[Other/Multiple Temperaments] Interview With Dario Nardi!

[Agent Washington]

I really couldn't say. To the extent I know them, I like some of each.

In my youth, I loved music from the 20s, the 1720s.
Later, I got hugely into alternative music. I remember listening to Radiohead's "Paranoid Android" in London (not live, just on a CD, which was how memorable it was!) I was even a roadie for a college band in the 90s! With our nation's strange boy band crazy, my attention turned to EDM. Rap caught my attention in the mid-2000s. Now, I listen to pretty much any kind of music, from country and Christian to rap and reggae to lounge and classic rock, so long as it meets certain criteria:

A. It's nostalgic, or
B. It has many layers, activates my imagination, and can surprise me emotionally

Having a good beat helps, though I wouldn't describe Sigor Ros as danceable, and those guys meet all the criteria for "B".
I find sad music uplighting, happy music annoying, and angry music understandable but not necessarily fun. So no sugar pop tunes or death metal, though I do understand why other people can like those.

I might sound like I'm now pretty open, but really I'm incredibly critical. It's possible to listen to music in a very deep way, not technically, but just to sink your whole self into it, to go into the song's situation and get lost in it... and if I can't do that with the music, or it's boring or I'm not in the mood for it that day, then it's not for me.

!!! This is really cool taste in music, too. I relate, though recently I'm starting to prefer lighter listening from alternative 90s rather than alternative/rock/industrial 00s. (I'm...old enough to think in decades I guess)

What do you think about Tool??? I mean, it's got layers and stuff, but it's... kinda hard sometimes.

Sigur Ros is nice, and so is Radiohead. My favourite Radiohead album is still Hail to the Thief. A lot of these music things are interesting for historical reasons, but I doubt I could write a paper about it. xD

 

[AncientSpirits]

[MENTION=14444]AncientSpirits[/MENTION]
What do you think about the "shadow functions" and "archetypes? How do they fit into your work in cognitive neuroscience?

Great question, thank you!

First, the self is more than the brain. Just in physical terms, the nervous systems runs throughout the whole body. Hormones and neurotransmitters are produced by many organs. Besides the neocortex and limbic system and such, in the head, there's the gut, the immune system, and endocrine glands (gonads, etc). The automatic nervous system (ANS) links the brain with all these other glands. From what I've read, 80% of the information flow in the nervous system is from the body up into the brain, while only 20% goes the other way. The output of these glands, and the action of the ANS, is strong, rapid, and shapes us in the short and long term, including gene expression. Recently, a direct nerve link between the pre-frontal cortex and the immune system (around the thymus) was discovered. Ninety percent (90%!!) of serotonin is made in the digestive tract. Testosterone can strongly reshape the brain. Adrenaline and such impact what we remember. So right from the start, we need to acknowledge that we are more than mentalizations. We are electro-chemical systems.

In the brain, there are favored circuits, favored response patterns and ways of processing information. In the same way, we have favored patterns involving the entire nervous system, including the many facets that tend to be outside the spotlight of our awareness. I would say that the ego--our main sense of self--is a highly energetic construct that is our strongest set of circuit patterns, or at least it's the pattern that's "I", "me", and "mine". We have many other patterns, or constructs, or what Jung called complexes. He named the ego as our primary complex. He said there are other complexes in our personal and collective unconscious, which we called archetypes. To use less esoteric terms, these complexes are physiological, socio-cultural, and personal, in some proportion or another. For example, masculinity, as a set of behavioral patterns and mentalizations, is partially physiological, based in hormones and anatomy, partly socio-cultural, shaped by community and media representations and roles, and partly personal, shaped by unique life experiences. Typically, for a male, numerous aspects of the masculine complex overlap with the ego complex, defined as part of "I". though in practice, the guy will likely not be attending to many of these aspects, in the same way that readers are not usually not attending to the shapes of the letters of words until their attention is drawn down to do that. Other complexes are more or less in our awareness as well. So every male has some vague idea of femininity, but that complex is mostly socio-culturally defined -- less physiological and more socio-cultural, but also psychological, with biases, projections, etc. Jung named that the anima. Beyond these complexes, the mechanisms that we use to learn--through modeling and projection for example, are also important.

