Intertype Relationships - Reverse Engineering
Person A ↓ (rows)
Person B →
↓ MBTI →
(columns)
↓ socionics →
ENTP
ISFJ
ESFJ
INTP
ENFJ
ISTP
ESTP
INFJ
ESFP
INTJ
ENTJ
ISFP
ESTJ
INFP
ENFP
ISTJ
ILE = ENTp
SEI = ISFp
ESE = ESFj
LII = INTj
EIE = ENFj
LSI = ISTj
SLE = ESTp
IEI = INFp
SEE = ESFp
ILI = INTp
LIE = ENTj
ESI = ISFj
LSE = ESTj
EII = INFj
IEE = ENFp
SLI = ISTp
ENTP
ILE = ENTp
ISFJ
SEI = ISFp
ESFJ
ESE = ESFj
INTP
LII = INTj
ENFJ
EIE = ENFj
ISTP
LSI = ISTj
Idn
Dlt
Act
Mrr
Bn <
Sp <
Lkl
Ill
Ego
Cnt
Qid
Cnf
Bn ^
Sp ^
Cmp
Sdl
Dlt
Idn
Mrr
Act
Sp <
Bn <
Ill
Lkl
Cnt
Ego
Cnf
Qid
Sp ^
Bn ^
Sdl
Cmp
Act
Mrr
Idn
Dlt
Cmp
Sdl
Bn ^
Sp ^
Qid
Cnf
Ego
Cnt
Lkl
Ill
Bn <
Sp <
Mrr
Act
Dlt
Idn
Sdl
Cmp
Sp ^
Bn ^
Cnf
Qid
Cnt
Ego
Ill
Lkl
Sp <
Bn <
Bn ^
Sp ^
Cmp
Sdl
Idn
Dlt
Act
Mrr
Bn <
Sp <
Lkl
Ill
Ego
Cnt
Qid
Cnf
Sp ^
Bn ^
Sdl
Cmp
Dlt
Idn
Mrr
Act
Sp <
Bn <
Ill
Lkl
Cnt
Ego
Cnf
Qid
ESTP
INFJ
SLE = ESTp IEI = INFp
ESFP
SEE = ESFp
INTJ
ILI = INTp
ENTJ
LIE = ENTj
ISFP
ESI = ISFj
ESTJ
LSE = ESTj
INFP
EII = INFj
Ego
Cnt
Qid
Cnf
Bn ^
Sp ^
Cmp
Sdl
Idn
Dlt
Act
Mrr
Bn <
Sp <
Lkl
Ill
Cnt
Ego
Cnf
Qid
Sp ^
Bn ^
Sdl
Cmp
Dlt
Idn
Mrr
Act
Sp <
Bn <
Ill
Lkl
Qid
Cnf
Ego
Cnt
Lkl
Ill
Bn <
Sp <
Act
Mrr
Idn
Dlt
Cmp
Sdl
Bn ^
Sp ^
Cnf
Qid
Cnt
Ego
Ill
Lkl
Sp <
Bn <
Mrr
Act
Dlt
Idn
Sdl
Cmp
Sp ^
Bn ^
Bn <
Sp <
Lkl
Ill
Ego
Cnt
Qid
Cnf
Bn ^
Sp ^
Cmp
Sdl
Idn
Dlt
Act
Mrr
Sp <
Bn <
Ill
Lkl
Cnt
Ego
Cnf
Qid
Sp ^
Bn ^
Sdl
Cmp
Dlt
Idn
Mrr
Act
Ill
Lkl
Sp <
Bn <
Mrr
Act
Dlt
Idn
Sdl
Cmp
Sp ^
Bn ^
Cnf
Qid
Cnt
Ego
Lkl
Ill
Bn <
Sp <
Act
Mrr
Idn
Dlt
Cmp
Sdl
Bn ^
Sp ^
Qid
Cnf
Ego
Cnt
http://www.socionics.com/rel/relcht.htm
http://pstypes.blogspot.com/2009/03/myers-briggs-compatibility-part-1.html
http://www.sociotype.com
Homo/Heter
Homoverted
Heteroverted
Homoverted
Heteroverted
Homoverted
Heteroverted
Symm/Asym
Symmetrical
Symmetrical
Symmetrical
Symmetrical
Asymmetrical
Asymmetrical
Rhythm/Arhy LII=INTj's B-type
Idn
Dlt
Act
Mrr
Bn <
Sp <
Look-alike
Lkl
Homoverted
Symmetrical
Rhythmical
Illusionary
Ill
Heteroverted
Symmetrical
Rhythmical
Super-Ego
Contrary
Quasi-identical
Conflicting
Benefit ^
Supervision ^
Ego
Cnt
Qid
Cnf
Bn ^
Sp ^
Homoverted
Heteroverted
Homoverted
Heteroverted
Homoverted
Heteroverted
Symmetrical
Symmetrical
Symmetrical
Symmetrical
Asymmetrical
Asymmetrical
Rhythmical
Rhythmical
Arhythmical
Arhythmical
Arhythmical
Arhythmical
Comparative
Cmp
Homoverted
Symmetrical
Rhythmical
Sdl
Heteroverted
Symmetrical
Rhythmical
Identical
Duality
Activity
Mirror
Benefit <
Supervision <
Semi-dual
PersonalityPage →
Keirsey →
Pierce (CelebrityTypes) →
Rhythmical
Rhythmical
Arhythmical
Arhythmical
Arhythmical
Arhythmical
LII = INTj
ESE = ESFj
SEI = ISFp
ILE = ENTp
IEI = INFp
SLE = ESTp
EII = INFj
LSE = ESTj
ESI = ISFj
LIE = ENTj
ILI = INTp
SEE = ESFp
SLI = ISTp
IEE = ENFp
LSI = ISTj
✔
✔
✔
(p > j)
(p > j)
(p > j)
(if p)
(if j)
(if p)
(if j)
✔
✔
✔
(j > p)
(j > p)
EIE = ENFj
(if p)
(if j)
A
T
ISFP
ENTJ
INTJ
ESFP
ISTJ
ENFP
ISTP
~I
~D
~A
~T
T
A
D
✔
ENFJ
✔
✔
(j > p)
(j > p)
(if j)
ENTP
ISFJ
ESFJ
INTP
ENFJ
ISTP
ESTP
INFJ
ILE = ENTp
Visionary
Inventor
SEI = ISFp
Nurturer
Protector
ESE = ESFj
Caregiver
Provider
LII = INTj
Thinker
Architect
EIE = ENFj
Giver
Teacher
LSI = ISTj
Mechanic
Crafter
SLE = ESTp
Doer
Promoter
IEI = INFp
Protector
Counselor
Originator
Guardian
Cooperator
Abstractionist
Persuader
Fe
Si
Ne
Ti
Ti
Ne
Si
Fe
Fe
Ni
Se
Ti
Socionics →
Sociotype →
TypeLogic →
Mrr
Mirror
Pal
1:2
4:3
2:1
3:4
Act
Activity
Supplement
1:3
4:2
2:4
3:1
Dlt
Duality
Anima
1:4
4:1
2:3
3:2
Idn
Identical
Identity
1:1
4:4
2:2
3:3
Sdl
Semi-dual
Pedagogue
1:4
4:1
2:~2
3:~3
3.5%
11.5%
11.0%
4.0%
3.5%
Mentor / Actor
Envisioner
Mentor
Counselor
29% Green
39% White
33% Red
% general popn
~I
~D
Stack A vs. B
Auxiliary
Tertiary
A
T
T
A
I
D
D
I
~D
~I
~I
~D
Inferior
I
D
A
T
~T
~A
Dominant
D
i
T
A
T
A
Inferior
I
D
A
T
A
T
T
A
~D
~I
~I
~D
A
T
T
A
~D
~I
~T
~A
~D
~I
~D
~I
~T
~A
~T
~I
~D
~I
~D
~A
~D
~I
~T
~A
A
T
I
~I
~D
~A
~T
~A
~T
D
~T
~A
~D
~I
I
D
~T
~A
~T
~I
~D
D
I
~A
~D
~I
~T
~A
~T
~A
I
I
~A
~T
D
I
~A
~T
D
INTJ
ENTJ
ISFP
ESTJ
(if p)
Si
Fe
Ti
Ne
RL:/.../MBTI interrelationships5a.ods saved 02/28/2016 19:20:58
INFP
ESTJ
(if p)
✔
(j > p)
Ne
Ti
Fe
Si
another →
Dominant
D
i
T
A
~A
~T
(if j)
Dominant = 1
Auxilliary = 2
Tertiary = 3
Inferior = 4
INTP
✔
✔
(p > j)
(p > j)
INTP
ESFJ
ISFJ
ENTP
INFJ
ESTP
✔
Critic /
Mastermind
Designer
Theorizer
Rationalist,
Philosopher
= LII = INTj
Thinker
INTP's B-type
(if j)
Seeker /
Guardian /
Bonvivant /
Inventor
Conservator
Enthusiast
Explorer
Protector
Facilitator
Berens (CognitiveProcesses) →
Inventor
Supporter
Caretaker
Scientist,
Advocate,
Passionate Joiner
another →
ThoughtLeader Poet, Teacher
Note my change of symbols:
1:2 = Dominant : Auxilliary
✔
✔
Stack B vs. A
Auxiliary
Tertiary
A
T
T
A
I
D
D
I
I
D
D
I
P/J
Sdl
Cmp
Sp ^
Bn ^
Cnf
Qid
Cnt
Ego
Ill
Lkl
Sp <
Bn <
Mrr
Act
Dlt
Idn
(if p)
Socionics →
For:
✔
Altered Variables
N/S
T/F
Cmp
Sdl
Bn ^
Sp ^
Qid
Cnf
Ego
Cnt
Lkl
Ill
Bn <
Sp <
Act
Mrr
Idn
Dlt
Column belongs to Person A.
