Finally: Official tandem group names!

[Eric B]

Cognitive Styles is a new model, being developed by Linda Berens and Chris Montoya. The four Styles correspond to the pairs of type groups denoted by the last-three-letters, which share in common the two function tandems formed by the preferred functions and their "mirrors" (dominant with inferior, and auxiliary with tertiary).
(I have made the comparison of them to the Socionics quadras since the groups use the same corresponding function-attitudes, though this new model is not based on Socionics, and the same atttitudes in that system sometimes mean something slighly different than in Western type):

NTP-SFJ: Enhancingâ„¢ Style (Ti/Fe, Si/Ne; Alpha)
NFJ-STP: Customizingâ„¢ Style (Ti/Fe, Ni/Se; Beta)
NTJ-SFP: Orchestratingâ„¢ Style (Te/Fi, Se/Ni; Gamma)
NFP-STJ: Authenticatingâ„¢ Style (Te/Fi, Ne/Si; Delta)

Along with this, are group names for the individual tandems as well:

Inquiring Awareness: Si/Ne (SJ/NP)
Realizing Awareness: Ni/Se (NJ/SP)
Ordering Assessments: Te/Fi (TJ/FP)
Aligning Assessments: Ti/Fe (TP/FJ)

Here's how they relate:

The Enhancing style has preferences for Inquiring and Aligning
The Customizing Style has preferences for Realizing and Aligning
The Orchestrating Style has preferences for Realizing and Ordering
The Authenticating Style has preferences for Inquiring and Ordering

The Inquiring Style is held in common by Enhancing and Authenticating
The Realizing Style is held in common by Customizing and Orchestrating
The Ordering Style is held in common by Orchestrating and Authenticating
The Aligning Style is held in common by Enhancing and Customizing

I had been saying for years that these groups should be named. It would help people in their type search (and also those helping them), as the groups are currently addressed by such clunky terms as "Ne-Si user".
Like for a perfect example; I realized I fell into that group right away, but if we had these names back then, I could simply have said "I know I prefer Inquiring and think I prefer Aligning". (Or overall: "I think I relate the most to the Enhancing style").

So when I help someone with looking for the best-fit preferences, for the many supposed "NiTi" types in discussions, who often weigh between INTP and INFJ, because of high Ti and Ni in cognitive process tests; I can now say that they have an obvious "Realizing Awareness", since Ni and Se are high, and Ne is low. So INTP is very unlikely, though the person looks like it because of the Ti + "abstract" (N) focus. I can then suggest another Realizing type, such as ISTP. (In addition to INFJ). ISTP will be Ti dominant, followed by Se.
If they think their Ni is high, we can point out that it may actually be tertiary, which is said to often "inflate" itself, and appear preferred.

When discussing relationship type matches between an NFP and NTP, we can say "you both prefer 'Inquiring', so you'll 'perceive things the same way'".
In a personality clash, instead of "the real clash is Ne/i-Si/e; not Te/i-Fi/e”; I can say “the real clash is between an Inquiring and Realizing Awareness preference rather than an Ordering and Aligning Assessment”. More to type, but easier to say or even think than all those "process" codes!

I should also point out, that I was informed that these terms should not be turned into noun forms, like "...-er" that we ARE, as I was inclined to do to further shorthand it. They're processes we PREFER, and really, all of the typology terms, such as the functions/dichotomies, even the types themselves, etc. are supposed to be used like that. We all do this, but when you really think about it, becoming ingrained with that helps lend to confusion when you "use" a function or whatever counter to what you supposedly "are".

Also, this model is really still in development, and the tandem names not yet published (tentative, shared with permission). They hope to publish sometime within the next year. But for now, they give us something that can help simplify type discussion. You can keep up to date on this at:

Linda Berens Institute
www.lindaberens.com

 

[reckful]

I don't know that we needed new terms to refer to the kinds of deepseated aspects of personality that, e.g., INTJs and ESFPs tend to have in common.

I think Kurt Vonnegut's famous granfalloon concept already does the job pretty well.

Can you give me a list of five or ten descriptive sentences — and maybe Linda Berens has already effectively done this for you — that you think INTJs and ESFPs are both likely to relate pretty strongly to (since they're both into Realizing and Ordering) but that INTPs and ESFJs are both unlikely to relate to (since they have the opposite functions and are into Inquiring and Aligning)?

As I'm always pointing out, "Am I INTJ or INTP?" is by far the most common torn-between-types dilemma encountered in type-me threads at INTJforum and, as further described in the spoiler in this post, the Ni, Ne, Ti and Te items on Nardi's keys2cognition test do a very poor job sorting INTJs and INTPs, since INTJs typically get high Ni scores and high Ne scores (with Ni not substantially favored over Ne), and high Te scores and high Ti scores (with Te not substantially favored over Ti), when they take Nardi's test.

Assuming that your set of descriptive statements ends up working reasonably well, not only will it provide some support for the Cognitive Styles concept, but it'll also be a godsend to all those posters asking "Am I INTJ or INTP?" — since many of them will presumably find your items useful in answering that painful and all-too-common question.

And on the other hand, if neither you nor Ms. Berens is able to come up with what appears to be a convincing set of descriptive sentences that the Orchestratingâ„¢ INTJs and ESFPs relate to and the Enhancingâ„¢ INTPs and ESFJs don't, that might suggest that the future of Cognitive Styles is something less than bright.

 

[Eric B]

She's the one developing the concept, so shewould be able to provide that. Again, the model is in development, and more will be released in the coming months.