The challenge to neuroscience is that it tends to study discrete units, mainly in the brain. But these complexes--nervous system response patterns--are whole-system phenomena that are distributed throughout the whole nervous system. So studying them is challenging. To some extend neuroscience has come to understand mirror neurons are a way we mimic and learn others' behavior. Feedback from parents, society, etc also play a role. The complexes are not really even discrete, and can be more or less differentiated... a young boy is not even differentiated physiologically, his socio-cultural notions are a mix of immediate male guardian role-models plus media-normative representations. Basically, this is an interdisciplinary question, so academia will likely never touch it, and those academics prone to solipsism will claim archetypes and such don't exist.

If I really took the time, I could spell out a nexus between type, Jung's model of the psyche, the brain and nervous system and human developmental biology as a whole, and socio-cultural impact. Sounds like a big book!

In fact, I touch on a number on some of this in my new book, "Jung on Yoga", particularly in the latter sections.

 

[AncientSpirits]

Major elements of Jung's framework of the psyche, including ego, archetypes, and other complexes, from "Jung on Yoga: Insights and Activities for Awakening with the Chakras" by Nardi, 2017.

 

[AncientSpirits]

A brain-based approach to the Jungian cognitive processes

From my research, Thinking and Feeling correlate with the left pre-frontal cortex (Fp1), while Sensing and iNtuiting correlate with the right pre-frontal cortex (Fp2).

Focused Judge (Fp1)
Helps us...
Stay focused. Decide: select among options. Be results oriented and sharp. Filter out distractions and criticism. Evaluate situations according to a principle. Notice and correct errors. Clarify needs, goals, and ideas. Get organized. Show confidence. With overuse, may be rigid and closed to input.

Curious Explorer (Fp2)
Helps us...
Stay open to new data and experiences. Seek stimulating ideas and activities. Engage in a creative process. Mix and match. Navigate a situation and know when all ideas are in. Reflect on new data, delving into criticism for self-awareness. Show natural, honest expressions. With overuse, may get off-task.

Then there is extraverting/introverting, which show in a number of ways in the brain, including:

Extraverting:
-- quickly react to stimuli – incoming data takes a short path in the brain to give a fast response.
-- speak and act, then reflect later, with more activity and dense networks in the front of the brain.
-- feel under-stimulated and want to “turn up” the volume; drained by a lack of input.

Introverting:
-- slowly react to stimuli – incoming data takes a long path in the brain to craft a response.
-- watch and reflect, then speak and act later, with more activity and dense connections in the back of the brain.
-- feel over-stimulated and want to “turn down” the volume; drained by too much input.

Finally, we can differentiate how we appropriate particular brain regions and subregions, with a focus on people vs objects, or concrete vs abstract. For example, in the left rear temporal and parietal areas, do we focus on decoding facial expressions or vehicle makes and models. Similarly, in the left temple area, do we focus on physically mirroring others for skill learning or rapport building or making analogies or imagining what-if...

Taken together, there are 8 cognitive patterns. The patterns show in terms of amount of activity as well as networks across multiple brain regions and holistic patterns like what evokes "flow" across the entire brain.

Next, I'll post definitions of the Jungian cognitive processes.

 

[AncientSpirits]

Left Prefrontal Cortex (Fp1)

Expedite Decision-making
Proactively meet goals. Often look sure and confident. Organize and fix to get positive results soon.

Timely Building (Te)
Measure and construct for progress.
Make decisions objectively based on measures and the evidence before you. Focus on word content, figures, clock units, and visual data. Find that “facts speak for themselves”. Tend to check whether things are functioning properly. Can usually provide convincing, decisive explanations. Value time, and highly efficient at managing resources. Tend to utilize mental resources only when extra thinking is truly demanded. Otherwise, use what’s at hand for a “good enough” result that works. Easily compartmentalize problems. Like to apply procedures to control events and achieve goals. May display high confidence even when wrong.

Friendly Hosting (Fe)
Nurture trust in giving relationships.
Evaluate and communicate values to build trust and enhance relationships. Like to promote social / interpersonal cohesion. Attend keenly to how others judge you. Quickly adjust your behavior for social harmony. Often rely on a favorite way to reason, with an emphasis on words. Prefer to stay positive, supportive, and optimistic. Empathically respond to others’ needs and feelings, and may take on others’ needs as your own. Need respect and trust. Easily embarrassed. Like using adjectives to convey values. Enjoy hosting. May hold back the true degree of your emotional response about morals/ethics, regarding talk as more effective. May try too hard to please.