Contents belong to Person B.
Column belongs to Person B.
Contents belong to Person A.
E/I
ENFP
ISTJ
IEE = ENFp SLI = ISTp
ESFP
SEE = ESFp
ILI = INTp
LIE = ENTj
ESI = ISFj
LSE = ESTj
Performer
Scientist
Executive
Artist
Guardian
Performer
Mastermind
Field Marshal
Composer
Supervisor
Vibrant
Expressive
Wizard
Subjugator
Complier?
LifeAffirmer
artist
Politician /
Analyst /
Enterpriser /
Mediator /
Administrator /
Ambassador
Scientist
Pioneer
Peacemaker
Director
Motivator
Conceptualizer
Strategist
Composer
Implementor
Presenter
Director
Mobilizer
Producer
Supervisor
SensationSeeker Designer/Archi/
MiddleExpressionist, Dutiful Soldier /
/ Groupie
Engneer
manager, Fixer
Performer
OrgnMan
INFP
ENFP
ISTJ
EII = INFj
Idealist
Healer
IEE = ENFp
Inspirer
Champion
SLI = ISTp
Duty Fulfiller
Inspector
Searcher
Solidifier?
Masterer?
Conquerer
Teacher
Craftsman /
Mechanic
Analyzer
Operator
Artisan /
Technician
Legionnaire /
Conqueror
Promoter
Executor
Politician,
Entrepreneur
Humanist /
Empath
Foreseer
Developer
Ti
Se
Ni
Fe
Se
Ti
Fe
Ni
Ni
Fe
Ti
Se
Se
Fi
Te
Ni
Ni
Te
Fi
Se
Te
Ni
Se
Fi
Fi
Se
Ni
Te
Te
Si
Ne
Fi
Fi
Ne
Si
Te
Bn <
Benefit<
Advisor
1:3
4:2
2:~1
3:~4
asymmetric
1:~2
4:~3
2:4
3:1
Cnf
Conflicting
Novelty
1:~3
4:~2
2:~4
3:~1
Qid
Quasi-ident
Complement
1:~2
4:~3
2:~1
3:~4
Cnt
Contrary
Contrast
1:~1
4:~4
2:~2
3:~3
Ego
Super-Ego
Enigma
1:~4
4:~1
2:~3
3:~2
Ill
Illusionary
Cohort
1:~1
4:~4
2:3
3:2
Lkl
Look-alike
Companion
1:~4
4:~1
2:2
3:3
2.0%
6.5%
3.0%
3.5%
7.0%
10.0%
4.5%
Cmp
Sp <
Comparative Supervision<
Neighbor
Counterpart
1:1
1:2
4:4
4:3
2:~3
2:~4
3:~2
3:~1
asymmetric
1:~3
4:~2
2:1
3:4
5.0%
4.5%
Page 1
Ethicist
Dreamer
Lyricist /
Romantic
Harmonizer
Clarifier
Dreamer
Psychologist / Inspector /
Reporter
Pragmatist
Discoverer
Planner
Advocate
Inspector
PeaceMaker, Curator,Repo
Harmonizer
rter,Accntnt
Ne
Fi
Te
Si
Si
Te
Fi
Ne
Sp ^
Bn ^
Supervision^
Benefit^
Tribesman
Suitemate
1:~3
1:~2
4:~2
4:~3
2:1
2:4
3:4
3:1
asymmetric asymmetric
1:2
1:3
4:3
4:2
2:~4
2:~1
3:~1
3:~4
7.0%
12.5%
Intertype Relationships - Reverse Engineering
Green
Red
ENTP
0
0
ISFJ
1
0
ESFJ
0
1
INTP
0
0
ENFJ
0
1
ISTP
0
0
ESTP
0
1
INFJ
1
0
ESFP
0
1
INTJ
1
0
ENTJ
0
0
ISFP
0
0
ESTJ
0
0
INFP
0
0
ENFP
0
1
ISTJ
1
0
Green
White
Red
28%
32%
41%
21%
52%
28%
22%
52%
27%
29%
39%
33%
22%
43%
36%
29%
40%
32%
28%
52%
21%
21%
44%
36%
28%
54%
19%
21%
44%
36%
22%
41%
38%
29%
43%
29%
22%
51%
28%
29%
43%
28%
28%
32%
40%
21%
51%
29%
Idn
Identity
Identical
1:1
4:4
2:2
3:3
Qid
Complement
Quasi-ident
1:~2
4:~3
2:~1
3:~4
Lkl
Companion
Look-alike
1:~4
4:~1
2:2
3:3
Bn <
Advisor
Benefit<
1:3
4:2
2:~1
3:~4
asymmetric
1:~2
4:~3
2:4
3:1
Sdl
Pedagogue
Semi-dual
1:4
4:1
2:~2
3:~3
Ill
Cohort
Illusionary
1:~1
4:~4
2:3
3:2
Cnt
Contrast
Contrary
1:~1
4:~4
2:~2
3:~3
Act
Supplement
Activity
1:3
4:2
2:4
3:1
Dlt
Anima
Duality
1:4
4:1
2:3
3:2
Cmp
Neighbor
Comparative
1:1
4:4
2:~3
3:~2
Ego
Enigma
Super-Ego
1:~4
4:~1
2:~3
3:~2
Sp <
Counterpart
Supervision<
1:2
4:3
2:~4
3:~1
asymmetric
1:~3
4:~2
2:1
3:4
Cnf
Novelty
Conflicting
1:~3
4:~2
2:~4
3:~1
Bn ^
Suitemate
Benefit^
1:~2
4:~3
2:4
3:1
asymmetric
1:3
4:2
2:~1
3:~4
Mrr
Pal
Mirror
1:2
4:3
2:1
3:4
Sp ^
Tribesman
Supervision^
1:~3
4:~2
2:1
3:4
asymmetric
1:2
4:3
2:~4
3:~1
43%
59%
57%
27%
36%
0%
39%
80%
41%
Reference cells:
TypeLogic →
Socionics →
Psychological Compatibility Rating assuming No Subtypes.
Subtypes influence these strongly.
Note that these compatibilities are undifferentiated with
respect to task and role, e.g. work, romance, parent/child,
play. This makes the system even more suspect.
Sociotype →
91%
18%
57%
This results in some very questionable
pairings. I think that the Duality
concept may reflect a cultural bias.