I like the idea because it gives names to the preferred function tandems, and the descriptions of those will at least partially answer your questions. (INTJ and ESFP prefer Fi/Te and Ni/Se, and INTP and ESFP prefer Ti/Fe an Si/Ne). The new categories can serve as a shorthand for these function codes. The common preferences do mean something, whether the person is even aware of it or not.
While she's closely involved with Nardi and his K2C, and I used to endorse that test a lot, I've realized the limitations of the method of treating the functions as “skills”. Now, you may say, “isn't that what these new names are doing?” The way I take it, these names are aiming more at the essence of the functions themselves, than particular behaviors themselves, and that is what I see as the way to go.

So because a person may be confused between the actual attitudes of the functions he prefers, that does not mean he doesn't have a genuine preference. As I learned in MBTI class, there's a difference between actual preference and clarity of preference. What you're addressing is a lack of clarity of preference. It doesn't mean they don't have a real preference for Inquiring or Realizing; or Enhancing or Orchestrating (just like it doesn't mean they don't have a legitimate preference for one type or function or the other).

K2C and the other materials were done a long time ago, and it seems they are continuing to try and refine their models. She did a paper for a journal, which I've just started reading, and what I'm seeing so far, is an emphasis on the concepts being “holistic” rather than PARTS making up a whole. (That's one reason they're against turning these things into nouns. Funny, APT just posted to Facebook an article on introversion/extraversion that touches on this. Introvert or extrovert, normal or abnormal: the problem with personality types). The different models are just different “angles” of looking at the whole.

I came to realize that there was overlap in the definitions of the function attitudes in K2C (Which is what causes what you describe. Like both Fe and Fi can “evaluate importance” and “consider others”, etc.); and that's one reason I've been trying to come up with better ideas of the essences of each function.
So I wouldn't use K2C results to shoot down the new theory. Hopefully it will help clarify tose old descriptions

 

[reckful]

She's the one developing the concept, so shewould be able to provide that. Again, the model is in development, and more will be released in the coming months. ...

As I learned in MBTI class, there's a difference between actual preference and clarity of preference. What you're addressing is a lack of clarity of preference. It doesn't mean they don't have a real preference for Inquiring or Realizing; or Enhancing or Orchestrating (just like it doesn't mean they don't have a legitimate preference for one type or function or the other).

The main point of my post had nothing to do with "clarity of preference" issues.

Take an INTJ, an INTP, an ESFJ and an ESFP, all of whom have strong, clear preferences on all four MBTI dimensions. Although I agree with James Reynierse (as further discussed in this previously-linked post) that the so-called cognitive functions are a "category mistake," I certainly wouldn't deny that descriptions of Ti and Ne, for example, are likely to line up reasonably well with INTPs and ENTPs to the extent that they describe aspects of personality that tend to apply to TPs (in the case of the Ti description) and NPs (in the case of the Ne description).

It's when somebody takes those same descriptions and tries to apply them to ISFJs and ESFJs — because tertiary and inferior functions! — that the most popular cognitive functions model truly goes off the rails.

The reason I don't believe either you or Linda Berens will be able to come up with a list of five or ten descriptive sentences that INTJs and ESFPs are both likely to relate pretty strongly to (since they're both into Realizing and Ordering) but that INTPs and ESFJs are both unlikely to relate to (since they have the opposite functions and are into Inquiring and Aligning) is that I don't believe there are any such aspects of personality.

 

[Eric B]

I think what youre failing to realize is that these "cognitive processes" (more correctly, function-attitudes), are but the ways the ego divides reality. You seem to be treating them as these standalone "things" that have nothing to do with each other (at least not when they're "opposite").
If a person prefers Ti, that means his ego tends to separate out the impersonal side of situations for internal-based judgments. So then the more personal and external side of the data, "collects", a bit lower in the consciousness (tertiary or inferior). It's still there, in the background. So the two function-attitudes work in tandem, and will be held in common by all "Aligning" types, except that one will put more emphasis on the Ti, and the other, more emphasis on the Fe. So while Fe is my inferior; I'll still tend to judge "[inter]personal" situations in a similar fashion to my Fe dom. wife (and in opposition to Te/Fi ⦅"Ordering"⦆ friends and family. We compare our reactions all the time, and it really explains a lot of our relationship dynamics). It will just be less mature (or more "primitive"), and perhaps more "shaky" or "vulnerable".
So that's why I see these categories as good. If you read any description of the types' four "primary" functions, you'll see these "aspects of personality".

 

[reckful]

I think what youre failing to realize is that these "cognitive processes" (more correctly, function-attitudes), are but the ways the ego divides reality. You seem to be treating them as these standalone "things" that have nothing to do with each other (at least not when they're "opposite").
If a person prefers Ti, that means his ego tends to separate out the impersonal side of situations for internal-based judgments. So then the more personal and external side of the data, "collects", a bit lower in the consciousness (tertiary or inferior). It's still there, in the background. So the two function-attitudes work in tandem, and will be held in common by all "Aligning" types, except that one will put more emphasis on the Ti, and the other, more emphasis on the Fe. So while Fe is my inferior; I'll still tend to judge "[inter]personal" situations in a similar fashion to my Fe dom. wife (and in opposition to Te/Fi ⦅"Ordering"⦆ friends and family. We compare our reactions all the time, and it really explains a lot of our relationship dynamics). It will just be less mature (or more "primitive"), and perhaps more "shaky" or "vulnerable".
So that's why I see these categories as good. If you read any description of the types' four "primary" functions, you'll see these "aspects of personality".

If you're saying that "these categories" involve meaningful aspects of personality/cognition that, e.g., INTJs and ESFPs tend to have in common with each other (and not with INTPs and ESFJs), then you should be able to describe them. Good luck, and I can't help but notice that you still haven't.

