A Little Bit of Personality is not Myers-Briggs Type Indicator.  We say so right there in the intro video…and in lots of posts on here, posts with words.  We started there, as we’ve said before, because we were just having fun and we, like so many, presumed that MBTI was a reliable, scientific system.  Yet as we’ve said before, we gradually came to see more and more ways in which MBTI is inconsistent, in which it does not work, in which it encourages and even relies on stereotypes and superficial simplifications of people.  And what was worse, we started to see that many, many people apparently wanted those stereotypes and simplifications.

We started to see how much “personality typing” was used as a petty weapon in infantile campaigns to put down anyone whose mind worked differently.  We cringed more and more whenever we saw four-by-four grids that listed insultingly shallow sets of qualities for each of the sixteen types, and which portrayed some types as clearly better, smarter, more reliable, more successful, more creative, more visionary, more concrete, more compassionate, more practical, or simply of greater worth and value than the others.  Personality typing had become a shallow and subjective mudfight through which people tried to compensate for their own unresolved personal insecurities by putting down others who made them feel inadequate.  Apparently, there are a lot of second-graders online who are quite skilled at writing up passive-aggressive four-by-four grids.

So we went back to the beginning, because we knew there was so much good here!  We, like so many of you guys, had gotten excited about personality typing for a reason.  It was exciting to see how our minds worked, and how others’ minds did too.  It was so cool to try to figure out the personality types of fictional characters, or of historical figures or celebrities we liked.  But now that we had seen how personality typing had become such a putrid and subjective cesspool, we had to go back to the basics to figure out what was good and what was brain-damaging.

We’ve talked about this before, in several posts that use words.  We’ve described how a clarification of basic definitions is one of the first indispensable steps in any effort to replace subjectivity with objectivity.  We’ve talked about how we didn’t have to throw out the baby with the poisonous bathwater, and so we were able to use the brilliant original work done by Carl Jung and by Katharine Cook Briggs and her daughter Isabel Briggs Myers (all of whom died long before the internet), without the simplified dangers of modern MBTI.  On aLBoP Phase 2, we go into far greater depth about our scientific process, how we were able to clarify definitions that made Cognitive Typing into a reliable and repeatable hard science, rather than a subjective and dubious soft-science.  But all those posts use words, words that invite you guys to see “Hey wait, this is different. This isn’t what I thought I already knew.”

A Little Bit of Personality is part of a larger endeavor, which we call our “Twenty-Five Year Plan,” a plan to simply help make life better for as many people as we can.  As I’m writing today, we’re a bit more than eleven years in, on the fourth of eight stages.  This is all stuff that’s explained in depth on the full Phase 2 site.  It’s really exciting to us, and though we did not initially expect to use Cognitive Typing or anything like it as a tool in this plan, aLBoP has become a powerful way for us to reach and help so many awesome people!  Yet originally, we didn’t plan to have Phase 2 be a separate website; we were just going to put all the information right here on one site, for all the internet to see.  We’re very glad now that we didn’t.

There is nothing secret on any of our sites, and all the information on all three of our sites (Phase 1 here, Phase 2 Intro, and full Phase 2) is all completely free of charge.  But we realized that we had to separate our content into multiple sites when we saw the bizarre and aggressively cruel reactions of so many people to even the comparatively basic concepts of Cognitive Typing.  I’m not referring to insightful and engaging questions; for instance, a lot of cool people have asked very good questions, like “How do you have a large enough sample size to make sure your conclusions are accurate?” “Why don’t you submit to scientific journals?” “What exactly is your experimental process?” etc.  Those sorts of thoughtful questions are the sort of thing that we’ve had to save for the later websites, because we realized that even the introductory information here on Phase 1 seems to be far too much for some people to read.  Too many words.

We wanted an engaging and active forum where we could talk back and forth with people, instead of only posting articles on a website, but it soon became clear that if we went ahead and put a forum here on Phase 1, open to the internet, then any potential discussion would be buried under arrogant assertions and bitter argument.  In fact, when we started a forum on Phase 2, it was astonishing how rapidly that happened, how quickly it became a toxic atmosphere where thoughtful, intelligent people grew ever more wary to post anything.  If we didn’t do something, our forum was going to become yet another place on the internet where the discourse was dominated by the bone-headedly obnoxious.

As I’m writing this, I have an online game open in the background, where one of my characters is happily crafting food for me.  But I usually play most games with the general chat channels turned off, because while there are a lot of sweet and helpful people in a lot of games, the general chat channels tend to get dominated by the least common denominator.  When we first started our Phase 2 forum, some people were convinced that it couldn’t possibly be any different from anywhere else on the internet, calling us naive for trying to create a place online where people could feel safe to freely share ideas, where the thoughtful majority didn’t have to remain silent or risk setting off the irrational blowhards.  Yet now, on the full Phase 2 site, we have an awesome and active realtime chat forum where everyone feels safe to think, to work through problems, to discuss ideas, to share their lives and make precious friendships.  I’m actually making them wait right now while I write this, but Calise and I thought that this little post was worth taking the time for.  Yet that forum would have been impossible if we hadn’t first created a safe place insulated from the wild, aggressively-asserted opinions and jaw-dropping simplifications on the internet.

We wanted to put all of it on one website, and perhaps we could have, were it not for the apparent fact that the current culture of the internet trains us not to read.  Trains us not to think.  Not to stop and digest.  Not to sit back and make sure we understand things before moving on.  And it certainly seems to train people to post comments before, you know, reading.  We wanted to do videos as well as posts, and we did make a few before moving them away to Phase 2.  We wanted to do podcasts, which are a ton of fun but we only do them for Phase 2.  This is not meant to be an advertisement for Phase 2 (especially because we are very, very, very behind on responding to Phase 2 invites, really sorry about that!), but rather a challenge to read what’s here on Phase 1.  If people can’t do that, then how could they possibly read more anyway?

It’s gotten to the point that I wasn’t sure I should even take the time to write this, because I wondered who would read it?  Not that we don’t have plenty of traffic, but I wondered how many people would do more than skim.  One of our closest friends, whom we met through aLBoP, told us that when he first stumbled across Phase 1, it was a real shock to him because he had to slow down to really understand it all.  He told us that he had grown accustomed to being able to skim most things online, that most articles were fairly simple ideas expressed in way too many words, so he’d gotten used to skimming.  But with aLBoP, he had to seriously re-adjust his expectations; he had to take time and think about the content.  Another of our friends, upon reading the first Super Simple Series post, said “That’s not simple at all!”  We’ve done our best, heh, and we hope that it really is pretty simple and straightforward, but it is also new stuff, not just the same old familiar repetition, so it can’t be simply skimmed.

A couple weeks ago, someone walked up to me and declared that I was an INFP.  I tried to be diplomatic and inviting, telling him that I’d be interested to hear what made him say so, and I asked what definitions of the letters he was using.  He seemed confused and a bit bothered by the question, and said he was just using MBTI.  I still don’t know what made him think that he could so confidently assert someone else’s type like that.  Of course, on aLBoP we do quite confidently assert the Cognitive Types of both real and fictional people, but we can only do so as a result of using concrete, clear definitions that leave no subjective wiggle-room.  There’s no uncertainty about whether someone is a Cognitive Introvert or Extravert; the definitions are very clear, they leave no room for fudging or gray areas, yet they are also not the same soft and elastic definitions of current MBTI.  We have said so, over and over, using words.  And yet we still get comments by people unilaterally asserting “Nope, you typed that character wrong,” based on definitions that we are not using, definitions we cannot use for reasons that we have explained repeatedly.

The problem is in the assertiveness, the astounding certainty with which people treat their own points of view as objective fact.  There’s nothing wrong with asking questions, with re-examining and re-questioning over and over, with constantly re-checking and revisiting even the things that seem the most well established.  Sometimes you might find a mistake, like the time on the Phase 2 Typing Library, when I accidentally put ESTP(ep) Usain Bolt on the library pages for two different Cognitive Types because his picture had somehow got copied over into the wrong folder.  Just this morning, someone pointed out a typo where I had said “our” when I meant “or.”  And we get so many sweet comments where people ask questions rather than assert opinions as fact.  “Why did you type Gandalf as an F instead of a T?” shows a mind that wants to think, to understand, to hear feedback and decide whether or not it makes sense.  Yet when someone flippantly comments “No, Gandalf is INTJ like me,” then that shows such a closed unwillingness to question or examine one’s own point of view.  No wonder current politics are such a nasty echo-chamber.

So when people assertively tell us “I’m an ENTJ,” “I’m a Ne dom,” etc, it makes us wonder if they’ve really read much of anything before commenting.  We do not use the simplistic “dom” system because it turned out to be tremendously subjective, with apparent “dominance” depending far too much on potentially cherry-picked factors that are all too easily used to weigh the result toward a preferred conclusion.  As someone once said to us, and as we’ve quoted before, “Personality typing is just horoscopes for people who think they’re too smart for horoscopes.”  In other words, it’s all subjective fluff that can be applied equally well to anyone, of any type, as long as people are eager to adolescently define themselves in a way that parodies the real work of finding oneself.

But then, as soon as we mention that, we get sincere comments telling us that astrology is real too.  Perhaps it is, perhaps it is not; personally, I have seen many, many reasons to believe it is not accurate or reliable in any fashion, while I have not yet seen anything to suggest the contrary, so far.  Yet I have to wonder: what makes someone feel equipped to say that astrology definitively does work, or does not?  As soon as we start treating our own personal experiences as universal truths, as soon as we start treating our own opinions as objective facts, and as soon as we make the incredibly self-centered error of saying “I have no experience of such-and-such, therefore it’s crap,” then we shut off our ability to think, to learn, to approach anything in any sort of rational manner.  That quote about personality typing being mere horoscopes in disguise, displays its own form of narrow and lazy thinking, by asserting that all “personality typing” is this way, painting life with such a broad brush.  It’s this sort of simplistic thinking that leads to racism, sexism, or any other form of prejudice, that says “I’ve seen dumb religions, therefore all religions are dumb,” “I’ve known vile men, therefore all men are vile,” “I only hang around with dishonest people…and I am one myself…therefore nobody is honest,” etc.  It’s a lazy and anecdotal simplification of the complexities of people’s lives, hearts, and hopes.  It’s mean.

But just because the internet trains us to make everything simplistic and skimmable, just because the current online culture trains us to view our own personal opinions as objective fact, that doesn’t make it our fault.  We can learn to see outside our own points of view.  We can learn to recognize the powerful lenses of emotion, pain, and desire which skew and distort how we see every experience that happens to us.  We can explore just how not objective we are, and then learn to grow past that subjective isolation.

This is why Calise and I have had to de-prioritize Phase 1 for a long time, though.  We’ve been working feverishly, constantly, but most of it has not been here on Phase 1.  We did put eight months of work into The People of Stranger Things post, we put so much thought and feeling into it, so much care and planning, for a total of more than fifty thousand words.  There’s a lot of great stuff in there, but it has produced hardly any results.  How can we justify prioritizing the addition of more information here on Phase 1, when people repeatedly show us how little they’ve read of what we’ve already written?

We love our Personalized Typing service, we love seeing people’s faces and hearing about their lives, we love connecting with them, and it’s a great way to find thoughtful, good, decent people.  And yet, over and over, it’s an uphill battle to remind people who order typings that we are not MBTI, that we do not use those definitions, as we’ve said so many times in so many posts.  Whenever we send out a typing, we always caution people that if they look up their Cognitive Type online, then they are going to find things that are very different, and likely demeaning and limiting.  And yet we still get replies of people saying “No I can’t be this type, because here’s what MBTI says about it, and that’s not me.”  The Cognitive Orientation Guidebooks, which we package with each typing, spend a fair amount of time explaining and reiterating precisely how each Cognitive Type is different from the popular stereotypes. We really hoped words would get that across.

Yet we know what the internet culture is like, and we know that sometimes we all need to be reminded that it’s okay to slow down and process thoughts instead of living life through reactions.  Sometimes I find it intriguing to hop between news networks as they cover the same story, to see how differently each network portrays the very same events.  Which bits of video do they show, which do they edit out, and which do they repeat endlessly?  Which adjectives and adverbs do they use, to influence viewers’ conclusions?  What information do they focus on, what information do they downplay, and what information do they conveniently fail to mention entirely?  Like the proverbial blind men and the elephant, the same event and the same data can be interpreted in wildly different ways even when people have the most honest of intentions.  So when people are less honest, when people have an agenda, a worldview, an ideology or attitude that they want to push, how much more careful do we have to be before we draw any sort of confident conclusions?

It’s our hope that, by taking a few hours away from other work to write this, maybe this might help nudge aLBoP Phase 1 toward being a site where we can post more information, more Type Heroes, more character spotlights, and just more fun articles.  I’ve been wanting to do an article about Winston Churchill for years now, titled “How an ENFP Saved the World,” because he really did, and yes he was unequivocally an ENFP(ip), but how can I justify taking the time to write that, time I could be giving to other people, when so many readers here on Phase 1 won’t, well, read?  I worry that so many internet skimmers wouldn’t get past the title before firing off comments authoritatively declaring “He wasn’t ENFP!! He was [roll the dice and insert any number of different types here]!”  We owe Gwen and Phil 20 bucks, since someone did indeed leave a comment (one of the many that we decided to leave unapproved) assertively stating that, because Lord Shen has a grand vision, he is therefore INTJ.  Wow.  So that’s how we’re defining these complex variables of human thought and desire, now?  And so none of the other fifteen Cognitive approaches to life can have a grand vision?  Seriously?  Sorry Elon Musk, no ENFJ(ij) for you, you gotta be INTJ I guess.  The all-knowing internet decrees it thus.

We really hoped, and I still do hope, that by bringing the subject of Subtypes here to Phase 1, it would be a quick way to immediately show people “Hey look, see those two little letters in parentheses?  Then maybe, just perhaps, this is something a little bit different from what you’re already used to.”  We hoped that would help the Personalized Typing service more easily show people “Hey this isn’t just MBTI, see?  We’re giving you six letters, not just four.”  There are actually more than six letters, more than eight; it seems to be a magnificently reiterating fractal of complexity, with each new layer of sub-typing adding ever more clearly definable nuance to the intricacy of consciousness, but we figured that the basic idea of Subtypes was plenty enough for Phase 1 right now.  I worry that even by dangling that little hint of more information, it might lead people to leap to conclusions and simplifications.  Fair enough, but I also hope that this can encourage more of you to read a little more carefully, to ponder a little more than you already do, to consider, to question, to dig deep, to see outside your own point of view and become a voice for understanding instead of adding to the cacophonous chorus of cartoony, rigid simplifications.

TL;DR: aLBoP is not MBTI.  But more accurately, if you really want a “Too Long, Didn’t Read,” then why are you even here?  There are plenty of skimmable websites that will be more than happy to let you simplify people into shallow little subjective boxes.  This is not a blog, though it did start as one over on blogspot, but pretty quickly we realized how much aLBoP could help us find and help cool people, honest and thoughtful people, people who are willing to expend the labor of time and energy to earn what they learn.  That’s the sort of person we love to meet.  That’s the kind of person we love to learn from, exchange ideas with, and see how we can help them add to the world in their own way, in their own life.  That’s what we’re all about.

The post aLBoP is not MBTI appeared first on A Little Bit of Personality.

See, the full post about subtypes is on aLBoP Phase 2, and even that post is just the intro to the topic.  Phase 2 goes into far more depth about, well, everything!  But as you might expect, it kinda requires and presumes that you’ve already gotten familiar with everything here on the starter site.

Which, right, before I go on…  If you haven’t checked out at least the basic information here on aLBoP, I’m afraid you really should go read that before diving into this.  Watch the intro video if you haven’t already, and then get your bearings with the Super Simple Series.  Remember, aLBoP is not MBTI, so it’s probably best to go back to the start so you can get a handle on everything.