59%
18%
89%
Keirsey's compatibilities described at http://pstypes.blogspot.com/2009/04/myers-briggs-compatibility-part-2.html
sharing tandem processes:
Se ↔ Ni
or
Ne ↔ Si
count
also sharing N/S preference
S
count
{4}
{xSTP, xSFP}
{xNTJ, xNFJ, xSTP, xSFP}
{8}
N
{xNTJ, xNFJ}
{xSTJ, xSFJ, xNFP, xNTP}
{8}
{xNFP, xNTP}
{xSTJ, xSFJ}
{4}
{xNFP, xSFP, xNTJ, xSTJ}
{8}
{xNFP, xNTJ}
{xSFP, xSTJ}
{4}
{xNTP, xSTP, xNFJ, xSFJ}
{8}
{xNTP, xNFJ}
{xSTP, xSFJ}
{4}
and
Te ↔ Fi
or
Fe ↔ Ti
share either tandem
either tandem {6}
Idn
Mrr
Bn ^
Ill
Idn
Mrr
Bn ^
Ill
INTJ
ESFP
INFJ
ISTJ
INTJ
ISTP
Cnt
Ego
Ill
Sdl
Cnt
Sp ^
ESFJ
ISFJ
ESTP
ISTP
and
pstypes (Keirsey)
xNTJ, xNFJ, xNFP
xNFJ, xNTJ, xNTP
xNTP, xNFJ, xNFP
xNFP, xNTP, xNTJ
xSTJ, xSFJ, xSFP
xSFJ, xSTJ, xSTP
xSTP, xSFJ, xSFP
xSFP, xSTP,xSTJ
http://www.typeinsights.com/FreeArticles/Relationships.pdf
typeinsights (Keirsey)
xNFP
xNTP
xNFJ
cuts it down to 4
xNTJ
xSFP
xSTP
xSFJ
xSTJ
How does Keirsey get from 6 to 4??? pstypes does not explain this. E.g., INTP most compatible with: INTP, ENTP, INFJ, ENFJ; dropping INFP, ENFP.
Note that 4 types share both pairs of tandem processes, e.g. ENTP, ISFJ, ESFJ, INTP share Ne ↔ Si and Fe ↔ Ti, but these 4 are always split over N and S,
yielding 2, so sharing both pairs cannot be the criterion. Sharing one or the other pair yields 6 types with the same N/S preference, e.g. xNTP, xNFP and xNFJ.
Keirey compatibilities can't be mapped into function stacks.
Incompatible:
Opposing Personality
Dynamic Opposite
Interaction Styles
.................................................................
{6}
Keirsey Compatible (main tandem + N/S preference):
ENTP
ISFJ
INTP
ESFJ
ENFJ
ISTP
INFJ
ESTP
100%
INTP
ENTP
INFJ
ENFJ
ENFJ
INFJ
ENTP
INTP
ISTP
ESTP
ISFJ
ESFJ
What is the main tandem process referred to in pstypes? We can't just favor the Dominant function, because this would make compatibilities asymmetric. It
seems that pstypes simply neglected to say sharing N/S preference and opposite P/J, which always makes T/F his main tandem process.
ESTP
INFJ
ESFP
INTJ
ENTJ
ISFP
ESTJ
INFP
ENFP
ISTJ
ISTP
ENFJ
ISFP
ENTJ
INTJ
ESFP
ISTJ
ENFP
INFP
ESTJ
ESFJ
INTP
ESTJ
INFP
ENFP
ISTJ
ESFP
INTJ
ENTJ
ISFP
ISFJ
ENTP
ISTJ
ENFP
INFP
ESTJ
ISFP
ENTJ
INTJ
ESFP
Idn that there areIdn
Idnhere, corresponding
Idn
Idnor I__P}.
Good. Note
only two patterns
to {E__PIdn
or I__J} vs. {E__J
They are
{Identity, Pal, Suitemate,
Cohort}Mrr
and {Identity, Pal,
Mrr
Mrr
MrrAdvisor, Pedagogue}
Mrr
Mrr
Bn <
Sdl
Bn <
Sdl
Bn <
Sdl
Bn <
Sdl
Bn ^
Ill
Bn ^
Ill
Idn
Mrr
Bn ^
Ill
Idn
Mrr
Bn ^
Ill
Idn
Mrr
Bn <
Sdl
Idn
Mrr
Bn <
Sdl
Idn
Mrr
Bn <
Sdl
Idn
Mrr
Bn <
Sdl
Idn
Mrr
Bn ^
Ill
Idn
Mrr
Bn ^
Ill
ESFP
INTJ
ENFJ
ENTJ
ESTJ
ESTP
ISFP
ENTJ
INFJ
ISTJ
INTJ
ISTP
ENTJ
ISFP
ENFJ
ENTJ
ESTJ
ESTP
INFP
ESTJ
INFP
INTP
ISFJ
ISFP
ESTJ
INFP
ENFP
ESFJ
ENTP
ESFP
ISTJ
ENFP
INFP
INTP
ISFJ
ISFP
ENFP
ISTJ
ENFP
ESFJ
ENTP
ESFP
ISFJ
ENTP
INFJ
ISTJ
INTJ
ISTP
ENTP
ISFJ
ENFP
ESFJ
ENTP
ESFP
INTP
ESFJ
INFP
INTP
ISFJ
ISFP
ESFJ
INTP
ENFJ
ENTJ
ESTJ
ESTP
ISTP
ENFJ
INFP
INTP
ISFJ
ISFP
ENFJ
ISTP
ENFJ
ENTJ
ESTJ
ESTP
INFJ
ESTP
INFJ
ISTJ
INTJ
ISTP
ESTP
INFJ
ENFP
ESFJ
ENTP
ESFP
Cnt
Ego
Sp ^
Cnf
Sp <
Ill
Cnt
Ego
Sp <
Sp ^
Cnf
Sdl
Cnt
Ego
Sdl
Cnt
Ill
Sp <
Cnt
Ego
Cnt
Sdl
Sp <
Ill
Cnt
Ego
Cnf
Sdl
Sp <
Sp ^
Cnt
Ego
Cnf
Sp ^
Ill
Sp <
Cnt
Ego
Cnt
Sp ^
Ill
Sdl
Cnt
Ego
Sdl
Ill
Dlt
Sp <
Cnt
Ego
Ill
Cnf
Cnt
Dlt
Cnt
Ego
Sdl
Cnt
Cnf
Dlt
Cnt
Ego
Ill
Dlt
Sdl
Sp ^
Cnt
Ego
Dlt
Ill
Sp ^
Sdl
Cnt
Ego
Cnt
Sdl
Dlt
Cnf
Cnt
Ego
Cnt
Dlt
Ill
Cnf
Cnt
Ego
Dlt
Sp <
Sdl
Ill
Aggressor
Victim
Victim
Aggressor
Caregiver
Infantile
Infantile
Caregiver
This looks like six possible incompatibles, but one type is sometimes doubled. Also note that a single
type can be most compatible according to one theory and least compatible according to another theory.