Your post suggests that there could be a meaningful description of "Fe" that didn't just describe things that FJs tend to have in common with each other, but that instead described things that FJs tend to have in common with each other and with TPs, and that don't apply to TJs. Well, if it would be possible to create such a description, it sure looks like Nardi couldn't manage to do it. The great majority of TPs who've posted their keys2cognition results in this long INTJforum thread got higher Fi scores than Fe scores, just like the TJs.

You say, "If you read any description of the types' four 'primary' functions, you'll see these 'aspects of personality'." But on the contrary, Eric, consistent with what I explained in my last post, I've been reading function descriptions for years now and I've found that purported "cognitive function" descriptions only really work to the extent that their application is limited to people who purportedly have that "function" as their dominant and/or auxiliary. So, to use the example from my last post, descriptions of Ti and Ne are likely to line up reasonably well with INTPs and ENTPs to the extent that they describe aspects of personality that tend to apply to TPs (in the case of the Ti description) and NPs (in the case of the Ne description). Buut, consistent with the results of Reynierse's studies (and with the spectacular lack of studies supporting the four-function model), I think anybody who says those same descriptions also meaningfully apply to ISFJs and ESFJs (albeit in a "less mature" and/or "more primitive" and/or more "shaky or vulnerable" way, as you put it) — and in a way that they don't apply to INTJs and ENTJs — is fooling themselves.

Neither Nardi nor any other cognitive function theorist has been able to come up with a test with items whose results reflect the four-function model you're still clinging to. Nobody, in other words, can come up with Ti and Ne descriptions where NTPs say "yep, that's me," and SFJs say "that's sorta me, but in a shaky, less mature way than those NTPs" and NTJs say, "no, that's really not me." And that, I not-so-respectfully submit, is because the four-function model itself is horseshit.

And for the same reason, I seriously doubt anybody's going to be able to come up with Cognitive Style descriptions for those so-called Enhancingâ„¢ types that are going to cause NTPs and SFJs to say "yep, that's me" and NTJs and SFPs to say, "no, that's really not me."

Again, feel free to rise to the challenge if you think you can.

 

[Eric B]

You're dwelling on these INTJ's getting "high Ne", but this is using a limited set of results to judge the whole thing. The results actually vary among many different people. My Ne was always strong on the test (originally strongest), while Ni was always my weakest function. That I believe is because my Ne is so prominent, and my Si along with it, that their "shadows", Se and Ni are suppressed the most.


Most people's results actually come out surprisingly similar to Lenore's "lasagna"/ship crew order: Ti-Ne-Fi-Se-Ni-Te-Si-Fe. Or perhaps, even Socionics Model A, which is similar. In many cases, for INTP's, I had noticed Ni and Se would generally be higher, like 3rd and 4th. (Si and Fe would almost always be last). These are people who likely had not developed their tertiary as much as I had (I developed it really strong, beginning in preteens, and it's at this point that Ni and Se would be forced further into the unconscious, at least for the time being), and of course, not developed their inferior. I had for a long while taken this as evidence of Lenore's "ship crew" order. Now, I've come to realize more that that was about "one sidedeness" of the dominant, esepcially where the auxiliary is neglected (So then functions "#7 and 8" will come out as the "right/left brain alternatives", or "Crow's Nests" when the dominant can no longer solve the problem by itself). When people mature a bit, they will turn to the tertiary more instead.
We do not really know the age or "maturity" level of all the people we see taking the K2C, so it could be that, or it could be a host of other things.


All any N type getting high in both attitudes means that they are overall strong in iNtuition (And likely haven't developed their tertiary or inferior), so it seems to "spill over" into both attitudes, and remember, the test is not perfect. It's operating on a set of definitions that do not take into consideration the fact that either attitude can do some of the same things. It just uses general sets of behaviors and assumes they indicate a paticular function-attitude. Like it assumes "considering others and responding to them" is an interpersonal judgment based on an external standard. (So if you select high on that, it will score a point for "Fe").
But not necessarily! With an internal standard, you can infer a sense of the other person's need, and then "consider and respond to them". (Here, in an old thread ⦅which you were in⦆ I went through several of the test items [someone else had posted] pointing these these things out: Help Analyse "keys2cognition" quiz? Which function(s) does each question refer to? - Page 2).


So I would fault the test for not being able to sort out the actual i/e standard. So if you want to criticize Berens/Nardi for something, I would say criticize the K2C, rather than using it (as if it were a perfect measurement) to knock the whole theory.


I myself have been trying to get back to a focus on singlar ("natural" or "whole") functions (rather than strictly eight function-attitudes or "processes") because of this.
So if you look at it that way, then you have two of your "dichotomies", and the dominant orientation (held independently of the functions) would be a third (or actually, first) dichotomy.


All the e/i at the end of the function letter is telling you is that the person tends to turn to an inner or outer orientation or standard when engaging the function. (Which is what the fourth dichotomy is indicating). This does create significant differences in perspective.


Like what you're doing is what another INTJ had once described to me, regarding the dominant Ni perspective, or looking at "what a theory doesn't take into account", and then, from that, (as Nardi's definition would put it), "forecasting" (i.e. you "know" Berens will not be able to come up with descriptions). I don't usually think like that. My perspective is Ne. I look at what a theory could take into account. I say "hey, this looks interesting, it looks like it could fit, now let's see what happens. I think Berens is refining the theories, so she probably will come up with more definitions and descriptions, but let's wait for more information before making a final judgment". Reflecting the J/P dichotomy (which correlations link to FFM's "Openness"), one is more "closed", and the other, more "open".


Both perceptions are iNtuitive products: observation of intangible data or "concepts". One simply looks at the object and sees multiple possibilities, and the other starts with an internal "awareness" used to filter the data. That's all the function-attitudes are.