Refine Decision-making
Clarify what’s universal, true or worthwhile. Often look quietly receptive. Trust own judgments.

Skillful Sleuthing (Ti)
Gain leverage using a framework.
Study a situation from different angles and fit it to a theory, framework, or principle. This often involves reasoning multiple ways to objectively and accurately analyze problems. Rely on complex/subtle logical reasoning. Adept at deductive thinking, defining and categorizing, weighing odds and risks, and/or naming and navigating. Notice points to apply leverage and subtle influence. Value consistency of thought. Can shut out the senses and “go deep” to think, and separate body from mind to become objective when arguing or analyzing. Tend to backtrack to clarify thoughts and withhold deciding in favor of thorough examination. May quickly stop listening.

Quiet Crusading (Fi)
Stay true to who you really are.
Listen with your whole self to locate and support what’s important. Often evaluate importance along a spectrum from love/like to dislike/hate. Patient and good at listening for identity, values, and what resonates, though may tune out when “done” listening. Value loyalty and belief in oneself and others. Attentive and curious for what is not said. Focus on word choice, voice tone, and facial expressions to detect intent. Check with your conscience before acting. Choose behavior congruent with what’s important, your personal identity, and beliefs. Hard to embarrass. Can respond strongly to specific, high-value words or false data. May not utilize feedback.

 

[AncientSpirits]

Right Prefrontal Cortex (Fp2)

Energize the Process
Seek out stimuli. Often look random, emergent, and enthusiastic. Attend to the here and now.

Active Adapting (Se)
Immerse in the present context.
Act quickly and smoothly to handle whatever comes up in the moment. Excited by motion, action, and nature. Adept at physical multitasking with a video game-like mind primed for action. Often in touch with body sensations. Trust your senses and gut instincts. Bored when sitting with a mental/rote task. Good memory for relevant details. Tend to be relaxed, varying things a little and scanning the environment, until an urgent situation or exciting option pops up. Then you quickly get “in the zone” and use your whole mind to handle whatever is happening. Tend to test limits and take risks for big rewards. May be impatient to finish.

Excited Brainstorming (Ne)
Explore the emerging patterns.
Perceive and play with ideas and relationships. Wonder about patterns of interaction across various situations. Keep up a high-energy mode that helps you notice and engage potential possibilities. Think analogically: Stimuli are springboards to generate inferences, analogies, metaphors, jokes, and more new ideas. Easily guess details. Adept at “what if?” scenarios, mirroring others, and even role-playing. Can shift a situation’s dynamics and trust what emerges. Mental activity tends to feel chaotic, with many highs and lows at once, like an ever-changing "Christmas tree" of flashing lights. Often entertain multiple meanings at once. May find it hard to stay on-task.

Monitor the Process
Reflect on data and perceptions. Often look focused and preoccupied. Attend to reference points.

Cautious Protecting (Si)
Stabilize with a predictable standard.
Review and practice to specialize and meet group needs. Constant practice “burns in” how-to knowledge and helps build your storehouse. Specialization helps you reliably fill roles and tasks. Improve when following a role-model or example. Easily track where you are in a task. Often review the past and can relive events as if you are there again. Carefully compare a situation to the customary ways you’ve come to rely. In touch with body sensations. Strong memory for kinship and details. Rely on repetition. Check what’s familiar, comforting, and useful. Tend to stabilize a situation and invest for future security. May over-rely on authority for guidance.

Keen Foreseeing (Ni)
Transform with a meta-perspective.
Withdraw from the world and tap your whole mind to receive an insight. Can enter a brief trance to respond to a challenge, foresee the future, or answer a philosophical issue. Avoid specializing and rely instead on timely "ah-ha" moments or a holistic "zen state" to tackle novel tasks, which may look like creative expertise. Manage your own mental processes and stay aware of where you are in an open-ended task. May use an action or symbol to focus. Sensitive to the unknown. Ruminate on ways to improve. Look for synergy. Might try out a realization to transform yourself or how you think. May over-rely on the unconscious.

 

[Agent Washington]

Great question, thank you!

