MBTI vs the MBTI Step II test

[Totenkindly]

Ptgatsby recently mentioned about how work had progressed in the early 90's on an MBTI Step II test and analysis, which sought to add more complexity to the 16 MBTI types by creating subtraits of each of the eight basic functions.

Since a trait (such as Thinking or Sensing) could now be broken down into five different categories, we could delineate what aspects of the person's personality might deviate from the "typical" expression of the function. Why does that Feeler express the ability to make hard decisions with ease, based more on fact than necessarily the personal values? How can that person be Introverted, yet seem to be so open with their thoughts compared to other typical introverts? These are the sorts of questions this test wants to answer.

The test is out there and is in use, although only on a professional (not free) basis.

If you'd like to see a representative report for the MBTI Step II, see this PDF file (the results for this test were "Imaginative ISTJ").

Meanwhile, included here is a list of the Extrovert/Introvert Functions along with their five subtraits. I'll post the other six functions w/ subtraits if people are interested to see them, or if I can make some time.


EXTROVERSION.........................INTROVERSION

Initiating...........................Receiving
- Sociable...........................- Unexcitable
- Active.............................- Reserved
- Usually introduces people..........- Usually is introduced to people

Expressive...........................Contained
- Emotive............................- Controlled
- Easy to know.......................- Hard to know
- Open about feelings................- Keeps feelings inside

Gregarious...........................Intimate
- Friendly...........................- One on one
- Popular............................- Seeks deep friendships with only a few
- Likes to join groups & activies

Participative........................Reflective
- Enjoys contact with others.........- Wants space from others
- Commun. pref: Speak and/or listen..- Commun. pref: Read and/or write

Enthusiastic.........................Quiet
- Lively.............................- Calm
- Energetic..........................- Enjoys solitude
- Seeks spotlight....................- Seeks background

Taken from Kummerow, Jean M., and Olson, Richard D., "Using the MBTI STep II with Leader and Managers" from Developing Leaders, edited by Catherine Fitzgerald and Linda K. Kirby, Pal Alto, CA: Davies-Black Publishing, 1997, pp. 384-385

 

[Littlelostnf]

Ptgatsby recently mentioned about how work had progressed in the early 90's on an MBTI Step II test and analysis, which sought to add more complexity to the 16 MBTI types by creating subtraits of each of the eight basic functions.

Since a trait (such as Thinking or Sensing) could now be broken down into five different categories, we could delineate what aspects of the person's personality might deviate from the "typical" expression of the function. Why does that Feeler express the ability to make hard decisions with ease, based more on fact than necessarily the personal values? How can that person be Introverted, yet seem to be so open with their thoughts compared to other typical introverts? These are the sorts of questions this test wants to answer.

The test is out there and is in use, although only on a professional (not free) basis.

If you'd like to see a representative report for the MBTI Step II, see this PDF file (the results for this test were "Imaginative ISTJ").

Meanwhile, included here is a list of the Extrovert/Introvert Functions along with their five subtraits. I'll post the other six functions w/ subtraits if people are interested to see them, or if I can make some time.


EXTROVERSION.........................INTROVERSION

Initiating...........................Receiving
- Sociable...........................- Unexcitable
- Active.............................- Reserved
- Usually introduces people..........- Usually is introduced to people

Expressive...........................Contained
- Emotive............................- Controlled
- Easy to know.......................- Hard to know
- Open about feelings................- Keeps feelings inside

Gregarious...........................Intimate
- Friendly...........................- One on one
- Popular............................- Seeks deep friendships with only a few
- Likes to join groups & activies

Participative........................Reflective
- Enjoys contact with others.........- Wants space from others
- Commun. pref: Speak and/or listen..- Commun. pref: Read and/or write

Enthusiastic.........................Quiet
- Lively.............................- Calm
- Energetic..........................- Enjoys solitude
- Seeks spotlight....................- Seeks background

Taken from Kummerow, Jean M., and Olson, Richard D., "Using the MBTI STep II with Leader and Managers" from Developing Leaders, edited by Catherine Fitzgerald and Linda K. Kirby, Pal Alto, CA: Davies-Black Publishing, 1997, pp. 384-385

Thanks Fortunato I would absolutely like to see the other traits (especially S and N) when you get the chance. Ahhh something new.

