User Tag List

First 12345 Last

Results 21 to 30 of 43

  1. #21
    ⒺⓉⒷ Eric B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    548 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    3,438

    Default

    I figured it might be good to bring in scientific-like terms for more concise clarification: “general” vs“special” uses of the functions.

    Whenever we assign a function to a type, in the particular “orders”, such as dominant, aux, tertiary, inferior, or even the “shadow” roles, these are really special instances of the function, determined by the associated complexes involved.
    This distinguishes it from the “general” sensation, intuition, thinking and feeling (and internally or externally based) everyone does.
    APS Profile: Inclusion: e/w=1/6 (Supine) |Control: e/w=7/3 (Choleric) |Affection: e/w=1/9 (Supine)
    Ti 54.3 | Ne 47.3 | Si 37.8 | Fe 17.7 | Te 22.5 | Ni 13.4 | Se 18.9 | Fi 27.9

    Temperament (APS) from scratch -- MBTI Type from scratch
    Type Ideas

  2. #22
    ⒺⓉⒷ Eric B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    548 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    3,438

    Default

    Further decided, for the perception functions (to match the simple “true/false” and “good/bad” terms for T/F):
    S: is/isnt
    N: could/couldn’t

    Se: is/isn’t based on current external items
    Si: is/isn’t based on internal knowledge of items
    Ne: could/couldn’t based on external constructs
    Ni: could/couldn’t based on internal (and likely unconscious) sense of constructs

    (this last one is good for summarizing Ni!)

    Berens had also used:
    “what is” (Se)
    “What was” (Si)
    “what could be” (Ne)
    “what will be” (Ni)

    Notice, both of the extraverted functions match what I’m now assigning to the natural function in general.
    You could see the introverted perceptions as special versions of “what is” and “what could be”, since they have been internalized. what “was” is just an internal blue print “what is” is compared to, so Si ultimately pays more attention to “what is” after all.
    “What will be” is not really the best specific description for Ni. It seems that way, because it can be used to get a sense of the future, but it’s really in general filling in any observed pattern, regardless of the time frame (which is more of a rational element a judgment function is needed to deal with).
    You often see in others’ function descriptions “what could be” used for Ni, and this is in the sense that even with their less “up-in-the air” (like Ne) impressions, what Ni types come up with is still not 100% certain (hence, you can’t really say “will be”), so it, just as much as Ne, is ultimately about “could.

    Of the different N products, obviously,
    1) pondering on something that doesn’t exist, that you wonder about making exist, or if it will come about on it’s own or by someone else, or science “theory”, is dealing with “could” be.
    (Like in personality theory itself, there is never any absolute “is”, whether type preferences, temperament patterns, etc.; it’s all at best “could”).
    Then, you have a case like Schröedinger’s Cat, where we can only go on “could” (mental constructs of the possible outcomes), and don’t know what “is” or “isn’t” (the actual state of the item inside).

    2) A fantasy, such as an alternate reality, or “story” (fiction, etc.) deals in what “could have been“. Even with things naturally impossible, what you’re imagining then, is basically a different set of universal laws (or suspensions of/exceptions to them) that “could have been”.

    3) Concepts such as religious doctrine, and politics may not seem like “coulds” at first, largely because of the way they are often pontificated as absolute “fact”. But they are not tangible items that can be proven on the spot, like the law of gravity (or the other three forces, which govern things such as the nature of what we call “solid objects” that we can touch, see, etc.)
    They are at best, things that “could” be true, but different people will see them differently (proof they are not tangible realities), and then have to use more intangible constructs to try to dismiss the other person’s view. Religion even usually admits this, ultimately, when they start saying it is by “faith” (though many still treat this as absolute and tangible experience, which contradicts the notion of “faith”).

    4) Stuff like archetypes, symbols, etc. also may not seem like “coulds”, because they’re alternative ways of looking at reality, and seem like sort of “realities” of their own, but then that’s where their “could” lies: “could” be a way to see the situation!