First, the self is more than the brain. Just in physical terms, the nervous systems runs throughout the whole body. Hormones and neurotransmitters are produced by many organs. Besides the neocortex and limbic system and such, in the head, there's the gut, the immune system, and endocrine glands (gonads, etc). The automatic nervous system (ANS) links the brain with all these other glands. From what I've read, 80% of the information flow in the nervous system is from the body up into the brain, while only 20% goes the other way. The output of these glands, and the action of the ANS, is strong, rapid, and shapes us in the short and long term, including gene expression. Recently, a direct nerve link between the pre-frontal cortex and the immune system (around the thymus) was discovered. Ninety percent (90%!!) of serotonin is made in the digestive tract. Testosterone can strongly reshape the brain. Adrenaline and such impact what we remember. So right from the start, we need to acknowledge that we are more than mentalizations. We are electro-chemical systems.

In the brain, there are favored circuits, favored response patterns and ways of processing information. In the same way, we have favored patterns involving the entire nervous system, including the many facets that tend to be outside the spotlight of our awareness. I would say that the ego--our main sense of self--is a highly energetic construct that is our strongest set of circuit patterns, or at least it's the pattern that's "I", "me", and "mine". We have many other patterns, or constructs, or what Jung called complexes. He named the ego as our primary complex. He said there are other complexes in our personal and collective unconscious, which we called archetypes. To use less esoteric terms, these complexes are physiological, socio-cultural, and personal, in some proportion or another. For example, masculinity, as a set of behavioral patterns and mentalizations, is partially physiological, based in hormones and anatomy, partly socio-cultural, shaped by community and media representations and roles, and partly personal, shaped by unique life experiences. Typically, for a male, numerous aspects of the masculine complex overlap with the ego complex, defined as part of "I". though in practice, the guy will likely not be attending to many of these aspects, in the same way that readers are not usually not attending to the shapes of the letters of words until their attention is drawn down to do that. Other complexes are more or less in our awareness as well. So every male has some vague idea of femininity, but that complex is mostly socio-culturally defined -- less physiological and more socio-cultural, but also psychological, with biases, projections, etc. Jung named that the anima. Beyond these complexes, the mechanisms that we use to learn--through modeling and projection for example, are also important.

The challenge to neuroscience is that it tends to study discrete units, mainly in the brain. But these complexes--nervous system response patterns--are whole-system phenomena that are distributed throughout the whole nervous system. So studying them is challenging. To some extend neuroscience has come to understand mirror neurons are a way we mimic and learn others' behavior. Feedback from parents, society, etc also play a role. The complexes are not really even discrete, and can be more or less differentiated... a young boy is not even differentiated physiologically, his socio-cultural notions are a mix of immediate male guardian role-models plus media-normative representations. Basically, this is an interdisciplinary question, so academia will likely never touch it, and those academics prone to solipsism will claim archetypes and such don't exist.

If I really took the time, I could spell out a nexus between type, Jung's model of the psyche, the brain and nervous system and human developmental biology as a whole, and socio-cultural impact. Sounds like a big book!

In fact, I touch on a number on some of this in my new book, "Jung on Yoga", particularly in the latter sections.

Holy shit, this is what I love about listening to INTJs.

You NEED to write that book. I've always found disciplines lacking in terms of ... uh, interdiciplinary... uh. Things. Y'know. It's impossible to understand anything comprehensively without delving into interdisciplinary synthesis. It will absolutely be a breakthrough as far as I know. A lot of the theories that we cite in, say, history, tend to be "stolen" from other disciplines as well, because that's how the whole of humanity works. It would be great to see a theorist do something that makes this step in "hard (???) sciences"

Also, thanks for the rec. I will probably check it out when I'm less poor.

I use imgbb for inserting images, since I've never seen the forum attachment work.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

Major elements of Jung's framework of the psyche, including ego, archetypes, and other complexes
View attachment 19269

BTW, If someone could inform me how to insert images here, ones that people can actually see clearly, that would be awesome!

If sharing an online image, you can place the image url inside image code brackets, as follows:

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

[MENTION=14444]AncientSpirits[/MENTION]

Are you familiar are you with Gardner's idea/theory of multiple intelligences, and if so, do you see any potential/possible correlation with the Jungian cognitive processes that might be drawn? Or do you think Garnder's theory is incorrect?

Gardner's Multiple Intelligences

Theory of multiple intelligences - Wikipedia



Another question, do you see any strong correlation between enneagram types and the Jungian processes? Is there a possibility for "odder" or less common/obvious pairings, say, an ESTP 4, or an ISFJ 8?