Socionics Romance Styles:
Infantile
Aggressor (_S_P)
Victim (_N_J)
Caregiver (_S_J)
Infantile (_N_P)
RL:/.../MBTI interrelationships5a.ods saved 02/28/2016 19:20:58
Caregiver
Caregiver
Infantile
Victim
Aggressor
Aggressor
Page 2
Victim
NF relationships
ENTP
ISFJ
ESFJ
INTP
ENFJ
ISTP
ESTP
INFJ
PersonalityPage →
Keirsey →
ENTp
Visionary
Inventor
ISFp
Nurturer
Protector
ESFj
Caregiver
Provider
INTj
Thinker
Architect
ENFj
Giver
Teacher
ISTj
Mechanic
Crafter
ESTp
Doer
Promoter
INFp
Protector
Counselor
Pierce (CelebrityTypes) →
Originator
Guardian
Cooperator
Abstractionist
Bonvivant /
Enthusiast
Facilitator
Caretaker
Passionate
Joiner
Critic /
Mastermind
Designer
Theorizer
Rationalist,
Philosopher
Si
Fe
Ti
Ne
Fe
Si
Ne
Ti
Ti
Ne
Si
Fe
Bn ^
Benefit^
Suitemate
1:~2
4:~3
2:4
3:1
asymmetric
1:3
4:2
2:~1
3:~4
Ill
Illusionary
Cohort
1:~1
4:~4
2:3
3:2
3.5%
11.5%
Ill
Illusionary
Cohort
1:~1
4:~4
2:3
3:2
3.5%
Dominant = 1
Auxilliary = 2
Tertiary = 3
Inferior = 4
Ne
Ti
Fe
Si
INFP
Sp ^
Socionics →
Sociotype → Supervision^
TypeLogic → Tribesman
another →
1:~3
4:~2
2:1
3:4
asymmetric
1:2
4:3
29% Green
2:~4
43% White
3:~1
28% Red
= EII = INFj
% general popn
INFJ
= IEI = INFp
Socionics →
Sociotype →
TypeLogic →
another →
ENFP
= IEE = ENFp
Cmp
Socionics →
Sociotype → Comparative
TypeLogic → Neighbor
1:1
4:4
another →
2:~3
3:~2
ENFJ
3.5%
Bn <
Benefit<
Advisor
1:3
4:2
another →
2:~1
3:~4
asymmetric
1:~2
4:~3
22% Green
2:4
43% White
3:1
36% Red
= EIE = ENFj
Socionics →
Sociotype →
TypeLogic →
% general popn
3.5%
RL:/.../MBTI interrelationships5a.ods saved 02/28/2016 19:20:58
ISFP
ESTJ
INFP
ENFP
ISTJ
INFj
Idealist
Healer
ENFp
Inspirer
Champion
ISTp
Duty Fulfiller
Inspector
Searcher
Solidifier?
Conquerer
Teacher
Legionnaire /
Conqueror
Promoter
Executor
Politician,
Entrepreneur
Humanist /
Empath
Foreseer
Developer
Fe
Ni
Se
Ti
Ti
Se
Ni
Fe
Se
Ti
Fe
Ni
Ni
Fe
Ti
Se
Se
Fi
Te
Ni
Ni
Te
Fi
Se
Te
Ni
Se
Fi
Fi
Se
Ni
Te
Te
Si
Ne
Fi
Fi
Ne
Si
Te
Ne
Fi
Te
Si
Si
Te
Fi
Ne
Lkl
Look-alike
Companion
1:~4
4:~1
2:2
3:3
Cnt
Contrary
Contrast
1:~1
4:~4
2:~2
3:~3
Ego
Super-Ego
Enigma
1:~4
4:~1
2:~3
3:~2
Cnf
Conflicting
Novelty
1:~3
4:~2
2:~4
3:~1
Qid
Quasi-ident
Complement
1:~2
4:~3
2:~1
3:~4
Sp <
Supervision<
Counterpart
1:2
4:3
2:~4
3:~1
asymmetric
1:~3
4:~2
2:1
3:4
Bn <
Benefit<
Advisor
1:3
4:2
2:~1
3:~4
asymmetric
1:~2
4:~3
2:4
3:1
Sdl
Semi-dual
Pedagogue
1:4
4:1
2:~2
3:~3
Cmp
Comparative
Neighbor
1:1
4:4
2:~3
3:~2
Dlt
Duality
Anima
1:4
4:1
2:3
3:2
Idn
Identical
Identity
1:1
4:4
2:2
3:3
Mrr
Mirror
Pal
1:2
4:3
2:1
3:4
Act
Activity
Supplement
1:3
4:2
2:4
3:1
11.0%
4.0%
3.5%
5.0%
4.5%
2.0%
6.5%
3.0%
3.5%
7.0%
10.0%
4.5%
7.0%
12.5%
Lkl
Look-alike
Companion
1:~4
4:~1
2:2
3:3
Sp ^
Supervision^
Tribesman
1:~3
4:~2
2:1
3:4
asymmetric
1:2
4:3
2:~4
3:~1
Bn ^
Benefit^
Suitemate
1:~2
4:~3
2:4
3:1
asymmetric
1:3
4:2
2:~1
3:~4
Mrr
Mirror
Pal
1:2
4:3
2:1
3:4
Act
Activity
Supplement
1:3
4:2
2:4
3:1
Dlt
Duality
Anima
1:4
4:1
2:3
3:2
Idn
Identical
Identity
1:1
4:4
2:2
3:3
Sdl
Semi-dual
Pedagogue
1:4
4:1
2:~2
3:~3
Bn <
Benefit<
Advisor
1:3
4:2
2:~1
3:~4
asymmetric
1:~2
4:~3
2:4
3:1
Cnf
Conflicting
Novelty
1:~3
4:~2
2:~4
3:~1
Qid
Quasi-ident
Complement
1:~2
4:~3
2:~1
3:~4
Cnt
Contrary
Contrast
1:~1
4:~4
2:~2
3:~3
Ego
Super-Ego
Enigma
1:~4
4:~1
2:~3
3:~2
11.5%
11.0%
4.0%
3.5%
5.0%
4.5%
2.0%
6.5%
3.0%
3.5%
7.0%
10.0%
4.5%
7.0%
12.5%
Sdl
Semi-dual
Pedagogue
1:4
4:1
2:~2
3:~3
Bn <
Benefit<
Advisor
1:3
4:2
2:~1
3:~4
asymmetric
1:~2
4:~3
2:4
3:1
Cnf
Conflicting
Novelty
1:~3
4:~2
2:~4
3:~1
Ego
Super-Ego
Enigma
1:~4
4:~1
2:~3
3:~2
Cnt
Contrary
Contrast
1:~1
4:~4
2:~2
3:~3
Lkl
Look-alike
Companion
1:~4
4:~1
2:2
3:3
Ill
Illusionary
Cohort
1:~1
4:~4
2:3
3:2
Bn ^
Benefit^
Suitemate
1:~2
4:~3
2:4
3:1
asymmetric
1:3
4:2
2:~1
3:~4
Mrr
Mirror
Pal
1:2
4:3
2:1
3:4
Idn
Identical
Identity
1:1
4:4
2:2
3:3
Dlt
Duality
Anima
1:4
4:1
2:3
3:2
11.5%
11.0%
28% Green
32% White
40% Red
% general popn
ENTJ
Masterer?
21% Green
44% White
36% Red
% general popn
INTJ
Craftsman /
Mechanic
Analyzer
Operator
Artisan /
Technician
Seeker /
Guardian /
Inventor
Conservator
Explorer
Protector
Berens (CognitiveProcesses) →
Inventor
Supporter
Scientist,
Advocate,
another →
ThoughtLeader Poet, Teacher
Socionics →
Sp <
Cmp
Supervision< Comparative
Counterpart
Neighbor
1:2
1:1
4:3
4:4
2:~4
2:~3
3:~1
3:~2
asymmetric
1:~3
4:~2
2:1
3:4
11.5%
11.0%
Persuader
ESFP
ESFp
INTp
ENTj
ISFj
ESTj
Performer
Scientist
Executive
Artist
Guardian
Performer
Mastermind
Field Marshal
Composer
Supervisor
Vibrant
Expressive
Wizard
Complier?