    So, redoing the table from the OP:
    APS Profile: Inclusion: e/w=1/6 (Supine) |Control: e/w=7/3 (Choleric) |Affection: e/w=1/9 (Supine)
    Ti 54.3 | Ne 47.3 | Si 37.8 | Fe 17.7 | Te 22.5 | Ni 13.4 | Se 18.9 | Fi 27.9

    Temperament (APS) from scratch -- MBTI Type from scratch
    Type Ideas

  3. #23
    ⒺⓉⒷ Eric B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    548 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    3,438

    Default

    Further thinking now that Lenore's definition of function attitude in terms of "culture" or "environment" and "individual" may be even better than "internal/external" (which like many other terms can be ambiguous at times, since they are all processes internal to us, and involve external elements).

    Se: what is, directly from the environment
    Si: what is, filtered through individual factual knowledge
    Ne: what could be, inferred from patterns in the environment
    Ni: what could be, inferred from individual impressions used to fill in patterns
    Te: what's correct according to environmentally determined standards
    Ti: what's correct according to individually determined standards
    Fe: what's good according to environmentally determined standards
    Fi: what's good according to individually determined standards
    APS Profile: Inclusion: e/w=1/6 (Supine) |Control: e/w=7/3 (Choleric) |Affection: e/w=1/9 (Supine)
    Ti 54.3 | Ne 47.3 | Si 37.8 | Fe 17.7 | Te 22.5 | Ni 13.4 | Se 18.9 | Fi 27.9

    Temperament (APS) from scratch -- MBTI Type from scratch
    Type Ideas

  4. #24
    ⒺⓉⒷ Eric B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    548 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    3,438

    Default How either function attitude can do the same things

    How either function attitude can do the same things
    (Using descriptions attributed to one attitude. Function role names from Berens, Personality Hacker and Hartzler Functions of Type)


    “Experiencing” (“Sensation”, “The Scout”)

    Se: taking on new options for activity as it arises
    Si: reliving trusted or "tried and true" activities

    “Recalling” (“Memory”, “Conservator”)

    Se: knowing those physical activities or facts you liked, and would like to relive or reference.
    Si: referencing learned fact to inform decisions

    “Inferring” (“Exploration”, “Brainstormer”)

    Ne: comparing patterns to get a sense of what something in one of them means
    Ni: using unconscious impressions to get a sense of what something in a pattern means

    “Foreseeing” (“Perspectives”, “The Seer”)

    Ne: comparing patterns to get a sense of where a new timelike pattern might lead to
    Ni: using unconscious impressions to gain a sense of where a timelike pattern is heading

    “Applying logic” (“Effectiveness”, “Administrator”)

    Te: What the environment determines is the most logical solution becomes your main goal
    Ti: figure how it would be arranged by your own individual sense of logical order; e.g. “if it were up to me”

    “Analyzing” (“Accuracy”, “Analyzer”)

    Te: dissect something using conventional (i.e. from the environment) knowledge of what is most efficient or practical
    Ti: Dissect something using your own individually learned/derived “true/false” standard

    “Considering others” (“Harmony”, “The Guide”)

    Fe: hears a person’s judgment of “good/bad”, and takes it on as his own
    Fi: puts himself in the person’s shoes and makes the good/bad judgment for him, and responds to him accordingly.

    [personal] “valuing” (“Authenticity”, “Conscience”)

    Fe: the environmental values they have adopted have become their personal values
    Fi: develops individual values on their own
    APS Profile: Inclusion: e/w=1/6 (Supine) |Control: e/w=7/3 (Choleric) |Affection: e/w=1/9 (Supine)
    Ti 54.3 | Ne 47.3 | Si 37.8 | Fe 17.7 | Te 22.5 | Ni 13.4 | Se 18.9 | Fi 27.9

    Temperament (APS) from scratch -- MBTI Type from scratch
    Type Ideas
    Likes D'Ascoyne liked this post

  5. #25
    ⒺⓉⒷ Eric B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    548 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    3,438

    Default

    In deciphering the two different attitudes of each function, the question to ask is:

    WHO is really doing the actual Thinking? (the subject, or an object; i.e. Other person, group, computer; e.g statistics, etc.)

    In the latter case [e], the subject then “introjects” or takes these environmental judgments of what’s “true” or “correct,” as his own.
    In the former case [i], it’s, his own individual assessment of “true”, who then projects them. (“if it were left up to me, I would do it this way”)

    WHO is really doing the actual Feeling? (subject, or an object; i.e. other person, group, culture).