And as we see, it shapes our perspectives and approach to the issue. My wife, though not as geared toward Ne as I am, handles data in a similar fashion. An SFP would likely think all of this is a waste of time, but if they had to deal with it, they would probably handle it more like you.
So that's something "TP's and FJ's have in common with each other and not with TJ's".


And this is precisely what these new terms were made to address. My approach is more of "Inquiring" (gathering multiple emergent intangible connections {Ne}, and measuring them against a storehouse of tangible data {Si}). Your approach is "Realizing" (from an internal intangible connection, along with emergent tangible facts {Se}). The SFJ's and SFP's will take the same respective approaches, but simply place more of an "accent" on the S.
This would be the basis of the "descriptions" you are asking for. Just give them time to publish the stuff more.

 

[reckful]

You're dwelling on these INTJ's getting "high Ne", but this is using a limited set of results to judge the whole thing. The results actually vary among many different people. My Ne was always strong on the test (originally strongest), while Ni was always my weakest function. That I believe is because my Ne is so prominent, and my Si along with it, that their "shadows", Se and Ni are suppressed the most.
...
All any N type getting high in both attitudes means that they are overall strong in iNtuition (And likely haven't developed their tertiary or inferior), so it seems to "spill over" into both attitudes

I certainly haven't been "dwelling" (or primarily focused) on INTJs getting "high Ne," and I agree with you that the main reason that INTJs are reasonably likely to relate to Nardi's Ne items is that they are "overall strong in iNtuition" — but, Eric, that just reinforces my main point. Yes, the reason INTJs often feel like they relate fairly well to Ne descriptions is that Ne descriptions typically reflect aspects of personality that NPs tend to exhibit, and that's because they're things that N and P each make some significant contribution to. INTJs lack the P contribution, but they've got the N contribution — and so, as you put it, the fact that they're "overall strong in iNtuition" means they relate (to at least some extent) to the Ne stuff.

But — and here's the main point, as far as Berens' "Cognitive Styles" are concerned — that's also why it makes no sense to expect an SJ to relate to the Ne stuff, since SJs aren't "overall strong in iNtution," and they don't have the P contribution either. And not only do Berens' categories say that there are significant "NP" aspects of personality that SJs share, but they also say that they're NP aspects that NJs don't share.

I think it's fair to say that any time you're talking about an aspect of personality that two (or more) of the dichotomies make a substantial contribution to, the people on opposite sides of all the relevant dichotomies will also be on opposite sides with respect to the affected aspect of personality. As one example, I'd say attitude toward change is one of those cases where two of the dichotomies can be viewed as contributing, each in its own way, to an aspect of personality. If you want to contrast change-oriented vs. tradition-oriented, I'd say N/S and J/P each tend to make a contribution, with SJs being the ultimate traditionalists (temperamentally over-pessimistic about change, and tending to over-value the way things are and/or "always have been"), NPs being the ultimate change agents (temperamentally over-optimistic about change, and prone to err on the side of having too little respect for established ways), and SPs and NJs being somewhere in between and arguably more realistic (about change). Maybe you could say NJs are change agents, but more cautious and realistic about possible changes than the NPs; and that SPs are not that driven to be changers/innovators, but are more open to change (and less tradition-worshipping) than the SJs.

But Berens' Cognitive Styles model says there are some typical NP aspects of personality where not only aren't SJs the NP's opposite, but SJs are actually together with NPs — on the "Inquiring Awareness" side of the spectrum — while the NJs and SPs are together on the opposite side. And, as I said before, I think the expectation that a typical NP will have things in common with a typical SJ that the NP doesn't have in common with an NJ or SP is where the four-function model truly runs off the rails.

Most people's results actually come out surprisingly similar to Lenore's "lasagna"/ship crew order: Ti-Ne-Fi-Se-Ni-Te-Si-Fe. Or perhaps, even Socionics Model A, which is similar. In many cases, for INTP's, I had noticed Ni and Se would generally be higher, like 3rd and 4th. (Si and Fe would almost always be last).

Say what? If you can point me to a substantial collection of results from any cognitive functions test where the scores for the purported dom/aux/tert/inf functions do anything like a respectable job of reflecting the Ni-Te-Fi-Se model for INTJs, I'll be surprised. I've been challenging people to point me to such a test for years now, and nobody's ever been able to do it. In my experience, even the most devout cognitive function aficionados are usually willing to acknowledge that Nardi's test (for example) isn't even particularly likely to put your dom/aux functions in first and second place — never mind ID-ing your tertiary and inferior functions in any easy-to-spot way.

As discussed in the spoiler in this previously-linked post (reviewing the posted results in a 350-post INTJforum thread), INTJs typically get high Ni scores and high Ne scores (with Ni not substantially favored over Ne), and high Te scores and high Ti scores (with Te not substantially favored over Ti), when they take Nardi's test, and the T functions tend to be somewhat favored over the N functions (even though INTJs are supposedly N-doms).

Both perceptions are iNtuitive products: observation of intangible data or "concepts". One simply looks at the object and sees multiple possibilities, and the other starts with an internal "awareness" used to filter the data. That's all the function-attitudes are.

And as we see, it shapes our perspectives and approach to the issue. My wife, though not as geared toward Ne as I am, handles data in a similar fashion. An SFP would likely think all of this is a waste of time, but if they had to deal with it, they would probably handle it more like you.
So that's something "TP's and FJ's have in common with each other and not with TJ's".