 

[FemMecha]

Very interesting, Fortunato. The concept seems very useful to get a higher resolution concept of individual personality. I read over the ISTJ-Judy sample. Following is the short version of the poles for each function. I have questions about certain concepts placed as polar opposites that do not appear directly related to me. Also, there are some poles that appear to me to be restatements with such a slight gradation of difference as to not measure a noticeably different function.

Extraversion - - Introversion
initiating - - - - receiving
expressive - - - contained
gregarious - - - -intimate
*active - - - - - - reflective
*enthusiastic - - - quiet

Sensing - - - - Intuition
concrete - - - - abstract
realistic - - - - -imaginative
practice - - - - conceptual
experiential - - - theoretical
traditional - - - - original

Thinking - - - - - - Feeling
logical - - - - - - - -empathetic
reasonable - - - - - compassionate(These two concepts simply do not exist at opposing poles.)
*questioning - - - - accommodating
*critical - - - - - - - accepting
tough - - - - - - - -tender

Judging - - - - - - Perceiving
*systematic - - - - casual
planful - - - - - - - open-ended
early starting - - - pressure-prompted
*scheduled - - - - - spontaneous
methodical - - - - - emergent

*similar shades of meaning

Here are some questions and thoughts I have regarding this system. (my additions are in blue.) It is incomplete and in process, as is my understanding of the system. Tear it to shreds, add to it, whatever. Have at it...

Extraversion - - Introversion
initiating - - - - - - - -receiving
expressive - - - - - - contained
gregarious - - - - - - -intimate
active/enthusiastic- - reflective/quiet
social dependence - - -autonomy

Sensing - - - - Intuition
concrete - - - - - abstract
realistic - - - - - - imaginative
practical - - - - - -conceptual
experiential - - - - theoretical
traditional - - - - - original

I have not understood how thinking and feeling occur at opposite poles. When one is not thinking, they are not necessarily feeling and vice versa. I understand these two functions as existing in parallel, not opposition. What do you think?

Thinking: objective vs. subjective
This is only a theory, but this seems to parallel the current T vs F poles with the addition of a few specifically F words (compassion/empathy) that don't fit rationally at the opposing poles of logic and reason imo, since they can co-exist and require a completely separate mental process.

questioning/critical - - - - accommodating/accepting
logical - - - - - - - - - - - alogical
reasonable - - - - - - - - - unrelenting
impersonal - - - - - - - - - personal
continuum - - - - - - - - - categorization * This is an important distinction in purely thought processes which may have to do with S and N, but there seems to be an aspect of it that is separate. What do you think? It doesn't relate to the objective subjective division which may not be the correct one to delineate two poles of processing thought.

Feeling: intrapersonal vs interpersonal * I realize this is Fi and Fe, so it may not be the correct two poles to define emotional processing, but I would be curious as to why Feeling in and of itself is not considered a function with two poles independent from Thinking.

tough - - - - - - - - tender
impulsiveness - - - - consistent
self aware - - - - - -empathetic


Judging - - - - - - Perceiving
systematic/scheduled - - - - casual/spontaneous
closure oriented - - - - - - - open-ended
self-motivated - - - - - - - - pressure-prompted
methodical - - - - - - - - - - emergent

 

[disregard]

thanks toonia

 

[Totenkindly]

S/N Subtraits

Well, before we get too ahead of ourselves, let me post some more of the explanations of the five subtraits for each function. Maybe those words will help clarify what was meant by a particular subfunction, where there seemed to be some confusion. (Plus, it's easier to critique something if we're clear on what was meant first.)

Here is Sensing/Intuitive.


SENSING............................INTUITIVE

Concrete...........................Abstract
- Literal..........................- Figurative
- Tangible.........................- Symbolic
- Likes exact facts................- Likes original ideas

Realistic..........................Imaginative
- Sensible.........................- Ingenious
- Matter of fact...................- Imaginative
- Focuses on effectiveness.........- Focuses on novelty

Practical..........................Inferential
- Pragmatic........................- Scholarly
- Results-oriented.................- Ideas-oriented
- Enjoys applied interests.........- Enjoys knowledge for its own sake

Experiential.......................Theoretical
- Realistic........................- Conceptual
- Empirical........................- Big picture
- Facts are valuable experiences...- Facts make patterns

Traditional.........................Original
- Conventional......................- Unconventional
- Accepting.........................- Idiosyncratic
- Values established institutions...- Values inventiveness

Taken from Kummerow, Jean M., and Olson, Richard D., "Using the MBTI STep II with Leader and Managers" from Developing Leaders, edited by Catherine Fitzgerald and Linda K. Kirby, Pal Alto, CA: Davies-Black Publishing, 1997, pp. 384-385

 

[Totenkindly]

Thinking........................FEELING

[ideal decision-making style]
Logical............................Empathetic
- Impersonal ......................- Personal
- Thinking.........................- Feeling
- Relies on analysis...............- Relies on values

[actual decision-making style]
Reasonable..........................Imaginative
- Just .............................- Sympathetic
- Impartial.........................- Devoted
- Emphasizes foresight..............- Emphasizes sentiment

Questioning.........................Accommodating
- Precise ..........................- Approving
- Independent.......................- Uncritical
- Enjoys argument...................- Likes harmony

Critical.......................Accepting
- Skeptical ...................- Conceptual
- Offers blame.................- Tolerant
- Wants proof..................- Takes things on faith

Tough..........................Tender
- Firm ........................- Gentle
- Tough-minded.................- Tender-hearted
- "Masculine"..................- "Feminine"

[Note: gender words were surrounded by quotes, I assume to indicate the collective archetype/sterotype]

Taken from Kummerow, Jean M., and Olson, Richard D., "Using the MBTI STep II with Leader and Managers" from Developing Leaders, edited by Catherine Fitzgerald and Linda K. Kirby, Pal Alto, CA: Davies-Black Publishing, 1997, pp. 384-385

 

[FemMecha]

The polar terms are somewhat different in the more exhaustive quotes you present here than the poles presented on page four of the ISTJ Judy Sample. Do you know why that is? I can give examples as needed. I still have the same underlying questions about it.

edit: and apologies for jumping the gun on my critique and questions on this. It is something I think about alot, so while this particular system is new to me, the concept of subcategories is as old to me as my first encounter with MBTI. These subcategories by nature extend some of the MBTI concepts that have seemed the least justified from my perspective, but what do I know? I guess I am curious how these categories are determined - primarily from observation and anecdote? If that is the case, it would be interesting to make as comprehensive a list as possible of polar opposites under each category and determine what natural grouping occur, then summarize those groupings into the sub-functions. Perhaps they did this?

Thinking in terms of contrasting poles is the foundation of my thinking, so it is a knee-jerk reaction to criticize poles that appear incoherent in their relationship. Shouldn't two poles be determined as having the relationship of being mutually exclusive in their purest form, but related as being the result of the same process and/or of accomplishing the same task? (and that's why the T and F poles are unconvincing since they are completely separate cognitive/physiological processes which are not mutually exclusive)

 

[Totenkindly]

The polar terms are somewhat different in the more exhaustive quotes you present here than the poles presented on page four of the ISTJ Judy Sample. Do you know why that is? I can give examples as needed. I still have the same underlying questions about it.

A quick response -- the stuff I am posting here was adapted for a book on Leadership Crafting (using MBTI as a basis). The sample report came from a different MBTI site I found online tonight, that offers the MBTI Step II, so I included a sample of THEIR report just to show how the material might be used in a type reading (i.e., gives some context).