    In the latter case [e], the subject then “introjects” or takes these environmental values of “good” as his own.
    In the former case [i], it’s his own, individual assessment of what’s “good”, projected onto the other (“if that were me, I would feel this way”).

    With perception, it’s always the subject “doing” the process (taking in the information). What’s different, is where it’s processed from.

    Se: directly from the environment as occurs
    Si: directly from individual memory
    Ne: patterns in environment via memory
    Ni: individual impressions repressed from memory

    So instead of “who”, it’s simply “where”.

    WHERE are your sense impressions?
    (directly from the environment, as they occur, or filtered individually through memory)

    In the latter case [e], the subject introjects the current experience from the environment, in effect “merging” with it. (You sometimes even see the function directly described in this term).
    In the former case [i], he projects his own individually learned sense of experience onto the environment (often, if it doesn’t line up, feels stress)

    WHERE do meanings (inferred from sense impressions) TAKE PLACE?
    (other patterns that are in the environment, though stored in memory; or individual impressions which are outside the pattern, from stuff likely repressed from memory)

    In the latter case [e], the subject introjects the pattern, taking it into himself. In the former case [i], he projects into the situation subjective impressions, not necessarily bound to the contexts. (So it tends to come off to me as “pulling stuff from out of thin air”).

    An example of the extravert “subject” merging with the object in decision making:

    When TJ’s (even when Te is auxiliary) enforce “group think"; even when they say stuff like “I don’t like it either; it’s hard on all of us, [etc.]…but that’s just the way it is”, their ego’s perspective (dominant or supportive) is still being gratified. It’s still the way they think things should be (especially with an STJ), compared to, [heaven help], an introverted Thinking perspective, where the subject subtracts [what he feels is irrelevant] from the object rather than just adopting it.
    APS Profile: Inclusion: e/w=1/6 (Supine) |Control: e/w=7/3 (Choleric) |Affection: e/w=1/9 (Supine)
    Ti 54.3 | Ne 47.3 | Si 37.8 | Fe 17.7 | Te 22.5 | Ni 13.4 | Se 18.9 | Fi 27.9

    Temperament (APS) from scratch -- MBTI Type from scratch
    Type Ideas
    Likes D'Ascoyne liked this post

  6. #26
    ⒺⓉⒷ Eric B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    548 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    3,438

    Default

    I'm thinking for S/N, probably more precise than "is/isn't" and "could/couldn't" is S= "the substance of things" N="the idea of things". At first, I thought of "reality vs idea of things", but that seems lopsided in favor of S.

    I've been realizing the often disparity between the practicality of things and the idea of things, and how I tend to see life in terms of "storylines" that I want to see lived out (or try to oppose if negative). When I get to live some of them out, they often are not what they seemed, so it was like I "liked the 'idea' of it".

    Se: substance of things in the environment
    Si: substance of things as referenced from individual knowledge
    Ne: ideas of things inferred from the environment
    Ni: ideas of things inferred from individual impressions
    APS Profile: Inclusion: e/w=1/6 (Supine) |Control: e/w=7/3 (Choleric) |Affection: e/w=1/9 (Supine)
    Ti 54.3 | Ne 47.3 | Si 37.8 | Fe 17.7 | Te 22.5 | Ni 13.4 | Se 18.9 | Fi 27.9

    Temperament (APS) from scratch -- MBTI Type from scratch
    Type Ideas

  7. #27
    ⒺⓉⒷ Eric B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    548 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    3,438

    Default

    Going with “material” vs “ideational” for S/N.

    So now, in putting together what differentiates the functions from each other

    •All self-conscious beings perceive data through imagery.

    When the images are based on physical material (strings vibrating an a way that produces fields that we cannot pass through, and thus stimulates our nerve sensors, and reflect photons which also stimulate sensors, then we are experiencing sensation (S), and we call these fields “material”, and can say that it is epirically “what IS”.
    Our experience of this can be immediate, in the environment (e), or previously learned and retained,individually (i).

    If the imagery is not backed up by the material experience, then it is merely inferred (may or may not exist, but we haven’t verified it yet), or is imagined (put together in our minds, such as “stories”, “big pictures”, “meanings”, etc.) and is thus “ideational”, or described as “what COULD be”, and the function is iNtuition (N).
    These ideations can be from the environment (e), where they’re based on other objects of patterns, or they can be from individual reflection, which usually brings up insights that come from less conscious knowledge.