Okay!  Got that covered?  At least a bit?  Cool, so like I was saying, we go into much more depth and detail about subtypes, what they are, why they are, and how they work, on the Phase 2 site.  However, we really really want to talk about subtypes on our upcoming Stranger Things post!  Also, it’s nice to be able to put people’s subtypes after their main cognitive types, partly because it immediately shows “Hey, look!  This is something different, so maybe drop your assumptions about typing at the door.”  And then, hopefully, maybe, if wishes were horses, we might get fewer people strolling in, glancing at a few pictures, and leaving a “nope that’s wrong” comment without, you know, reading stuff.  We can dream.

So on then with the subtypes crash course!  To start with, putting it simply, subtypes are kinda just what they sound like: a subset, a personal focus within each cognitive type. 

There are exactly four subtypes for each and every cognitive type, because of reasons.  Very cool reasons, really neat stuff that says so much about people, the world, and intelligence itself, but that’s for Phase 2.  That’s where we talk about the How and the Why behind all kinds of things; for here, we’re just gonna focus on the basic What.

I will say, though, that the reasons there are four subtypes for each cognitive type were totally outside anything we planned or expected.  And that makes it super cool, because it ended up displaying really neat and complex patterns that we had no idea were even there!  Here, I’ll just copy some of Calise’s explanation from the old, original Phase 2 forum:

“When Justin and I began noticing how wonky the generally accepted definitions of the letters were, we realized if we wanted definitions that *always* fit for a person and didn’t change throughout your life, the definitions couldn’t be definitions of merely habits and behaviors (or even skills as the stereotypes make them out to be), but something of the same caliber as genetics that doesn’t change throughout your life.

“Though plenty of people throughout history have tried to develop and find facial typing systems, without accurate definitions of the consistent, lifelong cognition behind a face, there wasn’t much hope of demonstrating how people’s faces reflect their cognition.  Like I mentioned in What If I’m Not the Type I Thought I Was?, if people’s faces changed as often as their behaviors, they’d be like shape-shifters.

“But as soon as our patterns were consistent enough to be true throughout a person’s life, matching facial patterns began to emerge.”

Interrupting Calise for a second here.  I want to emphasize what she just said: the patterns began to emerge.  We weren’t looking for this; we didn’t expect it.  It wasn’t an “Aha!  Eureka!” moment, but rather a “Huh, that’s funny…” moment.  We weren’t expecting to find any sort of facial correlation with cognition; it just sort of came up.  Like she said, as soon as we actually got our definitions 100% consistent, reliable, and repeatable, with zero exceptions, suddenly we started seeing recurring facial structures with each different type.

Letting Calisey talk again:

“At first we just noticed little things, like Justin mentioning that SFPs’ eyes looked like they’d been popped in an oven and melted just a little bit at the corners (his words).  And I began noticing patterns in nose tips (I like noses.  In college I started a nose connoisseurs club, though we did nothing).  And for a while we thought, ‘At some point we’re actually going to have to nail these down for real.’  And at one point I did… and I had a slight nervous breakdown because it demonstrated how even close friends whom I thought I’d typed correctly I was totally wrong on.  It was a rough week and I was temporarily afraid I’d been embarrassingly wrong about *everything.*  But science had to go on!  And I learned new and useful things like how I was mistaking ESTJ and ISTJ for each other, something that in retrospect I feel like O_o at myself.

“But as we went forward to nail down and distinguish the sixteen different faces (which, boy, were we in for a treat I’ll get to in a minute), we realized that in order to be sure we had a consistent system, it had to meet certain qualifications:”  Which she went on to list, as follows.

Scientific Requirements

Facial Typing needed to work across:

Age
So an ISFJ face would have to still be an ISFJ face regardless of age, from infant noob to elderly raid-boss; if a person’s facial type changed throughout their life when their cognitive type did not, then clearly that’d be a problem!

Ben Schulz (aka LEEROY JENKINS) and Jules Verne (aka 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea guy, which is cool too), both ISTP(ip)

Ethnicity
So, an ISFJ face is an ISFJ face regardless of race.  It’s really awesome to see, how the same facial patterns and structures occur, in every ethnicity!  And it really blows a hole in mentalities that think any ethnicity is better, worse, or just “weird.”

Denzel Washington and Kenneth Branagh, both incredible actors, directors and ENFJ(ip)s with some serious class.

Gender
Same thing: ISFJ face has to be ISFJ face regardless of gender.  Also super cool to see in practice!  The gender differences are totally there, and yet the facial type remains exactly the same.

General George Smith Patton Jr. and Madonna, both ISTJ(ej) despite their discrepancy in name-quantity, and y’know, gender.

Multiples
Like twins and triplets; even identical twins don’t necessarily have the same cognitive type, so how can they be *identical* and yet have different facial types?  And yet, once you see it, you can’t unsee it.  Even “identical” twins – even *conjoined* twins – can have different facial types!

Phelps Twins, known for playing the Weasley Twins in Harry Potter: Oliver (left), INFP(ip) and James (right), ESFJ(ip)

The Hensel Twins: Abby (left), ENFP(ep) and Brittany (right), ENTJ(ij)

Weight
Same thing as age; an ISFJ face has to still be an ISFJ face, no matter how gaunt or… portly.

Jorge Garcia and Colin O’Donoghue, both ESFP(ej) and studly (says Calise)

The entire population (no one is left out)
A high goal, but an absolutely necessary one.  If we could find anyone, anywhere, past or present, whose face didn’t fit any of the cognitive types, then we’d have a problem.  Everybody thinks, everybody cognates, and everybody’s face matches their cognition with magnificent exactness.

Absolutely repeatable and *always* lining up with cognition and choices
Now dude, this is just basic science.  When there are exceptions where a theory doesn’t always quite line up, that’s nature’s way of saying “Nice hypothesis, but give it another go.  You can do better.  I believe in you.”  We wanted to be able to use this in practice, so if we ran into any exceptions, if it ever failed to line up, even just once, with people’s actual in-practice cognition, choices, and desires, then we wouldn’t have a reliable tool.  It had to be repeatable and consistent, with no exceptions, special cases, or roundabout justifications…as fashionable as those may seem sometimes.

Okay back to Calisey again.

“But we were in for a big surprise when we tried to isolate the 16 facial types.

“One day, as Justin and I tried to nail down the faces, Justin said, (not verbatim), ‘Hey Calise, I think there may be two of every face… and I think they may line up with differences in the cognition of each of the types.’
I said, ‘No there couldn’t be.’
He said, ‘Why not?’
I said, ‘Because then I’d have to explain it to everybody!’

“But despite my fears of people crying, ‘There’s a fifth variable?!  How many are you guys going to make up??’ we pursued the data and suddenly had 32 types.  *Thankfully* (because I might have died otherwise), we discovered that while these ‘subtypes’ affect our approach to cognition, they do *NOT* affect the cognition process or order itself.  There are only 16 cognition processes after all. *whew*”

Got that?  Subtypes do not change the order of cognition steps.  They aren’t our cognition, but rather, they’re how we *approach* our cognition.  This approach is more readily seen than our underlying cognition, and people often mistake subtype for actual cognitive type without even realizing it.  Subtypes deal with our behaviors, while cognition deals with our root desires that motivate those behaviors.  So when people take a behavioral-psychology approach to cognitive variables, it makes sense that a lot of the misconceptions, simplifications, and inconsistencies that arise, are a result of mixing up type and subtype.

But again, they are not the same thing.  We explain on Phase 2 how subtype and cognition deal with entirely different areas of our minds, but for now it’s enough to say that our subtype is our behavioral approach to our cognitive type.  Our cognitive type is a result of what matters most to us, deep down.  It’s a result of what we desire most, which is a powerful reflection of who we each are, while our subtype is a result of how we approach that desire.

Okay, back to Calise, she was telling how we first noticed only two subtypes per type:

“But we noticed these two subtypes affected how each type approached their Type Angst, and the shorthand we began using was ‘That’s right I’m [Type Angst]’ vs. ‘I guess I’m [Type Angst].’  So, for ENTP, half the ENTPs would approach their Type Angst as ‘That’s right I’m bad and irresponsible!’ while the other half would approach their Type Angst as ‘I guess I’m bad and irresponsible…’

“A friend suggested we use ‘Sharp’ and ‘Flat’ as terms, like musical notes… but nobody wanted to be ‘Flat,’ including myself who would be ‘ENTP-flat’ according to that terminology.  This was followed by Justin and me coming up with V/U or ‘Venturer’ and ‘Urbane’ (which worked definitionally, but mostly we liked how the letter shapes got across the differences in attitudes).  So by that definition, approaching my Type Angst in an ‘I guess I’m…’ fashion, I would be an ENTPu.

“Of course, as is usually the case, as soon as we were getting a handle on the complex effects of V and U and recognizing both the facial structures and cognition in action… we tried to group faces into 64 folders of each type, U/V and male and female.  It was a messy, chaotic folder!  But of course nature wanted to screw with us again, so we suddenly realized there was still too much variation; distinctly twice as much, as there were two distinct faces for each V/U subtype!  We seriously considered calling them VV, VU, UV, and UU… I’m not even joking.  I thought, ‘Holy crap this is getting so bloated how am I possibly going to explain this usably?!’  There was mild panic and major grumbling; science temporarily tees me off sometimes.

“But then, one day, (I believe Justin was in our wingback chair… I want to say on the phone with someone?), I remembered how the Four Types of Information applies to ALL THE THINGS and everything clicked.  There were four subtypes of each type… maybe the world made sense after all!”

Okay, remember this was from the original Phase 2 forum.  To be brief, on Phase 2 we’ve been explaining more and more how the 4ToI do really apply to *all the things*, it’s really incredible.  Like, everything everything.  And again, it’s because of reasons, which are very cool.  A little more from Calise:

“And this, my very patient friends, is how we came to realize that not only are there 16 types with 4 subtypes each, making 64 subtypes that work brilliantly across genders, ethnicities, ages, etc., but they work *perfectly* with how each subtype approaches its Type Specialization.”

Yay!  So there’s the quick background.  Now, for the subtypes themselves.

The Subtypes

Like Calisey said, the subtypes ended up perfectly fitting the 4 Types of Information.  The implications of this are huge, but for here we’re keeping it short…ish.  When applied to subtypes, these 4ToI take the form of:

Motives and Character, and how they affect individuals: (ep)
Data and Details, and the situations in which they occur: (ip)
Actions and Consequences, and how they affect people as a group: (ej)
Principles and Trends on a worldwide, even cosmic scale: (ij)

Each subtype approaches their cognition according to one of those four ToI.  Of course, just like with cognition, this does not limit us; rather it’s our preferred starting point.  (ip) subs will always, always, always approach their cognition in an (ip) way first, but that does not in any way prevent them from branching out to learn and gain the strengths of all the other subtypes as well.  Yet also like with cognition, when we try to force ourselves to be a different subtype without first developing our own, we tend to lose the strengths of our own sub, while gaining only the weaknesses of the sub that we’re pretending to be.  Everyone of any type or subtype can do *everything*, but only when we first come to understand, accept, and grow into the person who we’ve already always wanted to be, deep down.

This is the point of aLBoP: to help people understand themselves and others, to *remove* limits and barriers, not to place new, contrived ones.  That’s why we’re so wary of silly, insulting, ridiculous stereotypes and simplifications.  The human mind, and the human potential for growth and improvement, are far more complex than the divisive stereotypes would have you believe.  And in all that complexity, intelligence still turns out to be so astoundingly orderly and consistent in retrospect.  Not simple, not force-fit into any petty little boxes, but remarkably elegant in a magnificent consistency of complexity.

This was a quote from the original subtype post which didn’t make it here, but it’s worth sharing anyway and Calise already made the picture so…

So as we go into a quick(ish) runthrough of the basics of the four subtypes, these are not descriptions of boxes from which we can never escape.  Subtypes display our preferred approach to our behaviors, attitudes, habits, and even our talents.  They’re a part of us, but not as deep, foundational, or subconscious as our cognition; subtypes tend to be the deepest down our conscious thoughts and feelings get, which makes them much easier for people to notice than real cognitive types.

So if some of the descriptions of subtypes start to sound a bit like behavioral personality typing, that’s because it is!  Behaviors are, well, behavioral.  Most popular forms of attempted personality typing deal with behaviors, not our real cognitive types, even if they sometimes mix them up.  But that doesn’t mean that behavioral typing can’t be done right.  Now going back and using our foundation of consistent, reliable cognitive types, we can at last make a thoroughly solid exploration of behavioral subtypes!

Each of the four subtypes takes a different approach to everything.  This means that not only do people think differently from each other (cognition), but that even people who think in the same ways, with the same cognitive type, may still approach that same cognition differently!  We live in a culture where so many people imply, or outright say, “If you don’t think the way I do, then you don’t think!”  What a narrow way to limit oneself.  Yet the more we come to understand how everyone thinks, and approaches how they think, based on the same recurrent 4ToI, the more we can get out of life, the more we can be a benefit to ourselves and everyone around us, and the more we can enjoy even genuinely unhealthy people, instead of being limited to seeing only our own point of view and thinking everyone else is just dumb.

So much for a short post, lol, but still we *are* avoiding going into so much that’s best left till Phase 2.  That being said, there’s a lot that I can simply quote verbatim from the Phase 2 subtypes post.  In that post, we use the analogy of a car’s steering and pedals to describe how subtypes approach life:

“We like to think of (e) and (i) as being like the gas and brakes of a car, determining the speed of how we approach our decisions, conclusions, and everything.  (e)s are constantly observing outward while the decision-car cruises at its own speed, while (i)s pay more attention to the inside of the car, controlling the speed of decision as they choose.  This lets (e)s look out and see things that (i)s might miss, while (i)s speed up to act decisively or slow down to act more carefully as needed.

“And we like to think of (p) and (j) as being like the decision-mobile’s steering, charting a path of decisions intentionally (j) or letting autopilot take us on a tour to show us new options (p).  (p)s are able to relax and pay attention to all the many things happening outside the windows of their mind-car, while (j)s get to be more deliberate, yet also less aware of unexpected options and opportunities that pop up around the car.”

As always happens with the 4ToI, everything balances out, and we all end up needing the strengths of every other approach.  We didn’t plan for that, we didn’t force such a happy and inclusive result; it’s simply the way things apparently work.  It’s fascinating that, when people have a psychological ax to grind due to their own refusal to see outside their own way of thinking, that seems to be when they come up with pessimistic, divisive psychological ideas that suggest that some types are better, more rational, more caring, more reliable, etc etc.  Yet those sorts of theories never seem to fare well in the harsh light of results and reality.  As soon as we step back and let go of any expected result, it’s pretty cool to see how reality ends up showing that, while not everyone chooses to be healthy, every actual cognitive type and subtype is unavoidably equal with every other.  But that’s straying close to Phase 2 topics again, with how and why the 4ToI are inherently equal and unavoidable, so yeah, raincheck on that.

But now we’re finally ready to take a quick overview of each of the four subtypes!  I’m gonna start with (ep) sub, and…yeah, awesome, I think I can pretty much quote more straight from the Phase 2 post!  I’m just gonna rearrange the order of some paragraphs, and cut out references to stuff that’s covered in the Phase 2 Intro…but yeah, cool, here we go!

(ep) sub: The Natural Approach

So after we described the car analogy, where (e)s are looking out the window, observing outward while their car speeds up or slows down on its own, and (p)s let their self-driving car steer them on an unexpected, unpredictable tour of life, we put it together to get (ep) sub:

“Putting these together, (ep) subs are the most natural, and the least deliberate, of all the subtypes.  As much as Calise might complain about this, it’s a powerful advantage.  When (ep)s allow themselves to relax and be not-deliberate about the speed and subject matter of their decisions, they come to realizations and discoveries that would otherwise remain unknown.  Trading deliberate direction and speed-control for a close trust in their personal self, (ep)s of any cognitive type can approach their Type Spec in a natural, relaxed way, confident that it will lead to huge, new and unexplored vistas of their Type Spec.”

“(ep) subtypes are also the most “natural” about their approach to life.  They’re used to things coming naturally to them, in a talents-oriented way.  Yet this means that when something does not come naturally to them, it can be especially frustrating!  And since (ep)s are used to doing what comes naturally, they tend to assume that everyone else does too; this means that when they see someone of a different subtype excelling at something through deliberate focus, they might assume that the other person’s success just came naturally to them…and that can seem really unfair.  Yet (ep)s’ natural ability is a huge advantage, giving them the widest versatility and adaptability in their Type Spec.  (ep)s aren’t supposed to focus on deliberate approaches to things; they can certainly learn to use deliberateness, but they’ll fare best and be much happier as they let themselves approach everything in a natural, talents-oriented (ep) way.

“No matter what their cognition type is, (ep) subs approach it through the (ep) motives-based ToI, which causes them to observe the way things naturally work, rather than trying to change things.  (ep) is always about observation.  This lets (ep) subs sit back and observe things that other types might miss…but only when (ep)s allow themselves to sit back and be (ep)s.  When they feel the need to be more intentional instead of natural in their ideas, plans, actions, and abilities, they tend to close off and stop observing.  This can make them feel rather lonely, confused, and grumpy.”

“This doubly-natural approach to their Type Specs has an inverse effect on (ep)s’ type fears.  While (ep)s are very unintentional and un-deliberate about their desires, this interestingly makes them doubly intentional and doubly deliberate about how to handle their fears.  Having such an intimate connection to their own selves, (ep)s are much more aware of their type’s fears, and how those fears might sprout up in their lives in the form of Type Angsts.

“Often, this makes (ep)s a bit more resigned to the effects of their type fears.  Being so well acquainted with all the ways that their Type Angsts can crop up and get in the way of, well, everything, (ep)s are kinda like the old, grizzled, paranoid veteran of the subtypes, who’s all too aware of the reality of danger and perhaps a little too pessimistic of the chances of overcoming it.  Jumping at possible fulfillments of their type fear everywhere, (ep)s can be quick to overthink things and see their fear in any potentially worrisome situation.  This can make them feel resigned to having to live with the sheer size and resilience of their type’s fears.  Yet this also has the advantage of making (ep)s the most familiar with all the ins and outs of their type fear, which can equip them to beat those fears effectively and doubly-deliberately.

“On the whole, though, (ep) subs are free and natural in their approach to life, decisions, and their own type.  Each different cognitive type is so different, yet it’s pretty adorable seeing how the (ep) subtype of each brings such an adaptive openness to any and every type.”

(ip) sub: The Comfortable Approach

“With a focus on situations and their specific data and details, (ip) subs end up naturally gravitating to the behaviors they enjoy, the activities they prefer, and the circumstances where they’re the most comfortable.

“Comfort is a big thing for (ip) subs.  They like approaching their Type Specs in a relaxed, cautious way that makes the most use of their accustomed techniques of behavior.  With (p)’s auto-steering allowing them to pay closer attention to interesting and unexpected surprises along life’s branching roads, and (i)’s deliberate control of the decision-mobile’s speed letting them slow down to examine particularly intriguing choices, or speed up to hurry through rote or uninteresting decisions, (ip) makes for a very comfortable ride through life.  Their deliberate (i) naturalness (p) means that (ip)s intentionally *choose* to approach their Type Spec in a natural, relaxed way; they’re “deliberately natural.”  That’s what best helps them learn and improve their accustomed toolbelt of behaviors.  Different individuals are different,  yet all this causes healthy (ip) subs to tend to be quite chill and laid-back about their Type Specs and about life in general.”

“(ip) is always about situational details.  No matter what the cognitive type, (ip) subs approach it through the (ip) data-based ToI, paying attention to the situations of life and smoothly adapting to them.  This lets (ip) subs slow down and focus in on important details relating to their Type Spec, but only when (ip)s allow themselves to chill and be (ip)s.  When they feel pressured to be more driven or self-directed (self-directed isn’t always a good thing, it’s just a (j) thing), they tend to neglect their carefully honed and perfected behaviors and overlook precious situational details.  This can make them very dissatisfied with life, others, and especially themselves.

“This deliberately natural approach to their Type Specs has an inverse effect on (ip)s’ type fears.  While (ip)s are intentionally relaxed about their desires, this makes them unintentionally focused and attentive, or “naturally deliberate,” about their fears.  This unintentional deliberateness means that (ip)s can’t help but be focused on and even preoccupied with their fears!  Having such an attentive awareness of the situational details of their Type Spec, (ip)s are unavoidably aware of how each situation prods at their hidden fears and insecurities.

“This inescapable awareness frequently causes (ip)s to react by running the other way, *trying* to escape by attempting to hide their worries from their own selves, like the ‘don’t worry, be happy, and wear some smooth shades’ dude among the subtypes.  They want to be chill and comfortable, not harassed by gnawing fears that might seem to undermine their entire Type Spec.  So, (ip)s tend toward various forms of denying that their type fear really even bothers them.  They may deny that the fear is true — and usually, it isn’t true! — or they may deny that the fear is even there to begin with.  But denial is not the same as facing a fear and growing to understand, overcome, and even benefit from it.  The more (ip)s unintentionally shy away from exploring their type’s fear and Angst, the more they’ll end up falling victim to their Type Angst in more pronounced and debilitating ways.  Yet the more they learn to take the power of their detailed awareness and focus it on their most uncomfortable fears, the more perfectly they can exemplify all the strengths of their Type Spec without any of its weaknesses.

“Overall, (ip) subs are the most intentionally free and relaxed in their approach to life, decisions, and their own type.  Among all the many different cognitive types, the (ip) subtype of each brings such a comforting, attentive peacefulness to any Type Spec.”

(ej) sub: The Supercharged Approach

“With a focus on action and the consequences that lead to desired experiences, (ej) subs are always sharply aware of which habits they need to improve in order to get the consequences they desire.

“This causes (ej)s to become a bit compulsive about fulfilling their Type Spec.  And that’s a good thing!  With (e)’s natural, automatic approach combined with (j)’s intentional focus, (ej) subs become “naturally deliberate” — unintentionally, inescapably focused on their Type Spec.  Focused whether they like it or not.  Using the metaphor of the decision-mobile, (ej)s have deliberate, self-directed control of their steering (j) but not of their speed (e).  They can plan and choose where they want to go, but not how fast or slow they want to go while getting there; their decision-engine is always set on one speed: forward!  There is no slowing down to study things more carefully, only a constant (and often frantic) attention to steering as they pilot their careening decision-mobile down the paths they determine.  There’s no time to stop and observe, only an absolute focus forward in order to avoid crashing into things.  Everything is a challenge to be assaulted deliberately!  This makes (ej) subs a relentless force for fulfilling their Type Spec, when they’re healthy.”

“Whether an (ej)’s Type Spec is about edifying or enjoying, about practical use or expectable results, they’re always active in plotting a course and building habits to make it happen.  They can’t turn it off.  They may be quietly determined, patiently calculating, or loudly enthusiastic, but they never lose sight of a full-thrust attack on their Type Spec’s main desire.  Even when they want to.  (ej) subs who try to fight their Type Spec, trying to leave it behind in order to be a different type, are plagued with a sharper internal conflict than other subtypes because their Type Spec is still set on turbo, whether they like it or not.  All the power and ferocity that gives (ej)s their drive, also means that their deepest desires won’t be quashed by any mere passing fear or insecurity caused by their Type Angst.  Their deepest desires will come to the fore, even when contradictory fears tear them in two.

“Fortunately, as an apparent balance to this potential for soul-rending conflict, (ej)s are also the most naturally comfortable with their Type Angst.  Healthy (ej)s tend to embrace their type’s fears with the same enthusiasm as anything else, finding joy and excitement in the challenge.  As the inverse of their Type Spec’s un-turn-off-able “natural deliberateness,” (ej)s are deliberately natural about their approach to their type’s fears.  They’re the swaggering, charismatic goofball of the subtypes.  They deliberately choose to relax and go naturally with the flow of their fears, turning that flow into a constant source of passion and drive.  Their fear comfortably motivates a constantly renewed push on their Type Spec, impelling them higher and faster.  This makes healthy (ej)s a source of safety, a blazing example of their Type Spec, and a ton of fun.

“When unhealthy, however, all this fire causes (ej)s to burn themselves and others.  Unhealthy (ej)s tend to project their type’s fear onto others rather than embracing it themselves, accusing those who make them uncomfortable of having the very failings that they’re so aware of in their own private selves.  This does not make unhealthy (ej)s any worse or even any more damaging than unhealthy people of other subtypes; it just makes them quite noticeable about it.

“In everything, (ej)s tend to be noticeable!  In their fears and desires, in doing and being, whether they’re trying to make a splash or trying to blend in, (ej) subs burn bright with their sharp, ultra-focused approach to everything they do!”

(ij) sub: The Deliberate Approach

“With a focus on universal principles and the trends that demonstrate them, (ij) subs become closely familiar with the fact that our attitudes shape our thoughts, feelings, evaluations, and reactions to everything that exists or happens in the world.  Because of this awareness, (ij)s seek to control and cultivate their attitudes intentionally, recognizing that otherwise, their attitudes will end up controlling them.

“Control of self is everything for (ij)s: control of one’s own desires, biases, liabilities, and strengths, and particularly control of one’s approach to their own Type Spec.  When faced with the vast, complex, and so often seemingly contradictory trends of each Type Spec, healthy (ij)s seek control and caution of their own attitudes in order to maintain as much clarity and impartiality as they can.  By paying attention to the way that our attitudes totally alter our interpretation of every event, every experience, every thought and idea and every scrap of information, healthy (ij)s seek to broaden their understanding of their Type Spec by taking careful control of their own attitude-lens.  Unhealthy (ij)s, by contrast, seek to control their attitude-lens in order to produce conclusions and interpretations that they like, deliberately skewing the world in whatever way is convenient to their own twisted version of their type’s desires.  Unhealthy (ij)s live and breathe to fool themselves and then fool others via one-sided attitudes, while healthy (ij)s live every moment trying to compensate for and cancel their attitude’s biases in order to see everything more clearly.

“Everything is about principles and trends for (ij) subs, approaching their Type Spec through the (ij) principles ToI in order to see and understand what makes their type work. … The world is a fabulously complicated realm, which means that easy, simplistic, one-sided attitudes lead to poor results in practice.  There are plenty of bickering, one-sided attitudes these days already; the world could use some healthy (ij)s of every type to deliberately develop inclusive, accurate attitudes.

“(ij) subs are the most deliberate of the subtypes, wielding the intentional, planned steering of (j) as well as the deliberate speed control of (i).  They’re ‘doubly deliberate’ in their approach to everything.  They may choose to slow down to study an interesting moment, or speed up to move on to something else, while also choosing which roads, detours, or undiscovered vistas they want to steer their decisions toward next.  This total control may sound nice to other subtypes, but it comes at the cost of constant attention to both speed and direction.  Sure, (ij)s are free to slow down and consider details when they choose, but their deliberate attention to speed and steering makes it harder for them to notice such details in the first place.  While they don’t need to be as direly focused forward as (ej)s, their attention is spent primarily on control of the decision-mobile, making it easy for them to miss options and ideas that might seem totally obvious to less deliberate subtypes.

“(ij)s’ double-deliberateness means that they approach their Type Spec entirely by choice.  They *choose* to love the things that matter most to them.  They choose to care most about their own type’s central desires; healthy (ij)s wouldn’t have it any other way.  Sure, they could try to force being a different type and tear themselves apart by attempting to bury their own most precious desires, but healthy (ij)s *like* their Type Spec; it’s a pure reflection of who they are.  In dealing with their strengths, weaknesses, growth, learning, anything, (ij)s are always consciously aware of their every move.

“While such deliberate control helps (ij)s chart the path of their own growth, that growth is best served when they focus on developing strong, complex inward attitudes.  When (ij)s feel pressured to focus on deliberately developing outward habits more than inward attitudes, they end up stifling their own powerful and special capacity for self mastery.  This leads to depression, searing inner conflict, and a haunting worry that their true potential is entirely unrecognized and unrealized.  Yet when (ij)s allow themselves to approach life, goals, others, and especially themselves by cultivating inner attitudes most of all, they grow capable of deliberately learning the strengths of other subtypes without suppressing their own.

“All this double-deliberateness becomes the opposite, however, when it comes to (ij) subs’ type fears and the Angsts that those fears cause.  (ij)s are doubly natural, doubly unintentional, about their fears and insecurities.  While they approach life with such control, that same control leaves them extra vulnerable to the unexpected and the unknown, to the crucial yet overlooked sides of the world outside the scope of their own carefully cultivated attitudes.  In deliberately choosing to love their Type Spec, (ij)s are helplessly locked into the fears that come as part of the deal of each type; they can’t have one without the other.

“This helplessness often causes (ij)s to feel especially torn regarding their fears.  On the one hand, they can still approach their fear with control, developing attitudes that help them face and overcome their fears.  Yet on the other hand, in spite of all their accustomed control, the fear simply won’t go away.  They may enjoy precious victories over their persistent fears, deliberately learning new things about life and themselves, and yet like comic book supervillains, the fears will still always be back next time.  (ij) subs are the tragically flawed heroes among the subtypes, constantly battling on when the real foe is their own inner demons.  Fortunately, these undying fears can become an asset instead of a liability, but only as we face them and grow.  Life for (ij) subs is the constant coexisting duality between light and dark, strength and weakness, victory and catastrophe, growth and stagnation.  They are the living embodiment of the eternal principles that define their particular Type Spec.

“On the whole, (ij)s’ doubly-deliberate approach to life and everything draws them to a continual attempt at balance between comfort and ferocity, outward direction and inward introspection.  Yet this comes at the cost of constant control, leaving them the most helpless of all the subtypes against the incessant stabs of their type’s fear.”

And boom, there we go!  Now we can talk about subtypes here on Phase 1!   Whew, so this was not a short post after all…actually it’s a bit longer than the full Phase 2 version!  But hey, I had to talk about facial typing and stuff here, and I quoted Calise’s explanation from the old forum.  Phase 2 posts are able to go into more depth about exactly why and how subtypes are what they are, but this should be good for here.

In the original Phase 2 post, after each subtype section, we gave a list of examples of people of that subtype, one for each cognitive type.  We’re much more cautious about doing that sort of thing here, though, because we get tired of people cruising in, saying “nope, that’s wrong, because [insert demeaning stereotype here.]”  For example (paraphrasing), “Nope, [Shen] is INTJ, because he has a vision.”  What the…?  So only INTJs can have great, ambitious vision?  Oh no wait, I used the word “ambitious,” and only ENTJs are ambitious, right?  “Nope, Rapunzel is an E, because she’s outgoing.”  “Nope, Mulan is an F, because she cares about people.”  “Nope, Marble Hornets’ Jay is a P, because he stinks at planning.”  “Nope, Harry Potter is ISFP, because he’s lazy about schoolwork but he’s good at Quidditch.”  All real comments we’ve gotten.  I am not making this crap up.

I just…yeah…  So only Es are social, only Fs ever care about people, only Ps have trouble with planning and schoolwork, and only Ss are athletic?  May INTP(ip) Michael Jordan come smack you in your sleep.  How is this science?  How is this okay?  I wish I were exaggerating, but people talk this way so unabashedly.

Yet over and over, we meet sensible, cool people who just want to *understand* themselves and everyone else, and, well, stereo-typing is simply the best option they’ve known so far.  That’s who we’re writing for.  There’s not much hope in trying to “convince” people who *want* the ugly, nonsensical stereotypes, who cling to them tenaciously because the simplifications make them feel better than other people.  No, we’re here for the awesome people who want self-understanding rather than self-justification, who want to face and solve problems rather than point out somebody else’s, and who want the real versions that actually work and can actually be used in daily life, rather than bizarro four-by-four charts that boil down the complexity of human minds into a vapid list of traits that could kinda apply to anyone.

Heh, but enough of that, we have plenty of posts laboriously explaining the issues with the inconsistencies and stereotypes.  For this one, I’ll just say that the types I’m about to list are not mere subjective opinions based on selective cherry-picking of a few quotes or anecdotes.  What’s awesome about having reliable, repeatable definitions that always apply, is that they always work.  There’s no wiggle room for subjective fudging; if there were, then our definitions would be flawed.  In addition, the ironclad reliability of facial typing is like a hot knife cutting through the sludge of stereotypes.  Okay that’s gross, but it’s true.  And it’s so cool.

So now without further ado, here’s a parade of subtypes to give a glimpse at how each sub approaches each cognitive type!

Natural (ep) subs:
– ENFP(ep): Charles Dickens
– ESFP(ep): Andrew Zimmern
– ENTP(ep): Will Smith
– ESTP(ep): Conan O’Brien
– INFP(ep): Benito Mussolini (who says INFPs can’t be evil?)
– ISFP(ep): Michael Jackson
– INTP(ep): Albert Einstein
– ISTP(ep): Jennifer Lawrence
– ENFJ(ep): William Shakespeare
– ESFJ(ep): Reese Witherspoon
– ENTJ(ep): Anthony Bourdain
– ESTJ(ep): Neil Armstrong
– INFJ(ep): Aaron Sorkin
– ISFJ(ep): Carrie Underwood
– INTJ(ep): Christopher Columbus
– ISTJ(ep): Ayn Rand

Comfortable (ip) subs:
– ENFP(ip): Winston Churchill
– ESFP(ip): Oscar Wilde
– ENTP(ip): Viggo Mortensen
– ESTP(ip): Alexander the Great
– INFP(ip): Stephen Hawking
– ISFP(ip): Alfred Hitchcock
– INTP(ip): Mark Twain
– ISTP(ip): Socrates
– ENFJ(ip): Martin Luther King, Jr.
– ESFJ(ip): Maya Angelou
– ENTJ(ip): Thomas Edison
– ESTJ(ip): Bill O’Reilly
– INFJ(ip): Mohandas Gandhi
– ISFJ(ip): Jonah Hill
– INTJ(ip): Leonardo da Vinci
– ISTJ(ip): Charlotte Bronte

Supercharged (ej) subs:
– ENFP(ej): Nikola Tesla
– ESFP(ej): Jay Leno
– ENTP(ej): Benjamin Franklin
– ESTP(ej): Ernest Hemingway
– INFP(ej): Helen Keller
– ISFP(ej): Rosa Parks
– INTP(ej): Marie Curie
– ISTP(ej): Les Stroud (Survivorman)
– ENFJ(ej): Lewis Carroll
– ESFJ(ej): Alan Tudyk
– ENTJ(ej): Katy Perry
– ESTJ(ej): Queen Elizabeth II
– INFJ(ej): Fred Astaire
– ISFJ(ej): Anderson Cooper
– INTJ(ej): Henry Ford
– ISTJ(ej): Christopher Lee

Deliberate (ij) subs:
– ENFP(ij): Julie Andrews
– ESFP(ij): Eleanor Roosevelt
– ENTP(ij): Jimmy Fallon
– ESTP(ij): Samuel L. Jackson
– INFP(ij): Daniel Radcliffe
– ISFP(ij): Christopher Nolan
– INTP(ij): Abraham Lincoln
– ISTP(ij): Scarlett Johansson
– ENFJ(ij): Stan Lee
– ESFJ(ij): Anna Kendrick
– ENTJ(ij): Napoleon Bonaparte
– ESTJ(ij): Jamie Hyneman (Mythbusters)
– INFJ(ij): James McAvoy
– ISFJ(ij): Bruce Willis
– INTJ(ij): Steve Jobs
– ISTJ(ij): Pablo Picasso

This makes me want to list more, both real-life and fictional too, to show more about how amazingly and diversely each type thinks!  How well they all work, how marvelously consistent they are, and how much we all need *all* of them.  To quote the Phase 2 subtype post one more time:

“Each needs all the others, each fills holes and covers weaknesses of the others, and each shines the brightest when benefitting and learning from the unique approaches of each other subtype.

“And every subtype can learn to gain all the strengths of all the others.  Just as with … cognition, if we try to force being a different subtype due to pressure or fears, then we’ll gain only the easily acquired weaknesses of the other sub, while neglecting the strengths of our own.  Yet as we allow ourselves to embrace life as the subtype we naturally are, we grow to overcome all its weaknesses while also gaining the strengths of other subtypes.  And the more we grow to understand ourselves and others, the happier, more effective, and more beneficial we become, able to lift everyone and show them how awesome life can be.”

On the aLBoP Guided Tour?  You’ve reached the last stop for now! :'(  But don’t worry!  That means you’re ready to invite yourself to Phase 2!  And believe me, there’s plenty to read over there!  Thanks for sticking around and showing us your love! <3s

The post A Little Bit of Subtypes appeared first on A Little Bit of Personality.

Hoping to do the entire Super Simple Series in this whiteboard format eventually, so subscribe to the aLBoP YouTube channel so you see when we post more!  Oh, and because I know there will be confusion (which makes sense as I am the stick figure maven), but while I (Calise) am doing the voiceover for this video, it’s Justin doing the drawing.

Much love, as always! <3

Calise and Justin

The post What is Personality?? New Intro Video appeared first on A Little Bit of Personality.

All the typings and observations in this post are based on definitions and information presented in the aLBoP Guided Tour So if any of it bugs you, please go read that before leaving me a grumpy comment… Or, you know what?  Let’s just skip the grumpy comments!  Have a nice day! <3

INTJ
The Dragon

“I seek the means to fight injustice;
to turn fear against those who prey upon the fearful.”
Bruce Wayne, Batman Begins

The INTJ Dragon is the dynamic facilitator of the world as it might be.  Backed by the unyielding efficacy of universal principles and the useful plans of action which proceed from them, the Dragon knows just how to shape large-scale trends with penetrating accuracy.  Majestic and surprising, these titans excel at unleashing the world’s untapped potential.

With big, wide eyes for Principles and the use of what could be, young INTJs immediately see a special world, not immediately visible to most; a world of complete, interworking elegance, where anything you imagine *can* be accomplished, the only limit being on how much you know and understand the world and its trends.  So, from a very young age, little INTJs will be bursting to know about how things always work, trying to extend the borders of their capacity to do and change.

Complex little things, with a depth of desires and goals that usually extends beyond what their years and size might let on, young INTJs are usually quite varied, and often the same little INTJ will be vastly different depending on their surroundings, with the same INTJ alternating from silly and effusive in a situation where they feel comfortable, to withdrawn and closed down in a situation where they feel like their hidden depths are undesired or unsafe.

With their feelings and motives late in their cognitive process giving ITJs a natural inclination to cloak and protect their feelings, and with very little patience for shallow interactions and associations, it might be hard to tell what’s going on inside a mini INTJ (or a full-sized one).  And with INTJ’s Type Specialization of discovering and accomplishing the unused potential of what the world can be, little INTJs can often be accused of not caring about the needs or social desires of others, with extreme examples of young INTJs being called “heartless” or “monsters” for not wearing their vaulted hearts on their sleeves.

In a culture where status-quo is god, where the ability to keep one’s life from changing unexpectedly is lauded as the pinnacle of safety and responsibility, INTJ’s natural desire and ability to bloom change on an epic scale is often deemed immensely frightening… which leads to the ever-present portrayal of INTJs as villains in media (and regurgitated stereotypes >:C ).

When society treats INTJs like villains for a desire to shape and change the world into the beautiful thing they can imagine, a little INTJ can quickly become disheartened as their experiences with individuals (their last and most vulnerable cognitive step) teach them that their desires are too forceful, to ambitious, too idealistic, and too isolated.

For all cognitions, our last steps are our greatest struggle, leading to our Type Angsts.  For INTJs, this means that all their frustration and self-disappointment with feeling like their motives aren’t stable and reliable enough, as well as feeling lost about what motivates others, gets interpreted within INTJs as a deep, core fear that everything is their fault.

Used to being able to line up their plans as the natural continuation of Principles, and follow through to make things happen, INTJs naturally end up fearing that if something went wrong on the way to the ideal of what could be, that it could have been avoided had they personally done something different.  If only they had been faster, stronger, better, cared more, not trusted individuals so much… been in control of themselves and everything they touched, then things would have just gone right, and safe and like they were supposed to.  We call this deeply embedded fear and the ways INTJs cope with it, Anakin Angst.

These fears and interactions give an INTJ three choices.

The first is to react to Anakin Angst by insisting that they truly *can* be in control of everything, that they can make the world they imagine… if they just go around everyone who is getting in their way.  Often with resentment of those who do not grasp their vision, these first choice INTJs will be undeniably driven to accomplish the feats they know are within their reach, if they just push the limits a little farther.

But these INTJs are also likely to pull inward, shutting down to people, who just start looking like a liability in the way of what needs to be accomplished.  And since other people have wills of their own, this clenching INTJ is likely not to be able to just go around everyone.  In the pursuit of their own visions, this INTJ can easily end up stepping on the visions and Type Specializations of others, adopting an attitude, perhaps without even meaning to, that others’ ambitions, desires and wills must be of less use, if they can’t see what needs to be done to achieve the giant end goal.  When INTJs consider others’ desires to be subservient to the big picture, they can end up trying to force others’ wills, often even becoming an example of the very thing they wanted to fight in the first place.

But INTJs who insist on pursuing their visions without regard to the people around them will find their destination cold, lifeless and alone, lacking the brightness of other points of view and wills going in their very own directions.  A world without perspective from every direction, and every Type of Information and Objective represented, won’t have either the use or meaning it needs, and that’s hardly the smooth-running utopia that an INTJ may picture.

The second option INTJs have, is to defer to those who insist their ambitious hopes for the world are just too drastic, dramatic and long-sighted, and so they temper their own goals to fit the expectations of those around them.  Surely, they think, their vision of the future is as dangerous and inconsiderate as it is portrayed.  Surely they should let others, with safer intentions, protect individuals from their damaging objectives.  And so the INTJ tries to put away the planetarium of their minds in favor of following the path that is already set, or risk the possibility of breaking the world the ones they love, love.

The ironic thing is that these second-option INTJs often end up afraid and withdrawn from the very people they hoped to protect and care for, assured that their intentions are something that they need to keep away from others, or end up hurting them in the process.  And in addition, as they grow deflated about others’ opinions of their motives and intents, this INTJ is likely to feel unwanted and close off their secret heart from others.

But an INTJ who has halted the pursuit of the potential they envision will inevitably end up discovering that trying to quarantine their true desires doesn’t actually end up keeping the ones they love from harm.  Meanwhile, their ability to make good in the world is tragically minimized as they refuse to stand and live up to their own personal power.

However, the INTJ story need not have a dark ending.  Despite what INTJs may fear when the path seems lone to carry out ideals that some would never think to expect, their designs and ambitions are wanted and desired by individuals who love the inspiring might that healthy INTJs bring with them.

If this third INTJ turns to those who can ground them in the meaning and worth of individuals, including themselves, they will be able to gather the strength to reject the negative image that many would give them of their own character.  And as INTJs learn to love the person they are, by listening to those who truly see them and know their hidden depths, then their visions are given the perspective of hope.  And an INTJ with true hope is completely unstoppable.

Because the world needs those who can wield universal principles like cleansing fire, people who are ready to stand and do the hard things in order to protect those who cannot protect themselves, those who can use sweeping trends like wings to further grand plans; in short, the world needs INTJ Dragons.

The INTJ Dragon is found often and memorably throughout fiction.  Whether it’s as the fearless mentor and leader who isn’t afraid to push their protégés to their limits, the child with power and secrets that even they themselves do not understand, the scholar who has more adventure in them than might first meet the eye, or yes, even the villain who is always one step ahead of the heroes—the Dragon is always there with their gears turning.

And in fact, even though I usually reserve an examination of the “Dark side” of each Type Hero for the end, it seems with the Dragon I can’t wait that long.  INTJs are so very often cast as villains, to the point that it’s joke worthy, that we really can’t go on longer without addressing the fictional fascination with Dark Dragons.

But I think the major reason that INTJs are so often cast as villains in stories, besides fear of the change that INTJ’s Type Specialization brings, is that they really are pretty bad-A at it.  I was nervous to include so many villainous examples in this post, as part of my intent in writing The Dragon is to overcome the stereotypes associated with this wonderful cognition… but the thing is, it’s hard *not* to love Dark Dragons.

In a world that often treats power itself like a villainous trait, our sense of archetype finds it refreshing seeing characters who both have and use the power necessary to take the world by storm, shaping it and changing it, letting nothing stand in their way.  How can we not feel a thrill of excitement when these titans come on the screen or page, their thunderous theme music filling us.

But the lie, I believe, that our culture buys into in this case, is that power itself is the treacherous slope that has brought these leviathans down their dark paths.  As our true heroic Dragons show us, power used to protect, nourish and empower the individual wills of others, as opposed to subverting them, is something we desperately need more of.

I found it fascinating to realize how often within the same piece of fiction, both the teaching mentor and the villain would be written as INTJ.  Dumbledore versus Voldemort, Professor Charles Xavier versus Magneto, Nick Fury versus Loki, Elrond versus Sauron; over and over again, the author gives both the student-protagonists and ourselves the prospect of two potential worlds, given voice by two powerful INTJs who can imagine very different scenarios of how the world could be.

But our mentor INTJ has been to the edge, they’ve seen the slippery slope of power, and realized that the rise and fall of every civilization has one thing in common: its people.  A Dragon who has been to the other side of Anakin angst and is ready to lead others to the magnificent world they can imagine, realizes that they’ll never get there without individuals to back them up, fuel their way, and show them that what brings their world color, is the people in it.

Like all IJs, INTJs feel like “if I don’t do it, no one will,” and as the most future-oriented of the most zoomed-out types (NT, IJ), the Dragon is enduring, patient, and calculatingly meticulous, toward the larger end goals they’re trying to achieve.  But when not left alone, the Dragon can be an immense friend.

While they might have to go out of their way to show just how much they care, Dragons love people quite deeply, especially those who have shown integrity and a lasting appreciation of the principles they hold the dearest.  And though they might not expect to find those who will truly love, respect and see them for who they really are, the Dragon is likely to latch onto such people like the ray of brightest hope they could imagine.  Always paradoxically both complicated and straightforward, with a deep-seated seriousness, and yet with a childlike understanding of people, the Dragon is likely to catch you off guard with unexpected humor that’s remarkably true and yet not what others would be thinking about.

Dragon or Dark Dragon, INTJs are sure to be able to take the world by storm, but with people who can anchor them in hope and perspective, nothing can get in the way of a healthy Dragon on their way to make the world better.

Examples:
Male: Sherlock, BBC’s Sherlock
Female: Eleven, Stranger Things
Villain: Loki, Thor and The Avengers

Who are the Type Heroes?  Read the intro here, and stay tuned to meet them all!

Want more information on INTJ, the Dragon?  Read their Cognitive Orientation Guidebook here.

Author’s note – 2/17/17: This post is the 9th in the Type Heroes series, but the first in several years.  Part of the reason it took me so long to come back to this series, even though it is by far the most requested, is because I’ve learned so much in the nearly four years of creating aLBoP (and I learn new things all the time) and I want to do justice to all the beautiful complexity that I’ve learned about each of the cognitive types over the years!  I wish I could just go back immediately and update the previous 8 Type Heroes to the level of detail and nuance that I’ve been able to pour into this one, but that would really clog up my ability to produce new content, especially since 7 types are still desperately waiting for any version of their Type Hero!

But my hope and plan is to finish out the last of the Type Heroes (cue The Last of the Mohicans music in my head) with this degree of balance and depth, and *then* return to update and improve the previous 8 Type Heroes to my new standards, collages included most likely.  So if you’re thinking “Hey!!  Why does INTJ get the oh-so-special treatment??!?!” it’s just because it’s the first in the New and Improved Type Heroes!  Super excited for all to come, and hoping it’ll show everyone all the better that anyone can be a hero. <3

The post Type Heroes: INTJ – The Dragon appeared first on A Little Bit of Personality.

We couldn’t wait to re release these tools that can help you understand, quantify and grow in every area of your life, taking the tools from aLBoP you’ve learned about cognition and appreciating all Types of Information, and being able to apply them in entirely new and complex ways.

We’re so excited for the new streamlined version of the entire Phase 2 Intro and its accompanying forum, which you can sign up for, entirely automated!  So no more waiting for Calise and Justin to get on it  ( Our sincere apologies to those who asked for an invite to old Phase 2 and never received it because we were getting ready for the transition. <3)

Note: due to current and strange technical difficulties, when you first create a username and password for the Phase 2 Intro, the login page may act like you need to do it again.  If it asks you to make a username and password again after you already did, simply reload the page instead, and you should be logged in just fine.

And when you’ve gotten to read and internalize all the Intro content, then there’s the ongoing full Phase 2 site and forum that you can apply to from the Intro site!

But there’s so much to read and so much to talk about!!  So head over to the Phase 2 Intro site and get yourself self-invited to read the content!  We can’t wait to see you there!!

So much love,

<3 Calise and Justin

The post The New Phase 2 appeared first on A Little Bit of Personality.

And as I always say, *don’t* start here!  You’re going to be so ridiculously confused if you do!  Are you one of those people that flips to the end of the book?!  Well, you can’t do that with this!

So far, on Cognition – The Super Simple Version…

Our minds prioritize information according to what’s the most important to us, the information we love the most.  Likewise, our minds process that information with the functions that best fit for our underlying objectives for that type of information.

In Part 1 we learned about the Four Types of Information, and that when we think, we all use all of them, just in different orders.

In Part 2 we learned about the four functions.  We learned that there are two Compilation Functions–Sensing (experiences) and iNtuition (concepts)–and two Application Functions–Feeling (meaning) and Thinking (use).

In Part 3 we learned that cognition steps are each made up of one Type of Information and one function, and each cognitive type is a unique combination and order of four of those steps.

Remember we discussed that the Four Types of Information are what we think about, the functions are how we take in and use that information, Judging and Perceiving are when we prioritize each type of information, and Introversion and Extraversion are where we get information.

And we derived the four cognition orders from requirements we got from the definitions themselves.

IP – Data -> Observation -> Action -> Principles
EP – Observation -> Data -> Principles -> Action
IJ – Principles -> Action -> Data -> Observation
EJ – Action -> Principles -> Observation -> Data

Requirements:

1. Perceivers use Perceiving first, then Judging.  Judgers use Judging first, then Perceiving.
2. Introverts use an Information Toi first.  Extraverts use an Action Toi first.
3. Introverts use Data before Observation.  Extraverts use Observation before Data.
4. “Specifics” use a Specific Toi first.  “Universals” use a Universal Toi first.
5. “Specifics” use Action before Principles.  “Universals” use Principles before Action.

We also learned that Judgers and Perceivers don’t think of Action the same way, with Judgers using Action like a map and Perceivers using Action like a toolbox.

 

 

And finally, in Part 4, we talked about the four possible Function-Combinations and why they always went with particular Types of Information:

When a Compilation Function (Sensing or iNtuition) is Extraverted (Se or Ne), it is always Observation— a pattern-finding database of individuals and their motives.

When a Compilation Function (Sensing or iNtuition) is Introverted (Si or Ni), it is either Principles (Js) or Action (Ps)–an internal playground of information pattern-finding.

When an Application Function (Feeling or Thinking) is Introverted (Fi or Ti), it is always Data–bullet points of information inside your head.

When an Application Function (Feeling or Thinking) is Extraverted (Fe or Te), it is either Action (Js) or Principles (Ps)–applying either meaning or use to your external environment.

Wow, that was quite the review!  Let’s just pick right up where we left off with the Function-Combinations.  I said in the last post that the four Function-Combinations are the four possible ways to start the cognition process.  Well, that’s the perfect way for us to begin assembling the sixteen cognition processes!

The four Function-Combinations are the four possible ways to start the cognition process

I’m going to walk slowly through one of our four Function-Combination options, deducing what we can tell just by knowing that someone starts with that Function-Combination, but then we’ll go faster through the other three.

So, we know that everyone uses all four Function-Combinations at some point in their cognition processes.  But let’s imagine someone who starts with Extraverted Compilation as their First Cognition Step.

 

We learned in Part 4 that Extraverted Compilation (EC heehee) is always Observation & Motivations.  Let’s ignore the fact that we learned who does Observation as their First Cognition Step in Part 3 and find it again.

 

Observation is part of the Perceiving half of the cognition process, and we learned in Part 3 that Perceivers (P) Perceive first, before Judging; therefore, anyone whose First Step is Perceiving (Observation) must be a Perceiver.  So someone who starts with Extraverted Compilation must be a P.

 

We also learned in Part 3 that if a person looks outside themselves first for information, in other words if they Extravert their First Step, then we call that person an Extravert (E).  So if someone’s First Step is *Extraverted* Compilation, then they must be an E.

So if a person’s uses Extraverted Compilation as their First Cognition Step, then they must be an EP.  And guess what?!  We learned in Part 3 that EPs’ First Cognition Step is *Observation!*  Yaaay!!!

We learned in Part 3 that if a person uses a Universal Toi (Type of Information) first, that it makes them a “Universal” type, and it also means that they use Principles before Action, while if a person uses a Specific Toi first, they’re a “Specific” type and they’ll use Action before Principles.

 

Well, you’ll also see that Universal cognition types start first with Compiling zoomed-out information to see how things always work.  Specific cognition types start with Applying zoomed-in information to specific circumstances.  Makes sense, right?

 

 

EPs use Universal Action (Observation & Motivations) first, so they’re Universal types, and they use Extraverted Compilation first!  See how everything fits together and cross-checks?  It makes it stupidly hard to explain simply, but it’s also really cool, imho.

Alright, let’s go through these Function-Combos a little faster, shall we?

 

So again, a cognition process starting with Extraverted Compilation: Always used for Perceiving; therefore P.  Extraverted; therefore E.  Compilation; therefore Universal.  EP, starting with Universal Action; Observation & Motivations using either Se (Extraverted Sensing) or Ne (Extraverted iNtuition).

 

 

A cognition process starting with Introverted Application:  Always used for Perceiving; therefore P.  Introverted; therefore I.  Application; therefore Specific.  IP, starting with Specific Information; Data & Details using either Fi (Introverted Feeling) or Ti (Introverted Thinking).

Now, the Judging Function-Combinations might seem more complicated, but we do know they’re always used for Judging even if they’re used for different Tois.  We also know that if a person uses Judging first, then they’re a Judger (J), so from that we know that they’ll be using the Function-Combos in Judger ways.

 A cognition process starting with Introverted Compilation: Always used for Judging; therefore J.  Introverted; therefore I.  Compilation; therefore Universal.  IJ, starting with Universal Information; Principles & Trends using either Si (Introverted Sensing) or Ni (Introverted iNtuition).

 

A cognition process starting with Extraverted Application: Always used for Judging; therefore J.  Extraverted; therefore E.  Application; therefore Specific.  EJ, starting with Specific Action; Actions & Consequences using either Fe (Extraverted Feeling) or Te (Extraverted Thinking).

See how all the possibilities are covered?  Each Function-Combo is used first by *someone,* and the rest of their functions follow from their First Step, just like everyone’s cognition order followed from the first Type of Information they used.  It’s so interweaving and perdy! <3  And all the options possible, based on the definitions, exist!  All the bases are covered!

Okay.  /end geek-out.  But here we now have 8 types:

 

Step One

If a person’s First Cognition Step is Observation & Motivations via Se, then they’re an ESP, an Extraverted Sensing Perceiver.  (See how that works?  They’re using Perceiving, Extraversion and Sensing first?  I swear all the multi-post lead-up was important, even though the end result is that simple.  That’s all that ESP means, this is their First Cognition Step.)  That means they start their cognition process by watching individuals to compile possibilities and to understand motives based on their experiences of what they’ve seen people do.

 

If a person’s First Cognition Step is Observation & Motivations via Ne, then they’re an ENP, an Extraverted iNtuitive Perceiver.  That means they start their cognition process by watching individuals in order to compile possibilities and to understand motives based on concepts of what people can do and how people work conceptually.

 

If a person’s First Cognition Step is Data & Details via Fi, then they’re an IFP, an Introverted Feeling Perceiver.  That means they start their cognition process by pondering the details of a situation in order to understand and apply the inherent significance of specific situations and to ask questions that help them discover meaningful possibilities.

 

If a person’s First Cognition Step is Data & Details via Ti, then they’re an ITP, an Introverted Thinking Perceiver.  That means they start their cognition process by pondering the details of a situation in order to understand and apply the inherent benefits of specific situations and to ask questions that help them discover useful possibilities.

 

If a person’s First Cognition Step is Principles & Trends via Si, they’re an ISJ, an Introverted Sensing Judger.  That means they start their cognition process by pondering on how the world has worked in their experience in order to compile core principles of how things always work, and predict trends of how things will continue to work.

 

If a person’s First Cognition Step is Principles & Trends via Ni, they’re an INJ, an Introverted iNtuitive Judger.  That means they start their cognition process by pondering on how the world works in concept, in order to compile core principles of how things always work, and predict trends of how things could work.

 

If a person’s First Cognition Step is Action & Consequences via Fe, they’re an EFJ, an Extraverted Feeling Judger.  That means they start their cognition process by watching the cause-and-effect of people’s choices in order to understand and apply the inherent significance of decisions and to chart the most meaningful course of action ahead of them.

 

If a person’s First Cognition Step is Action & Consequences via Te, they’re an ETJ, an Extraverted Thinking Judger.  That means they start their cognition process by watching the cause-and-effect of people’s choices in order to understand and apply the inherent benefits of decisions and to chart the most useful course of action ahead of them.

 

Quoth Brian Regan profoundly, “Say EIGHT!!”  Here we now have eight cognitive types, which cover all the possible options.  We multiplied the 4Toi (Four Types of Information), by two possible functions for each one (two Compilation and two Application) to get eight types.  But you may remember I said there were sixteen unique cognition processes.  Well, let’s cleave them in two again by using the *Second* Step of the cognition process. :O

Step Two

For everyone’s Second Cognition Step, they finish out either Judging or Perceiving and they switch whether they’re Compiling or Applying information, as well as whether they’re looking outside or inside (Extraverting or Introverting functions).

If a person’s Second Cognition Step is Data & Details via Fi, then they’re an EFP, an Extraverted Feeling Perceiver.  That means they ponder on what their observations from their First Step can show them about the details of a situation in order to understand and apply the inherent significance of specific situations and to ask questions that help them discover meaningful possibilities.

 

If a person’s Second Cognition Step is Data & Details via Ti, then they’re an ETP, an Extraverted Thinking Perceiver.  That means they ponder on what their observations from their First Step can show them about the details of a situation in order to understand and apply the inherent benefits of specific situations and to ask questions that help them discover useful possibilities.

If a person’s Second Cognition Step is Observation & Motivations via Se, then they’re an ISP, an Introverted Sensing Perceiver.  That means they watch to see what their situational conclusions from their First Step can show them about individuals in order to compile possibilities and to understand motives based on their experiences of what they’ve seen people do.

 

If a person’s Second Cognition Step is Observation & Motivations via Ne, then they’re an INP, an Introverted iNtuitive Perceiver.  That means they watch to see what their situational conclusions from their First Step can show them about individuals in order to compile possibilities and to understand motives based on concepts of what people can do and how people work conceptually.

 

If a person’s Second Cognition Step is Action & Consequences via Fe, they’re an IFJ, an Introverted Feeling Judger.  That means they watch to see what the universal trends from their First Step can show them about the cause-and-effect of people’s choices in order to understand and apply the inherent significance of decisions and to chart the most meaningful course of action ahead of them.

 

If a person’s Second Cognition Step is Action & Consequences via Te, they’re an ITJ, an Introverted Thinking Judger.  That means they watch to see what the universal trends from their First Step can show them about the cause-and-effect of people’s choices in order to understand and apply the inherent benefit of decisions and to chart the most useful course of action ahead of them.

 

If a person’s Second Cognition Step is Principles & Trends via Si, they’re an ESJ, an Extraverted Sensing Judger.  That means they ponder on what the cause-and-effect from their First Step can show them about how the world has worked in experience, in order to compile core principles of how things always work, and predict trends of how things will continue to work.

 

If a person’s Second Cognition Step is Principles & Trends via Ni, they’re an ENJ, an Extraverted iNtuitive Judger.  That means they ponder on what the cause-and-effect from their First Step can show them about how the world works in concept, in order to compile core principles of how things always work, and predict trends of how things could work.

 

See, and just from that we see how a person’s first two cognition steps determines their cognitive type!!  We get four letters for each type based on just those two steps!

Now, you *could* potentially figure out everyone’s last two steps by yourself from the cognition order we talked about in Part 3 and our Function-Combinations from Part 4, but I’m not going to make you do that, and I want to point things out as we finish these up.

Alright, so we know that everyone uses all Four Types of Information and all four functions, so by process of elimination, in the second half of the cognition process, everyone uses the two Tois and functions they haven’t yet, according to the Function-Combinations: Perceivers Judge, Judgers Perceive.

For Step Three, everyone switches whether they’re looking inside or outside again (I/E) but the Compilation/Application relationship is interesting between Steps Two and Three.

Remember how I pointed out in the last post that Judgers’ cognition order is a Universal or Specific sandwich, with Perceivers getting like a weird mayo on the outside thing?  Well, what everyone does have, cognitively speaking, is a Compilation or Application sandwich… by which I mean that Universal types use Compilation Functions on either end of their cognition process, with Application Functions in the middle, and Specific types use Application Functions on either end, with Compilation Functions in the middle.

Universal – C -> A -> A -> C
Specific  – A -> C -> C -> A

(ACA were my maiden initials.  Calise is my middle name.  I miss the palindrome :’( lol)

This is because the translation between the Judging and Perceiving halves of the cognition process is made possible by staying either zoomed-out or zoomed-in, so either Compiling or Applying, even when we go to repeat the cognition process over again.

So as everyone switches to Judging or Perceiving on Step Three, they continue either Compiling or Applying, but with a function they haven’t used yet, and switching whether they’re using that function inside or outside.

And that makes sense, because Judging and Perceiving both have one Compilation Function and one Application Function, and one Extraverted function and one Introverted function, right?  And we don’t repeat Function-Combinations.

So if Compilation and Application are making a sandwich (eg. ACCA), and Extraversion and Introversion are alternating (eg. eiei…o lol), then they never line up the same way twice.  And that’s exactly what we’re looking for everyone to get to use all four Function-Combos!  (And interestingly, those examples together, ACCA and eiei, would *always* be an EJ cognition process, because it’s starting with Application and Extraversion. :))

Also remember, Third Step is where our Perceivers start doing their toolbox thing, of Compiling Action and Applying Principles.  {And it’s neat to observe that Perceivers always Extravert Universal Tois, and Introvert Specific ones.  Makes sense that Perceivers would gather their understanding of how the world works on a Universal scale from perceiving the outside themselves, right?  Whereas Judgers always match up Compilation with Universal.}

The transition between the Second and Third Steps is really cool too, because it’s unique to each cognition order, in a way that fits their cognition perfectly:

EPs are the only ones that find world Trends directly from situational Data.

IPs are the only ones that compile what Actions are possible directly from Observing individuals.

IJs are the only ones that gather situational Data directly from Consequences.

And EJs are the only ones that gather their Observations of individuals’ motivations directly from seeing how the world works in Principle.

Step Three

If a person’s Third Cognition Step is Principles & Trends via Te, they’re an EFP, an Extraverted Feeling Perceiver.  That means they watch to see what their situational conclusions from their Second Step can show them about the benefit of the world and what’s occurring in it, in order to understand their personal principles about what is the most use to them and to watch for useful trends.

 

If a person’s Third Cognition Step is Principles & Trends via Fe, they’re an ETP, an Extraverted Thinking Perceiver.  That means they watch to see what their situational conclusions from their Second Step can show them about the significance of the world and what’s occurring in it, in order to understand their personal principles about what means the most to them and to watch for meaningful trends.

 

If a person’s Third Cognition Step is Action & Consequences via Ni, they’re an ISP, an Introverted Sensing Perceiver.  That means they ponder on what their observations from their Second Step can show them about the cause-and-effect of people’s choices in order to understand and compile how decisions and consequences work in core concept and to discover what new actions are possible.

 

If a person’s Third Cognition Step is Action & Consequences via Si, they’re an INP, an Introverted iNtuitive Perceiver.  That means they ponder on what their observations from their Second Step can show them about the cause-and-effect of people’s choices in order to understand and compile how decisions and consequences work based on their experience and to consider what actions have worked the best in the past.

 

If a person’s Third Cognition Step is Data & Details via Ti, then they’re an IFJ, an Introverted Feeling Judger.  That means they ponder on what the cause-and-effect from their Second Step can show them about the details of a situation in order to understand and apply the inherent benefits of specific situations and to ask questions that help them discover useful possibilities.

 

If a person’s Third Cognition Step is Data & Details via Fi, then they’re an ITJ, an Introverted Thinking Judger.  That means they ponder on what the cause-and-effect from their Second Step can show them about the details of a situation in order to understand and apply the inherent significance of specific situations and to ask questions that help them discover meaningful possibilities.

 

If a person’s Third Cognition step is Observation & Motivations via Ne, then they’re an ESJ, an Extraverted Sensing Judger.  That means they watch to see what the universal trends from their Second Step can show them about individuals in order to compile possibilities and to understand motives based on concepts of what people can do and how people work conceptually.

 

If a person’s Third Cognition step is Observation & Motivations via Se, then they’re an ENJ, an Extraverted iNtuitive Judger.  That means they watch to see what the universal trends from their Second Step can show them about individuals in order to compile possibilities and to understand motives based on their experiences of what they’ve seen people do.

 

There’s not much more to say before Step Four; it’s the last one left, both Toi and Function-Combination.  It’s the end of our C/A sandwich and always opposite E/I of our First Step.  It’s always going to be where our minds spend the least time too, and therefore the biggest struggle for us, but we’ll talk more about that later.

Step Four

If a person’s Fourth Cognition Step is Action & Consequences via Ni, they’re an ESP, an Extraverted Sensing Perceiver.  That means they watch to see what the universal trends from their Third Step can show them about the cause-and-effect of people’s choices in order to understand and compile how decisions and consequences work in core concept and to discover what new actions are possible.

 

If a person’s Fourth Cognition Step is Action & Consequences via Si, they’re an ENP, an Extraverted iNtuitive Perceiver.  That means they watch to see what the universal trends from their Third Step can show them about the cause-and-effect of people’s choices in order to understand and compile how decisions and consequences work based on their experience and to consider what actions have worked the best in the past.

 

If a person’s Fourth Cognition Step is Principles & Trends via Te, they’re an IFP, an Introverted Feeling Perceiver.  That means they watch to see what the cause-and-effect from their Third Step can show them about the benefit of the world and what’s occurring in it, in order to understand their personal principles about what is the most use to them and to watch for useful trends.

 

If a person’s Fourth Cognition Step is Principles & Trends via Fe, they’re an ITP, an Introverted Thinking Perceiver.  That means they watch to see what the cause-and-effect from their Third Step can show them about the significance of the world and what’s occurring in it, in order to understand their personal principles about what means the most to them and to watch for meaningful trends.

 

If a person’s Fourth Cognition Step is Observation & Motivations via Ne, then they’re an ISJ, an Introverted Sensing Judger.  That means they watch to see what their situational conclusions from their Third Step can show them about individuals in order to compile possibilities and to understand motives based on concepts of what people can do and how people work conceptually.

 

If a person’s Fourth Cognition Step is Observation & Motivations via Se, then they’re an INJ, an Introverted iNtuitive Judger.  That means they watch to see what their situational conclusions from their Third Step can show them about individuals in order to compile possibilities and to understand motives based on their experiences of what they’ve seen people do.

 

If a person’s Fourth Cognition Step is Data & Details via Ti, then they’re an EFJ, an Extraverted Feeling Judger.  That means they ponder on what their observations from their Second Step can show them about the details of a situation in order to understand and apply the inherent benefits of specific situations and to ask questions that help them discover useful possibilities.

 

If a person’s Fourth Cognition Step is Data & Details via Fi, then they’re an ETJ, an Extraverted Thinking Judger.  That means they ponder on what their observations from their Second Step can show them about the details of a situation in order to understand and apply the inherent significance of specific situations and to ask questions that help them discover meaningful possibilities.

 

And that, my friends, is all the cognition steps for all sixteen cognition orders!!  Let’s look at the sixteen cognition processes of our resulting four-variable types!

ESFP – Observation via Se -> Data via Fi -> Principles via Te -> Action via Ni

ESTP – Observation via Se -> Data via Ti -> Principles via Fe -> Action via Ni

ENFP – Observation via Ne -> Data via Fi -> Principles via Te -> Action via Si

ENTP – Observation via Ne -> Data via Ti -> Principles via Fe -> Action via Si
(This one is my cognition order ^ :D)

 

 

ISFP – Data via Fi -> Observation via Se -> Action via Ni -> Principles via Te

ISTP – Data via Ti -> Observation via Se -> Action via Ni -> Principles via Fe

INFP – Data via Fi -> Observation via Ne -> Action via Si -> Principles via Te

INTP – Data via Ti -> Observation via Ne -> Action via Si -> Principles via Fe

 

 

ISFJ – Principles via Si -> Action via Fe -> Data via Ti -> Observation via Ne

ISTJ – Principles via Si -> Action via Te -> Data via Fi -> Observation via Ne

INFJ – Principles via Ni -> Action via Fe -> Data via Ti -> Observation via Se

INTJ – Principles via Ni -> Action via Te -> Data via Fi -> Observation via Se

 

 

ESFJ – Action via Fe -> Principles via Si -> Observation via Ne -> Data via Ti

ESTJ – Action via Te -> Principles via Si -> Observation via Ne -> Data via Fi

ENFJ – Action via Fe -> Principles via Ni -> Observation via Se -> Data via Ti

ENTJ – Action via Te -> Principles via Ni -> Observation via Se -> Data via Fi

Here’s a link to all four of those in one picture, on my Pinterest.  Feel free to save/share it for reference.

Great Scott, we made it!!  *You* made it!  And now you know what all those little picture symbols and Ne, Ti, Si, etc. really mean… here on aLBoP anyway.  I take no responsibility for what they mean anywhere else.

While the second half of the cognition process is not as high a priority for our minds as the first half, it’s still an essential part of how our minds work.   Remember, we all use all Four Types of Information and we all use all four functions.  While a Thinker doesn’t prioritize meaning as early as a Feeler in their cognition process, the way Ts use meaning is integral to the way they cognate.  Same deal with Feelers and use, Sensors with concepts and iNtuitives with experiences.  While not our prime objectives, our later steps are precious parts of who we are and how we think, ones that contribute back to our central desires.

In the same way that Perceivers use Judging in an essential, toolbox way that helps them use possibilities and situations better, Judgers’ use of Perceiving is essential to their understanding of the world and consequences with complexity and balance.

Now, that being said, our later steps, and especially our last steps, are always our weakest, because our minds just don’t spend as much time there.  As finite beings, we’re limited and we just don’t have enough mental energy to spend equally on everything, and our cognition process is all about prioritizing, in a good way.

We also tend to be insecure when it comes to our later steps, especially the last one.  But this ends up being a vicious cycle when our insecurity impels us to focus too heavily on those later steps.  In fact, when we’re insecure or scared in general, we tend to hang out at our Last Step.  When we do this, we ignore crucial things that our First Cognition Step is telling us and make terrible errors in judgment, choices and overall understanding.

Our First Cognition Step is first because deep down we love it the most, and because we spend the most time there, that’s what we’re naturally best at.  It gives us nuanced information that we just can’t get from our later steps.  And when we fixate on our later steps, we end up getting less able in our First Step, which is just a mess.

The answer is to return to the North Star stability of your First Step, and focus on discovering what it’s really telling you.  Strengthening your cognitive strengths, it seems, naturally helps your cognitive weaknesses grow stronger too.  Works Every. Single. Time.

But you’ve been told that what your mind prioritizes just isn’t good enough, that it’s not smart enough, important enough, cool enough or responsible enough.  “Why can’t you just be more like *not* you?” our culture demands of us.

That’s one thing that all the types have in common: they’re all pressured to be someone else.  We’re all pressured to feel guilty for specializing in the things we love the most.  We all get told that the way we think is broken and wrong.

But cognition isn’t supposed to limit what you’re *allowed* to do or be.   When done correctly, understanding your cognition should be *permission* to do and be the fullest version of you; permission to love the things you love the most.   Permission to see that the way you think is good and not broken.  And help to see that you, *as you,* can become the hero you’ve always wanted to be.

In Part 6, we’ll talk about the who and the why of cognition, what each cognition type specializes in better than any other type.

But, guuuuys!!  You made it through the entire cognition process!!!  /Party for you!  While understanding the physics of thought has literally *endless* applications, now you know the foundations that all the applications build upon.  We still have plenty of Super Simple to go, but now it’s just the cool results of these immensely simple patterns.  These sixteen options cover all the possibilities, and we need that diversity of people and specializations.

Now that the entire cognition process itself has been given the Super Simple treatment, I may not rush Part 6 nearly as much as I rushed Parts 3, 4 and 5.  After all, there’s already a pretty good, relatively straightforward post called Type Specializations: What Makes *My* Type Special, and while I’ll love to put it through the Super-Simple-O-Matic (-_- believe me, there is nothing automated about writing these, ROFL!) it’s not nearly as urgent.

Oh, and if you want to read my first description of the cognition process, written more confusingly but in somewhat more detail, and stick figures ;), check out The Cognition Process in Stick Figures.  You, being a pro at the cognition process now, should totally be able to handle it, and I *am* still pretty proud of the cute stick figures, considering that post was written almost three years ago now.  (Although, please forgive words like “linear” for Sensing, etc.  aLBoP was super baby at that point and we were still defining our terms and learning how much we needed to differentiate ourselves from other typing systems.  Stuff like that makes me super cringey when I look back at my early posts, but the SSS is a chance for me to remedy all that!  It’s super incredible what you can learn to do better in just a few years!!)

On the aLBoP Guided Tour?  For now, until there’s more Super Simple, What Do All These Letters Mean Anyway? is up next!

The post Cognition – The Super Simple Series! | Part 5: Assembling the Cognition Process appeared first on A Little Bit of Personality.

Oh and of course, if you haven’t read Parts 1, 2 and 3 yet, then I love you but you really shouldn’t be here yet.  Go read those first and then come back.  Don’t worry, I’m patient.

Alrighty, I’m really excited for this part too because there’s a lot about why Functions function the way that they do that I really haven’t gotten the opportunity to explain to the whole class, and they are really pretty frickn’ awesome!
 
A little bit of review, since the last post was long: (heehee, my fingers want to capitalize A Little Bit… I wonder why ;D)

Last time our intrepid heroes were reading Cognition – The Super Simple Series…

Our minds prioritize information according to what’s the most important to us, the information we love the most.  Likewise, our minds process that information with the functions that best fit for our underlying objectives for that Type of Information.

There are Four Types of Information and four functions.  Cognition Steps are each made up of one Type of Information and one function, and each cognitive type is a unique combination and order of four of those steps.

Remember we discussed that the Four Types of Information are what we think about, the functions are how we take in and use that information, Judging and Perceiving are when we prioritize each type of information, and Introversion and Extraversion are where we get information.

Now we’re going to play cognition step matchmaker with the 4Toi (Four Types of Information) and the four functions.  But the Four Types of Information are picky when it comes to being paired off, they won’t hook up with just any function or get information from just anywhere.  So let’s meet our lucky bachelors… or bachelorettes?  Eh, whatever, they’re inanimate and we all do all four. 

Here we have another double-dichotomy!  This double-dichotomy shows the four Function-Combination options; Introverted vs. Extraverted combined with Application Functions vs. Compilation Functions.  These are the four possible Function-Combination options and we all use each one once in our cognition process.

{And one thing you’ll find in common with most aLBoP’s double-dichotomies, this double-dichotomy correlates with the Four Types of Information, while not actually *being* the Four Types of Information.  This is because the 4Toi is made up of such basic, fundamental variables–being vs. doing (Information vs. Action) and zoomed-out vs. zoomed-in (Universal vs. Specific)–that you find the 4Toi correlating with patterns all throughout nature, as well as fractally throughout human intelligence… but that’s a topic for another day.}

Okay let’s take each of these options in turn and talk about what they really are and why each only gets matched up with certain Types of Information during the cognition process.

Remember, Compilation Functions compile massive quantities of information into universally applicable patterns that *always* apply, while Application Functions apply information to specific circumstances by deciding which information and choices best match with that function’s aim and purpose.

The two Compilation Functions are Sensing (experiences) and iNtuition (concepts).

The two Application Functions are Feeling (meaning) and Thinking (use).

And Extraversion turns outward for information while Introversion turns inward.

We like to use the analogy of a sonar for when a function is Extraverted; Extraversion uses sonar “pings” by poking people and the world to get a read on the things outside of it.

And when a function is Introverted, it’s like a HUD (heads-up display), constantly checking and aligning the information inside the mind.

When a Compilation Function is Extraverted, it “pings” the outside world to finds patterns by watching reactions to choices.   Those reactions create a database of possibilities, showing what an individual can do and be.  Also, people’s reactions demonstrate their universal, zoomed-out character; over time, Extraverted Compilation creates a database of an individual’s reactions to see the kind of person they are and if they can be relied on as a source of information and trusted.  It’s like a sonar to x-ray the shape of someone’s heart (cue the Backstreet Boys’ song in my head and suddenly I’m 14 again).

Since Extraverted Compilation is always about watching for patterns in people’s choices, it is always paired with Universal Action, aka Observation & Motivations.

So Extraverted Compilation… should we shorten it to EC?  (Incidentally, Ecee was my nickname growing up; oddly appropriate considering this is my mind’s favorite Function-Combination.)  But then again EC stands for other things.  And that would mean shortening Extraverted Application to EA… so let’s not. lol

So Extraverted Compilation can come either by way of Sensing, in the form of learning from hands-on experience of seeing how individuals and situations *have* reacted in the past, or it can come by way of iNtuition, in the form of concepts of how individuals and situations *could* react.  Both come in the form of large databases, but Extraverted Sensing (Se) finds patterns in what individuals have already done and Extraverted iNtuition (Ne) finds patterns in what individuals could potentially do.

So whenever you see Extraverted Sensing (Se) or Extraverted iNtuition (Ne), they are always Observation & Motivations, and therefore always Perceiving.  That’s why the little shorthand is useful, so don’t be scared of it.  

When an Application Function is Introverted, it uses the information already compiled inside the mind, and filters it into bullet points of information, ready to apply to the specific situation.  It turns inside, zooms in on the information it already has on its HUD, and examines, “What do I already know, and what information am I missing?”  In other words, it determines what Data and Details it has at its disposal and makes situational conclusions based on those bullet points of data.  It asks questions and looks for specific informational flaws.

So, Data *is* the Specific Information inside your head, so is it any surprise that Introverted Application functions always serve as our Data & Details step?

Now the main reason I originally started using Data & Details instead of just saying Data, was because the word “Data” conveys more of the use, Thinking version of Data, but not as much the Feeling, meaning side of it.  Half the types use their Data to find the efficient use of specific situational information, but the other half uses their Data to understand the inherent meaning of situations and Details, holding close the intrinsic significance of moments.  Both use Specific Information to determine conclusions and ask questions, but Introverted Feeling (Fi) focuses on the meaning of Specific Information, while Introverted Thinking (Ti) focuses on its use.

So whenever you see Introverted Feeling (Fi) or Introverted Thinking (Ti), they are always Data & Details, and therefore always Perceiving.

Caveat: I should really say, whenever you see Fi, Ti, etc. on aLBoP, because nine times out of ten if you see function shorthands elsewhere on the internet and in books, they’ll have no real definitions beyond things like, “Well, it kind of makes you emotional and stuff…”  Which, besides not being especially useful in application, are usually ridiculously simplified and restricting.  All I’m gonna say atm.

Extraverted Compilation Functions = Observation & Motivations
Introverted Application Functions = Data & Details

Will you look at that?!  We have cognition patterns forming again! Now we have matching Function-Combinations for the entire Perceiving half of the cognition process!  And again like with our double-dichotomy in the last post, each half of the cognition process gets one of each variable; one Extraverted function, one Introverted, one Compilation Function, one Application Function.  And we can tell that that’s a pattern that’s going to continue into the Judging half, because the options left follow that same pattern.

But, remember from Part 3, the Judging half of the cognition process was where things went a little crazy, right?  Because Judgers think of Action like a map and Perceivers think of Action like a toolbox, ‘member?  Well this is where we’re going to see that dynamic play out in the functions, where the rubber hits the road.

When a Compilation Function is Introverted, the mind becomes a fantastic playground of information pattern-finding.  The great scenario generator, Introverted Compilation is always the most zoomed-out step, because inside the mind there are no borders to the information it can compile and find patterns in.  Introverted Compilation uses its HUD to sort through huge databases of compiled information in order to find the universal rules of what makes things work.

Now, here’s where Judgers and Perceivers differ.

Judgers use this vast internal playground to find patterns in how the world as a whole works, what Principles are universally true and how to predict world Trends, so their Actions will interact with said world correctly.

And Perceivers use the Compilation mind-playground to visualize scenarios of Action, find patterns and parallels in what makes a category of Action work and get desired Consequences when different world situations arise.

So Introverted Compilation is always a Judging step, which is good to remember, but for Judgers it’s always Principles & Trends, and for Perceivers it’s always Action & Consequences.

Like with all the variables, there are two ways to compile in your head.  Introverted Sensing (Si) finds patterns in past experiences to see what Principles (for Js) or Action (for Ps) have worked in the past, and to find the threads behind what consistently works.  Introverted iNtuition (Ni) finds patterns in the overall mental concepts of information to see how information always fits together as Principles (for Js) or Action (for Ps), which can be used in new ways and to find the core connections behind what always works.

Alright, so Introverted Sensing (Si) and Introverted iNtuition (Ni) are always the zoomed-out, compiling side of Judging, but for Judgers they’ll always be Principles & Trends, and for Perceivers they’ll always be Action & Consequences.

When an Application Function is Extraverted, it looks at the world to find current needs outside itself and see what’s required to make the outside circumstances meet the function’s objectives.  While Introverted Application looks for what information is missing inside the mind, Extraverted Application sonar “pings” the external road ahead to see what’s missing in order to achieve the outside objectives it desires.

Perhaps the Function-Combination that typifies the word “Judging” the most, Extraverted Application is all about weighing and applying judgment calls about what will be best, whether its job is to prioritize use or meaning, action or worldview.

And like Introverted Compilation, Extraverted Application is always a Judging step, whose use differs between Judgers and Perceivers.

Judgers use Extraverted Application to look outside themselves and decide both their goals and determine what Actions and choices will lead to the Consequences they desire.  They also interpret the effects of previous Actions to understand Consequences more accurately.  They use Extraverted Action to plot their map’s course and review where the paths they’ve already taken have led them.

Perceivers use Extraverted Application to look outside themselves and watch how the Trends of the world are going, checking for what it might need to match their objectives for it.  Their minds work in conjunction with their zoomed-out Action to see what tools the world needs from their toolbox.

So Extraverted Application is always a Judging step, but for Judgers it’s always Action & Consequences, and for Perceivers it’s always Principles & Trends.

Half of the cognition processes use Extraverted Feeling (Fe) as their Extraverted Application Function.

When Js use Extraverted Feeling (Fe), they look outside themselves to see what Actions would bring Consequences that are the most intrinsically significant, and decide which choices will lead to the most meaningful outcome.

When Ps use Extraverted Feeling (Fe), they look at the world outside themselves to discover what causes meaningful Trends, to determine Principles of what matters to them the most, and to find what the world needs to make it more meaningful.

The other half of the cognition processes use Extraverted Thinking (Te) as their Extraverted Application Function.

When Judgers use Extraverted Thinking (Te), they look outside themselves to see what Actions and choices would most efficiently produce the useful Consequences they need to achieve the most beneficial outcome.

When Perceivers use Extraverted Thinking (Te), they look at the world outside themselves to discover what causes useful Trends, to determine Principles of what tends to be the most effective, and to find what the world needs to make it more beneficial.

Okey doke, so Extraverted Feeling (Fe) and Extraverted Thinking (Te) are always the zoomed-in, applying side of Judging, but for Judgers they’ll always be Action & Consequences, and for Perceivers they’ll always be Principles & Trends.

And now we have the Judging half of the cognition process!  Tada!

Introverted Compilation Functions = Principles & Trends (for Js) OR Action & Consequences (for Ps)

Extraverted Application Functions = Action & Consequences (for Js) OR Principles & Trends (for Ps)

That is *all* the possible Function-Combinations!!  This means there’s three possible uses for each function: one Perceiving option, one Judging option for Js, and one Judging option for Ps.

When a Compilation Function (Sensing or iNtuition) is Extraverted (Se or Ne), it is always Observation— a pattern-finding database of individuals and their motives.

When a Compilation Function (Sensing or iNtuition) is Introverted (Si or Ni), it is either Principles (Js) or Action (Ps)–an internal playground of information pattern-finding.

When an Application Function (Feeling or Thinking) is Introverted (Fi or Ti), it is always Data–bullet points of information inside your head.

When an Application Function (Feeling or Thinking) is Extraverted (Fe or Te), it is either Action (Js) or Principles (Ps)–applying judgment calls to your external environment.

So the longer explanations were to help you understand *why* certain Types of Information only hook-up with certain Function-Combos, but really it’s as simple as these four statements above.  My hope will be that understanding why will help it be *easier* to understand, but if you forget, just reference these four statements.

And these four Function-Combinations are the four possible ways to start the cognition process!

So why is all this so important for understanding yourself, others, and the consistency of the human mind?  The reason I love Function-Combinations so much is because of the incredibly equal footing on which they place every cognition process.  So much junk-personality-typing tries to define the spectrum of humanity by separating them by narrow traits to the exclusion of all other traits, which limits and incapacitates people.

People tend to get so focused on if a person “is” F/T, S/N, E/I or J/P, or even Fe/Fi, Ni/Ne, etc.,–and sure, the letters are a good shorthand for what we prioritize first, and what is the most important to us–but so often, that focus makes us forget that each of the four functions is an integral part of *all* cognition processes.

I love how Function-Combinations just serve to demonstrate that life shouldn’t be a battle of opposing functions and viewpoints.  This isn’t some stupid war of S vs N or F vs T, and certainly not Fe vs Fi *eyeroll*.  Everyone needs to learn from experience (Sensing), concepts (iNtuition), meaning (Feeling) and use (Thinking), to function healthily.  (Functions to function! heehee)  Function-Combinations help to highlight that there are three very different ways to use experience, three ways to use concepts, etc.  And each of those beautiful variations leads to such a magnificent array of perspective and objective!

Okay, but here’s the thing: originally I’d planned to lay out everything about cognition steps, cognition order, Function-Combinations and putting it all back together, all in *one* post!  All of that was going to be rolled up into Part 3!  But then as I wrote it, I realized that, while I want to make this simple enough for anyone to understand, I really wanted to teach the *why* too!  So then keeping it super simple meant breaking it up into digestible pieces… so Part 3 became Parts 3 and 4, with Part 4 being Function-Combinations and putting the whole cognition process together!  But I realized when I was 85% of the way done with Part 4, that I was totally rushing putting all the pieces back together, which is kind of the point!  So Part 4 became Parts 4 and 5. -_-

My point is, hold that thought!  In Part 5 we’re going to use everything we’ve learned so far to assemble cognition steps, and use those to make sixteen completely unique cognition processes!!!  So stay tuned! <3

On the aLBoP Guided Tour?  Cognition – The Super Simple Series! | Part 5: Assembling the Cognition Process is up next!

The post Cognition – The Super Simple Series! | Part 4: Function-Combinations appeared first on A Little Bit of Personality.

I’ve explained the ins and outs of cognition order in a much more complicated way in the past, but today I really want to break it down into simple reasons *why* cognition does what it does.  Because the mind doesn’t do anything without a reason.

So at this point (assuming you’re not starting here, because this is Part 3 and that’d be silly), we’ve covered the Four Types of Information that our minds acquire and process in Part 1, and the Functions which are the means by which our minds compile and filter that information in Part 2.  In this post we’re going to start putting it all together and see how our minds go about prioritizing that information, based on what matters to us the most.

As we talked about in the first post, our minds prioritize information according to what’s the most important to us, the information we love the most.  Likewise, our minds process that information with the functions that best fit for our underlying objectives for that Type of Information.

Okay, so we have Four Types of Information and we have four functions.  Coincidence?  I think not!  Partially, it’s because of dichotomies and stuff, but also it’s because we’re going to pair them off!  Play cognitive matchmaker.

As you see in this picture, Cognition Steps are each made up of one Type of Information and one function, and each cognitive type is a unique combination and order of four of those steps.  Each of the sixteen cognitive types has its very own thought process, prioritizing different information and objectives than all the others.

Cognition steps flow one into the next, with each step being derived from the step before it, and adding more onto it.  And all our cognition steps contribute back to our first, most beloved step, when we start the cognition process over again.  And over and over and over and… you get the idea. 

While we all use all the Types of Information and functions, the way in which we use them, and the order we use them in, makes an enormous difference in how we think.

Remember how we talked in Part 1 about the Perceiving and Judging halves of the cognition process?  Well this is where that comes in.  If the Four Types of Information are what we’re thinking about, and the Functions are how we’re taking in and using that information, Judging and Perceiving are when we prioritize each Type of Information.

Remember, we learned that the Perceiving half of the cognition process is made up of Data & Details, and Observation & Motivations.  We also learned that Perceivers (P) use this half of the cognition process first.

Since Perceiving focuses on possibilities and how individuals and situations *interact,* Observation & Motivations and Data & Details are BFFs; they always go together to form half of the cognition process.

So Perceivers (Ps) use Data & Details and Observation & Motivations as steps One and Two of their cognition process; though that doesn’t tell us which of those two comes first, Data & Details or Observation & Motivations.

But let’s map this as we go.  If we use a toolbox to represent Perceiving, for reasons I’ll explain in a little while, then we can map out the beginning of Perceivers’ cognition process as toolbox, toolbox, or P, P:

The little arrows represent that we derive one Type of Information from the one before, so for Perceivers that’s getting Step Two Perceiving information from Step One Perceiving information.

But what about the other half of the cognition process?  And what is the alternative to starting with Perceiving?

Not-so-spoiler alert, it’s the Judging half of the cognition process.

In Part 1 we learned that the Judging half of the cognition process is made up of Principles & Trends, and Action & Consequences.  We also learned that Judgers (J) use this half of the cognition process first.

Judging focuses on plans of action and how the world and consequences *interact,* and not to be outdone, is just as inseparable as the Perceiving half of the cognition process, with Principles & Trends and Action & Consequences always working together.

Same deal; Judgers (Js) use Action & Consequences and Principles & Trends as steps One and Two of their cognition process; though that doesn’t tell us which of those two comes first, Principles & Trends or Action & Consequences.

Back to our little graphical representation, if we use a map to represent Judging, for those same reasons I’ll explain later (which means I guess I can’t refer to these pictures as a map or that’ll get super confusing), then we can chart out the beginning of Judgers’ cognition process as map, map, or J,  J:

But since ½ +½ = 1 whole, last time I checked, this means we can deduce what steps Three and Four will be for everyone.

Once Perceivers are done with Perceiving what’s up with situations and individuals, they Judge how the world and consequences are working.  Once Judgers are done working out their Judgments of what’s going on with the world and consequences, they Perceive situations and individuals.  So Perceivers’ thought process goes P, P, J, J, while Judgers’ thought process goes J, J, P, P.

That’s just algebraic and not super useful yet, but it does already show us how Judgers/Js are more focused on Action and plans, prioritizing it in either their First or Second cognition steps.  And it shows us how Perceivers/Ps are more focused on possibilities, focusing on Observing those possibilities in either their First or Second cognition steps.

I hope that doesn’t seem complicated if this is your first time hearing the cognition process, but seriously that prioritization is what *creates* P/J and defines it.  Does a person use the Perceiving half of the cognition process first or the Judging half?  Perdy simple when you get down to it.

Okay, but now what order do our Ps and Js go in?  To find the answer to that question, we need to turn to the two parts of our double-dichotomy.  Need a refresher on what a double-dichotomy is?  That can be arranged.

A dichotomy is made of two opposite variables that have no overlap.  A double-dichotomy is a pair of independent but related dichotomies that can be used together to cover all the options.  Remember?  Got it?  Okay, moving on.

Now, by definition, Perceiver vs. Judger is a dichotomy too; they do opposite halves of the cognition process first and second, with no overlap.  So why do we need two more variables?  Why can’t we just cross it with one of the other dichotomies and call it a day?

Well, because both Judging and Perceiving contain *one of each* of the other two dichotomies, Information/Action and Specific/Universal.   Judging contains one Information Type of Information… okay that’s super confusing. -_- Linguistics.  This is why we usually refer to the Four Types of Information as the 4Toi (the i is little so it doesn’t look like an L).  Let’s do that now.

*Ahem*  Judging contains one Information Toi and one Action Toi.  It also includes one Specific Toi, and one Universal Toi. (See how much faster that is?)  Perceiving too; one Information, one Action, one Specific, one Universal.

This is also why on the pictures, the Judging Toi are diagonal from each other, as are Perceiving, because the columns are Specific vs. Universal, while the rows are Information vs. Action.  Because J/P have one of each, they have a jig-jog thing going:

This is the beginning of the cognition process not behaving as obviously as we might expect, but in a good way, like your best friend who never stops surprising you.  There’s more of that to come, but there are always simple reasons behind the complexity, so no worries, k?  Just stick by me.

Okay, so let’s start with Information vs. Action first because it provides us with something super useful: Introversion and Extraversion.  Remember in Part 1 we talked about how psychological Introversion and Extraversion are not the same as social introversion and extroversion?  Social introversion and extroversion don’t even get to be capitalized.

The 4Toi are what information we’re thinking about, the Functions are how we’re taking in and using that information, and J/P are when we’re thinking about each Type of Information.   Now we’re adding where we’re gathering that information in the form of Introversion and Extraversion.

“Intro” is a Latin prefix meaning “inwardly,” or “within,” while “Extra” is a Latin prefix meaning “outside,” or “beyond.”  “Vert” comes from a Latin root meaning “to turn.”

And it’s as simple as that:  Where do you turn for information?  Inwardly/within or outside/beyond?  And the answer is that we each do half-and-half!

The thing about the cognition process is that it’s full of checks and balances so that, when used correctly, it’s always cross-checking to be sure its information is accurate.  Not only is a healthy mind grounded in valuing all four Types of Information, but it relies on the truth it discovers both by watching the world outside itself, and by reflecting and aligning information with the internal knowledge it has.  Everybody does both.

So, while a person is defined as a psychological Introvert (I) or Extravert (E) by where they turn *first* for information, all of our minds are constantly going in-and-out, back-and-forth, cross-checking our internal information with our external information.

Long story short, Extraversion and Introversion are just directional tags indicating whether a function is pointing outside the mind, watching, or inside the mind, considering.

Okay, so the mind always alternates looking inside and outside.  Introverts start inside, then look outside, then inside, then outside.  Extraverts start outside, then turn inside, then outside, then in again.  Pretty simple right?  It’s how we keep cross-checking our information to be sure it’s accurate.

Introversion looks first inside the mind to understand the way things are (Information), and Extraversion looks first outside at what people do (Action).

So just from that, we can see everyone’s first two steps:

The Perceivers perceive first.  Introverted Perceivers use the Information side of Perceiving first; Data & Details, which is Specific Information.  Extraverted Perceivers use the Action side of Perceiving first; Observation & Motivations, which is Universal Action.  Then, each uses the other side of Perceiving.

IP – Data -> Observation -> J -> J

EP – Observation -> Data -> J -> J

The Judgers use their judgment first.  Introverted Judgers use the Information side of Judging first; Principles & Trends, which is Universal Information.  Extraverted Judgers use the Action side of Judging first; Action & Consequences, which is Specific Action.  Then, same deal, each uses the other side of Judging.

IJ – Principles -> Action -> P -> P

EJ – Action -> Principles -> P -> P

Yay!  And that’s not all, folks!  There’s one more thing we can learn from the I/E dichotomy.

Because Extraversion and Introversion are about your primary source of information, outside or inside, it’s inextricably linked to the way the mind perceives individuals and situations.  In other words, Extraversion and Introversion determine the order of the Perceiving half of the cognition process.

Extraverts draw their perception from Observing individuals first, then use that information to notice Data and make conclusions about what’s going on in the situation at hand.

Introverts draw their perception from contemplating on the Data at their disposal, and then use that information to Observe how individuals work.

We can see this was already at work in our Perceivers’ perception:

IP – Data -> Observation ->J -> J

EP – Observation -> Data -> J -> J

See how the Extraverted one Observes first and the Introverted one focuses on Data first?

Let’s add it to our Judgers’ Perceiving:

IJ – Principles -> Action -> Data -> Observation

EJ – Action -> Principles -> Observation -> Data

:O Holy guacamole!  Did we just determine *half* of the cognition orders?!  4/4, that’s all the Judgers’ cognition steps!  (Well, besides Functions, but we’ll get into that in Part 4 ;D)

What about the Perceivers?!  With the Judgers it looks like Information and Introversion always coincide, and so do Action and Extraversion.  So can we extrapolate how Perceivers judge from that?

Ah ah ah, let’s not be hasty!  Though it might be natural to assume that the pattern continues, this is where our main little twist comes into play.  But the reasons, while cool and with complex results, aren’t hard to understand.

Because, let’s not forget the other half of our double-dichotomy: Specific vs. Universal!

Specific vs. Universal. The colors have no deeper meaning, I just needed two colors lol

Specific cognitions focus first on understanding the Specific applications of information for a more zoomed-in perspective in the form of either Specific Information (Data & Details) or Specific Action (Action & Consequences).

Universal cognitions focus first on understanding the Universal Patterns of information for a more zoomed-out perspective in the form of either Universal Information (Principles & Trends) or Universal Action (Observation & Motivations).

Like with Introversion and Extraversion, everyone does both Specific and Universal, of course, and we dance back and forth, checking and balancing, but we each have one our minds prioritize first.

Now, because Functions play a big role in Specific/Universal, I’ll be able to go into more about how this really works in practice in the next post.  But we’ve already seen this in action in all the cognition processes, right?

But Specific/Universal has another awesome ramification.  Whether our primary focus is on the zoomed-in applications of information or the zoomed-out patterns in information, is inextricably linked to how we see the world and its interplay with consequences.  In other words, Specific vs. Universal has everything to do with the order of the Judging half of the cognition process!

“Specifics” draw their judgments from a study of people’s Actions to make decisions, and use the resulting Consequences of those actions to then form Principles of how the world works and predict world Trends.

“Universals” draw their judgments from looking at Principles of how the world consistently works, to spot Trends of how the world will respond to people’s Actions to produce Consequences, and from that, make decisions about what to do.

So, let’s look back at our cognition patterns.  Does that match with what we already know of Judgers?

IJ – Principles -> Action -> Data -> Observation

EJ – Action -> Principles -> Observation -> Data

Yup!  IJs look at Principles first, and decide what Action to take from those Principles.  EJs decide what Action to do first, and then apply the Consequences to understand how Principles work.

Now we can see with our Judgers that they have Universal or Specific sandwiches.

IJ – Principles (U) -> Action (S) -> Data (S) -> Observation (U)

EJ – Action (S) -> Principles (U) -> Observation (U) -> Data (S)

See how IJ has Universal Tois on the ends, with Specific Tois in the middle?  And EJ has Specific Tois on the ends, with Universal Tois sandwiched in the middle?  This is because when our minds convert information from J to P and vice versa, the transaction seems to require it remaining in the same kind of universal or specific currency.

For example, when EJs switch from Judging to Perceiving, they use zoomed-out Principles (Universal Judging) to help them Observe (Universal Perceiving) how individuals work in a zoomed-out way.  And when they go to repeat the cognition process, they use zoomed-in situational Data (Specific Perceiving) to help them make zoomed-in Action (Specific Judging) decisions.

But now, let’s apply our Action/Principles order to the Perceivers and see what happens! /excited!

IP – Data -> Observation -> Action -> Principles

EP – Observation -> Data -> Principles -> Action

Yaaaay!  Four distinct cognition orders!!

But… but…?!  Perceivers’ cognition process isn’t doing it right!  If that was a sandwich you’d get peanut butter all over your hand!!

IP – Data (S) -> Observation (U) -> Action (S) -> Principles (U)

EP – Observation (U) -> Data (S) -> Principles (U) -> Action (S)

Okay, so this is where all our weird exceptions and wrenches-in-the-works come together, and where I finally get to explain why J is a map while P is a toolbox.

See, the thing is, Judgers and Perceivers think of Action very differently.  Not only do Judgers Act and find Principles earlier than Perceivers, when Perceivers *do* get to Judging, they do so quite differently from Judgers.

When Judgers focus on Action, it’s applied to specific circumstances.

Like a map, there are goals and destinations and each choice is a path that will either lead closer to one’s intended destination or not.  Principles are constant and universal patterns of existence that Action will have to follow in order to reach where you’re trying to go.

You’re never going to get to Toronto by driving toward Mexico City… er unless you’re driving from farther North in Canada, I guess… um… Anyway, Action is like a map for Js: each path leads somewhere and if you want to get where you’re going, you have to pick the right one.  A healthy Judger will be able to lay a course with scalpel-like finesse, able to hone in on exactly where they’re going and exactly how to get there.

In contrast, when Perceivers focus on Action, it’s by finding universal patterns of how Action always works.  Now, it’s still the same Type of Information; Actions & Consequences and making decisions, but it’s all about compiling which Actions universally and consistently work.

Perceivers understand Action like a vast toolbox of options, constantly being stocked with every type of choice, material, and resource that can be pulled out of the arsenal whenever the need arises.

And for Perceivers, Principles are applied, specific circumstances; the world is always a new situation with new problems to solve and new things to fix with your toolbox-arsenal of options.  Whatever need may arise, it’s the job of the Perceiver Action-toolbox to be at the ready with a band-aid, guacamole, or a rubber chicken; whatever tool the current situation calls for.  Each action is a resource with a time and season it’s used for.  The more options you have, the more vastly different specific situations you’re ready for.  A healthy Perceiver will never find a dead-end with their toolbox at their side, knowing there are always more options and new ways to adapt to anything.

So which one’s *better*?  Well, since the Four Types of Information are equal, based on equal variables forming balanced dichotomies, and since we all do all of them anyway, just in different orders, the resulting cognition processes are all equal too.  But we also need people who focus on each of them, since as individuals we just don’t have enough energy to focus on all Four Types of Information equally.  Over and over again that’ll be the theme you hear here:  We need healthy people of all types because the world is a complex place and we can’t do it all ourselves.

Okay, recap!  We have four unique cognition processes; let’s cross-check all our requirements.

IP – Data -> Observation -> Action -> Principles

EP – Observation -> Data -> Principles -> Action

IJ – Principles -> Action -> Data -> Observation

EJ – Action -> Principles -> Observation -> Data

Requirements:

1. Perceivers use Perceiving first, then Judging.  Judgers use Judging first, then Perceiving.
2. Introverts use an Information Toi first.  Extraverts use an Action Toi first.
3. Introverts use Data before Observation.  Extraverts use Observation before Data.
4. “Specifics” use a Specific Toi first.  “Universals” use a Universal Toi first.
5. “Specifics” use Action before Principles.  “Universals” use Principles before Action.

Yay, they all match all the criteria!  /Party!!  (FYI, we’ll go more into how Introversion/Extraversion and Universal/Specific work in practice in the next post, which is very cool and exciting to me.)

But, isn’t it awesome that these requirements, which we saw are just natural results of the definitions themselves, mean that there are no other possible options!  For example, you couldn’t have a type whose cognition order went Data, Action, Observation, Principles because Perceiving Tois always stick together and Judging Toi always stick together.  You couldn’t have a type that cognated in a Principles, Action, Observation, Data pattern because as soon as they use an Information Toi first, they’re an Introvert and use Data before Observation.  As soon as you have Four Types of Information, you have four possibilities for First cognition steps, and as soon as you have a First cognition step, all the rest of the steps follow.  Four cognition options.  Period.  Is that rock-awesome or what?!

I love that, as hard as I’m working to give you a simple explanation, in so many ways cognition *isn’t* simple.  It’s beautiful and fractal and complex in a lovely, grown-up sort of way that isn’t what you’d expect at first glance.  It’s straightforward, with an elegant physics and reasons behind *every* thing, no matter how small, but it also keeps surprising you, no matter how well you think you know it.  It’s my very favorite song, a fascinating symphony of humanity and life.  And I can’t tell you how much I <3 it.

Wow!  You made it through the most complicated post of the Super Simple Series so far!  See, this was one of the hardest ones and you’re doing great!

Now I’m going to post Part 4 at very soon, so when you’re ready you can go on and read about how Functions fit into our handy dandy Cognition Steps!  But now is the perfect time to take a brief intermission.  Stretch your legs, use the restroom, listen to some music, visit our concession stand, look far away for 30 seconds.  And then before you know it, we’ll meet again at Part 4: Function-Combinations.  Oh yes.

On the aLBoP Guided Tour?  Cognition – The Super Simple Series | Part 4: Function-Combinations is up next!

The post Cognition – The Super Simple Series! | Part 3: Cognition Steps and the Anatomy of the Cognition Process appeared first on A Little Bit of Personality.

I’m very excited for this post as there is sooo much confusion and stereotyping about what functions really are.  In this post we’re looking at just how simple and straightforward cognitive functions are, and yet how they’re complex in application and, when understood correctly, should help us understand our complexity as humans more, not limit us into boxes.  But I’m getting ahead of myself, as usual.

If we define “Cognition,” as we did in Part 1, as the action of your mind acquiring and processing information, “Functions” are the tools our minds use to acquire and process that information. 

Functions are the means by which we take in each Type of Information.  Functions also help our minds determine our mind’s objective or end goal for that information.  They help us find patterns in and narrow down important information, and evaluate and apply information to the world around us.

So Part 1 was about what information we gather and process, and Part 2 is about how we gather and process that information.  Got it?

There are four functions; two Compilation Functions and two Application Functions.  Everyone uses all four; we just use them in different orders and apply them to different types of information.

Compilation Functions compile massive quantities of information into universally applicable patterns that *always* apply.  They find similarities and trends in otherwise overwhelming quantities of information in order to find the common threads that run through all of it.

The Compilation Functions function like enormous databases of information collected over the course of your life that serve as reference compendiums for life.

Application Functions apply information to specific circumstances by deciding which information and choices best match with that function’s aim and purpose.  They evaluate and weigh the importance of information as well as decide how to use it in practice.

The Application Functions function like filters for information that are constantly working to apply and decide how information will be used in any given scenario.

The Compilation Functions

Sensing and iNtuition are the two Compilation Functions.

“Sensing” gathers and compiles information from our own experiences, things we’ve personally seen, heard, touched, felt, smelled, danced, etc.  (I’m pretty sure dancing is the sixth sense.)  It finds patterns in the experiences we’ve had so that it can understand the way things and people currently work, or have worked in the past.  It helps us treasure and appreciate things that already exist and helps us protect good things from being lost.

Everyone uses the Sensing function at some point during their cognition process, but a person is considered a Sensor (S) if they use Sensing to process information in one of their first two cognition steps.

“iNtuition” gathers and compiles information in the form of concepts.  A concept is the overall idea or mental image of information.  iNtuition compiles these overall ideas and finds patterns and connections between them, in order to find new ways to use them. It helps us see how things are connected to one another and see what’s missing.

Everyone uses the iNtuition function at some point during their cognition process, but a person is considered an iNtuitive (N) if they use iNtuition to process information in one of their first two cognition steps.

I find that Sensing and iNtuition tend to cause people the most confusion, but despite what some might tell you, don’t get hung up over claims of one function being smarter, more practical, more athletic, or more philosophical than any of the others.  Sensing focuses on experiences and iNtuition focuses on concepts, no matter who is using it or what Type of Information it’s compiling.

The Application Functions

Feeling and Thinking are the two Application Functions.

“Feeling” filters and applies information in order to understand its meaning－its intrinsic significance in the grand scheme of things－and in order to reach the most meaningful result from a given circumstance.

Feelings inform us of what truly matters to us, and what is important in our lives.

While everyone uses the Feeling function at some point during their cognition process, a person is considered a Feeler (F) if they use Feeling to process information in one of their first two cognition steps.

“Thinking” filters and applies information in order to understand its use－its value in helping the user to employ the information and resources at their fingertips－and in order to reach an outcome of efficient utility.

Thoughts inform us of what’s most beneficial or detrimental for whatever goal we have at the time.

While everyone uses the Thinking function at some point during their cognition process, a person is considered a Thinker (T) if they use Thinking to process information in one of their first two cognition steps.

And no, despite what the internet may tell you, in all its wisdom, Feelers are not any more emotional or kind and Thinkers are not any more logical or hard.  That is bull-turds.  The definition that holds up repeatably and consistently in practice is when a person prioritizes use or meaning in their cognition process.

I want to really emphasize again that these are the definitions of the functions, and how they work for each of us.  We just use them in different orders and matched up with different Types of Information, based on what our minds desire and love the most.  It might seem like a redundant point to hit, but it’s incredible how much stereotyping and type-bigotry sneaks in, when that one little point gets ignored.  Not to mention that when definitions get forgotten, everything just gets way more complicated than it really is.

So don’t feel boxed in by systems or sources that use terms like “dom” or “dominant functions.”  As we’ll discuss in the next few posts, the cognition process has a beautiful physics to it, full of elegant cause-and-effect and reasons behind each motion.  In contrast, using jargon that you’ll see splattered across the Internet like “Fi dom” or “Ne dom,” implies that a person should be boiled down to just one function, and ends up entirely too subjective to have any sort of repeatability or science.  While some people might prefer to narrowly label both others and themselves by a single box or trait, human beings are so much more gorgeously complex than that.

Now, what does it really mean to “prioritize” a Type of Information or a function and what’s the deal with this “cognition process” we keep talking about?  In the next post we’ll discuss one of my very favorite parts of cognition: Cognition Steps and the Anatomy of the Cognition Process!

On the aLBoP Guided Tour?  Cognition – The Super Simple Series | Part 3: Cognition Steps and the Anatomy of the Cognition Process  is up next!

The post Cognition – The Super Simple Series! | Part 2: The Four Functions appeared first on A Little Bit of Personality.