Also, Thank you for sharing these definitions of the processes. I think they're a bit more spot on than some of the stuff I've seen.

 

[Agent Washington]

[MENTION=14444]AncientSpirits[/MENTION]

How would you type according to this when Si, Fi, Ti predominantly fit, and to a small extent Se, Fe and Ne fit, but otherwise no extraverted "function" really clicks? (Aside from looking at other clues like Temperaments etc). Is it necessary that there be function "stacks"?

 

[highlander]

If sharing an online image, you can place the image url inside image code brackets, as follows:

Yes there is a little image button right above the post.that provides this wrapper automatically as well

 

[highlander]

Do you ascribe to the belief that the top four functions always follow the specified order or do people sometimes possess a group or order that is outside the "norm" of the theory.

 

[AncientSpirits]

[MENTION=14444]AncientSpirits[/MENTION]

Are you familiar are you with Gardner's idea/theory of multiple intelligences, and if so, do you see any potential/possible correlation with the Jungian cognitive processes that might be drawn? Or do you think Garnder's theory is incorrect?

Gardner's Multiple Intelligences

Theory of multiple intelligences - Wikipedia

MI: You mean like this?
Unfortunately, the book is out of print for technical reasons: There's no PDF copy and the original InDesign document was is corrupted. Thus, printing more copies or even making an e-book available would require reconstructing the book. There are copies floating around. Maybe Google can be convinced to scan every page and post a version on their online library?!

To answer your question, I looked at the intersection of temperament and multiple intelligences, rather than the cognitive processes.

Another question, do you see any strong correlation between enneagram types and the Jungian processes? Is there a possibility for "odder" or less common/obvious pairings, say, an ESTP 4, or an ISFJ 8?

Also, Thank you for sharing these definitions of the processes. I think they're a bit more spot on than some of the stuff I've seen.

I'm aware there are some typical assignments, and some persons can be atypical, but it's not something I've concerned myself with.

Thanks! I composed them based on the brain insights.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

MI: You mean like this?
Unfortunately, the book is out of print for technical reasons: There's no PDF copy and the original InDesign document was is corrupted. Thus, printing more copies or even making an e-book available would require reconstructing the book. There are copies floating around. Maybe Google can be convinced to scan every page and post a version on their online library?!

To answer your question, I looked at the intersection of temperament and multiple intelligences, rather than the cognitive processes.



I'm aware there are some typical assignments, and some persons can be atypical, but it's not something I've concerned myself with.

Thanks! I composed them based on the brain insights.

I feel foolish that I didn't bother to check if you'd done any work on intelligences. Thank you for sharing that. Shame it is no longer in print.


Sorry to barrage you with questions but I have another one.

Why is it that INTPs' brains "light up" so much when embarrassed? Do you notice any outward signs of embarrassment in your studies of INTPs (i.e. extreme blushing)? Do any other types show similar results in your scans when experiencing embarrassment?

 

[Z Buck McFate]

Much in the way that Enneagram itself can interfere with "profiling" - for example, I often get "profiled" by online assessments as INTJ, yet my experience of other INTJs makes it pretty clear to me that I am not - the conflation of instinct variants with Fe/Fi has been discussed quite a bit in this forum. I'm not clear on whether your understanding of Enneagram is solid enough to confidently answer this, but assuming it is: do you have any opinion about how to clearly distinguish Fe from social instinct variant dominance? Or how to identify Fe in someone who is least social instinct variant?

Or maybe I should say, what is the difference between the information that gets processed with a Fe preference and the information that gets processed as a result of social instinct variant dominance? There's a sort of unconscious prioritization going on for both, wouldn't you say? I'm wondering how you'd define the difference exactly. And consequently, how would you say being least social instinct variant changes the way a Fe preference would unconsciously prioritize information?

 

[AncientSpirits]

Much in the way that Enneagram itself can interfere with "profiling" - for example, I often get "profiled" by online assessments as INTJ, yet my experience of other INTJs makes it pretty clear to me that I am not - the conflation of instinct variants with Fe/Fi has been discussed quite a bit in this forum. I'm not clear on whether your understanding of Enneagram is solid enough to confidently answer this, but assuming it is: do you have any opinion about how to clearly distinguish Fe from social instinct variant dominance? Or how to identify Fe in someone who is least social instinct variant?

Or maybe I should say, what is the difference between the information that gets processed with a Fe preference and the information that gets processed as a result of social instinct variant dominance? There's a sort of unconscious prioritization going on for both, wouldn't you say? I'm wondering how you'd define the difference exactly. And consequently, how would you say being least social instinct variant changes the way a Fe preference would unconsciously prioritize information?

I understand your question, but I'm not sufficiently familiar with the issue to answer it.

 

[AncientSpirits]

Why is it that INTPs' brains "light up" so much when embarrassed? Do you notice any outward signs of embarrassment in your studies of INTPs (i.e. extreme blushing)? Do any other types show similar results in your scans when experiencing embarrassment?

This isn't something I try to evoke. It just happened. I still know the former-student who got so embarrassed and launched me on a journey with this to figure it out a little deeper. There was actual blushing. I have a grand total of two examples of INTPs in this situation, so they're just case studies for a hypothesis. In the other case, there was an incident of clumsiness very soon after as well. Overall, I do have examples from other types of "overflow", often just different stuff, though with xxFJ types, it's easily T5 (left posterior temporal region). I've seen an ENFJ have a massive T5 overflow while getting very verbally and emotionally passionate about something (I don't recall what). She was plainly verklempt.

 

[AncientSpirits]

Do you ascribe to the belief that the top four functions always follow the specified order or do people sometimes possess a group or order that is outside the "norm" of the theory.

Great question. A huge can of worms! Tasty worms, so long as we apply "ketchup" (aka "comfort with uncertainty").

There continues to be a schism within the professional type community, though it's clearly swayed in one direction for a while now.

To clarify what we're talking about, by way of example for INFP:
Standard: Fi, Ne, Si, Te
Alternate: Fi, Ne, Se, Te
Other: Fi, ?, ?, ?

What is a person's "type" really, functionally? Minimally, does a person just have a dominant function, and everything else is there to balance out that one function? Or, minimally, does a person have a dominant+auxiliary pair, and the other 2 functions balance out that pairing? Or, beyond the dominant function, is there really a set order? Maybe it varies by person? Or maybe the set order is typical, but there are individuals, maybe 1%, 5% or 10%, whatever, who differ?

More abstractly, from a modeling POV, is the function-hierarchy a "prescriptive" model or a "descriptive" model? If it's descriptive, it should hold true, ideally up to the limits of error, say 95% of the time. Alternatively, if it's prescriptive, then people may be all over the place, but they're happier and healthier (more "functional") if they follow the hierarchy, whichever hierarchy that is.

I'm in the dom+aux camp, with the 3rd and 4th functions necessarily reflecting one's opposite type. Why am I in that camp? The reasons are multiple, and mostly practical, and I use it as a prescriptive model. That is, people are happier and healthier this way.

Mark Majors has been gathering and analyzing data from his Majors PTI tool and has presented at conferences on this very question. Mark helped developed MBTI Form M at CPP and then went his own way to develop the Majors PTI, which turned out to be a savvy business decision; plus as a professional statistician, the Majors PTI is second only to the MBTI in terms of statistical support, and from what I'm told, it outperforms the MBTI. Anyway, it looks like there is a hierarchy, it's a clear statistical pattern, but it's not true for every person. Of course, this is from assessment data; it's not a person-by-person in-depth investigation, so it's still questionable. What he has NOT resolved is whether the standard or alternate model is the right one! At first Mark said the alternate model won out, but when he shows audiences the data, it's a 1% difference, so he's yet unable, after thousands of data points, to fully answer the question.

On to Jung... Jung didn't really say there are 8 functions. He observed a preference for E or I that could be weak or strong, and he named 4 functions. A person has one of those 4 as dominant, as differentiated into consciousness. How that dominant function plays out in practice looks notably different depending on whether the person prefers E or I. So, INFJ and ENFP both have the same dominant function, iNtuiting, and all that differs is that INFJ is introverted and ENFP is extraverted. This is a slightly different framework than saying there are 8 distinct cognitive processes.

The difference may feel semantic, but I've kept it in mind while analyzing the brain data. And in fact, if I take all my NF subjects and factor their brain wiring data into 2 groups, INFJ and ENFP plainly fall into one group while INFP and ENFJ fall into another group. This is maybe 95% of subjects falling into their group... so maybe Jung's original take is actually correct? That said, there are many other aspects of the brain data, such as flow, that plainly point to 8 distinct cognitive processes. And all the 16 types factor so neatly.