Subjugator
LifeAffirmer
artist
Politician /
Analyst /
Enterpriser /
Mediator /
Administrator /
Ambassador
Scientist
Pioneer
Peacemaker
Director
Motivator
Conceptualizer
Strategist
Composer
Implementor
Presenter
Director
Mobilizer
Producer
Supervisor
SensationSeeker Designer/Archi/
MiddleExpressionist, Dutiful Soldier /
/ Groupie
Engneer
manager, Fixer
Performer
OrgnMan
Mentor / Actor
Envisioner
Mentor
Counselor
Sp <
Qid
Supervision< Quasi-ident
Counterpart Complement
1:2
1:~2
4:3
4:~3
2:~4
2:~1
3:~1
3:~4
asymmetric
1:~3
4:~2
2:1
3:4
Ethicist
Cmp
Sp <
Comparative Supervision<
Neighbor
Counterpart
1:1
1:2
4:4
4:3
2:~3
2:~4
3:~2
3:~1
asymmetric
1:~3
4:~2
2:1
3:4
Sp ^
Act
Supervision^
Activity
Tribesman Supplement
1:~3
1:3
4:~2
4:2
2:1
2:4
3:4
3:1
asymmetric
1:2
4:3
2:~4
3:~1
Dreamer
Lyricist /
Romantic
Harmonizer
Clarifier
Dreamer
Psychologist /
Inspector /
Reporter
Pragmatist
Discoverer
Planner
Advocate
Inspector
PeaceMaker, Curator,Report
Harmonizer
er,Accntnt
4.0%
3.5%
5.0%
4.5%
2.0%
6.5%
3.0%
3.5%
7.0%
10.0%
4.5%
7.0%
12.5%
Sdl
Semi-dual
Pedagogue
1:4
4:1
2:~2
3:~3
Idn
Identical
Identity
1:1
4:4
2:2
3:3
Dlt
Duality
Anima
1:4
4:1
2:3
3:2
Act
Activity
Supplement
1:3
4:2
2:4
3:1
Mrr
Mirror
Pal
1:2
4:3
2:1
3:4
Bn ^
Benefit^
Suitemate
1:~2
4:~3
2:4
3:1
asymmetric
1:3
4:2
2:~1
3:~4
Sp ^
Supervision^
Tribesman
1:~3
4:~2
2:1
3:4
asymmetric
1:2
4:3
2:~4
3:~1
Lkl
Look-alike
Companion
1:~4
4:~1
2:2
3:3
Ill
Illusionary
Cohort
1:~1
4:~4
2:3
3:2
Ego
Super-Ego
Enigma
1:~4
4:~1
2:~3
3:~2
Cnt
Contrary
Contrast
1:~1
4:~4
2:~2
3:~3
Qid
Quasi-ident
Complement
1:~2
4:~3
2:~1
3:~4
Cnf
Conflicting
Novelty
1:~3
4:~2
2:~4
3:~1
4.0%
3.5%
5.0%
4.5%
2.0%
6.5%
3.0%
3.5%
7.0%
10.0%
4.5%
7.0%
12.5%
Page 3
do not overwrite
these formulas
Types & Characterizations
Type
ENFJ
ENTJ
ESFJ
ESTJ
ENFP
ENTP
ESTP
ESFP
INFJ
INTJ
ISTJ
ISFJ
INFP
INTP
ISFP
ISTP
PersonalityPage
Giver
Executive
Caregiver
Guardian
Inspirer
Visionary
Doer
Performer
Protector
Scientist
Duty Fulfiller
Nurturer
Idealist
Thinker
Artist
Mechanic
Keirsey
Teacher
Field Marshal
Provider
Supervisor
Champion
Inventor
Promoter
Performer
Counselor
Mastermind
Inspector
Protector
Healer
Architect
Composer
Crafter
Pierce (CelebrityTypes)
Persuader
Subjugator
Cooperator
Complier?
Searcher
Originator
Conquerer
Vibrant LifeAffirmer
Teacher
Wizard
Solidifier?
Guardian
Dreamer
Abstractionist
Expressive artist
Masterer?
Socionics
Mentor / Actor
Enterpriser / Pioneer
Bonvivant / Enthusiast
Administrator / Director
Psychologist / Reporter
Seeker / Inventor
Legionnaire / Conqueror
Politician / Ambassador
Humanist / Empath
Analyst / Scientist
Inspector / Pragmatist
Guardian / Conservator
Lyricist / Romantic
Critic / Mastermind
Mediator / Peacemaker
Craftsman / Mechanic
cognitive process preference pattern
Berens (CognitiveProcesses)
Envisioner Mentor
Strategist Mobilizer
Facilitator Caretaker
Implementor Supervisor
Discoverer Advocate
Explorer Inventor
Promoter Executor
Motivator Presenter
Foreseer Developer
Conceptualizer Director
Planner Inspector
Protector Supporter
Harmonizer Clarifier
Designer Theorizer
Composer Producer
Analyzer Operator
Socionics
Ethical Intuitive Extravert (EIE)
Logical Intuitive Extravert (LIE)
Ethical Sensory Extravert (ESE)
Logical Sensory Extravert (LSE)
Intuitive Ethical Extravert (IEE)
Intuitive Logical Extravert (ILE)
Sensory Logical Extravert (SLE)
Sensory Ethical Extravert (SEE)
Intuitive Ethical Introvert (IEI)
Intuitive Logical Introvert (ILI)
Sensory Logical Introvert (SLI)
Sensory Ethical Introvert (SEI)
Ethical Intuitive Introvert (EII)
Logical Intuitive Introvert (LII)
Ethical Sensory Introvert (ESI)
Logical Sensory Introvert (LSI)
Popn %
3.5%
3.5%
11.0%
10.0%
7.0%
3.5%
4.5%
6.5%
2.0%
3.0%
12.5%
11.5%
4.5%
4.0%
7.0%
5.0%
Based on RL's reanalysis of original EM Survey Data
See, also:
(first presented in an article by Andrea Isaacs and
John Fudjack in the 'Enneagram Monthly', March,
http://www.personalitypage.com/html/portraits.html
1996) using I-values based on Manly's alpha in
http://www.typelogic.com/intp.html
http://www.mcs.vuw.ac.nz/research/publications/repor
ts/mscs/mscs07-04.pdf applied to transposed
http://keirsey.com/
http://tap3x.net/EMBTI/charts.html#CHART3A .
http://similarminds.com/personality_types.html
See, also, http://personalityjunkie.com/07/myershttp://oddlydevelopedtypes.com/INTP
briggs-enneagram-mbti-types-correlationsrelationship/
http://personalityjunkie.com/the-intp/
http://www.preludecharacteranalysis.com/types
These do not line up particularly well with the
expected MBTI types. Consider that Enneagram has
http://www.16personalities.com/personality-types
more to do with behaviors than with thought
http://www.cognitiveprocesses.com/16Types/16Types.cfm
processes. Isaacs & Fudjack's raw data are clearly
asymmetrical: most Nines are INFP, but INFP might
http://lenore-exegesis.com/
just as likely be Four or another type. Finally, note
that I&F's statistical method gives disproportionate
http://www.personalitypathways.com/faces.html
significance to Enneagram types that empirically
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSNTdSSLauQ
select rare MBTI types. (Transposed data transposes
this relationship as well.) Since their sampled
http://www.enneagraminstitute.com/intro.asp
percentages of MBTI were unrepresentative of the
http://tap3x.net/EMBTI/charts.html
general population, predictions may be skewed.
http://www.enneagram.net/instsub.html
https://www.enneagramworldwide.com/instinctual-subtypes/
http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.php?title=Model_A
http://www.davidmarkley.com/personality
http://testyourself.psychtests.com/testid/2143
http://personality-testing.info/tests/BIG5.php
http://www.mcs.vuw.ac.nz/research/publications/reports/mscs/mscs07-04.pdf
http://www.celebritytypes.com/blog/2011/01/jungian-functions-at-a-glance
http://www.socionics.com/rel/relcht.htm
http://pstypes.blogspot.com/2009/03/myers-briggs-compatibility-part-1.html
http://personalityinstitute.tripod.com/mbtiresearchreport.htm
http://www.ukessays.com/essays/psychology/evaluating-the-myers-briggs-type-indicator-psychology-essay.php
http://people.wku.edu/richard.miller/MBTI%20reliability%20validity.pdf
https://gustavus.edu/psychology/files/Larson.pdf?origin=publication_detail
http://www.academia.edu/11245391/A_CORRELATIONAL_STUDY_OF_EXPLICIT_AND_IMPLICIT_PERSONALITY_TESTS
http://harvey.psyc.vt.edu/Documents/BessHarveySwartzSIOP2003.pdf
http://www.typeinsights.com/FreeArticles/Relationships.pdf
http://www.interactionstyles.com/
http://www.personalityhacker.com/podcast-episode-0019-models-of-personality-development/
RL:/.../MBTI interrelationships5a.ods saved 02/28/2016 19:20:58
another label
Enneagram?
Counselor
2,1
Middle-manager, Fixer
8
Passionate Joiner
2,3
Dutiful Soldier / OrgnMan
8
PeaceMaker, Harmonizer
7
Scientist, ThoughtLeader
3
Politician, Entrepreneur
3,7
SensationSeeker / Groupie
7
Ethicist
4
Designer/Archi/Engneer
5
Curator,Reporter,Accntnt
1
Advocate, Poet, Teacher
6,1,9
Dreamer
4
Rationalist, Philosopher
5
Expressionist, Performer
2,9,4
Artisan / Technician
5
Page 1
Enthusiastic facilitator?
Synthesizer?
Investigator??
Investigator??
Journalist??
based on interests and aptitudes
independent of temperament
ENFJ
ENTJ
ESFJ
ESTJ
ENFP
ENTP
ESTP
ESFP
INFJ
INTJ
ISTJ
ISFJ
INFP
INTP
ISFP
ISTP
Counselor
Middle-manager, Fixer
Passionate Joiner
Dutiful Soldier / OrgnMan
PeaceMaker, Harmonizer
Scientist, ThoughtLeader
Politician, Entrepreneur
SensationSeeker / Groupie
Ethicist
Designer/Archi/Engneer
Curator,Reporter,Accntnt
Advocate, Poet, Teacher
Dreamer
Rationalist, Philosopher
Expressionist, Performer
Artisan / Technician
Fe Ni Se Ti
Te Ni Se Fi
Fe Si Ne Ti
Te Si Ne Fi
Ne Fi Te Si
Ne Ti Fe Si
Se Ti Fe Ni
Se Fi Te Ni
Ni Fe Ti Se
Ni Te Fi Se
Si Te Fi Ne
Si Fe Ti Ne
Fi Ne Si Te
Ti Ne Si Fe
Fi Se Ni Te
Ti Se Ni Fe
Types & Characterizations
Type
ENFJ
ENTJ
ESFJ
ESTJ
ENFP
ENTP
ESTP
ESFP
INFJ
INTJ
ISTJ
ISFJ
INFP
INTP
ISFP
ISTP
J: structured
J: structured
J: structured
J: structured
P: fluid
P: fluid
P: fluid
P: fluid
J: structured
J: structured
J: structured
J: structured
P: fluid
P: fluid
P: fluid
P: fluid
Dichotomy Characteristics
E: responsive
F: passionate
E: responsive
T: dispassionate
E: responsive
F: passionate
E: responsive
T: dispassionate
E: responsive
F: passionate
E: responsive
T: dispassionate
E: responsive
T: dispassionate
E: responsive
F: passionate
I: individualistic
F: passionate
I: individualistic
T: dispassionate
I: individualistic
T: dispassionate
I: individualistic
F: passionate
I: individualistic
F: passionate
I: individualistic
T: dispassionate
I: individualistic
F: passionate
I: individualistic
T: dispassionate
N: abstract
N: abstract
S: concrete
S: concrete
N: abstract
N: abstract
S: concrete
S: concrete
N: abstract
N: abstract
S: concrete
S: concrete
N: abstract
N: abstract
S: concrete
S: concrete
another label
Counselor
Middle-manager, Fixer
Passionate Joiner
Dutiful Soldier / OrgnMan
PeaceMaker, Harmonizer
Scientist, ThoughtLeader
Politician, Entrepreneur
SensationSeeker / Groupie
Ethicist
Designer/Archi/Engneer
Curator,Reporter,Accntnt
Advocate, Poet, Teacher
Dreamer
Rationalist, Philosopher
Expressionist, Performer
Artisan / Technician
Berens group
Catalysts
Theorists
Stabilizers
Stabilizers
Catalysts
Theorists
Improvisers
Improvisers
Catalysts
Theorists
Stabilizers
Stabilizers
Catalysts
Theorists
Improvisers
Improvisers
Markley group
Idealists
Conceptualizers
Traditionalists
Traditionalists
Idealists
Conceptualizers
Experiencers
Experiencers
Idealists
Conceptualizers
Traditionalists
Traditionalists
Idealists
Conceptualizers
Experiencers
Experiencers
Keirsey Values?
Personal code of ethics
Emend rules and conventions
Duties and responsibilities
Duties and responsibilities
Personal code of ethics
Emend rules and conventions
Whatever works
Whatever works
Personal code of ethics
Emend rules and conventions
Duties and responsibilities
Duties and responsibilities
Personal code of ethics
Emend rules and conventions
Whatever works
Whatever works
Keirsey Temperaments
Abstract Cooperators
Abstract Utilitarians
Concrete Cooperators
Concrete Cooperators
Abstract Cooperators
Abstract Utilitarians
Concrete Utilitarians
Concrete Utilitarians
Abstract Cooperators
Abstract Utilitarians
Concrete Cooperators
Concrete Cooperators
Abstract Cooperators
Abstract Utilitarians
Concrete Utilitarians
Concrete Utilitarians
On this page and the next, certain general characteristics of groups below are mapped into individual types above.
Some Characacteristics of Dichotomies (i.e., each letter has a single meaning independent of other letters with which it appears; effects are simply additive)
E
I
S
N
F
T
P
J
E: responsive
I: individualistic
S: concrete
Information: Sensing vs. Intuition
N: abstract
F: passionate
Decisions: Feeling vs. Thinking
T: dispassionate
P: fluid
Structure: Perceiving vs. Judging
J: structured
Focus: Extroverted vs. Introverted
social
asocial???
experiential
mental
unstructured
rigid???
spontaneous
deliberate
solitary
direct
mediated
Popn %
cooperative
uncooperative???
50%
50%
68%
31%
53%
46%
42%
57%
These letters, indicating results from the official test, are the only fixed points. Everything else is interpretation, which is often ambiguous, conflated, specious and, of course, inconsistent.
Note that the test is scored using item-reponse theory (IRT), which yields a confidence measure for the binary scale – not an effect size (i.e., not an interpolation of the scale.)
Some Groupings using Dichotomies (visualized as rotations of oblique axes in 4-space or higher-order-space up to 8-space using Type Dynamics)
_S_J =
_S_P =
_NT_ =
_NF_ =
K-M
SJ
SP
NT
NF
Keirsey Temperaments
Guardians
Concrete Cooperators
Artisans
Concrete Utilitarians
Rationals
Abstract Utilitarians
Idealists
Abstract Cooperators
Keirsey Values?
Duties and responsibilities
Whatever works
Emend rules and conventions
Personal code of ethics
IS__ =
IN__ =
ES__ =
EN__ =
RL:/.../MBTI interrelationships5a.ods saved 02/28/2016 19:20:58
Berens
Stabilizers
Improvisers
Theorists
Catalysts
Markley
Traditionalists
Experiencers
Conceptualizers
Idealists
Analyticals
Drivers
Amiables
Expressives
Page 2
Keirsey?
security seeking
sensation seeking
knowledge seeking
identity seeking
Popn %
45%
23%
14%
17%
36%
14%
32%
18%
Types & Characterizations
Type
Dominant P/J
ENFJ Conventional judgment
ENTJ Conventional judgment
ESFJ Conventional judgment
ESTJ Conventional judgment
ENFP Receptive observation
ENTP Receptive observation
ESTP Receptive observation
ESFP Receptive observation
INFJ Purposeful observation
INTJ Purposeful observation
ISTJ Purposeful observation
ISFJ Purposeful observation
INFP Personal judgment
INTP Personal judgment
ISFP Personal judgment
ISTP Personal judgment
K-M
NF
NT
SJ
SJ
NF
NT
SP
SP
NF
NT
SJ
SJ
NF
NT
SP
SP
Fe:
Te:
Fe:
Te:
Ne:
Ne:
Se:
Se:
Ni:
Ni:
Si:
Si:
Fi:
Ti:
Fi:
Ti:
Dominant
Empathetic, conformist
Pragmatic, decisive
Empathetic, conformist
Pragmatic, decisive
Observant, inclusive, syncretic
Observant, inclusive, syncretic
Spontaneous, dissociative
Spontaneous, dissociative
Convergent, reductive, precise
Convergent, reductive, precise
Impressionistic, associative
Impressionistic, associative
Expressive, noncomformist
Validity-seeking, conditional
Expressive, noncomformist
Validity-seeking, conditional
Ni:
Ni:
Si:
Si:
Fi:
Ti:
Ti:
Fi:
Fe:
Te:
Te:
Fe:
Ne:
Ne:
Se:
Se:
Auxiliary
Convergent, reductive, precise
Convergent, reductive, precise
Impressionistic, associative
Impressionistic, associative
Expressive, noncomformist
Validity-seeking, conditional
Validity-seeking, conditional
Expressive, noncomformist
Empathetic, conformist
Pragmatic, decisive
Pragmatic, decisive
Empathetic, conformist
Observant, inclusive, syncretic
Observant, inclusive, syncretic
Spontaneous, dissociative
Spontaneous, dissociative
Se:
Se:
Ne:
Ne:
Te:
Fe:
Fe:
Te:
Ti:
Fi:
Fi:
Ti:
Si:
Si:
Ni:
Ni:
Tertiary
Spontaneous, dissociative
Spontaneous, dissociative
Observant, inclusive, syncretic
Observant, inclusive, syncretic
Pragmatic, decisive
Empathetic, conformist
Empathetic, conformist
Pragmatic, decisive
Validity-seeking, conditional
Expressive, noncomformist
Expressive, noncomformist
Validity-seeking, conditional
Impressionistic, associative
Impressionistic, associative
Convergent, reductive, precise
Convergent, reductive, precise
Many theorists agree that we all have all eight functions that we use in different situations. Absent any additionally imposed structure, 8
functions would have over 40,000 permutations. MBTI is one such structure. Berens expands MBTI. Socionics goes in another direction.
Jungian Function Stack with Type Dynamics (i.e., letters' meanings depend on other letters)
Popn%
5%
11%
24%
11%
9%
14%
12%
15%
Ti:
Fi:
Ti:
Fi:
Si:
Si:
Ni:
Ni:
Se:
Se:
Ne:
Ne:
Te:
Fe:
Te:
Fe:
Inferior
Validity-seeking, conditional
Expressive, noncomformist
Validity-seeking, conditional
Expressive, noncomformist
Impressionistic, associative
Impressionistic, associative
Convergent, reductive, precise
Convergent, reductive, precise
Spontaneous, dissociative
Spontaneous, dissociative
Observant, inclusive, syncretic
Observant, inclusive, syncretic
Pragmatic, decisive
Empathetic, conformist
Pragmatic, decisive
Empathetic, conformist
Dominant Auxiliary Tertiary
Fe
Te
Fe
Te
Ne
Ne
Se
Se
Ni
Ni
Si
Si
Fi
Ti
Fi
Ti
Ni
Ni
Si
Si
Fi
Ti
Ti
Fi
Fe
Te
Te
Fe
Ne
Ne
Se
Se
Se
Se
Ne
Ne
Te
Fe
Fe
Te
Ti
Fi
Fi
Ti
Si
Si
Ni
Ni
Inferior
Ti
Fi
Ti
Fi
Si
Si
Ni
Ni
Se
Se
Ne
Ne
Te
Fe
Te
Fe
Ni: Normative theory drives curiosity. Fill in the blanks. Evolving, tight-mesh set of abstractions assimilate new (even
paradoxical) observations. (Hidden) meanings are illuminated by theory. (Random effects model. Plato's Forms?)
Ne: Connections between new and old ideas drives curiosity. Connect the dots.
MBTI subset Dominant
Description (see also CelebrityTypes)
Might say:
Expanding, loose-mesh, elastic, non-Cartesean scaffold of ideas. Empirics are
subject to multiple simultaneous interpretations. (Fixed effects model.)
IN_J = Ni
Convergent, reductive, precise
If only...
Pattern seeking, theory-building,
EN_P = Ne synthesizing, abstract, future-focused Observant, inclusive, syncretic
Si: Perceives meaning and potentiality of physicality. Memory drives curiosity. Unconventional. This is how the universe works
IS_J = Si Concrete (incl. body), present-focused Impressionistic, associative
This is how the world works
Se: Perceives immediate physicality. Novel experience drives curiosity. Conventional interests.
(Also present-past continuity in Si)
ES_P = Se
Spontaneous, dissociative
Enjoy! It is what it is....
Ti: Deductive logic?? ( http://www.celebritytypes.com/blog/2013/04/why-te-is-inductive-andI_TP = Ti
Validity-seeking, conditional
Try it this way. (This ought to work.)
Analytic, dispassionate decisions
ti-is-deductive/ ) Theory first? No. Others (and I) say Ti is inductive. Extrapolative.
Inferential. Dialectical. ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3FOXtkgOesY ). Detects minute Do it my way (the right way)
(Ti logic may be more subjective.)
E_TJ = Te
Pragmatic, decisive
distinctions, identifies inconsistencies. More likely to design/develop new rules and theories.
I_FP = Fi Instinctive, social and/or value-based Expressive, noncomformist
Feel my joy/pain
Te: Inductive logic? Theory last? No. I say that Te (contrary to Myers' Ti), more likely to
decisions
E_FJ = Fe
Empathetic, conformist
I feel your joy/pain
follow expediency and pragmatism, is less likely to devise new rules, more likely to apply
crude deduction, (or more likely abduction.) Descriptive. Interpolative. Categorical.
Remember that N, S are exclusively information-gathering (i.e., decision-feeding) functions, while T, F are exclusively decision-making functions.
Under this schema, each Dominant function forces another specific function to be Inferior, e.g. Fe always pairs withTi
Dominant::{Auxiliary, Tertiary} are always Perception::2*Judgment or Judgment::2*Perception
Dominant::Tertiary are always same attitude, i.e. {Introverted::Introverted or Extroverted::Extroverted}
Dominant::Auxiliary are always opposite attitude.
Therefore, Auxiliary and Tertiary should be thought of as working as a pair supporting Dominant.
For {“I__P”,”E__J”} dominant judgment criterion is supported by two info sources.
For {“I__J”,”E__P”} dominant information hunger is driven by two judgment criteria.
21%
29%
22%
28%
I__P =
I__J =
E__P =
E__J =
Dominant P/J (closer to socionics or Pierce at CelebrityTypes)
Ji Personal judgment
Inside pushing out, subjective
Pi Purposeful observation
Pe Receptive observation
Outside pulled in, objective
Je Conventional judgment
Contrary to prescribed usage? No. Spends vs. gains energy.
Socionics: Receptive/Adaptive
Socionics: Balanced/Stable
Dominant Auxiliary Tertiary
Imposes own structure
Hungry for comparisons
Hungry for experience, ideas
Accepts received structure
Interpreting
Appraising
Opportunistic
Conformist
Socionics: Flexible/Maneuvering
Socionics: Linear/Assertive
Dyads (a proposed approach to Type Dynamics: consider prominence, strong or weak valence, i.e. 1-4 or 2-3)
Ti-Fe
Te-Fi
Ni-Se
Ne-Si
E or
I or
soft logic, subjective reasoning
hard logic, rule-applying
theory-building, selective attention to patterns
omnivorous receptivity to new patterns
e conflict avoidant
i conflict tolerant
RL:/.../MBTI interrelationships5a.ods saved 02/28/2016 19:20:58
empathetic
expressive
objective experience
shared (validating?) meaning of particular experience
(not the same as competitive; consider team vs. individual sports)
Page 3
Ji
Pi
Pe
Je
Pe
Je
Ji
Pi
Pi
Ji
Je
Pe
Inferior
Je
Pe
Pi
Ji
on
xtroverted}
inant.
Types & Characterizations
E/I
N/S
T/F
J/P
E
N
F
J
3.5%
E
N
T
J
3.5%
E
S
F
J
11.0%
E
S
T
J
10.0%
E
N
F
P
7.0%
E
N
T
P
3.5%
E
S
T
P
4.5%
E
S
F
P
6.5%
I
N
F
J
2.0%
I
N
T
J
3.0%
I
S
T
J
12.5%
I
S
F
J
11.5%
I
N
F
P
4.5%
I
N
T
P
4.0%
I
S
F
P
7.0%
I
S
T
P
5.0%
Sum - pct
T/F
N/S
F
pct
Berens Interaction Styles
In Charge
In Charge
Get Things Going
In Charge
Get Things Going
Get Things Going
In Charge
Get Things Going
Chart the Course
Chart the Course
Chart the Course
Behind the Scenes
Behind the Scenes
Behind the Scenes
Behind the Scenes
Chart the Course
Motivation? another label
Compassion Counselor
Continuity
Middle-manager, Fixer
Community
Passionate Joiner
Duty
Dutiful Soldier / OrgnMan
Harmony
PeaceMaker, Harmonizer
Revelation
Scientist, ThoughtLeader
Control
Politician, Entrepreneur
Sensation
SensationSeeker / Groupie
Ethics
Ethicist
Order
Designer/Archi/Engneer
Compliance
Curator,Reporter,Accntnt
Humanity
Advocate, Poet, Teacher
Utopia (F)
Dreamer
Utopia (T)
Rationalist, Philosopher
Art
Expressionist, Performer
Technique
Artisan / Technician
➢ Is TypeDynamics overspecified wrt alternating attitude in Dom, Aux, Ter, Inf?