It's much like MBTI now -- different psychs have different spins on it. And maybe the MBTI STep II concepts haven't become "cohesive" yet among the industry.

will answer other stuff later. Meanwhile, feel free to tear apart whatever you'd like, I'd love to have a good discussion on the strengths and weaknesses of this particular tool. I will be posting similar things about the FIRO-B and MBTI later, to open up even more discussion.

JUDGING.........................PERCEIVING

Systematic......................Casual
- Orderly ......................- Leisurely
- Stuctured.....................- Easygoing
- Dislikes diversions...........- Welcomes diversion

Planful..............................Open-Ended
- Concerned about the future.........- Spur of the moment
- Likes things settled in advance....- Dislikes being tied down to plans

Early Starting...........................Pressure-Prompted
- Begins right away......................- Stress-facilitated
- Acts to minimize stress................- Works well under pressure
- Seeks to avoid emergencies.............- Accompishes much in the last-minute rush

Scheduled...........................Spontaneous
- Prefers the comfort of routine....- Uncomfortable with routine
- Prefers tried-and-true method.....- Wants freedom to respond to the unexpected

Methodical............................Emergent
- Organized...........................- Trusts solutions will emerge from process
- Makes plans for current task........- Proceeds without plans
- Lists subtasks before proceeding

Taken from Kummerow, Jean M., and Olson, Richard D., "Using the MBTI STep II with Leader and Managers" from Developing Leaders, edited by Catherine Fitzgerald and Linda K. Kirby, Pal Alto, CA: Davies-Black Publishing, 1997, pp. 384-385

 

[FemMecha]

Feeling: intrapersonal vs interpersonal * I realize this is Fi and Fe, so it may not be the correct two poles to define emotional processing, but I would be curious as to why Feeling in and of itself is not considered a function with two poles independent from Thinking.

tough - - - - - - - - tender
impulsiveness - - - - consistent
self aware - - - - - -empathetic

It since occurred to me that there is a difference between this and Fi/Fe. Here's my hypothesis: It would be quite possible to process intrapersonal as Fi or Fe.

Intrapersonal Fe would focus on self-awareness in self and external individuals. It would tend to internalize the self-awareness of others into self. Perhaps this would be a pure empathy that internalizes others in a deep, psychological manner. It would focus on harmony within the individual, both self and others. As long as the community consists of individuals with inner harmony, intrapersonal Fe is healthy.

Intrapersonal Fi would focus on self-awareness above all else. It may tend to project self awareness onto the external world, expecting others to share personal internal traits? Inner harmony of self would be the ideal, while outer conflicts between and within other individuals would not be the focus.

Interpersonal Fe would focus on harmony between individuals. As long as interactions between members of a community are in harmony, inner peace may be sacrificed for the good of all. This would focus on the well-being of the group defined by harmony of the whole, not the individual.

Interpersonal Fi would focus on harmony between the individual and the community. As long as the individual has a secure place in the community, conflicts that fall outside this are not notable.

These may need to be refined a bit, but there is clearly a distinction, two separate poles that can interrelate. Focus on individual vs. the community (intra vs. inter) forms two mutually exclusive poles that address the same process of relating the individual to the whole. The poles of E and I are mutually exclusive in that they define whether the processing of the ideals is focused inward or outward in relation to the individual. What do you think?

 

[FemMecha]

I'm just curious what others think. The polar opposites of E and I are mutually exclusive in concept. Also P and J in basic concept: unstructured vs. structured have that mutual exclusivity. The same with S and N, although the relationship is a little different for this one. Both refer to how one learns and organizes information. Theory and application are related processes from opposite ends. This breaking down of the functions into sub-poles seems to articulate the problems with using T and F as opposing poles.

Are T and F really mutually exclusive? Are they related processes explored from opposite ends like S and N? Or are they separate processes entirely. If you look at the mind and body from a physiological standpoint they are clearly separate processes. The brain has sections devoted primarily to emotional processing - in everyone. I haven't heard any info that these sections are smaller in Ts for example. Also the processing of emotion releases chemicals that affect physiology. Is T an absence of chemicals? From the F standpoint, T looks like the absence of F, while from the T standpoint, F looks like personalized reasoning. Do you see justification for this because I don't. A person can personalize their thinking, reject reason w/o any emotionally driven chemical processes occurring, correct? A person can be flooded with hormones and endorphines and still reason, correct? Yes, one process can, and often does, dominate the other, but the same can be said of the relationship between N and T, or N and F, or T and S, etc. I would be very curious to hear other's thoughts on this.

 

[Totenkindly]

These may need to be refined a bit, but there is clearly a distinction, two separate poles that can interrelate. Focus on individual vs. the community (intra vs. inter) forms two mutually exclusive poles that address the same process of relating the individual to the whole. The poles of E and I are mutually exclusive in that they define whether the processing of the ideals is focused inward or outward in relation to the individual. What do you think?

Well, for one, in practical usage, can you really separate Fi/Fe into inter/intrapersonal traits?

What I find is that people I know who are Fi do both inter/intra things, and people with Fe do both as well. I don't know if they are as exclusive as you have made them here. Is there any consistent basis for these traits to be subdivided?

Are T and F really mutually exclusive? Are they related processes explored from opposite ends like S and N? Or are they separate processes entirely?

Good question.

If you look at the mind and body from a physiological standpoint they are clearly separate processes. The brain has sections devoted primarily to emotional processing - in everyone. I haven't heard any info that these sections are smaller in Ts for example.

Not sure on that issue. I wonder what the activity tests have shown when people make decisions. (I think there have been some studies on this -- which areas of the brain seem to activate more strongly, depending on the person who is reacting to an offered scenario.)

Also the processing of emotion releases chemicals that affect physiology. Is T an absence of chemicals? From the F standpoint, T looks like the absence of F, while from the T standpoint, F looks like personalized reasoning. Do you see justification for this because I don't? A person can personalize their thinking, reject reason w/o any emotionally driven chemical processes occurring, correct? A person can be flooded with hormones and endorphines and still reason, correct?

True. I do know that anger and other intense emotions can "disrupt" a Thinking types logical process -- they begin to make really crappy decisions because they're responding to the emotional content. In the same way, a Feeler forced to make a complete "neutral" decision could probably sometimes feel distressed if they have nothing personal to evaluate [is this true?].

One way that I think could be productive to think of it is not what decision process / combination seems to be used, but which function seems to cause more anxiety when used. We use particular functions because we do not feel anxiety over using them; others, we feel uncomfortable when we use them. I know when I am forced to make very personalized decisions, I feel lots of anxiety, and i want to retreat to a neutral/impersonal position as to justify my choice. Other people are not bothered.

So what sort of function use causes anxiety?

Yes, one process can, and often does, dominate the other, but the same can be said of the relationship between N and T, or N and F, or T and S, etc. I would be very curious to hear other's thoughts on this.

IOW, can the functions be paired up and polarized as given in the MBTI, or could there be connection between S/N and T/F?

Well, for one, I think we are limited people and not omniscient, so any decision we make will be based on where we have oriented ourselves -- thus, rather "personal" in nature. A different decision could be reached even by OURSELVES if we simply oriented ourselves differently. Some people see this as a more Feeling-based decision.

However, Thinking & Feeling decisions still tend to be definitive. Meshou mentioned in a recent thread about the perception of a table, and how her view of it would be valid, yet much different from someone else's experience of the table. I acknowledge that... and yet there are physical properties of the table that do not change, regardless of who is doing the experiencing. (Size, weight, height, composition, color, etc.) Feeling seems to focus on the personal relevance of the item experienced, while Thinking tends to focus on the inherent quantities and qualities of the item rather than its relevance... except for what can be generalized at least into "universal similarities."

 

[FemMecha]

Well, for one, in practical usage, can you really separate Fi/Fe into inter/intrapersonal traits?

What I find is that people I know who are Fi do both inter/intra things, and people with Fe do both as well. I don't know if they are as exclusive as you have made them here. Is there any consistent basis for these traits to be subdivided?

Howard Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences separates the two.

Linguistic intelligence

Logical-mathematical intelligence

Musical intelligence

Bodily-kinesthetic intelligence

Spatial intelligence

Interpersonal intelligence

Intrapersonal intelligence

 

[Totenkindly]

http://www.infed.org/thinkers/gardner.htm
Interpersonal intelligence
Intrapersonal intelligence

Well, yes, but he's not separating Fi/Fe into two more categories, equaling four categories as you have suggested. Instead of using Fi/Fe, he's essentially replacing them (at best) using interpersonal and intrapersonal as the relational terminology.

So, can you clearly subdivide Fi and Fe into interpersonal and intrapersonal, or are they different systems that simply overlap somewhat?

 

[FemMecha]

Well, yes, but he's not separating Fi/Fe into two more categories, equaling four categories as you have suggested. Instead of using Fi/Fe, he's essentially replacing them (at best) using interpersonal and intrapersonal as the relational terminology.

So, can you clearly subdivide Fi and Fe into interpersonal and intrapersonal, or are they different systems that simply overlap somewhat?

Yes, it might be a problem as it's just a hypothesis. They may correspond too closely to Fi and Fe? It struck me, though, on one of the MBTI tests I took that measured Fe in terms of a desire to host and care for the well-being of the group. Groups overwhelm me and I process feeling in the outside world, but care more for the inner-harmony of each individual rather than the harmony 'between' individuals. I saw this system as potentially defining my process in a way that MBTI hasn't. That is part of where this came from. It helped me to distinguish between a number of contrasting emotional processing styles that are quite noticeable, but not accounted for - at least as my knowledge of it goes.

 

[Totenkindly]

Yes, it might be a problem as it's just a hypothesis. They may correspond too closely to Fi and Fe? It struck me, though, on one of the MBTI tests I took that measured Fe in terms of a desire to host and care for the well-being of the group. Groups overwhelm me and I process feeling in the outside world, but care more for the inner-harmony of each individual rather than the harmony 'between' individuals. I saw this system as potentially defining my process in a way that MBTI hasn't. That is part of where this came from. It helped me to distinguish between a number of contrasting emotional processing styles that are quite noticeable, but not accounted for - at least as my knowledge of it goes.

Ah, okay, that gives me more context for what you were thinking and why you brought E/I into it.

iow, those with Fe as their primary function (ExFJ) are more inclined to look at the well-being of the group as a host, while those with it as a secondary function (IxFJ) are more inclined to think about the inner-harmony of each individual as a host? Is that what you're suggesting? And so forth? (I see some possibilities there.)

And would T have a similar schematic for anything?

 

[FemMecha]

True. I do know that anger and other intense emotions can "disrupt" a Thinking types logical process -- they begin to make really crappy decisions because they're responding to the emotional content. In the same way, a Feeler forced to make a complete "neutral" decision could probably sometimes feel distressed if they have nothing personal to evaluate [is this true?].

My question is, could such emotion equally disrupt intuition or sensing? When someone loses temper their awareness of their surroundings change, they can punch a wall, not feel it, etc. They can also become oblivious to external information or processing associated with intuition, correct? There is no question that feeling can disrupt thinking, but is this relationship unique when compared to its disruption other traits?

One way that I think could be productive to think of it is not what decision process / combination seems to be used, but which function seems to cause more anxiety when used. We use particular functions because we do not feel anxiety over using them; others, we feel uncomfortable when we use them. I know when I am forced to make very personalized decisions, I feel lots of anxiety, and i want to retreat to a neutral/impersonal position as to justify my choice. Other people are not bothered.

So what sort of function use causes anxiety?

That implies a potentially emotional pairing with any function. Is that a consistent measure for a lesser function? Aren't there people who make inept decisions w/o anxiety? Couldn't someone be so oblivious to feelings that making personalized decisions that affect people would cause no anxiety whatsoever? It could cause discomfort to attempt to apply the wrong function to solve a given problem.