And this is precisely what these new terms were made to address. My approach is more of "Inquiring" (gathering multiple emergent intangible connections {Ne}, and measuring them against a storehouse of tangible data {Si}). Your approach is "Realizing" (from an internal intangible connection, along with emergent tangible facts {Se}). The SFJ's and SFP's will take the same respective approaches, but simply place more of an "accent" on the S.
This would be the basis of the "descriptions" you are asking for. Just give them time to publish the stuff more.

Again, if you take that attitude toward "data handling" that you've just described and add a handful of additional personality aspects that you'd expect to distinguish Enhancingâ„¢ types from Orchestratingâ„¢ types and post them in a trial thread, and if it turns out that there's a pretty strong tendency for the NTPs and SFJs to relate to the Enhancing side and the NTJs and SFPs to relate to the Orchestrating side, I'll be surprised. Do you really think a typical ESFJ is more interested than a typical ESFP in exploring multiple new possibilities, while a typical ESFP is more interested that a typical ESFJ in having things be more filtered/settled/predictable?

In any case, the main reason I'll be surprised is because, at the risk of repetition, here's my perspective in a nutshell:

• The MBTI-related aspects of personality applicable to INTJs are aspects of personality that tend to result from I, N, T or J and/or from one or more of the following combinations: IN, IT, IJ, NT, NJ, TJ, INT, INJ, ITJ, NTJ and INTJ.
  
• The MBTI-related aspects of personality applicable to INTPs are aspects of personality that tend to result from I, N, T or P and/or from one or more of the following combinations: IN, IT, IP, NT, NP, TP, INT, INP, ITP, NTP and INTP.
  
• The MBTI-related aspects of personality applicable to INFPs are aspects of personality that tend to result from I, N, F or P and/or from one or more of the following combinations: IN, IF, IP, NF, NP, FP, INF, INP, IFP, NFP and INFP.
  
• The MBTI-related aspects of personality applicable to ESFPs are aspects of personality that tend to result from E, S, F or P and/or from one or more of the following combinations: ES, EF, EP, SF, SP, FP, ESF, ESP, EFP, SFP and ESFP.

So, consistent with the fact that "Am I INTJ or INTP?" is the most common type-me dilemma at INTJforum (and by a wide margin), INTJs and INTPs have a lot in common, INTJs and INFPs have quite a lot in common (but less than INTJs and INTPs), and INTJs and ESFPs have nothing in common (if you're talking about aspects of personality meaningfully contributed to by their types).

And any model that suggests that INTJs and ESFPs have substantial MBTI-related things in common that neither type shares with INTPs or ESFJs is a faulty model, IMHO.

 

[Seymour]

I'm pretty much with reckful on this. It's like having an inanimate object typing system and trying to have a descriptive name for the light+smooth <-> dark+bumpy axis, and a different descriptive name for the light+bumpy <-> dark+smooth axis.

As I've said before, I like Wilde's approach for trying to recover something like the functions in an empirically-based model.

At any rate, will be interesting to see if this catches on in any way. I certainly have a hard time seeing myself (or having a real feel for) the categories above.

 

[Eric B]

Again, I think the problem here is not understanding the holistic nature of these concepts. You're still breaking them down into parts, and then saying one division into parts (dichotomies) is right, and the other (function dynamics) is wrong. But it doesn't work like that. They can all be true at the same time. As I said, they are different angles of looking at the same things.

The way Berens is using this, it is all part of a larger system called AQAL: "All Quadrants, All Levels" (Never heard of it before, and it involves a philosophy called "holonics", about holistic elements).

You can read about it here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Wilber
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_Theory

One of the things she said when I checked to see if it was OK to share this stuff was "The processes do NOT make up the whole. The whole determines which processes serve the drive/need of the whole pattern best."


And clearly, you've broken it down into parts, which you then put back together as every possible dichotomy combination making up a [whole] type. But again, that's not how it's supposed to work, at least not in her version of the theory. That's why you're missing it. So I think understanding this framework would be the key to what you're asking, or at least understanding how the categories work, and what any "examples of the similarities between SFJ's and NTPs" would entail.
I think some of this is the way I've seen it, but hadn't been able to put my finger on it. Since the theories are constructed in terms of parts, it's hard to get out of that way of thinking.


A couple of things she says in the article

"Since human nature is so complex, no one typology can adequately describe behaviors, systems, relationships, and meaning making, hence there is no one 'official' typology used in Integral Theory. To this point, no set of criteria seem to have been set forth for what makes one typology more useful than another and what makes a typology more consistent with an integral approach to working with living systems."

"The Cognitive Dynamics model is based on Jungian theory from which the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator instrument was derived (Berens & Nardi, 2004). In actuality, the dichotomies identified by the MBTI instrument were somewhat artificial constructs designed to create an instrument to detect the types predicted by Carl Jung (Myers et al., 1998; Jung, 1921). Presenting them as either/or led people to think they could not access the other side of the dichotomy."

"A Meta-Model for Types: Patterns, Polarities, and Autopoiesis" – Linda Berens Journal of INTEGRAL THEORY and PRACTICE: A Postdisciplinary Discourse for Global Action volume-8-numbers-34


And yet again, dichotomies and function preferences alike are the way the ego splits reality. If I prefer N and P, then both S and F are suppressed, and can be seen as "collecting" in a place lower in consciousness. Your argument and list make it look like I have no access to S and F (or E and J for that matter either), and that ESFJ's have no access to I, N, T and P, precisely as Berens said, above.
So yes, when an ESFJ needs to access intuitive products, it will tend to be more "open" (emergent), while an ESFP will prefer it more settled.