    •All self-conscious beings assess things as right or wrong. What’s right is what we strive for, and what’s wrong is what we seek to make “right”.

    If the sense of right or wrong is from emotions that are based on the effect of objects based on their own properties, we speak of things being “true” (versus “false”) or “correct” or not, and the function is called Thinking (T).
    This assessment can be based on the environment (e), where the objects themslves, or a group or culture’s demands or consensus on the best use of them, determines what is correct; or it can be based on individual (i) knowledge or logical preference.

    If the sense of right or wrong is from emotions that are based on the effect of objects on our own souls, we speak of things being “good” (versus “bad”) or “liked” or not, and the function is called Feeling (F). [Thanks to freelance type theorist Ben Kovitz for putting T/F this way].
    This assessment can be based on the environment (e), where a group or culture’s demands or consensus (of values) determines what is “liked” or good (which the assessing ego takes as its own and acts accordingly); or it can be based on individual (i) knowledge or ethical preference (which can be used to guage the needs of others).

    •Each ego prefers one function, and either the environmental (“extraverted”) or individual (“introverted”) focus. Since we have to both take in information (“perceive”), and determine right/wrong (“judge”), then each ego will have a preference for the other mode of processing from its dominant. This will also take on the unpreferred orientation.

    From here, we are able to identify 16 “types”.
    APS Profile: Inclusion: e/w=1/6 (Supine) |Control: e/w=7/3 (Choleric) |Affection: e/w=1/9 (Supine)
    Ti 54.3 | Ne 47.3 | Si 37.8 | Fe 17.7 | Te 22.5 | Ni 13.4 | Se 18.9 | Fi 27.9

    Temperament (APS) from scratch -- MBTI Type from scratch
    Type Ideas

  8. #28
    ⒺⓉⒷ Eric B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    548 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    3,438

    Default

    Was writing a post on a list for someone weighing between T and F, and the term “mechanics” suddenly came to me, as what I’ve been looking for for T, (as what technical is “of or pertains to”, since “technics” is not really a word. It thus replaces “properties [of]”, as I had been using before).
    So this could go with “soulish” for F. (I looked up what’s “of or pertains to the ‘soul'”, and I saw people suggest “soulean” and “soular” (What would be the word meaning ... [Archive] - Straight Dope Message Board). It would probably revert to the Greek “psych[ic]”, but that brings to mind other things, both in Jungian lingo and common speech. There’s also “pneuma[tic]” which is really “spirit”, but also used for the often blurred-with-it concept of “soul”; and its Latin counterpart “anima”, but these too bring to mind other things, in both fields.
    So my full term might be “soul affect”. May continue to look for a good single word for that. Really, “affect” by itself as a noun is really just that, but it might still not be clear enough without specifying “soul”).

    So this will go along with “substance” and “idea” for S/N (while I’ve paired “material” and “hypothesis” together as alternates).

    So now you can speak of “the substance of it”, “the idea of it”, “the mechanics of it”, and “the soul affect of it”.

    Also of interest, Personality Hacker put up a new page for the INTP type (they’ve been doing a series of good podcasts on the type).
    INTP Personality Type In Depth | PersonalityHacker.com : Personality Hacker
    On this article: The INTP "Architect" Personality Type | PersonalityHacker.com : Personality Hacker (The INTP “Architect” Personality Type) they point out “If you’re mistaken and an Accuracy [their term for introverted Thinking] person corrects you, it’s not personal. They honestly would want that information themselves and so they expect you want it, too.

    This helps complete for me the analogue to what I was once given for Fi: “If that were me, I would feel this way [i.e. that the experience is “good” or “bad”]”. So to rephrase it for Ti, “if that were me, I would want this ‘truth’ too”.
    APS Profile: Inclusion: e/w=1/6 (Supine) |Control: e/w=7/3 (Choleric) |Affection: e/w=1/9 (Supine)
    Ti 54.3 | Ne 47.3 | Si 37.8 | Fe 17.7 | Te 22.5 | Ni 13.4 | Se 18.9 | Fi 27.9

    Temperament (APS) from scratch -- MBTI Type from scratch
    Type Ideas

  9. #29
    ⒺⓉⒷ Eric B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    548 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    3,438

    Default

    Someone on a list asked about the difference between Introversion and iNtuition, which can be confused in type definitions.

    This parallels the ambiguity of subjective/objective, concrete/abstract and especially conscious/unconscious in Jung’s terminology. It seemed what is deemed “conscious” is whatever is sensory (tangible) and externally oriented (environmental). Internal (individual) is not really conscious, because you’re not perceiving it from the real world; it’s basically an image you’re bringing up yourself.

    “Concrete” means “all mixed together”, and refers to the undivided reality that comes to us, “as is”. When we then begin separating out what’s most important to the ego (individual) to pay attention to, we are “abstracting”, which means making distinctions among these concrete things in order to focus on what they share in common, which can thereafter be treated as an “idea”. Physical items are tangible objects; “what they share in common” is an intangible concept or “idea” that has meaning only to a “subject”.

    Of course, Intuition of either attitude does this. Deals in intangible “ideas” or “contexts” things share in common, rather than the physical “items” themselves. But then so does the individualized (introverted) version of all functions. And extraverted functions deal with reality as it “is”, “all mixed together”.

    Se deals in tangible items as they are in the environment, where we can immediately exploit them.
    Si deals in tangible items that we have stored in a mental canister, to individually reference in order to learn how to exploit in the future. Even though the products of Si are nominally “physical items”, since it’s something we are drawing upon individually, they technically are not. They’re basically “ideas” now, just as much as N’s ideas. We’re not actually “seeing” them in front of us. We can only “guess” that they are still the same as when we actually did see them. So it’s not something really “conscious”. No one else will necessarily see what we’re seeing.


    Te deals in a logical consensus (from the environment). Where Se may observe that “it is what it is” and realize what CAN be done, Te often decides “it is what it is”, inasmuch as it affects a necessary course of action: “what SHOULD be done”. (Hence, both also end up described in terms of "taking action").
    Ti on the other hand is logic filtered through individually stored “ideas” of the "mechanics" of things.
    Fe deals with an interpersonal consensus, from a “personal environment. So it’s like Te in deciding “it is what it is”, but it’s about the needs of living souls [anthropinism?], rather than the best use of impersonal objects.
    Fi is need of living souls filtered through one’s own individual “ideas” of personal need, which he uses to guage others’ needs.

    So Ne deals in “ideas” as they are, in the environment, in the form of patterns or contexts, and then moves them to shape possibilities for new ideas; often comparing other ideas to find the larger pattern.
    Ni filters these ideas through individual impressions or “ideas” used to guage possibilities. So it’s like “the idea of the idea” or “the abstraction of the abstraction”, and hence, often described in terms of “META-perspective”.
    (Also, you can see
    Se=”consciousness of consciousness”,
    Si=”unconsciousness of consciousness”,
    Ne=”consciousness of unconsciousness”, and
    Ni=”unconsciousness of unconsciousness”, and hence the hardest to understand or explain.
    Notice both Ni and Se end up as “meta” forms; hence, a straight “realizing”, where the uneven Ne and Si end up resorting to “inquiring”).


    So there is a lot of “cross-talk”, so to speak between I/E and S/N (and with “subjective/objective”, between I/E and T/F to some extent). I think Keirsey even said that Myers “confused E with S” or something like that.

    The difference can be seen in all three factors dealing with the primary polarity in our existence, of“I” vs “not I”.
    I/E deals with this directly, looking at WHERE the data we are processing is coming from. Either the environment (“not I”) or our own individual (“I”) filtration of it.
    S/N is WHAT FORM the data is; either tangible items (and situations, etc) as is (“not I”), or our own individual (“I”) grouping of data into intangible concepts. Both I and N are creating “ideas” that are processed by an individual, but one is treating idea as the “location” (orientation), and the other as a type of data.
    T/F is dividing reality essentially into types of existence; WHO OR WHAT is being affected in a situation necessitating a course of action: Either impersonal objects (“not I”), or living souls; each one an individual “subject” (a more collective “I vs not I”; with “I” in this case as part of the larger “us”, who are the only things in the known physical universe that can even speak of “I/us”).
    APS Profile: Inclusion: e/w=1/6 (Supine) |Control: e/w=7/3 (Choleric) |Affection: e/w=1/9 (Supine)
    Ti 54.3 | Ne 47.3 | Si 37.8 | Fe 17.7 | Te 22.5 | Ni 13.4 | Se 18.9 | Fi 27.9

    Temperament (APS) from scratch -- MBTI Type from scratch
    Type Ideas
    Likes windoverlake, Eilonwy liked this post

  10. #30
    ⒺⓉⒷ Eric B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    548 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    3,438

    Default

    How both attitudes of the functions play out in "external" and "internal" "uses". This needs to be cleared up, when we say one attitude is "external", and the other, "internal". It's not really "where" they're "used", but rather than standard or source of the perspective (environmental or individual). So both standards/sources have both external and internal applications.

    External Internal
    Se Taking in new experience for its own sake Remembering what you enjoy and doing it again
    Si Filtering new experience through a storehouse of what’s familiar Referencing a storehouse of facts to inform regular decisions
    Ne Comparing one pattern to another Brainstorming for ideas for an object or situation
    Ni Interpreting an external pattern with “what’s missing”, that comes up from unconscious internal impressions Meditating to bring up internal images, and creating meanings with them.
    Te Ordering the environment according to impersonal principles Ordering one’s own life according to impersonal principles learned from the environment or culture
    Ti Implementing one’s own individually determined principles “Thinking for its own sake” (Jung); relishing individual impersonal principles for their “elegance”
    Fe Establishing interpersonal harmony Taking in environmental values as one’s own
    Fi Projecting an emotional state onto someone experiencing something, and responding accordingly Focusing on one’s own personal likes and values, and relishing emotional experiences


    The difference between the "general" uses of the functions (that "everybody does" all the time), and type-specific "uses" (that define an ego's preference, or connection with one of the archetypal complexes that make up the "function stack")

    General Specific
    Se Awareness of current sensation (environmental “actuality”) A type specific ego-state focuses on current sensation when activated
    Si Memory of sensation and factual details (individual “actuality”) A type specific ego-state focuses on memorized sensation and factual details when activated
    Ne Matching external patterns (environmental “potentiality”) A type specific ego-state focuses on matching external patterns when activated
    Ni Recognizing an internal image or "hunch" as a possible interpretation of a pattern (individual “potentiality”) A type specific ego-state focuses on internal images or "hunches" as possible interpretations of patterns when activated
    Te Deciding or ordering based on externally set knowledge of how things work (environmental “truth”) A type specific ego-state focuses on externally set knowledge of how things work when activated
    Ti Deciding or understanding according to an internally held understanding of how things work (individual “truth”) A type specific ego-state focuses on internally held understanding of how things work when activated
    Fe Adopting or establishing group harmony (environmental “good”) A type specific ego-state focuses on adopting or establishing group harmony when activated
    Fi Paying attention to one's own emotional state and personally identifying with someone else's situation (individually projected “good/bad”) A type specific ego-state focuses on one's own emotional state and personally identifying with others' situations when activated
    APS Profile: Inclusion: e/w=1/6 (Supine) |Control: e/w=7/3 (Choleric) |Affection: e/w=1/9 (Supine)
    Ti 54.3 | Ne 47.3 | Si 37.8 | Fe 17.7 | Te 22.5 | Ni 13.4 | Se 18.9 | Fi 27.9

    Temperament (APS) from scratch -- MBTI Type from scratch
    Type Ideas
    Likes windoverlake, D'Ascoyne liked this post

Similar Threads

  1. Type and Reductionism: Is It Time to Move Away From the Eight-Functions Model?
    By highlander in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 08-25-2010, 01:58 PM
  2. Replies: 22
    Last Post: 12-07-2009, 11:22 AM
  3. Taking Communism away from the Communists: The Origins of Modern American Liberalism
    By Sniffles in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 05-15-2009, 01:12 PM
  4. From the Horses' Mouth: Jung's Root descriptions of the Functions.
    By Eric B in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 09-08-2008, 08:05 AM
  5. From the slums of Shoalin, its the GZA!
    By GZA in forum Welcomes and Introductions
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 08-14-2007, 10:51 PM

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