Of all the ones that maintain the same Perception function, I bet INTJ - INFJ would be the one with the most objections. But indeed, it is logically sound, and if you ask me, I also find it totally believable in real life practice. I never said the conventional wisdom on this forum was accurate.

    ____________________________

    Up next, the OPs of this thread will conclude, with consideration given to theoretical differences between this system and others.
    Go to sleep, iguana.


    _________________________________
    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

  4. #4
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,912

    Default What's true by one model is not necessarily true by another.

    With all of that said and done, surely someone that's read up to this point has an objection to make. Obviously I intend to address whatever I can by posting here later (even in spite of my massive academic demands ). But there are some things I want to posit or clear up right here.

    First of all, it is very important to understand that I never once made reference to the concept of tertiary and inferior processes, or anything about the shadow. All of the analysis I did was devoid of consideration for those. I essentially do not believe in them. All humans have all of the processes, naturally, but I disagree with how they are supposedly structured and manifest beyond the auxiliary processes. My reasons for why would probaby constitute a whole other thread, so I don't want to elaborate. Just keep in mind, everything I've said so far ignores those processes, and if your response is about them, I probably won't have much to say back to you other than to repeat what I've just said.

    The other things I simply have to mention is the Temperament model by David Keirsey. I'd dare say the number one reason the subject of type groupings comes up is because people want to know why Keirsey grouped the Temperaments the way he did. Why SP, SJ, NT, and NF? You probably noticed that no such grouping ever appeared in my inventory.

    Well, it needs to be understood, Keirsey disregarded the cognitive processes altogether. The very reasoning for why and how I did these groupings is in the cognitive processes, and thus is not really translatable to the Temperament model. And so it goes the other way, the Temperament groupings look weird and inexplicable when they are moved into the cognitive model. It's like opening an audio file in a graphics program. The file wasn't coded for that, and the result of the graphics program's attempt to read it, is a canvas of speckles and splotches usually, not particularly identifiable as anything.

    The best way to describe Keirsey's groupings is that he uses the function based quadrants for Ns, and the Perception process based quadrants for Ss. What's the good reason for that? There isn't one, because there is no cognitive process reasoning behind Keirsey's system at all. The similarity between the two models is very, very, superficial. So that should take care of any Temperament related questions that might be asked here.

    Finally, one last consideration I'll allow, is that perhaps sharing boths of the same cognitive processes is more important than having the same dominant process. I've thought about this a great deal, and I still lean toward the dominant process pairing, because I can see how an argument for INTPs and ENTPs being the most similar could be made (Ti-Ne and Ne-Ti), which would not only change my pairing list, but also remove the uniform similarity concept from the functional clusters. I'm still sticking with my way of doing things, but the other approach would neither surprise nor confuse me.

    ____________________________

    It's over! Ask away, but ask your questions wisely.
    Last edited by Magic Poriferan; 01-30-2010 at 02:37 AM. Reason: Added something more.
    Go to sleep, iguana.


    _________________________________
    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

Similar Threads

  1. [Enne] The new and improved Enneagram! From the sponge and evan.
    By Magic Poriferan in forum Enneagram
    Replies: 235
    Last Post: 04-04-2017, 04:57 AM
  2. An example of the working of type as defined by the "Hero" and "Parent" ego states
    By Eric B in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-18-2016, 07:13 PM
  3. What types are offended by the MBTI?
    By Lily flower in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 45
    Last Post: 07-18-2011, 08:00 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO