Interaction styles ctc and bts. examples of these patterns?

[INFtha14]

Hi all.

Really curious what is the difference between the Chart the course interaction style and behind the scenes interaction style?

or just what do you define as ctc or bts? don't have to compare and contrast.

I have read descriptions but i actually want to hear from users who know they use there interaction style.

any specific questions needed for clarity let me know .
thanks in advance

link to read about CTC and BTS/ the other two interactions also.

Understanding Yourself and Others ... - Google Book Search

pg. 10-14 gives self portraits on the interaction styles.
I definitely have BTS with a cherry*ctc* place on top.
is there other links out there that go into about it more. I have read linda berens articles on 16types/4 temperaments.
also love to see if these descriptions resonate with you guys from the book preview.

 

[ladyinspring]

I have a behind the scenes interaction style. I know one difference is that I focus more on getting everyone on the same page, rather than figuring out my own vision/ideas and imposing that. BtS types are driven by a need to integrate, while CtC types are driven by a need to anticipate so they want to have a plan for what is going to happen.

So I have an INFJ friend who has the CtC interaction style. He already has his ideas of what he wants to do and is not as open to changing based on the prevailing mood. He shows a lot more drive than I do. I have a strong independent streak yet left to my own ideas, I don't really know where I'm going half the time. I am really go-with-the-flow, like a stream that shifts and turns and follows the course. It's not that I am uninfluential. I am quite persuasive actually, but I get everyone to buy-in. And since it never seems like I am imposing, I am often more successful than my more extroverted friends.

Another difference is in how we respond to conflict and stress. There are four responses: fight (in-charge types), flight (chart the course), flurry (get things going), faint/freeze (behind the scenes). Under stress I freeze and concede and agree, usually avoiding conflict. Like an ostrich with its head in the sand, I repress the conflict at the first hint of trouble.

According to that book you quoted (which I have, along with all the others in the series), under extreme stress the type starts acting like its opposite. In my case, that would be the In Charge type. And YES I am an unhealthy fighter! If pushed too far I am the most rigid person imaginable. I don't back down and I hate when people want to leave the fight. I am so uncharitable at those times. It like Naomi Quenk says, INFPs when "beside themselves" become like unhealthy ESTJs.

 

[Jaguar]

BtS types are driven by a need to integrate, while CtC types are driven by a need to anticipate so they want to have a plan for what is going to happen.

CTC here.
You gave a good explanation.

 

[Orangey]

Understanding Yourself and Others ... - Google Book Search

also love to see if these descriptions resonate with you guys from the book preview.

"Pages 4-31 are not part of this book preview."

 

[Colors]

I have a behind the scenes interaction style. I know one difference is that I focus more on getting everyone on the same page, rather than figuring out my own vision/ideas and imposing that. BtS types are driven by a need to integrate, while CtC types are driven by a need to anticipate so they want to have a plan for what is going to happen.
...
Another difference is in how we respond to conflict and stress. There are four responses: fight (in-charge types), flight (chart the course), flurry (get things going), faint/freeze (behind the scenes). Under stress I freeze and concede and agree, usually avoiding conflict. Like an ostrich with its head in the sand, I repress the conflict at the first hint of trouble. ...

Ah, thank you so much for this post, ladyinspring. I've heard a lot of people mentioning interaction styles, but I never really understood the differences in the styles before now.

I am definitely a behind-the-scenes type. When people won't communicate or let our nebulous ideas can coalesce I get very anxious. When I start anything I want people to go around in a circle throwing out ideas/responding in a circle infinitely until we come up with an acceptable synthesis. I conflict with chart-the-course types a lot.

 

[Eric B]

ISTP is Chart the Course.
The way it works is:

IST/INJ: CtC
EST/ENJ: In Charge
ISF/INP: BtS
ESF/ENP: Get Things Going.

Very similar to Social Styles and ancient temperament theory, the factors are E/I and Directing/informing (which is T/F for S types, and J/P for N's). So CtC is directive (task focused) and BtS is informing (people-focused).

 

[Colors]

*shrug* If the shoe doesn't fit, I don't wear it.

 

[ladyinspring]

I am definitely a behind-the-scenes type. When people won't communicate or let our nebulous ideas can coalesce I get very anxious. When I start anything I want people to go around in a circle throwing out ideas/responding in a circle infinitely until we come up with an acceptable synthesis. I conflict with chart-the-course types a lot.

According to the book, behind-the-scenes types are like in-charge types in that they want to control the outcome. On the other hand, chart-the-course types and get-things-going types want to control the movement of the process towards a goal. I really, really, REALLY just want to get to the end. I'm not sure if this is the same as what you're saying.

BtS types sometimes control the information flow in order to reach the desired outcome. I have a strong interest in getting to a particular place, regardless of how we get there. I may often be that person that makes you anxious, the one who seems quiet and isn't tossing around ideas. But this is because I already have in mind what is best and my main interest is in getting us to that place. I may have a problem "checking out" of the process until I feel a place where I can step in and get us to where I think we should go.

This is different from CtC types (which an ISTP would be according to the theory), and it sounds different from what you're describing. CtC types don't want to control the outcome (as you apparently don't), they want to keep things moving. They're about progress and process. It's in the name "chart the course". Like I said, I flow with the course toward the end, I don't care about the course itself. I care about the end.

So an example: I say to my family "we should go out to dinner" because it's Sunday night and I'm bored and there's money and we always have a good time when we go out. If they start tossing about ideas as to where we go, I typically say nothing at all. If someone wants me to "get involved" or share my opinion, I often feel like my mind is blank because I don't have an opinion beyond "let's go to dinner". I'll mainly step in if there is some conflict. In fact, I admit that I often feel that the more ideas are tossed about, the more likely there is to be conflict, and conflict gets in the way of reaching the goal.

So when I talk about integrating viewpoints, that's the way to get to the end as far as I'm concerned. It's a way I would prefer over just telling everybody what we should do (like an in-charge type might do). For me, integration is about the END. When you say synthesis, that sounds like a process, not a result.

 

[INFtha14]

According to the book, behind-the-scenes types are like in-charge types in that they want to control the outcome. On the other hand, chart-the-course types and get-things-going types want to control the movement of the process towards a goal. I really, really, REALLY just want to get to the end. I'm not sure if this is the same as what you're saying.

BtS types sometimes control the information flow in order to reach the desired outcome. I have a strong interest in getting to a particular place, regardless of how we get there. I may often be that person that makes you anxious, the one who seems quiet and isn't tossing around ideas. But this is because I already have in mind what is best and my main interest is in getting us to that place. I may have a problem "checking out" of the process until I feel a place where I can step in and get us to where I think we should go.

This is different from CtC types (which an ISTP would be according to the theory), and it sounds different from what you're describing. CtC types don't want to control the outcome (as you apparently don't), they want to keep things moving. They're about progress and process. It's in the name "chart the course". Like I said, I flow with the course toward the end, I don't care about the course itself. I care about the end.

So an example: I say to my family "we should go out to dinner" because it's Sunday night and I'm bored and there's money and we always have a good time when we go out. If they start tossing about ideas as to where we go, I typically say nothing at all. If someone wants me to "get involved" or share my opinion, I often feel like my mind is blank because I don't have an opinion beyond "let's go to dinner". I'll mainly step in if there is some conflict. In fact, I admit that I often feel that the more ideas are tossed about, the more likely there is to be conflict, and conflict gets in the way of reaching the goal.

So when I talk about integrating viewpoints, that's the way to get to the end as far as I'm concerned. It's a way I would prefer over just telling everybody what we should do (like an in-charge type might do). For me, integration is about the END. When you say synthesis, that sounds like a process, not a result.

hey Ladyinspring
sorry i took while to respond, just thinking it over .
stuff i highlighted is what i agree with.
kinda of torn with these two styles but see a favoritism toward BtS but also CtC.

ooh Eric B can i ask you a question or two? :hi:
when you say CtC is task oriented and BtS is people oriented
how is a CtC "task oriented" and BtS "people oriented"?
what seperates the two? Is there a motive behind the interaction style "actions" that seperates the two? comparisons?

like two could be doing the same action but for different reasons?
Thanks Eric B .

colors:
what you said right here is definitely how i do things and is what i think would say be behind the scenes interaction style from what i've heard and see it in myself.
"When I start anything I want people to go around in a circle throwing out ideas/responding in a circle infinitely until we come up with an acceptable synthesis".
also something that popped in my head I do notice i like movement towards a goal but i think it's to reach the "end" so BtS is looking more of preference

but I do also use CtC just as much cause i can apply actual progress and even as a isfp I do like to plan out the steps to take to get the desired result even though i get impatient cause i do want that end result hehe.

I relate to when Eric b said somewhere on here about " CtC being about planning but not as expressive as GtG but less likely to consult others"

"http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/mbti-tm-enneagram-other-personality-matrices/9300-process-vs-outcome.html"

I agree with alot of what you say about wanting to pay it all off etc instead of little by little and alot of the stuff that was mentioned.
prefering an apartment cause you pay off monthly and don't expect them to ever end.

"Once you make the payment, you are set for the month. "
exactly very true cause other wise it's a pain xDDD.
I can see how my BtS I.S can make answer J on some questions on the mbti thing. Definately an outcome preference, can seem impulsive cause of this.

one of the first things i do when i finally know what i want I start planning immediately the steps to take like a list in my head.

thank you.

 

[INFtha14]

I have a behind the scenes interaction style. I know one difference is that I focus more on getting everyone on the same page, rather than figuring out my own vision/ideas and imposing that. BtS types are driven by a need to integrate, while CtC types are driven by a need to anticipate so they want to have a plan for what is going to happen.

So I have an INFJ friend who has the CtC interaction style. He already has his ideas of what he wants to do and is not as open to changing based on the prevailing mood. He shows a lot more drive than I do. I have a strong independent streak yet left to my own ideas, I don't really know where I'm going half the time. I am really go-with-the-flow, like a stream that shifts and turns and follows the course. It's not that I am uninfluential. I am quite persuasive actually, but I get everyone to buy-in. And since it never seems like I am imposing, I am often more successful than my more extroverted friends.

Another difference is in how we respond to conflict and stress. There are four responses: fight (in-charge types), flight (chart the course), flurry (get things going), faint/freeze (behind the scenes). Under stress I freeze and concede and agree, usually avoiding conflict. Like an ostrich with its head in the sand, I repress the conflict at the first hint of trouble.

According to that book you quoted (which I have, along with all the others in the series), under extreme stress the type starts acting like its opposite. In my case, that would be the In Charge type. And YES I am an unhealthy fighter! If pushed too far I am the most rigid person imaginable. I don't back down and I hate when people want to leave the fight. I am so uncharitable at those times. It like Naomi Quenk says, INFPs when "beside themselves" become like unhealthy ESTJs.

hey ladyinspring Hmm....think i have had a true aha moment.

You know I was returning to this cause i remembered what you said about
under extreme stress the type acting like it's opposite aka "in charge".

How you described is definitely something i relate too and can see cause i'm not naturally like that. I definitely flip the switch and will not relent in anyform until it is resolved etc. I also hate when someone just wants to sweep problems under the rug I just can't do that. I just notice a tendency to expose the crap under the rug xDD like some patterns in my family where they try to "act" like everything's alright and here's me thinking why do we put up with this? I read somewhere that Fi can be where we think
"some things just have to be said" hells yes xDD. I'm too "things just have to be said" to be ISFJ hmm....i'm talking when i was 12 yrs old.

just an example to illustrate my way of doing things I said to a relative
" i just can't pretend that everything is alright....I can't go out there and put on a happy face when something "is" wrong *conflict is present*. I just can't." I have been known to be wound exposure and the type to take that pretty rug and expose all the crap that people try to hide if i see it and it affects "us" xDD.

In the four temperament books where they describ the definitions for the temperaments. One that really stood out was
Creating harmony: They will go to great lengths to create harmony in relationships. This does not mean they are totally averse to addressing conflict, and they will in fact brave conflict for the greater good of future harmony and integrity. .

Does this resonate with you Ladyinspring being infp and all?
to me the way i think doesn't sound very ISFJish *my Fe sucks xDD...working progress...trying to improve it heh*
I can see a estj switch now that i think about it. Nothing has resonated like this in the terms of the whole "under extreme stress you go to this type thing" it just makes since. Guess i have been digging into my inner "estj" with my controlling mother *for my mother am sure is now an ISFJ*
^^D.

 

[Eric B]

ooh Eric B can i ask you a question or two? :hi:
when you say CtC is task oriented and BtS is people oriented
how is a CtC "task oriented" and BtS "people oriented"?
what seperates the two? Is there a motive behind the interaction style "actions" that seperates the two? comparisons?

like two could be doing the same action but for different reasons?
Thanks Eric B .

Wow. Don't see how I missed this one. Yet I thought I had seen the question. Wondering if I had planned to get back to it and forgot or something.

Anyway, people/task orientation is the other factor besides introversion and extroversion in the original temperament matrix. It was originally response time delay vs sustain. Those with short delay were quicker to act, and thus extroverts; and long delay was slower, and therefore introverts. Those with short sustain changed emotions quicker. So they would not hold anger and resentment as long, and thus relate to people better. (However, they would also not hold to pleasurable emotions long, and thus need constant stimulation). Long sustain did hold emotions like resentment longer, and thus tended to reject people and focus on tasks.

This factor was held in different forms by different theorists. To Pavlov, it was "Extremeness", to Adler, it was "social interest" ("activity" was I/E), to Fromm it was "socialization" (this was really "reacting to people". "Assimilation" was the one that corresponded to extroversion, where you moved to "acquire" things from them). In DISC, it was "open/controlled", and Eysenck came up with the similar factor of Neuroticism. (The previous ones were more like FFM "Agreeableness").

Jung had apparently skipped over this factor, though T/F would be the closest thing to it. Keirsey at some point outlined the eight groups marked by the last three letters of the MBTI code. Half were "role-informative", and the others were "role-directive". Finally, Berens divides these by I/E to yield the Interaction Styles, and thus the old "I/E vs People/task" matrix of the old temperaments was introduced into the Jungian types. She would make the association in the booklet Understanding Yourself and Others: An Introduction to Interaction Styles of people focus to Informing or F, and task focus to Directing or T. (This is really for Sensors. For iNtuiters, it is J/P instead of T/F).

So people-orientation will tend to yield informing communication (which is a bit outwardly friendlier, as you are focused on the person), as opposed to task-orientation, where you tend to direct the person (seeming less friendly, as the person is to be engaged for a task). That will be one of the differences between CtC and BtS.

So you're going with INFP now? I forgot what you were trying on before. That seems realistic, especially since you seem to be like me with the Outcome focus.

 

[INFtha14]

Wow. Don't see how I missed this one. Yet I thought I had seen the question. Wondering if I had planned to get back to it and forgot or something.

Anyway, people/task orientation is the other factor besides introversion and extroversion in the original temperament matrix. It was originally response time delay vs sustain. Those with short delay were quicker to act, and thus extroverts; and long sustain was slower, and therefore introverts. Those with short sustain changed emotions quicker. So they would not hold anger and resentment as long, and thus relate to people better. (However, they would also not hold to pleasurable emotions long, and thus need constant stimulation). Long sustain did hold emotions like resentment longer, and thus tended to reject people and focus on tasks.

This factor was held in different forms by different theorists. To Pavlov, it was "Extremeness", to Adler, it was "social interest" ("activity" was I/E), to Fromm it was "socialization" (this was really "reacting to people". "Assimilation" was the one that corresponded to extroversion, where you moved to "acquire" things from them). In DISC, it was "open/controlled", and Eysenck came up with the similar factor of Neuroticism. (The previous ones were more like FFM "Agreeableness").

Jung had apparently skipped over this factor, though T/F would be the closest thing to it. Keirsey at some point outlined the eight groups marked by the last three letters of the MBTI code. Half were "role-informative", and the others were "role-directive". Finally, Berens divides these by I/E to yield the Interaction Styles, and thus the old "I/E vs People/task" matrix of the old temperaments was introduced into the Jungian types. She would make the association in the booklet Understanding Yourself and Others: An Introduction to Interaction Styles of people focus to Informing or F, and task focus to Directing or T. (This is really for Sensors. For iNtuiters, it is J/P instead of T/F).

So people-orientation will tend to yield informing communication (which is a bit outwardly friendlier, as you are focused on the person), as opposed to task-orientation, where you tend to direct the person (seeming less friendly, as the person is to be engaged for a task). That will be one of the differences between CtC and BtS.

So you're going with INFP now? I forgot what you were trying on before. That seems realistic, especially since you seem to be like me with the Outcome focus.

ahhh sorry I must of forgot about a forum i started hehe.
Thank you I always love your posts cause there so clear and to the point. And you really seem to know what your talking about *feeds his NT core need *

Oh yeah INFP is definitely sticking. I do agree with you on alot of things you mention so that was also something that made it the more clear. I definitely have an outcome focus like i'll give an example that just further put into place.

I was with a friend and we were walking around the beach trying to figure out what we want to do first. She always asks me
" so what do you want to do first? we go to this first then this or start here and walk this way *she points to show emphasis*"
Me: uumm...where ever's good **
Friend: " okay. How about we start over here first then we'll go to that? How's that sound?
me: sounds good to me *we set off hehe*

that's how i have always been we were already there so it didn't really matter where we go first and such .

She seems to have a bit CtC about her but she seems informing too.
She seems to use Fi alot so istj seems to be possible. She's talks alot about what she believes and holds dear like values. So Fi is very evident in her. But I don't think it's dominant or auxiliary. She is alot like me though where she will agree with "to each his own" and such. I'd say she might want to work on her Fe that's why i say istj not isfj. She seems more S then N too. I've known her awhile so I see the sensitive side people on the service usually don't see so when i think about when i only knew her on the service I thought she was kinda cold in a way. But now that i know "know" her *my Best friend* she's far from it.

But anywho sorry i forgot to check here i knew i was missing something.
Thanks for your always insightful reply .

Sincerely,
Dots.
.

 

[Eric B]

Thanks a lot!
You sound a lot like me in that example.
I find that female ISTJ's do seem very Fi-ish, because it is the tertiary, which is said to inflate itself, and then considering that society tends to push females into F roles, and then, the person is Si dom. and holds onto learned tradition, they will seem very Feeling-like. But watch out, because their major decisions will be based on cold impersonal external logic! This is what I had to learn with my mother!

Also, of note, as I found out about from the "Exact Opposite Type" thread, Keirsey in his new book has basially come up with his own version of the interaction styles, using the same factors of I/E (dividing his eight intelligence types) and directing/informing:

Initiators: ENTJ, ESTJ, ESTP, ENFJ (Extraverted and Directing)
Coworkers: ENTP, ESFJ, ESFP, ENFP (Extraverted and Informing)
Contenders: INTJ, ISTJ, ISTP, INFJ (Introverted and Directing)
Responders: INTP, ISFJ, ISFP, INFP (Introverted and Informing)

I'm sure you'll identify with that last one.

 

[INFtha14]

Thanks a lot!
You sound a lot like me in that example.
I find that female ISTJ's do seem very Fi-ish, because it is the tertiary, which is said to inflate itself, and then considering that society tends to push females into F roles, and then, the person is Si dom. and holds onto learned tradition, they will seem very Feeling-like. But watch out, because their major decisions will be based on cold impersonal external logic! This is what I had to learn with my mother!

Also, of note, as I found out about from the "Exact Opposite Type" thread, Keirsey in his new book has basially come up with his own version of the interaction styles, using the same factors of I/E (dividing his eight intelligence types) and directing/informing:

Initiators: ENTJ, ESTJ, ESTP, ENFJ (Extraverted and Directing)
Coworkers: ENTP, ESFJ, ESFP, ENFP (Extraverted and Informing)
Contenders: INTJ, ISTJ, ISTP, INFJ (Introverted and Directing)
Responders: INTP, ISFJ, ISFP, INFP (Introverted and Informing)

I'm sure you'll identify with that last one.

your very welcome Eric B hehe then BtS it is. It's so cool how you find someone of the same style and through that realize where that is something you relate too. This is such an addiction .

good point about society and female roles. Now when you point those out it seems my friend most likely could be an istj I think the Fi is where we connect and are friendship is really strong.
It works well too cause BtS and CtC cause i don't have to make any definite decisions or have a choice to make. yeah she does seem to have a impersonal logic thing going on when i talk to her it's so hard to see though cause she is so reserved about stuff like that I see the Fi she really projects it big time.
Definitely a Dominant Si I could see that.
It's there, I think she uses her Fi as a shield to fit in with expectations of the female role she really makes a point to mention Fi related thoughts only to very close people.
She's very "nope" about just letting anyone in. I rememeber even as a kid she told me about hanging out with her so to call so i did and she told me I couldn't join her and her friend cause some reason i forgot.
But i was hurt and i don't think she realized it cause being the sensitive kid i was and am I cried cause i didn't feel like i fit in anyway so that hit on a vulnerable spot as a child.

That's so cool, oh yeah you got that right I definitly agree with the term
"responder" as well. "Initiators" now that's the opposite of how things are preferred to be handled from the sound of it *the choice of word keirsey used*

What does he mean by Contenders for Introverted and directing? very curious .
Sincerely,
Dots

 

[Eric B]

That "not letting anyone in" in the temperament system I started with is definitive Melancholy, and ISTJ would be the purest Melancholy type (From being both CtC or Contender, as well as Guardian).
Melancholies are contenders. That would simply be the more "reserved" version of the Initiator.
These terms may not be the best, as "initiating/responding" were his [Keirsey's] alternative terms for extroverted and introverted. (Or were they Berens'? Forgot now. Between the two of them, one used those terms and the other used "expressive/reserved", IIRC). But both E groups would be "initiating", and both I groups would be more "responding".

But the premise is, the "Choleric" group there will generally initiate things and direct others, while the Melancholy will tend to not initiate, but rather contend for what has already been started, and they will do it in a directing fashion as well.

 

[INFtha14]

That "not letting anyone in" in the temperament system I started with is definitive Melancholy, and ISTJ would be the purest Melancholy type (From being both CtC or Contender, as well as Guardian).
Melancholies are contenders. That would simply be the more "reserved" version of the Initiator.
These terms may not be the best, as "initiating/responding" were his alternative terms for extroverted and introverted. (Or were they Berens'? Forgot now. Between the two of them, one used those terms and the other used "expressive/reserved", IIRC). But both E groups would be "initiating", and both I groups would be "reserved".

But the premise is, the "Choleric" group there will generally initiate things and direct others, while the Melancholy will tend to not initiate, but rather contend for what has already been started, and they will do it in a directing fashion as well.

hmm.
Then that seems to be from knowing her all these years and years for her to be most likely an istj.
I always saw her as melancholy to the max even to the point where she'll mention on the things that happened loooonnngg ago, has a very sombar tone and way about her.Sometimes seems very brooding even, quite alot actually. Just her appearance is brooding/moody sometimes haha.

That contender/contend thing you mention definitely seems like my friend like she is reserved but directing in a CtC manor from what i read. I guess the Contender CtC /responder BtS friendship is a good one hehe.

Yeah i like Berens but his that you mentioned was pretty good too.
Both seem to make sense. I like both of their terms.
Think responding/initiating roles was berens wasn't it?
Only saying cause i see it mentioned in her intro to interaction styles.

Thank you so much again Eric B for helping me with my friend's type.
I'm trying to figure out my family's type too haha.
I'm thinking my sister is istj also. Mom thinking most likely is at least sfj.

dad: definitely BtS almost to a fault I wish he would of stood up to her more. He Seemed to be intp. He seemed to engage with my imagination as a child even teenager. We really bonded as father/daughter on that and had very similar ways. I'm way more like my father then my mother in my behaviors exept i'm a bit more fiesty haha. *don't mess with my Fi values i will stand up for them. My mom was not used to that when he passed as he was pigeoned to being passive with her. He had us as kids so i think that's why he just gave in but i really wish he would of worn the pants over her.

I would of thought SJ but his Fe was something from seeing him that needed practice. It was something my mother would always lecture his lack of Fe on which i felt frustrated like she was trying to change him. I see Fe in him though so heh intp.

 

[Eric B]

So yeah, she is definitely ISTJ, then. Also, reread what you said about her on the beach, not only do you sound like me, but both of you sound like me and my wife. She's GtG, which while in one sense is opposite of CtC, it paired with it in the Process/Outcome cross-factor. They both are trying to "move things along" (process), either by charting a course or getting things going. We however, want the best outcome, so we are slower to move things along, waiting to gain input and end up dealing with things as they come up. (e.g. "where ever's good").

 

[INFtha14]

So yeah, she is definitely ISTJ, then. Also, reread what you said about her on the beach, not only do you sound like me, but both of you sound like me and my wife. She's GtG, which while in one sense is opposite of CtC, it paired with it in the Process/Outcome cross-factor. They both are trying to "move things along" (process), either by charting a course or getting things going. We however, want the best outcome, so we are slower to move things along, waiting to gain input and end up dealing with things as they come up. (e.g. "where ever's good").

that's interesting about what you say about the sounding like you and your wife.
Definitely can see a gain input/ as things come up on my side and then here my best friend will be moving things along haha. It's a pretty good combo to have one outcome oriented type and a process oriented type together for friendships/relationships/plans.

I was a dental assistant awhile ago and i really think that profession is not made for a Behind-The-Scenes interaction style. They always were pushy, always wanting me to take "the process" in my own hands. Also a very fast pace it was too like they would want you to move at like the speed of two people I just can't do it. One day i said i can't do this anymore.

I'd be trying to juggle a thousand things at once. I am definitely a more slow pace, patient, like someone else to take the reigns of what to do. I prefer to just It just wasn't made for me so that's when i surrendered. I wasn't going to spend the rest of my life doing something where i know i'll get stressed/burned out from not being able to be in my "behind-the-scenes" ness.

Just thought maybe you'd like to hear more of a what i think is an example of BtS.

* Never really care where we go, as long as we get somewhere. I just want to have fun or whatever.

Hey Eric B
did you watch that video on google video where Vicky joe(CtC) and Pete(BtS) interaction with each other. Granted they mention about their F function alot as they were trying to understand each others F. But i think you can see how both their interaction styles play out together.
She mentions on her site how grounded he appears and "unflappable presence" and how she is time and task focused, ever aware of the clock.
if not,
INFJ and INFP talk about the Feeling function

On the whole BtS thing I see how he's all "uh huh" *knods as she describes where she's going or doesn't want to go like when she said how she wants to stay focused on talking about this and this, how she's not going into E and I. As he just knods to her and a "uh huh". I definitely do that in my interaction with others if they are process oriented like yep 'let's do it already then/okay i get it haha" in my head .

On a Fi related not oh yeah I definitely agree with his definition of how he uses it and what he defines as "selfish" stood out. It does have a negative impression that society gives it but the way he described it is what i hold dear. Self honoring, self respecting all that.
I won't go into someone's space of feeling unless i know i have their permission or like pete said "if it's okay"
Also could relate to his " i don't really know you kinda thing/ hesitency with people he's unfamilar with and when at a big party will usually try to find people he knows. And the whole sticking in the kitchen area where the food is haha.

Does that look like you (the interaction style)Eric b? I love type and interaction styles and i notice you have iNTP so maybe this could help you? hopefully, i like to help in anyway even though i'm new at this
I don't know if you've seen this before or not.