Well, for one, I think we are limited people and not omniscient, so any decision we make will be based on where we have oriented ourselves -- thus, rather "personal" in nature. A different decision could be reached even by OURSELVES if we simply oriented ourselves differently. Some people see this as a more Feeling-based decision.

However, Thinking & Feeling decisions still tend to be definitive. Meshou mentioned in a recent thread about the perception of a table, and how her view of it would be valid, yet much different from someone else's experience of the table. I acknowledge that... and yet there are physical properties of the table that do not change, regardless of who is doing the experiencing. (Size, weight, height, composition, color, etc.) Feeling seems to focus on the personal relevance of the item experienced, while Thinking tends to focus on the inherent quantities and qualities of the item rather than its relevance... except for what can be generalized at least into "universal similarities."

Interesting. However there can be personal relevance w/o emotional ties. For example, one person could look at the table, remember how much it cost, the weight of it moving it through the door, that the leg landed on Jim-Bob's foot and made him holler, and that the scratches resulted from the cat tearing across the house and skidding across the top. The person may see this as emotionally neutral, but that is still their concept. Another non-emotional response could be seeing the table as an archetype. Is that partly an S N difference?

I agree that there are poles of thinking that should be explored. Some of these have to do with personalizing the information. Is it proven that personalizing information is necessarily related to emotional processing? (edit) There is a kind of stubborness of thought, a narrowed perspective encountered very often in people that doesn't 'appear' to have emotional ties. It has to do with faith in certain assumptions. That appears to be more of a polar opposite to logic and reason than emotional processing imo.

The MBTI step II uses logic vs empathy as two polar opposites. In my mind this distills the problem with this system. Empathy in its purest form is highly nuanced information. When I teach, I tend to have a certain degree of empathy for each student. This sometimes occurs without noticing it. When a student first comes to me and is anxious, there is a place in the back of my mind that mirrors this. What is interesting is that it makes me more effective teaching them because it is true and useful information to factor into the equation. The objective is to teach the student certain concepts. By having insight into their mind, its state, strengths, abilities, the path towards achieving this goal becomes clear. I can calm the student initially, because that is an effective first step. If I were not empathetic or aware of the need to accomplish this first step, I would be less effective as a teacher. Empathy contributes to reason and accomplishing a given task. It is information. How can that be a polar opposite of logic?

 

["?"]

Fortunato,

I really wished I had an opportunity to go over my assessment, to see how I answered the questions in 2000. I recently threw out my results of the Step II and Geier Assessments, becuase they both resulted in my being INTP. After studying the subject for the past seven years, I knew that I was not INTP. To the best of my recollection, my results were:

INTROVERSION: Very Clear (received 30)
INTUITION: Slight to Moderate
THINKING: Clear to Very Clear
PERCEIVING: Moderate (maybe slight to moderate)

Some thoughts on taking the Step II. I was instructed to take the test, as I appear at home. However, even in attempting to do that, some answers would be relative in comparison to people who surround you.

The majority of people that I worked with were SJ, and as my Administrator said, my S/N results were due to working in a sensing type environment, doing sensing type work at the time. I was looking over the S/N and J/P distinctions and realized that my family members and colleagues perceive me differently than I do myself. If I asked them to rate me, this is what I have a strong belief they would say:

*Systematic/Casual – Worked with SJs and considered self casual in comparison
*Orderly/Leisurely –My environment
*Stuctured/ Easygoing – My environment
*Dislikes diversions/ Welcomes diversion – Consider this E/I
*Planful/Open-Ended-
*Concerned about the future/ Spur of the moment –Not as much as my SJ-SO
*Likes things settled in advance /Dislikes being tied down to plans
*Early Starting /Pressure-Prompted- Worked with SJs and considered self casual in comparison
*Begins right away/Stress-facilitated
*Acts to minimize stress /Works well under pressure-Worked with SJs and considered self casual in comparison
*Seeks to avoid emergencies/ Accomplishes much in the last-minute rush
Scheduled/* Spontaneous – Although my family would totally disagree
*Prefers the comfort of routine /Uncomfortable with routine – Depends. I am a creature of habit, but have a strong disdain for repetitive work.
*Prefers tried-and-true method /Wants freedom to respond to the unexpected –Considered this S/N question
*Methodical/Emergent –Current employer and co-workers think so
*Organized/ Trusts solutions will emerge from process - Current employer and co-workers think so
Makes plans for current task /*Proceeds without plans
Lists subtasks before proceeding – I don’t write down plans at all, although I keep them in my head

On the other hand, I read over the S/N distinctions, and see myself, or my family sees me as:

Concrete/* Figurative – Others would see me differently
Literal /*Symbolic– Others would see me differently
*Tangible /Likes original ideas
*Likes exact facts /Imaginative
Realistic/*Ingenious – Others would see me differently
Sensible /*Imaginative – Others would see me differently
Matter of fact/*Focuses on novelty
*Focuses on effectiveness /Inferential
Practical/*Scholarly
Pragmatic/*Ideas-oriented
Results-oriented/*Enjoys knowledge for its own sake
*Enjoys applied interests/ Theoretical– Others would see me differently
Experiential /*Conceptual
Realistic/*Big picture– Others would see me differently
*Empirical
*Traditional/Original– Others would see me differently
*Conventional/Unconventional– Others would see me differently
Accepting/*Idiosyncratic
Values established institutions /*Values inventiveness
*Facts are valuable experiences/Facts make patterns

Since I have a more knowledge of the subject, paying to take the test would be futile since I would skew my scores. My family considers me quite rigid, however I think that I am pretty casual. Any pointers?

 

[booyalab]

This breaking down of the functions into sub-poles seems to articulate the problems with using T and F as opposing poles.

Are T and F really mutually exclusive? Are they related processes explored from opposite ends like S and N?

The differences between T and F are not made as apparent through language as the differences between sensing and intuition. Sensing and Intuition inform the way you learn. Thinking and feeling inform your decision-making. Therefore it's easier to be precise in coming up with a vocab for the former than the latter.. Effectively differentiating between thinking and feeling preferences would require something more interactive and determinative than a series of bullet points. (totally unrealistic and possibly bad example: how would two civilians, one F and one T, function in a battlezone? Especially the cliched movie scenario with the nazi baddies tearing the lovers/children-parents/etc. apart. My guess is the typical outrageously emotive movie version is more F-ish. The T would probably wish that their lover/child/mother would stop crying and fighting the soldier because they'll both get shot in the head, then they would proceed to figure out a way to get the person back.)
Of course, you could very well be right...maybe they're not "opposites". but you're using the wrong medium to test your hypothesis. And you're not putting the same test to the other functions. I had some issues with S-N, for instance. I don't think Ns necessarily focus on novelty, per se, much less focus on effectiveness less than sensors. At least not all Ns.

 

[Eric B]

A "shortcut" way to take it to get an idea is to grade the subscales directly, (and then average the scores for each scale).
I like the idea of the subscales, because even though I still edged out in the F area, it picked up my "out of scale preference" (OOPS), which was Questioning over Accomodating, which was one of the things that I did not seem to see in the pure NFP types.
This actually makes me interested in taking the whole thing, as I think I still may not have understood all the subscale descriptions perfectly, and may have graded too high in favor of some of the other F choices as well as I.

 

[Eric B]

Now that the subscale ball is rolling, we can go to the next step, which is like an extension of Step II ("Step 2A", perhaps?): the Type Differentiation Indicator, which adds the Comfort-Discomfort scale that supposedly matches the missing FFM category of Neuroticism. Continuing from Step II, it also is broken down into subscales:

COMFORT.............DISCOMFORT

optimistic..........guarded
compliant...........defiant
carefree............worried
decisive............ambivalent
intrepid............inhibited
leader..............follower
proactive...........distractible