So to put it in your terms, the reason why NTP and SFJ will fall into one group, that would exclude NTJ and SFP, is because of the splitting of those "pairs" of functions. For an NTP, N, T and P are preferred together, and S, F and J are suppressed together. So S, F and J are still "together" in the psyche, even though less conscious. For NTJ, N and T are preferred, but not P. J is preferred instead. S and F are suppressed, but not J. P is, instead. So the NTJ will not have a whole NTP or SFJ "image" (so to speak) in the ego-syntonic part of his psyche.
So you will have some surface similarity (in preferring iNtuitive and logical data), but something will be missing. The orientations (or where the energy is directed, which is what J and P are telling you) will be different. He will have to go into the "shadow" (meaning below the inferior) in order to access one or two of the preferences, to put together a SFJ or NTP perspective (and according to another version of the theory, it is various complexes that will put these together. Functions are otherwise really "undifferentiated", outside of the dominant).
I guess it's like a kind of "dissonance" in mixing together preferred and unpreferred elements, so that all unpreferred poles together will be more palatable than a mixture.

It all works together (dichotomies and dynamics), and is not "either/or".

 

[reckful]

Again, I think the problem here is not understanding the holistic nature of these concepts. You're still breaking them down into parts, and then saying one division into parts (dichotomies) is right, and the other (function dynamics) is wrong. But it doesn't work like that. They can all be true at the same time. As I said, they are different angles of looking at the same things.
...
And yet again, dichotomies and function preferences alike are the way the ego splits reality. If I prefer N and P, then both S and F are suppressed, and can be seen as "collecting" in a place lower in consciousness. Your argument and list make it look like I have no access to S and F (or E and J for that matter either), and that ESFJ's have no access to I, N, T and P, precisely as Berens said, above.
So yes, when an ESFJ needs to access intuitive products, it will tend to be more "open" (emergent), while an ESFP will prefer it more settled.
...
It all works together (dichotomies and dynamics), and is not "either/or".

I'm not sure whose perspective you think you're addressing, Eric, but it's not mine.

You say, "Your argument and list make it look like I have no access to S and F (or E and J for that matter either), and that ESFJ's have no access to I, N, T and P, precisely as Berens said, above."

But I say nothing of the kind. And when Berens says, "Presenting [the dichotomies] as either/or led people to think they could not access the other side of the dichotomy," she's engaging in the same kind of silly straw-manning.

Type is about what are often referred to as preferences, Eric. I know that, and you know that.

The MBTI-related aspects of personality that you tend to find in INTJs are the result of the fact that, on four dimensions of personality that the data suggests tend to be somewhat hardwired and relatively stable, INTJs have temperamental tugs that tend to pull them in the direction of (cause them to favor) stuff on the I, N, T and J sides of those dimensions. And not only are there multiple meaningful aspects of personality that each of those four preferences tend to contribute to, but there are also specific aspects of personality that more than one of those preferences can combine to contribute to — with the result that there are meaningful things to be said about typical NJs, and typical NTs, and typical INJs (who the function folks would call "Ni-doms"), and so on.

That dichotomy-centric perspective leads to the expectation that an INTJ and an ESFP won't have any MBTI-related aspects of personality in common, because every relevant preference contribution — from single preferences and preference combinations both — puts them on opposite sides of the applicable divide. (But that dichotomy-centric perspective most certainly does not say that INTJs have "no access" to E, S, F or P — whatever the heck that's supposed to mean — or that ESFPs have "no access" to I, N, T or J.)

By contrast, Berens' function-centric perspective, combined with her (non-Jungian) functions model, leads her to the expectation that INTJs and ESFPs will tend to exhibit similar "Cognitive Styles," because she thinks the underlying contributors to their personalities include four "cognitive functions" in common — not in the limited sense of just having "access to" those functions, but in the sense of favoring them in a way that puts INTPs and ESFJs on the other side of the applicable divides.

And I'm here to tell you that in the real world of, you know, facts and stuff, those contrary expectations can't both be true. INTJs and ESFPs either have MBTI-related personality characteristics in common (that neither shares with INTPs or ESFJs) or they don't. And that's how science works, Eric — and personality psychology is a science (albeit a "soft science"). People come up with theories that lead to contrary expectations and then studies get done that put those expectations to the test.

And, as further discussed in this long INTJforum post, we now have decades of data that provide respectable levels of support for the validity of the four MBTI dichotomies — including lots of meaningful correlations with various dichotomy combinations. And on the other hand, the so-called "cognitive functions" — which James Reynierse (in a 2009 article described in the linked post) refers to as a "category mistake" — have barely been studied. And the reason they've barely been studied is that, unlike the dichotomies, they've never been taken seriously by any significant number of academic psychologists. The third edition of the MBTI Manual was published in 1998 and, according to that Reynierse article, it cites a grand total of eight studies involving "type dynamics" (i.e., the functions model) — which Reynierse summarizes as "six studies that failed, one with a questionable interpretation, and one where contradictory evidence was offered as support." He then notes, "Type theory's claim that type dynamics is superior to the static model and the straightforward contribution of the individual preferences rests on this ephemeral empirical foundation."

If it turns out that neither you nor Berens nor anyone else can ever come up with Enhancingâ„¢ descriptions that both INTPs and ESFJs relate to (and that INTJs and ESFPs don't), and Orchestratingâ„¢ descriptions that both INTJs and ESFPs relate to (and that INTPs and ESFJs don't), then that will be a strong indication that those labels represent a "category mistake." Contrary to your latest post, the assertion that INTJs and ESFPs have no MBTI-related personality characteristics in common (that neither shares with INTPs or ESFJs) and the assertion that INTJs and ESFPs share a "Cognitive Style" that makes them different from INTPs and ESFJs can't both "be true at the same time"; and they are not just "different angles of looking at the same things."

Saying otherwise isn't being "holistic"; it's being illogical.

