The Mating Game: Rationals and Idealists

Sorry I've taken so long to post this. I can blame two distractions: children (need I say more?), and the discovery of another personality scholar, Dr. Katherine Benziger. I've been delving into her book and ideas, and I can't wait to share her findings-- very exciting stuff! But for now, here's the post about personality theory I've promised...




I remember when I was young, maybe 11 or 12, how I used to imagine what my "soulmate" would be like. I used to walk through my day, speaking to him in my mind. I used to pretend that he was just outside the window, and that he could hear my thoughts. Naturally, I imagined that he was responding to my needs perfectly. And I intuitively "knew" that I'd know him when I found him.

For Idealists (members of Keirsey's Idealist temperament, or those with NF in their Myers-Briggs personality type), the soulmate bond is more than having common interests, more than enjoying time spent together, more than a chemical attraction, even more than best friends. A soulmate is one's other half. When together, they create a whole. They are part of each other. Once found and devotion confessed, they would be together forever. With undying commitment. Always keeping each other as first priority. (I'm sure you Idealists are vigorously nodding your heads right about now, while others of you are thinking "whoa! I'd be suffocating"...)

And, I always believed (since girlfriends and movies and books all seemed to provide sufficient evidence) that everyone wanted the same thing from their mate. Right??

Wrong!-- wow-- I had no idea how wrong I was!

The truth is that all personality types (Idealists, Rationals, Guardians, and Artisans) are mostly "self" centered. That is, although we recognize that others have different interests, beliefs, and values, we tend to assume that others basically think the same way we do. If we aren't aware there are other ways of seeing the world, what else can we think, really? For example, don’t we all want to be loved? And, we know what that means, right?

Again, wrong! Let's take a look at Idealist and Rational pairings.

Idealists seek "soulmates," while Rationals seek "mindmates."* The Idealist soulmate connection is based on a deep spiritual bond, the search for wholeness, and the merging of two individuals. In contrast, the Rational mindmate connection is based on shared interests, the search for truth, and the connection of two independent individuals. For an Idealist, the bond "is" and always will be, because both partners choose it to "be." For a Rational, the connection is only as real as it is objectively present at any given moment. So, for an Idealist the bond is formed at the start. Subsequent positive interactions simply reinforce that they are soulmates, and negative interactions are brushed off as the imperfection of human nature. Whereas, a Rational uses objective observation to determine whether a relationship achieves mindmate status, and subsequent interactions may reinforce or nullify the bond (clearly they allow for everyday rubs, but the overall belief in the bond is more transient.)

So, what happens when an Idealist and a Rational come together?

This is where things get interesting. They have a common preference for abstract language, so communication feels easy. So easy in fact, that I propose that (thanks to self centered thinking) the Idealist believes that he/she has found another Idealist who is remarkably grounded and has figured out how to translate visions into reality (in other words, a super Idealist!) And the Rational believes that he/she has found another Rational who has mastered the uncomfortable realm of emotion (in other words, a super Rational). Interestingly, I found a theory online called the "Grand Miscommunication Theory" (by IgaNoKami). He rather succinctly sums it up as thus (I changed his terminology to match "Rational" and "Idealist"):

It is my theory that within the relationship between the (Rational) and the (Idealist), there is a grand accident that lends itself to compatibility between the two types.

The (Rational) is most happy when allowed to rationally examine, explore, and explain his motivations and self-analysis and observation to an intimate partner. This is simply because the (Rational) loves self exploration, loves to gather knowledge and insight into his own actions, not for the sake of emotional discovery, simply out of a sense of curiosity and need to analyze and collect data.

The (Rational) unemotionally and detachedly explains why he or she thinks in a certain way - that is what (Rational)s are best at, observation, particularly of themselves - and the (Idealist) then thinks that they are opening up to them, and becomes moved and emotionally attached to the (Rational). The (Rational) sees that their observations are being received and interesting to the (Idealist), so they continue.

A fascinating relationship between two types. A relationship of total mutual miscommunication, the motivations are completely different, but with a reinforcing result. The (Rational) feels the closeness and intimacy of being able to share their scientific self-analysis, and the (Idealist) feels that the (Rational) is sharing their innermost thoughts, feelings, and emotions, and so the cycle of miscommunication keeps them locked together in a positively reenforcing relationship.

And neither is the wiser until the Idealist becomes confused by the Rational's focus on achievement, and the Rational feels uncomfortable with the Idealist's focus on connection. It is then that the two must recognize and accept that their basic fuel for a relationship is different, and that the other will never truly fulfill the concept of mate that each values. In other words, the Idealist is not a mindmate and the Rational is not a soulmate.

So, does that mean we should mate with someone of our own temperament? Not necessarily. Most often, it is our differences that attract us to another. For good reason. Each personality type has strengths and weaknesses. One's strengths can complement the other's weakness. It is easy to see how "self" centered thinking would lead to confusion and misunderstanding between the two mates.

Some lucky couples do find an amazingly compatible mate to share their life with. But for the majority of us, once the romantic love phase of a new relationship fades, we start to experience rubs. And then we start launching our own Pygmalion Projects, each attempting to reform the other into a person more like ourself. Since, naturally, we all believe that our aim in life is the most valuable for everybody. But, as Keirsey points out, others cannot adopt our goals without violating their own character. The key to success, I believe, is maturity, a willingness to learn how others think, and a willingness to embrace others' values as equally valid as our own.

Personality theory experts tell us that any type pairing can be successful. Certainly, any two mature, well adjusted adults can learn to meet each others' needs and make a marriage work. But interestingly, studies have shown that there is a pattern to mating. Keirsey spent 40 years "people watching," and he has documented clear patterns in mating. By far, the most common marriage is between an Artisan and a Guardian. Not surprising, given that Artisans (SPs) and Guardians (SJs) comprise 85% of the population (according to Keirsey). And, though it's difficult for the relatively rare Rationals (NTs) and Idealists (NFs) to find each other, there is a significant frequency of Rational-Idealist marriages. I won't get into the explanation here, but Keirsey has a clear theory about why these pairings occur. It has to do with the preference for abstract vs. concrete use of language (N vs. S), and the preference for using tools in a cooperative manner to pursue goals (SJs and NFs) vs. using tools in a utilitarian (or most effective) manner to pursue goals (SPs and NTs.)

So whether your spouse is an Artisan searching for a playmate, a Guardian searching for a helpmate, an Idealist searching for a soulmate, or a Rational searching for a mindmate, any pairing can be successful. And learning how another sees the world can be a wonderful, lifelong, grand adventure!

(*Guardians seek "helpmates," and Artisans seek "playmates.")

Connecting By Numbers (or FOUR!, part 2...)

(photos by Jason Evans)

This morning I was thinking (or, for those of you who follow my personality theory posts, intuiting) about numbers.

I've always loved numbers. They fascinate me. Each has it's own personality or vibe (in my mind, anyway.) For example, I've always loved 3 and 7-- they are the most magical numbers. And my favorite number when I was a child was 8. Because it is so symmetrical, so balanced. (Not to mention how cool it is that if you lay it on it's side it is infinity!)

But this morning I was reflecting on the significance of 4. I don't remember ever being "taken with" 4. It just had a vibe of solid integrity. Nothing flashy or magical. So I surprised myself as my intuiting led me to some interesting observations about 4. No wonder 4 always felt simply solid-- it is solid. Four creates a base, a square. And each part of the four is necessary for the integrity of the foundation. Take one away and you are left with 3-- a triangle. Triangles are mighty tricky to keep balanced. (Precisely why 3 is so exciting...it's dynamic!)

Anyway, to continue on my dissertation of 4, I (naturally) began thinking of all the 4's I know. There are four elements, four seasons, four Hogwarts houses (you knew I'd go there), four Beatles(!), four temperaments, and... (drumroll)... four cognitive functions in personality theory. Yes! There's the connection! Perhaps because we have four basic ways of thinking, we find four is the number necessary for balance. Now, let me try to put my intuition into words.

The four cognitive functions are thinking, feeling, sensing, and intuiting. We each have a dominant-- our strength. Personality experts tell us that we should not strive to achieve balance by improving our skills in the three non-dominant functions to a level that equals our dominant, because that would leave us without a strength, or a core personality. But, (here's where my love of finding evolutionary connections comes in) to survive as a group, we need the strengths that each cognitive function offers. Perhaps this is why we have evolved different personality types. To ensure that among the group there are some gifted in Thinking, some gifted in Feeling, and others gifted in Sensing and Intuiting. We need specialists. So that when we put those four cognitive strengths together, we have a solid base.

I can see how, as an Idealist, I need to have input from a Rational to keep my visions realistic and logical, otherwise my visions will never have purpose or be useful to others. I need a Guardian to ground me in priorities and integrity, otherwise I can place too much selfish importance in my desires. And, I need an Artisan to remind me that it's important to experience joy from the carefree, playful aspects of life, otherwise my life will become too serious and heavy. A world of Idealists would feel wonderful to me, but it would be a very weak community, indeed!

Personality theory expert Lenore Thomson says, "fourfold schemes in popular culture…seem archetypally perfect and become part of our social mythology. They appear to represent psychological wholeness in ways that we intuitively recognize." She pointed out that the Beatles are comprised of representatives of each of the four functions: John is the acerbic Thinker, George is the mystical Intuitive, Paul is the romantic Feeler, and Ringo is the earthy Sensation type. And I can find the same balance in the four Hogwarts houses: the Idealist Gryffindors, the Rational Ravenclaws, the Guardian Hufflepuffs, and the Artisan Slytherins. Perhaps this is why these pop culture phenomenon have such global appeal. Everyone can relate to one of the four. And all four pieces are necessary for a balanced whole.

My dominant intuitive function is humming happily today...

(But, with no disregard to 4, I still love my favorite warm, yellow, soulful 7 over there....)
:)

Equilibrium (Personality Talk, part 8)

"We know that three of the four functions of consciousness can become differentiated, i.e., conscious, while the other remains connected with the matrix, the unconscious, and is known as the 'inferior' function. It is the Achilles' heel of even the most heroic consciousness…." Carl Jung, 1959

Time for another personality post! I've been reading more about inferior functions and how stress is expressed in each type. So I thought I'd share!

If you need a refresher, read the Basics of Type Theory first. If you already know your type, you can determine your hierarchy of functions there.

Balance has a unique meaning in type theory. At first glance, you may think that a balanced personality is one that has developed equal competence in all functions. This would result in no clear preferences. Essentially, you would be typeless. But that's not how the human brain develops and functions.

Balance means we develop our inferior function (the 4th function) sufficiently to keep our dominant function from becoming overbearing, over-expressed, and running amok. It's healthy to develop the inferior function to achieve this balance. But no matter how balanced we are, or how skilled we are at using that inferior function, it can also cause trouble, because it remains our least comfortable, least controlled function.

What kind of trouble? Know how you can act out of character when under stress, feeling tired, or ill? When you have a day when you don't recognize yourself? In type theory it's called "being in the grip." And in type terms, it is the eruption of your inferior function. When we are in the grip of our inferior function we experience tunnel vision (become too focused or narrow-minded), lose our sense of humor, and make "all-or-none" statements.

Each inferior function has different triggers or stressors that lead to a grip experience, behaviors that characterize the grip experience, and ways to return to equilibrium. Because of their make up, INFJs and INTJs can be especially stressed when they are forced to focus on details, to face unexpected events, or to be more extraverted. Their inferior function, extraverted sensing (Se), unconsciously comes forward. Their "grip experience" causes them to focus obsessively on external data, to overindulge in sensual pleasure, or to take an adversarial attitude toward the external world. To return to equilibrium, they may need time alone to recharge, to lighten their normal schedule, or to be free from others giving advice or suggestions.

So, as an INFJ (and I can attest to the truth of this) I can get stressed when plans change at the last minute, causing me to pick a fight with Jason, which resolves only after I've had some alone time. :) Or, after spending all day shopping with my extraverted mother-in-law, I just need to sit and eat chocolate, and put off the laundry and vacuuming until the next day (yeah-- that sounds right!)

If you want to know your inferior function, triggers, form of the grip experience, and how to get back to equilibrium, tell me your type in the comments. Let's see how accurate this theory is!
:)


I also want to wish all those who celebrate it, HAPPY EASTER!



Hope your holiday is hopping! (Follow the little ones, they know where the best eggs are!)









(back to part 7)

Neanderthals Among Us

Homo sapiens and Homo neanderthalensis, University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archeology and Anthropology, photo by Jason Evans


I was looking at my stat counter log the other day, and I found a most interesting visit. Someone found my blog while searching for "brain function theory INTP." Naturally, I clicked on their search to see what else they found. And I was led to a fascinating site called The Neanderthal Theory. (No, INTPs are not Neanderthals in disguise! LOL!)

I've mentioned in previous posts that I've always been interested in early humans and human evolution. In particular, my imagination has been sparked by the idea that modern humans and Neanderthals lived at the same time. Authors such as Jean Auel have brought this idea to life, exploring the possibilities of interactions between the two hominid groups, including interbreeding. And, genetic research supports this notion.

It's been rather accepted that a Neanderthal could walk the streets of New York City undetected. Their appearance would not be outside the range of modern human variation. A bit shorter, stockier, more muscular, but largely considered unremarkable to other humans. Here is a reconstruction of a Neanderthal child based on research at the University of Zurich (by Elisabeth Daynes, photo by Philippe Plailly).

And now, this Neanderthal Theory takes my imagination to a whole new level. The author proposes that Autism, Asperger's syndrome, ADHD, and Tourette syndrome may not be "disorders" at all, but rather that the symptoms of these conditions are a result of the expression of Neanderthal DNA in the Caucasian genome! Wow-- sounds like science fiction, doesn't it? But the author of this theory presents an interesting case.

Oh, and what did INTP brain function have to do with the Neanderthal Theory? There is mention that there seems to be a correlation between ADHD and the following types: ENTP, ENFP, INFP, and INTP. And that "there is also considerable overlap between criteria of aspie(Asperger's syndrome) and INTP."

Hmmmm....
;)

Communication (Personality Talk, part 7)

Do you ever feel frustrated when someone doesn't seem to hear a request you've made? Or perhaps you have been labeled "bossy" despite your best intentions. Maybe you know someone who seems to be so passive-aggressive that you just want to shout at them "will you just ask for what you actually want already?!"

These communication issues may be explained by personality theory!

There are two styles of communication: informing and directing. And guess what? We each have a natural preference for one or the other, and it tends to coincide with our other thinking preferences (see previous personality posts for the type functions).

How do you ask for something? There are many ways to communicate a simple request. Suppose you are asking your spouse to get bread when they go to the store. How would you phrase that request?

We're out of bread.
We need bread.
Would you be able to get us some bread?
We're out of bread and I was wondering if you could get us some?
We're out of bread. Would you please get us some?
Would you please get us some bread?
Please get us some bread.
Get some bread.

This list illustrates the continuum from informing to directing style. The styles are rather self-explanatory. The intent of directing is to direct the actions of others to accomplish a task, often by telling or asking. The intent of informing is to give information in order to engage others in the process.

As with all cognitive functions, we have a natural preference for one style. We all use both styles for different purposes, but one style feels more comfortable. Often, our natural style can be heard when we are relaxed, whereas when under stress we may awkwardly use the non-preferred style. Also, life experiences can train us to use the non-preferred style, sometimes making it difficult to determine our natural style. For example any naturally "informing" person who undergoes military officer training is going to become very competent with the directing style. Likewise, many counselors are trained to use an informing style.

What can really interfere with communication, though, is how we also prefer to receive communication in our preferred style. Thus, when we are talking to someone of the opposite style, all manner of miscommunication can happen! A directing person may not even hear the request imbedded in an informer's statement. Imagine the frustration of an informing mother who tells her directing daughter that "the laundry is finished" with the intent that the daughter will fold the clothes. I can just hear the daughter twenty minutes later when mom is upset: "but you didn't ask me to fold the clothes!" And how about a directing girl telling her informing friend "Let's color! Go get the crayons." Her friend may start to feel that she's too bossy and stop playing with her.

The examples I've been using are clearly one style or the other. But, sometimes it's difficult to determine what style is being used. A directing person may try to soften their request by adding "please" or "would you mind" and an informing person may think they are being directive by saying "we need to go now!", but both are still using their preferred style. More examples of each style can be found here.

Ideal communication incorporates both styles -- it simultaneously provides information and tells the listener what's wanted of them. For example: "Please open the door because the guests are here." OR "The guests are here so please open the door." Only saying, "The guests are here" provides insufficient information, while only saying "Please open the door" seems rather bossy without the accompanying explanation.

So, have you figured out what your natural style is? Here's what personality theory predicts. If your preferences are: I/ENFJ, I/ENTJ, I/ESTJ, or I/ESTP you probably prefer directing. And if your preferences are I/ENFP, I/ENTP, I/ESFJ, or I/ESFP you probably prefer informing.

So (in my natural style), go forth using this knowledge and communicate more successfully with your friends and family! (please?)
:)

(back to part 6)

Connecting the Dots

Sorry I haven't been around the blogosphere much lately. Between Jason's awesome contest, a new cat (a very sweet stray cat adopted us during the holidays), and germs taking up residence in our home (ugh!-- this is the first week since the holidays that both girls are actually at school, where they belong!), I haven't had much "me time" to devote to blogging. I had no idea what to blog about when I woke up this morning. But while reading Chris Eldin's blog, an idea was sparked.

Have you ever had the experience of discovering that you can connect the dots between seemingly unrelated interests and experiences in your life? I feel such glee when this happens. But then, I am predisposed to enjoying connections and meaning thanks to my thinking preferences (you know, the I, N, F, and J ways of thinking…)
:)

So I thought I'd share one of these connections with you.

Dot #1:
Some of you know that motherhood is a topic of great interest to me. I had no idea how much motherhood would change my life (cliché, I know…), but my postpartum experience made me consider shifting gears in my career. I had been a geriatric rehab specialist. Now I'm considering breaking new ground in Occupational Therapy by starting a practice devoted to the needs of new moms who are struggling with role transition.

In my research into the struggles of motherhood, I came upon a book by Dr. Harvey Karp-- The Happiest Baby on the Block (which, btw, should be a mandatory baby shower gift!) and found his "Fourth Trimester" theory. He calls the first 3 months of an infant's life the Fourth Trimester, because according to the positive (and significant)correlation between mammalian body size and length of gestation, human pregnancy should last 12 months, not 9. But since modern humans evolved larger craniums (relative to body size) than our hominid ancestors, moms who carried to full term died during childbirth. Those who delivered at 9 months, when the baby's head could still pass through the pelvis safely, survived. And, as a result, we are left to deal with newborns who would much prefer to still be in the womb for the first 3 months of their life.

Dot #2:
When I read Dr. Karp's theory, I just smiled. Because I had heard a similar theory 15 years before I became a mother. During a time when motherhood was the farthest thing from my mind.

In college I wrote a term paper about how the pelvic and cranial anatomy of Neanderthals may predict gestation length. At that time, a new theory in physical anthropology fascinated me-- that Neanderthals' pregnancies probably lasted 12 months.

That class, Human Evolution, was the beginning of what became an anthropology minor (my major was biology). And of course, that can be connected to:

Dot #3:
When I was 8, I told my parents that I wanted to be an archeologist when I grew up. This interest came from my fascination with human evolution, dinosaurs, and:

Dot#4:
I was always interested in time travel. I read every story I could find about time travel. Those Choose Your Own Adventure books were the best!

Believe it or not, there is an even earlier connection that can be made. An interest in time and connections across time can be argued to be a result of:

Dot #5:
My inborn thinking preferences: INFJ (see my posts on personality theory for the definition). My brain was wired to gather data through intuiting processes and make decisions based on feeling. These ways of thinking, paired with introverting and judging, make for a personality type (INFJ) that finds meaning in connections and often displays ESP-like foresight.

Which is why I am so delighted when my foresight fails to predict a connection and I discover it after the fact…
:)

Connections (the first in a series about relationship...)

Recently, a friend reminded me of another song that was a favorite of mine when I was young: The Rainbow Connection. I haven't listened to that song for many years, and hearing it again brought back the sense of self that I discovered at eight years old. Connections. Relationships. That is how my view of the world is ordered. It is where I find meaning. And where I understand my self, my strengths, my weaknesses.



Now that I have learned so much about personality theory, I see how this way of being is a function of my personality type. As an INFJ, my dominant thinking process is Ni (introverted intuiting). Ni is the process that searches for connections and relationships, then uses that information to predict, enlighten, or transform (it is a future-oriented way of thinking). I find meaning and purpose in this structure or vision. Everything is interconnected, and once I can define the qualities of a connection I can intuit the future and understand the present. My Fe (the decision making process) uses the intuited info, passes it through the lens of extroverted feeling (considering others and the group, how can I best facilitate harmony and connection…) and I make a decision on which to act.

So, what is relationship? Listening to the Rainbow Connection reminded me of a common problem between people.

Rainbows are visions, but only illusions,
And rainbows have nothing to hide.

Relationships are illusions. They aren't tangible. We can't touch them. And the only way we know they exist is when a behavior causes a ripple. Everything and everyone that feels that ripple can be certain that they share a connection with the person that generated the ripple. So, a relationship can only be known with certainty when there is change. But what is the relationship? The definition or quality of a relationship can only be defined by the two who are connected. No one on the outside can precisely describe it. And even the participants' definitions can differ greatly from each other. So what is the truth of this connection if it can only be defined inaccurately by each side? The truth is different for each party (and many of those differences can be explained by personality theory). "Relationship" therefore, is an illusion.

So we've been told and some choose to believe it
I know they're wrong, wait and see.
Someday we'll find it, the rainbow connection,
The lovers, the dreamers and me.

I'd love to know what Kermit "knows" that gives him the confidence that there is a truth where there is a connection. I used to think I knew (my Ni in action!). But that was before I learned that there are ways of thinking that my brain would never have generated on its own. I was egotistical (in the sense that all children are egotistical until they develop enough abstract thought to see others as separate from themselves.)

Now I see how every relationship in my world (in the form that I believe it to be) exists only in my mind. But there are truly connections. That can't be disputed. I feel those ripples every day. And others around me tell me that they feel the ripples that I generate. Is it enough to believe that a relationship is what I believe it is? No, because that's only half the truth. How does the other person define our connection? And when they describe the connection, are they using words that hold different meanings in their way of thinking than in mine? When I hear their description I still have to decipher the meaning using my knowledge of their way of thinking, their personality type, their values and priorities. Ack!! This is hard work! No wonder there is so much confusion and disagreement between people.

How important is it to understand how someone else defines my connection to them? As long as it gives them meaning and pleasure (I'd like to not be the source of unhappiness!), maybe our connection can exist without further definition.

But, I think, when a connection starts to grow or change, it is important for both parties to understand the other's definition. Because if the change holds different significance, or alters each person's definition in a different way, then there will be confusion. So then what protects the connection? Should it be protected?

I am an Idealist-- one of Kermit's dreamers. I want to find that there is a universal "rainbow" connection. I think that our shared human desire to have connections or relationships is the universal truth. But everything else-- what the relationship means, how it is protected, the priority or significance that it is given-- are all illusion, created by each individual. And the best way to avoid confusion and pain is to share our thoughts, agree on a definition that works for both, and continually revise it together. In other words, we need to work together consciously to create and define a relationship that will be what both desire.

(Don't tell my fellow Idealists, but to quote Vernon Dursley from Harry Potter: "There's no such thing as magic!" Nothing just happens unless we make it happen. But it sure is wonderful when what we create feels like magic!)

Individuation (Personality Talk, part 6)

(image courtesy of teamtechnology.co.uk)

I think I just stumbled upon the best part of personality theory! It explains so much in my life (remember, I'm an idealist: always searching for meaning!)

The theorists postulate that we prefer our dominant cognitive process by the time we're 12 years old. Then, through a process they call individuation (which you and I would probably call growth), we develop our second function by age 20, the third by 25, and the fourth by 50. And lastly, the four "shadow processes" may emerge after age 50 for some people (which can result in more balance and confidence). This developmental timeline is just a guideline. It is similar to physical development-- not all babies sit unassisted at 6 months or walk at 12 months, those are just norms or guidelines. Each individual grows at their own pace.

When we start gaining skill in each process, we become drawn to activities that will provide practice and lead to growth. For example, people who are beginning to develop Se (extraverted sensing--a perceiving process that involves taking in data through the five senses and attending to the here and now) may start doing activities that increase sensory stimulation. Perhaps they'll try new foods or suddenly take up a new hobby or sport such as surfing or hiking. Likewise, people who are developing their Fe (extraverted feeling) may start becoming interested in situations where they can interact with others, perhaps they'll seek new friendships or host a party.

So as I was reading this theory, I began to ponder my own type development. As an INFJ, my dominant process is Ni (introverted intuiting). That's the process that finds meanings in relationships and connections. It's a way of structuring one's understanding of the world. And it often is expressed as a feeling of just "knowing" something is a certain way or that something will happen, without being able to explain it in words. I remember at age eight "knowing" that I was different than other kids. I could "see" in my mind's eye how all the people in my life were connected to me and to each other. I "knew" how a schoolmate would react to another child when the other was behaving in a way that was typical of them. I was reserved and shy (introverted) so my teachers didn't notice me, except for the fact that I was an excellent student. When our school district started a gifted program, none of the teachers identified me for testing. I observed who was chosen, and who tested into the program. I "knew" I belonged there too, so I went home one day and told my parents simply that I should be in the gifted program. Thankfully, they were supportive and they hired a psychologist to come to my home to administer the testing. Sure enough, I made it! I now see how all of these moments in my childhood are related to my Ni function.

My second function is Fe (extroverted feeling). Well, that fits perfectly with my personal history. During my teen years I was working hard to overcome my shyness. I developed a close circle of friends, became a cheerleader (not what you'd expect from an introvert!), joined various school clubs, and loved family gatherings.

My third function is Ti (introverted thinking). Hmmm… again, as I look back at the years between 20 and 25, I see how my developing Ti shaped my activities. I became a healthcare professional which required a bit of diagnostic skill (definitely a Ti task!) I spent hours doing crossword puzzles, and fell in love with logic problems. And, last but not least, I married a man whose dominant function is Ti! (Is this weird or what?!)

Now at 40, according to the theory, I should be developing my 4th function: Se (extraverted sensing). Interestingly, the 4th function is very important for balancing the dominant function in all types. Types who have a dominant T function (either Ti or Te) need to balance that with the F function that is their 4th process. Dominant F types have a T as their 4th. Types that have a dominant N, have an S function as their 4th, etc.

The 4th function, therefore, presents a way of thinking that is almost opposite from a person's dominant process for most of their life. So, people will start to be interested in activities that may seem entirely "out of character". And look at when this happens-- sometime before age 50! Doesn't that sound eerily similar to what we call midlife crisis?! Wow! So, what has been happening in my life? I've started living in the present. I developed a fascination (Jason calls it an obsession) with Harry Potter. I started dressing up for Halloween for the first time in 15 years (I blamed it on the age of my girls and the obligations of parenthood, but truthfully, that was just an excuse-- I wanted to have fun!) I don't think my actions present as the radical change that looks like a midlife crisis, but that may be because my Se process started developing in childhood. I grew up with a twin brother who (I believe) has a secondary Se function. His influence led me to embrace the way of thinking that is Se when I was younger.
Which brings me to the last point about Individuation. Life circumstances can affect your development pattern. During childhood, the following situations can alter the development of processes:

1. You received negative feedback when using your dominant process.


2. A non-preferred function was necessary to survive family life (e.g., dealing with an alcoholic or abusive parent)


3. You received positive feedback for using non-preferred functions.


And in adulthood:


4. A job requires extensive use of non-preferred functions.


5. Parenting requires extensive use of non-preferred functions.

If you know your personality type (you are quite certain based on resonance with the type descriptions), can you see a pattern to your growth in the cognitive processes preferred by your type? And how about that midlife crisis theory-- does emergence of cognitive processes explain it? Perhaps we can better understand our spouses, friends, and family members when they suddenly start acting out of character. (Jason-- I'm on to you, dear!)

(back to part 5)
(on to part 7)

Conjunction Junction, What's Your Function?

No, I'm not blogging about the grammar rules that were so effectively drilled into my generation by Schoolhouse Rock. Though I did enjoy those ditties….

No, today I'm continuing my Personality Talk series by talking about the eight cognitive functions that are the basis of the 16-type personality theory. As I said before, each type is not simply the expression of the four functions (or preferences) that the four letter code implies. So, an INTP is not simply an introverted version of an ENTP. And an ESFJ is not simply an ESTJ that uses feeling to make decisions. There is a more complex underlying interaction that the four preferences represent.

The base of the theory is that there are eight cognitive processes (sometimes called functions) or ways of thinking. Everyone uses all eight, but we tend to prefer some over others. Think about how you first react (or your natural inclination) to a situation or when you need to make a decision. The theory says that we tend to use a few of these processes more automatically than the others.

The eight functions are:

Extraverted Sensing (Se)-- experiencing the physical world, enjoying taking action, recognizing "what is" rather than what "could be"

Introverted Sensing (Si)-- comparing the current situation to a remembered one, reviewing past experiences, recalling stored impressions

Extraverted Intuiting (Ne)-- noticing hidden meanings in the world and interpreting them

Introverted Intuiting (Ni)-- looking inward to foresee the future, conceptualizing new ways of seeing things, envisioning transformations

Extraverted Thinking (Te)-- segmenting, logically organizing people and situations, contingency planning and scheduling

Introverted Thinking (Ti)-- evaluating according to principles and whether something fits the framework or model, seeking precision through clarifying definitions

Extraverted Feeling (Fe)-- connecting, expressing appreciation for others, considering and accommodating others

Introverted Feeling (Fi)-- evaluating the importance and worth of something based on one's own values, clarifying values

Each of the 16 personality types can be defined by the hierarchical pattern of their preferred cognitive processes. For example, the dominant process of an INFJ is Ni, followed by Fe, Ti, and Se (the other four processes are weaker and called "shadow processes.") A chart of the processes used by each personality type can be found here (scroll down for the chart.)

Here is a fun example of the eight functions in action. Given the situation that you are considering building a fence, what is your first thought or reaction? (Disclaimer: this list can be found on various websites, I don't know who the author is.)

The Eight Functions and Fence-Building

Se - I want to decorate the fence and make sure that it looks stylish and appealing.
Si - I’ll take care of looking at the instructions and making sure that we follow the established guidelines.
Ne - I want to design the fence.
Ni - Why do they want to do this and what is the deal with fences anyway? Is this necessary?
Te - Is doing this cost effective? Will it be useful?
Ti - I want to analyze the structure and placement of the fence.
Fe - How will it affect the neighborhood, and what will the neighbors think?
Fi - I want it to be my own special fence that I can share with others over time.

Here is another example (from Understanding Yourself and Others by Linda V. Berens and Dario Nardi).

How do you decide what to wear?

Se - Notice what is available, try on a few things to see how they look.
Si - Remember the last time you wore an outfit and how you felt then.
Ne - Think about the meaning of an outfit, what it may communicate to others.
Ni - Envision yourself in the outfit and perhaps seeing yourself being a certain way.
Te - Sort through colors and styles, consider consequences such as "since I have to stand all day…."
Ti - Analyze options using principles such as comfort, or "red is a power color."
Fe - Consider what would be appropriate for the situation.
Fi - Evaluate whether you like an outfit or not, does it suit you and feel right?

Can you identify what your dominant function is (remember, you probably use several functions when making a decision, but what is your first thought or automatic reaction)? Does it match the dominant process of your personality type?

(on to part 6)
(back to part 4)

Personality talk, part 4

So, now you have discovered your "type" (go back to Personality Talk, part 2, if you are just joining us). The description is remarkably resonant with you. You are amazed that someone else has described you so accurately. (If you don't feel this way, you probably haven't found your true type yet-- keep searching!)

Now what? Obviously, knowing one's strengths and weaknesses is essential to set goals for personal growth, defining a self identity, and understanding why there are patterns in your behavior. I had fun discovering how much of "me" is related to my personality type. But I also had a surprise discovery. When I started reading about other types, I learned that there are ways of thinking or reacting to the world that I would never have conceived on my own (and I thought I had a pretty good understanding of people….)

In 1978, David Keirsey published Please Understand Me (and twenty years later, Please Understand Me II). He divided the 16 types (which he also ascribed descriptive names) into four Temperaments based on observable behaviors and viewpoints. Keirsey's four Temperaments are:

SP Artisans
(ISTP-crafter, ISFP-composer, ESTP-promoter, ESFP-performer)

SJ Guardians
(ISTJ-inspector, ISFJ-protector, ESTJ-supervisor, ESFJ-provider)

NF Idealists
(INFP-healer, INFJ-counselor, ENFP-champion, ENFJ-teacher)

NT Rationals
(INTP-architect, INTJ-mastermind, ENTP-inventor, ENTJ-fieldmarshal)

As an INFJ, I read the Idealist description and found myself nodding. Jason, an INTP, felt a resonance with the chapter about Rationals. The beauty of Keirsey's book is that he demonstrates the contrasts between temperaments in simple, but very effective ways. For example, in his chapter on mating he observes that each Temperament has a different style or goal in what they want from a mate. Artisans want a playmate, Guardians want a helpmate, Idealists want a soulmate, and Rationals want a mindmate. Here are a few more traits of each temperament for comparison:

Artisans
value being: excited
aspire to be: virtuoso
trust: impulses
seek: stimulation
yearn for: impact
self-esteem comes from being: artistic
feel confident when being: adaptable

Guardians
value being: concerned
aspire to be: executive
trust: authority
seek: security
yearn for: belonging
self-esteem comes from being: dependable
feel confident when being: respectable

Idealists
value being: enthusiastic
aspire to be: sage
trust: intuition
seek: identity
yearn for: romance
self-esteem comes from being: empathetic
feel confident when being: authentic

Rationals
value being: calm
aspire to be: wizard
trust: reason
seek: knowledge
yearn for: achievement
self-esteem comes from being: ingenious
feel confident when being: resolute

Wow! Now we can begin to understand each other better! No wonder Jason looks at me like I'm a dork when I say things will work out because "I just know they will." I trust intuition, he trusts reason. And you can just imagine how my yearning for romance and his yearning for achievement play out… ;) My parents are both Guardians, so Jason and I now understand when their trust of authority clashes with our points of view. And, gosh, I thought everyone knew what having a soulmate means... man, was I wrong! Learning how differently people view life has helped me understand others' behaviors, values, and motives when they differ from mine. As a typical idealist, I've always wondered why we can't all just get along. Now I've got some tools… mwah, ha, ha, ha… (remember, I am a counselor!).

Let me know if there are questions you'd like me to answer or ideas you'd like me to address in a future post about personality type.

(on to part 5)
(back to part 3)

Personality Talk, part 3

Wow-- I'm amazed at the level of interest that this has sparked in all of you (I'm giddy with excitement! I love this stuff!) There is so much to share, so many questions to answer. I'll start by answering some of the more specific questions that you raised in this post. Then, later this week, I'll continue with my original plan of discussing David Keirsey's work and how he expanded our understanding of the Myers-Briggs types.


First, I want to say that no type is "better" than any other. We are all capable of using all of the functions, we simply tend to be more comfortable with certain approaches, and therefore have preferences in how we gather information, get energy, and make decisions.

Second, I have only shared the basics of the underlying theory. The four functions interact with each other in complex ways to create each type. So, an ISTP is not simply an introverted version of ESTP. If you delve deeper into the theory you'll discover that there are terms such as "shadow types" and "dominant, secondary, and tertiary functions." Each type uses the iNtuiting, Sensing, Thinking, and Feeling functions in different situations for different reasons. A scholar must understand how all of these preferences interact before they can write the wonderful descriptions of each type that amaze us.

Can one's type change?
No. I believe that we develop preferences in the way we process the world by young adulthood (if we are not in fact born with preferences-- that's still up for debate). These preferences form our personality type. It is the way we feel most comfortable when relating to others, making decisions, and thinking about our world. As we grow and have new experiences we may learn to use the less comfortable functions more easily. Our family background and careers often facilitate such growth. A "J" type who has "P" parents will learn to be more flexible and spontaneous to avoid discord. A physician who is an "F" type may need to develop their "T" function in order to succeed in medical school. But, our preferences don't change. It works much like physical preferences. A left-handed person can learn to use his right hand very competently, but he will always prefer the left-- it always feels more natural.

Why do I get so many different results when I take the tests?
That is the limitation of free online tests. The best way to determine your type is to go to someone who is certified to administer the MBTI. Second best is to read descriptions of all the types that are one letter removed from your test result to eliminate any other possibilities, and gain a deeper understanding of the theory so that you can discover your natural preferences. Asking others how they see you sometimes offers more accurate insight into your preferences.

Are there certain types that get along better or form more stable relationships?
As you can imagine, this is one of the hot topics on personality type forums. I've read scholars who say opposites attract (INFJ and ESTP, for example). Others say that people with similar temperaments make the best matches. And some even cite studies that the most frequent marriages are between Artisans and Guardians or Rationals and Idealists (these are Keirsey's terms, I'll explain them in the next post). But-- I believe that two people of any type can work well together. They simply need to understand and accept their differences. I found a book (Just Your Type, by Paul Tieger and Barbara Barron-Tieger) that pairs each type with the others and gives pointers on the "joys" and "frustrations" of each match as well as "how to reach your (insert personality type) partner."

If anyone has specific questions about your type, please email me at aineevans@yahoo.com. I'm not an expert by any stretch of the imagination, but I do have books that may prove helpful.

I'll leave you with some type humor (source: Doug Bates.) Isn't there always some truth in humor?

Illusions of the Unhealthy XXXX

ESTP - "I'm a stud and the world revolves around me"
ISTP - "I can make anything work"
ENTP - "I can come up with a solution for anything"
INTP - "I'm brilliant and you'd better bow to my genius"
ESTJ - "I am in control"
ISTJ - "I do everything right"
ENTJ - "I am all-powerful"
INTJ - "I am all-knowing"
ESFP - "I am the most glamorous"
ISFP - "Nobody has better taste than I do"
ENFP - "I have the most enthusiasm"
INFP - "I have the most sensitive conscience"
ESFJ - "Everyone likes me and wants to be like me"
ISFJ - "Nobody can get along without me"
ENFJ - "I can teach anyone anything"
INFJ - "I have the best intentions"

Epitaphs

ESTJ Be back next year with flowers!
ISTJ Forever on time
ESFJ Arranged my own funeral
ISFJ Wish I could still help
ESTP Well, *this* is boring
ISTP Build a better coffin
ESFP Where did everybody go?
ISFP Smell a flower for me
ENTJ Whoever did this, I'll get you one day
INTJ *Now* try telling me what to do!
ENTP Death is being out of options
INTP Talk about "analysis paralysis"
ENFJ Another opportunity for learning
INFJ The ultimate clarity
ENFP Catch you on the flip side
INFP Eternal harmony

(on to part 4)
(back to part 2)

Personality Talk, part 2

So many of you responded positively to part 1 (thank you!) that I couldn't put off part 2 any longer. As promised, let's explore what personality type each of us is. First, the theory in a nutshell. If you're not the type (pun intended) that gets into theory discussions, scroll down to the links for online tests. I'm focusing my discussion on the most widely used theory-- the Myers-Briggs Types.

Carl Jung developed a personality typology to classify the way people deal with the world. He first defined the distinction between introversion and extraversion. Then he theorized that there are four functions or ways to process our world: sensing, intuiting, feeling, and thinking. We all can use these "tools", but we tend to prefer one or two over the others.

In 1962, Katharine Briggs and her daughter Isabel Briggs Myers developed the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) based on Jung's typology. They placed Jung's four functions into two dichotomies: sensing vs. intuiting and feeling vs. thinking, included Jung's introversion vs. extraversion observation, and they added a new dichotomy: judging vs. perceiving. Each function is represented by a letter.

introversion(I) vs. extraversion (E) : preference for how and where you get your energy

These functions refer to the way a person is energized. An Extravert draws energy from outside themselves, from people, activities, and things. They tend to be action-oriented and their energy declines when they are inactive. An Introvert draws energy from an inner world of ideas, emotions, and impressions. They tend to be thought-oriented and need time to reflect to renew their energy.

intuiting (N) vs. sensing (S) : preference for what you pay attention to when you are gathering information

These are the information gathering functions. A person who prefers Sensing focuses on what actually exists, paying attention to their five senses. They like concrete facts and details, and find meaning in the data. A person who prefers iNtuiting gathers information from internal sources such as insights or a sixth sense, and they focus on future possibilities. They like information that is abstract or theoretical. And they derive meaning from how information relates to a pattern or theory.

feeling (F) vs. thinking (T) : preference for what system you use to make decisions

The decision-making functions are both used to make rational decisions based on information gathered in their preferred way (iNtuiting or Sensing). Those who prefer Thinking use a logical, objective approach. They decide things from a detached viewpoint, using reason, logic, and sets of rules. A person who prefers the Feeling function makes decisions based on emotions and value systems. They make associations, consider the needs of others, and empathize with a situation to achieve balance, harmony, and consensus.

judging (J) vs. perceiving (P) : preference for lifestyle

These functions refer to how you relate to the outside world. Judging types like a planned, organized life. They show the world their 3rd function (Feeling or Thinking). So TJ types appear logical, while FJs appear empathetic. Perceiving types, on the other hand, prefer to live in a more spontaneous and flexible way. They show the world their 2nd function (iNtuiting or Sensing). So SP types appear concrete, while NP types appear abstract.

That's the basics. When you take a personality test, your preference for each of the functions is determined and your type is determined by the four-letter code (ESFJ, INTP, etc…)

TIPS FOR TAKING A PERSONALITY TEST

The MBTI must be administered by a trained tester. However, there are several free tests online that I have found to be reliable. Before you start a test, here are a few tips:

- Choose the answer that reflects your most comfortable response or first instinct. Sometimes it's helpful to think about how you would have answered the question when you were 20 years old (our personality type is most pure during young adulthood). As we age we strengthen our weaknesses, so we may not choose to act in our preferred, natural way.

- Take several tests to see if you get the same type consistently

- When you get your results, read several descriptions of your type and read several descriptions of types that are one letter off. In most cases, when you find the one that fits, you'll know it.

Here's a few online tests:

1. HumanMetrics test
2. Skeletus test
3. Similar Minds test

Oh, and I promised some predictions. I expect the majority of you will be "IN" types. Let's see if my "inner eye" has clarity...

(on to part 3)
(back to part 1)

Personality Talk, part 1

I only want you to see
My favorite part of me
And not my ugly side
Not my ugly side

So calm... and now it's dark
I look for you to light my heart
I'm in between the moon and where you are
I know... I can't be far

~Ugly Side, by Blue October

Though this song is about the fear of vulnerability, the last stanza reminded me of how much personality type can affect our relationships. How often do we feel that struggle to connect with another? When understanding seems to be mutual, yet you sense a faint misinterpretation? As if the other person came from a parallel planet where everything looks the same but something just feels off. Or perhaps you both reach the same conclusions, but the path to get there is strikingly different.

These differences in two seemingly compatible people fascinate me. We are all human, yet the way our brain works can be very different. We each have a unique perspective, a unique way of processing our world.

Or do we? According to leading personality theories, there are just 16 "types." Whoa! I'm not unique? Actually, each of us is unique because of our rich experiences and memories. But the way our brain deals with the world, makes decisions, and decides on actions is shared by others of the same "type."

When two people of the same type come together they speak the same language. They understand each other's way of thinking. But, they are limited by their shared type--they don't have the opportunity to learn a new perspective from each other. And I can tell you from personal experience, there is nothing more eye-opening and exciting than suddenly seeing the world from a new perspective. A perspective that you were previously unable to even conceive of, let alone understand.

Want to know more? I'm going to continue this as an ongoing series. In the next personality post I'll invite you to discover your "type" and share it with us-- I have a few predictions regarding that....

(PS-- If any of you recognized that song from Stephenie Meyers' playlist... yes I am a Twilight fan also!)

(on to part 2)

Basics of Type Theory

Rather than trying to draw a picture of each personality's characteristics (which would be an endless job, since each person truly is unique), type theory looks at how our brains work. Quite simply, we take in data (through our senses) and make a decision about what to do with that data. That's it. Our day is an endless stream of noticing stuff and deciding what to do with it.

This morning I became aware I was awake and noticed a beeping sound. I decided to turn off the alarm clock. Seeing the time, I decided I needed to get out of bed. I noticed the cold air and decided to put on sweatpants. You get the picture. Each moment we are doing one of these two processes: taking in information or making a decision.

What's fun about humans is that we have different ways of doing these cognitive processes. Two ways of gathering data, and two methods of decision making. We are all capable of using all of the processes (and we choose which to use in any given situation), but we all prefer one way of gathering data and one method of decision making. These cognitive preferences are hard-wired, just like physical dominance (as in right-handed or left-handed.)

Methods of gathering data:

Sensing (S)-- preferring to pay attention to information that comes from the outside, data that we gather through our 5 senses, tangibles, reality. Noticing "what is".

Intuiting (N)-- preferring to pay attention to information that comes from inside us, such as gut feelings, seeing possibilities, connections, patterns, or noticing "what could be".

Methods of decision making:

Thinking (T)-- making a decision based on logic, reasoning, a set of principles or objective criteria.

Feeling (F)-- making a decision based on feelings, values, what is important.

The "type code" is comprised of four letters. The second letter reflects our method of gathering data (either S or N). The third letter denotes our decision making preference (either T or F). To complete the type code we identify two "attitudes" which describe how we get energy and how we prefer to live our life. The first letter of the code reflects our preferred energy source and the fourth letter is our lifestyle attitude.

Energizing attitude:

Introverting (I)-- gets energy from within. Stimulated by ideas, emotions, and impressions. Usually needs alone time to recharge. Interactions with others tend to drain energy. Prefer to process and think alone, then will share results and conclusions.

Extraverting (E)-- gets energy from outside the self. Stimulated by people, activities, and things. Likes to be involved, gets restless when alone too long. Tend to think out loud, often doing their best thinking when brainstorming with others.

Lifestyle attitude:

Judging (J)-- prefers planning, structure, and order. Is more comfortable after a decision is made.

Perceiving (P)-- prefers spontaneity and being flexible. Is more comfortable when options are kept open.

Type Dynamics
Now here's the less understood part of type theory. The four letters interact with each other. So an ISFP isn't simply an introverted version of an ESFP. The attitudes (first and last letter of the code) tell us which cognitive process is our dominant.

I'll break this down using my own code, INFJ. The lifestyle attitude (J or P) tells us which cognitive function (data gathering or decision making) we project externally (what others see.) So, J's extravert their preferred decision making process (Thinking or Feeling), P's extravert their data gathering process (Sensing or iNtuiting). As a J, my decision making process (F) is extraverted. Which means my data gathering process (N) is introverted. So, Fe and Ni are my preferred processes. To determine which is dominant, we turn to my energizing attitude. I'm an I, so the introverted function is my dominant (Ni) and Fe is my "auxiliary function." Intraverting types don't show their dominant process to the outer world. Extraverting types display their dominant function (which explains why they feel so comfortable when interacting with others.)

So, we now know that Ni and Fe are my preferred ways of gathering information and making decisions. But we all use all four functions (S, N, T, and F). So can we determine my relative skill in using the others? Yes-- the fourth or "inferior function" is always the opposite of the dominant. So my fourth is extraverted Sensing (Se), leaving the third position to be T. There is disagreement in the attitude of the third function, but I tend to agree with the idea that it takes the attitude of the dominant. Therefore, my process hierarchy is Ni, Fe, Ti, Se.