BTW, I tend to explain Type like this:

An able adult needs to both “perceive” and “decide” as well as operate in both the inner and outer worlds. Thus, minimally, we each rely on two processes: either Sensing or iNuiting to perceive plus either Thinking or Feeling to decide. Moreover, we need to use one process in an extraverted way and the other in an introverted way. Thus, for example, a person might prefer extraverted Intuiting (Ne) and introverted Feeling (Fi). Or a person might prefer introverted Sensing (Si) and extraverted Thinking (Te). These pairings minimally cover all the bases.

Yet, from the thousands of data points from my cognitive processes assessment at keys2cognition.com, I use something else!

To determine E or I:
E score = Se + Ne + Te + Fe
I score = Si + Ni + Ti + Fi
Whichever is higher wins out. So I'm following Jung's viewpoint here.

Then I look for which PAIR of functions, out of the 8 "allowed" by type, has the highest score.
So maybe Ni+Fe is the highest pairing, or maybe Ne+Ti is the highest or what not.

The assessment scores this way because I tried several scoring methods and this came closest to matching declared type. Maybe not the best reason, but it works, and is essentially a hybrid of what's discussed above.

Finally, when I work with people one-on-one, I give a bit of leeway. For example, by definition, ENFP is minimally Ne + Fi. But beyond that, most adults have several more moderately-develop functions. For introverts, I find 3 introverted functions and 1 or 2 extraverted functions are typical; vice versa for extraverts. So an ENFP might be Ne + Fi, with Fe and Te, plus some Si. But I've met some ENFPs who are Ne + Fi, with Fe and Se, or Te and Se, plus some Si. Or whatever. BTW, I find those less-usual ENFPs tend lead lives that are not so well "sorted", but are perhaps more interesting.... I use this model not because I believe it's true, but because it's a practical way to characterize and work with a person. To work with the ENFP "as if" Te or Fe or Se or whatever is also developed, even if at a deep psychical level, it's not true.

Actually finally, I should clarify that I distinguish "basic" and "advanced" use of a function. I really believe a ton of debate and confusion in the type community could be resolved by making a few simple distinctions like these:

 

[AncientSpirits]

Yes there is a little image button right above the post.that provides this wrapper automatically as well

Thanks. I went through and replaced those "attachment" posts with links to images I uploaded to the web .

 

[AncientSpirits]

[MENTION=14444]AncientSpirits[/MENTION]

How would you type according to this when Si, Fi, Ti predominantly fit, and to a small extent Se, Fe and Ne fit, but otherwise no extraverted "function" really clicks? (Aside from looking at other clues like Temperaments etc). Is it necessary that there be function "stacks"?

The consensus among professional users of type (in the workplace etc), is that starting with the 8 cognitive processes to locate best-fit type is the least-likely avenue to success. Better to start with interaction styles + temperament, or the type preferences along with whole-type descriptions, then only get into the 8 processes for the purpose of development or to help clarify type.

Personally, I do start with the 8 cognitive processes, but only when I've done brain imaging with the person first. And when I do, I take an extra step by asking the person to identify what processes are/were emphasized in their environment: culture, upbringing, workplace.

For example, an ISFP came in. We did a brain imaging session, though I already knew him well enough to figure ISFP was likely. He's enneagram 4 wing 5 (rather than most ISFPs I meet, who are enneagram 9). Also, he's from Russia, age 30, and his uni degree is engineering. Presently, he's a newly-successful Hollywood actor. We went through a foldout that shows all 8 processes in front of him. I said (honestly), that the brain imaging results suggest certain processes as likely, but I'd like him to go through and read and rate them first. We then talked about which processes are encouraged in Russia, and in the army there and in engineering, and where his parents might fall. Filtering out Russian culture was a key step. He was debating between Fi, Fe, and Ti; and also Se and Si. (He could see some Te as well but understood on his own that it was aspirational and slowly developing). He realized that Si was Russian culture, and Fe came in terms of how he grew up. Moreover, Ti wasn't something he actually did or cared about, it was simply a product of university life. He had some difficulty at first owning up to aspects of Se. We went through his daily life, and that's when he saw it. He was taking for granted that he uses it. So he was able to settle on Fi with Se at the end.

I would suggest going through this process when trying to sort among the functions. It might also help to sort between basic and advanced use (see post above).