===================================================

Links in INTJforum posts don't work if you're not a member, so here are replacements for two of the links in that long INTJforum post:

McCrae & Costa article (click on the pic on the right to access the full article)
Reynierse article​

 

[Eric B]

Your argument IS insuinuating a type has no access to the functions or dichotomies it doesn't prefer, because I keep telling you that commonality with their dichotomy opposites lie in the unpreferred functions (which fall into in the same orientations, where different Cognitive Styles will use the functions in the opposite orientations). You're just not addressing this at all. You're just asserting over and over that because MBTI [dichotomies] says they're total opposites, they can't have anything in common.

The mistake is that you are making MBTI the source of the theory, as to determine what can or can't "both be true at the same time". As pointed out in the Berens quotes, Jung came first with functions (and attitudes), and MBTI dichotomies were based on this; not the other way around. You'd possibly have a little bit more of a point if MBTI came first, and Berens or someone then contrived the functions from it.
So what Reynierse must be saying is that Jung made the "category mistake" (being he laid the groundwork for the "categories" to begin with), but Myers and Briggs fixed it. (From what I read, she was actually trying to create another four-temperament system like DISC, and then tried to map Jung to the categories, and then kept reworking it until she got the four dichotomies).

As for these "studies", I don't think they mean as much as you think they do. Mainstream psychology generally rejects all of this, as lacking any real "empirical" basis (at least according to their criteria) even with the studies (though I hear that FFM has a little bit more respect in the field. Still it doesn't seem to be as accepted or at least talked about as other "sciences").

There seems to be a lot of biases in the larger field, for whatever reason. Just because they choose to ignore a model doesn't mean you can determine "category mistakes" from this. I question what he even determines the "failure" or "questionability" of studies from (and even "contradictory" can be a matter of interpretation).
These are concepts, but science doesn't want concepts by themselves (It reflects a heavy S perspective and type theory is very N).

 

[reckful]

I'm not claiming that the cognitive functions — or Berens' "Cognitive Styles" — have been definitively disproven. I'm just pointing out that those Cognitive Styles categories (especially) are glaringly inconsistent with the dichotomy-centric perspective I've described — which, as explained in that long INTJforum post, was essentially Myers' perspective, notwithstanding her lip service to some of the type-dynamics stuff — and that I'll be surprised if Berens can actually come up with descriptions that, if properly put to the test, would find INTJs and ESFPs together on one side of the divide and INTPs and ESFJs together on the other side.

From what I know of Berens' past history, I have no reason to expect that she's even going to try to gather any respectable data support for her Cognitive Styles. She may just add them to the ever-growing collection of "lenses" that she offers her paying clients. She and Nardi have been touting the INTP=Ti-Ne-Si-Fe model for 20 years now without (as far as I know) gathering any respectable data support, so why should the Cognitive Styles be any different?

In any case, though, if and when you get your hands on some actual descriptions by Berens of those aspects of personality she thinks characterize INTJs and ESFPs but not INTPs and ESFJs (and so on), let us know and maybe we can at least gather some anecdotal evidence in the form of responses by the different types in a forum thread.

 

[reckful]

The mistake is that you are making MBTI the source of the theory, as to determine what can or can't "both be true at the same time". As pointed out in the Berens quotes, Jung came first with functions (and attitudes), and MBTI dichotomies were based on this; not the other way around. You'd possibly have a little bit more of a point if MBTI came first, and Berens or someone then contrived the functions from it.

As a quick supplemental point, the functions model that Berens is basing her Cognitive Styles on is unquestionably one that was "contrived" post-Jung and post-Myers. As further discussed in this two-post extravaganza, both I and (as Myers acknowledged) most Jung scholars believe that Jung thought the auxiliary function would have the same attitude as the dominant function, not the opposite attitude, making Jung's model for a Ti-dom with an N-aux Ti-Ni-Se-Fe.

But, setting the more controversial auxiliary function aside, virtually everyone agrees that Jung said the tertiary function would have the opposite attitude to the dominant, and that was also Myers' position. And the official MBTI folks have always refused to take a position on that issue.

So Berens' position that, as one example, INTPs and INFJs share "Aligning" characteristics by virtue of the fact that they're both "Ti/Fe" types is inconsistent with Jung, inconsistent with Myers, and isn't a perspective that's supported by the official MBTI establishment.

 

[Eric B]

Again, they're only inconsistent if you ignore the suppressed (unpreferred) functions and their attitudes. How does N and T play in an SFP compared to an SFJ? How does S and F play out in an NTP compared to an NTJ? That's what Cognitive Styles is based on. (along with the fact, as I've demonstated, and at least one observer noted in watching this, that the two groups will handle even their preferred N and T or S and F differently from each other).

Meanwhile, just curious if you say the same things about Socionics, which developed independently of MBTI and the rest of Western typology, and on one hand, many seem to uphold as better and truer to Jung. It already had developed a system, called quadras, which similarly link type groups by function tandems.


It doesn't even do any good to get into the debate of which attitudes Jung held each function to have, when first of all, Jung was so unclear a lot of times, and we've gone on about this for years, with different interpreters saying different things, and no resolution ever being arrived at. If he's "NiTi", you even had those saying he was ISTP or INFJ, with a strong tertiary. (But then he mentions a definite preference for Thinking and iNtuition, so that calls those into question).
Then, the notion that he held to a dominant and "two auxiliaries". I actually have begun to see some sense in this, and it goes along well with Beebe's representation of the dominant and inferior as the [vertical] "spine", and the auxiliary and tertiary as the [horizontal] "arms", and you even see the diagram in other sources besides Beebe.

But second and most importantly, it's really all moot, when your objection is that functions are illegitimate to begin with, and only dichotomies valid.
I'm actually still working on the other thread I started recently, on function definitions, and I've for a while been seeing it better to separate functions from attitudes, and see the ego choosing one orientation and a dominant function independently (so then the separated functions then are like undivided dichotomies), and then other complexes within the psyche that pair together functions and attitudes.
So the "auxiliary" is simply the function and orientation chosen by the Parental Complex (or "Caretaker", whose purpose is to support ourselves and others with), which will tend to be the next to develop after the ego's dominant. So that is really the basis of dynamic type theory. The other six remaining function/attitude combinations (which are all reflections of the two identified so far from the ego splitting them off in chosing the first two) will all become connected with other complexes mirroring the first two complexes (i.e. the tertiary is oriented by the "Child" complex, which mirrors the "Parent", and the associated function mirrors the auxiliary, etc.)

Apart from these complexes (which you can actually think of as miniature senses of "I" alongside the main ego), the functions are undifferentiated. You just have a mixed together mass of data from which an ego structure separates out what it prefers to pay attention to (which is what "concretistic" and "abstracting" originally meant, before Myers and Keirsey lingo associated "concrete" and "abstract" specifically with the Sensing and iNtuition functions).

So I believe that looking at it in terms of different complexes is the solution to this debate. You can in a way sum up a "type" as an ego/caretaker combination, which covers our relation to self, and to others, the internal and external words, and information gathering and decision-making. That's the purpose of typology. To help us understand ourselves and [our relation to] others.

 

[Eric B]

Here are some more examples of how these terms come in to play:

Ne, dealing with stuff not seen right before you like seeing an object, and imagining what could be done with it in terms of changing it (or even through makinng analogies) ends up engaging in more of a trial-and-error process of changing things. Se is not so much trial and error (or necessarily changing systems), because it's about "knowing" what actually can be done, from what's clearly at hand.
You can see there where the "knowing" part sounds almost like Ni, and of course, the two work together, as "Realizing Awareness", where Ne and Si work together as "Inquiring Awareness" (which "trial and error" is a basically form of)!
See how these names fit so perfectly?

Se types "know" from paying more attention to the sensory detail before them, where I, as an Ne type, tend to gloss over things, looking for the overall meaning. So it's totally unconscious, and we may wonder how they do it. I realize this from playing Words With Friends, and my toughest opponents seem to be Realizing types who can easily see what can be done with the letters they have and what's already on the board, where I'm totally lost, (and end up thinking for sure I'm getting gipped with useless letters). I sometimes find there's these good words that I couldn't quite put my finger on, because I'm looking more at the intangible goal of "winning" (or at least catching up), and the multiple unseen possibilities (using the value increasing squares) than what I have in my arsenal.

Obviously, "Ordering" sounds so perennially Te (And Fi would go along with it), while "Aligning" sounds like what Ti does in refining its judgments (and Fe would go along with that). Even though all judgments technically "order", I guess these terms lean more to the T aspect of it, and Te orders externally and logically, and that's what we come to associate with "ordering".

If anyone may recall, I once tried to come up with my own names for the tandems, and they didn't work. I tried to call Si/Ne "Circumspective" (to “look around”), since Si is past focused, and Ne looks at alternatives. It had a nice ring to it, but then Ni/Se in comparison was to be "look AT", and I couldn't put together a good name for that. I tried "Aspective "(to look AT: ad “to”, -spect “look”); and does anybody remember "prostatospective"? (to look at what “stands before” you. I think it was Jennifer who understandably said it made you think of a prostate!) Te/Fi was to be "Systemic", and Ti/Fe was to be "Harmonic".
These new terms capture those same essences of the tandems.

 

[Eric B]

Here both Berens and her colleague in this new model, Chris Montoya, have an article each on these concepts (Berens' article, from over 10 years ago, is on tandems in general, which is what forms the basis for this. Montoya's article describes the full Cognitive Styles directly, with some examples):

http://lindaberens.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/TandemPrincipleParts1-2.pdf
http://chrismontoya.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/CogStylesTeamworkMontoya.pdf

 

[Eric B]

Montoya has put up a mini-course on Cognitive Styles FREE Mini-Course: Intro to Discover Your Cognitive Style

 

[senza tema]

I watched (or rather listened) to the videos at work so I can't say I was paying the most attention but it seemed to me, in general, that they were mostly geared towards the Ns in each individual cognitive style group. The Authenticating Mind seemed most inclusive of both its S and N types on the whole: I can see both xNFPs and xSTJs operating on similar basic principles and drives even though they might manifest quite differently.

The others cognitive styles, on the other hand, don't seem as successful to me. The Enhancing Mind, in particular, seems deeply biased towards describing the NTPs. I don't know if I'd see SFJ in any of that really. Then again, it sounds like absolutely my least preferred style, so maybe I'm missing something that is totally obvious to others.

 

[Jaguar]

All any N type getting high in both attitudes means that they are overall strong in iNtuition (And likely haven't developed their tertiary or inferior), so it seems to "spill over" into both attitudes, and remember, the test is not perfect. It's operating on a set of definitions that do not take into consideration the fact that either attitude can do some of the same things. It just uses general sets of behaviors and assumes they indicate a paticular function-attitude. Like it assumes "considering others and responding to them" is an interpersonal judgment based on an external standard. (So if you select high on that, it will score a point for "Fe").
But not necessarily! With an internal standard, you can infer a sense of the other person's need, and then "consider and respond to them".

Exactly. That's why all the Fi-Fe war threads make me laugh. "We're so different!" Oh, really? Not necessarily.
Edit: I just realized this thread is from 2014. How the hell did I end up in here? Oh, well. My comment still stands.