T
Total Result
N
17% 14% 31%
S
36% 32% 68%
Total Result
53% 46% 99%
It seems that there ought to be a way for at least Aux attitude to follow Dom & Ter, yielding distinct subtypes.
My experimental grid:
(A better version of this can be found at new grid.ods)
Sum - pct
J/P
E/I
J
P
Total Result
E
28% 22% 50%
I
29% 21% 50%
Total Result
57% 42% 99%
Think about activities that bring pleasure/fulfillment (i.e., energy
gain) rather than discomfort/pressure/stress (i.e., energy loss.)
After matching two dyads, only one Type will seem like a good fit.
Sum - pct
J/P
N/S
J
Dyad method
P
Total Result
N
12% 19% 31%
S
45% 23% 68%
Te-Fi
Ne-Si
(_STJ, _NFP)
Total Result
57% 42% 99%
Te-Fi
Ni-Se
Sum - pct
J/P
T/F
J
P
(_NTJ, _SFP)
Total Result
F
28% 25% 53%
T
29% 17% 46%
Ti-Fe
Ne-Si
Total Result
57% 42% 99%
Sum - pct
N/S
E/I
N
1↔2,3↔4
“Mirror”
___P vs. ___J:
1↔2,3↔4,i↔e
“Quasi-Identical”
E__P vs. I__J:
S
Total Result
E
18% 32% 50%
I
14% 36% 50%
(_SFJ, _NTP)
E___ vs. I___:
i↔e
“Contrary”
__F_ vs. __T_:
1e↔4i or 2e↔3i
“Look-alike” or “Comparative”
_N__ vs. _S__:
1e↔4i or 2e↔3i
“Look-alike” or “Comparative”
RL:/.../MBTI interrelationships5a.ods saved 02/28/2016 19:20:58
Page 4
Ti-Fe
Ni-Se
(_NFJ, _STP)
ESTJ
Dutiful Soldier / OrgnMan
Te
Si
Ne
Fi
ENFP
PeaceMaker, Harmonizer
Ne
Fi
Te
Si
ISTJ
Curator,Reporter,Accntnt
Si
Te
Fi
Ne
INFP
Dreamer
Fi
Ne
Si
Te
ENTJ
Middle-manager, Fixer
Te
Ni
Se
Fi
ESFP
SensationSeeker / Groupie
Se
Fi
Te
Ni
INTJ
Designer/Archi/Engneer
Ni
Te
Fi
Se
ISFP
Expressionist, Performer
Fi
Se
Ni
Te
ESFJ
Passionate Joiner
Fe
Si
Ne
Ti
ENTP
Scientist, ThoughtLeader
Ne
Ti
Fe
Si
ISFJ
Advocate, Poet, Teacher
Si
Fe
Ti
Ne
INTP
Rationalist, Philosopher
Ti
Ne
Si
Fe
ENFJ
Counselor
Fe
Ni
Se
Ti
ESTP
Politician, Entrepreneur
Se
Ti
Fe
Ni
INFJ
Ethicist
Ni
Fe
Ti
Se
ISTP
Artisan / Technician
Ti
Se
Ni
Fe
Enneagram
Center
Instinct
Feeling
Thinking
Type
8
9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Behaviors
self-confident, decisive, willful, confrontational
receptive, reassuring, complacent, resigned
principled, purposeful, self-controlled, perfectionist
generous, demonstrative, people-pleasing, possessive
adaptable, excelling, driven, image-conscious
expressive, dramatic, self-absorbed, temperamental
perceptive, innovative, secretive, isolated
engaging, responsible, anxious, suspicious
spontaneous, versatile, acquisitive, scattered
Riso-Hudson
Challenger
Peacemaker
Reformer
Helper
Achiever
Individualist
Investigator
Loyalist
Enthusiast
Palmer-Daniels
Protector
Mediator
Perfectionist
Giver
Performer
Romantic
Observer
Loyal Skeptic
Epicure
Instinctual Subtypes (motivations)
Secure
Survivalist
Collector
Pioneer
Nurturer
Company Man
Creative Individualist
Castle Defender
Family Loyalist
Gourmand
Social
Group Leader
Community Benefactor
Social Reformer
Ambassador
Politician
Critical Commentator
Profesor
Social Guardian
Utopian Visionary
modified by one or two Wings
Direction of Integration (Growth)
1→7→5→8→2→4→1 9→3→6→9
Direction of Disintegration (Stress)
1←7←5←8←2←4←1 9←3←6←9
These are levels, not types.
Levels of Development
1
Liberation
2
Psychological Capacity
Healthy
3
Social Value
4
Imbalance / Social Role
5
Interpersonal Control
Average
6
Overcompensation
7
Violation
8
Obsession and Corruption
Unhealthy
9
Pathological Destructiveness
See:
https://www.enneagraminstitute.com/how-the-enneagram-system-works/
https://www.enneagramworldwide.com/instinctual-subtypes/
http://www.projectevolove.com/education/1/general-concepts
RL:/.../MBTI interrelationships5a.ods saved 02/28/2016 19:20:58
Page 1
Sexual
Commander
Seeker
Evangelist
Lover
Movie Star
Dramatic Person
Secret Agent
Warrior
Adventurer
Socionics
Socionics Function #, name
MBTI #,name
Socionics pattern
Berens #, name Berens pattern
1 = leading, program, primary, base
1 = Dominant
1 = Leading
2 = creative, secondary
2 = Auxiliary
2 = Support
3 = role
--m
4 = vulnerable, sensitive
7 = observant, ignoring, restricting
inverts 1
8 = demonstrative, background
inverts 2
→
Socionics dichotomies
accepting
Ti
(independent,
fixed)
Ti
Ne
(dependent,
variable)
producing
mental
strong
valued
mental
strong
valued
(conscious)
8 = Devilish
inverts 4
Se
Fi
accepting
mental
weak
unvalued
7 = Deceiving
inverts 3
Fi
Se
producing
mental
weak
unvalued
Fe
accepting
weak
valued
Si
producing
vital
weak
valued
4 = Aspirational
Si
3 = Tertiary
3 = Relief
Fe
`
vital
(unconscious)
5 = Opposing
inverts 1
Ni
Te
accepting
vital
strong
unvalued
6 = Critical
inverts 2
Te
Ni
producing
vital
strong
unvalued
-
inverts 4
Examples
LIII = INTj = INTP
Ne
4 = Inferior
ed-
6 = mobilizing, activating
lign
inverts 3
isa
5 = suggestive, dual-seeking
ILE = ENTp = ENTP
Critical: Note changed meaning of fourth letter.
For MBTI, it is the Extroverted function.
For Socionics, it is the Dominant (i.e., Leading) function.
Note: Socionics populates functions 3 through 8 in a completely different order from Jung, MBTI and Berens.
MBTI 3 and 4 become Socionics 6 and 5, respectively.
accepting vs. producing =
leading or following in its Block
1: Describes a person's most comfortable thinking patterns, perspective on life, state of mind, and behavioral style, their positive motivational forces.
2: The primary mode of application of the base function. Used to interact with others, solve problems.
3: When a person is actively using his base function, the role function is essentially turned off. It is activated when a person is anxious.
4: The vulnerable function is also called the Point or Place of Least Resistance (PoLR) or sensitive function. The element in this function creates a feeling of frustration and inadequacy and is avoided as much as possible.
5: The suggestive function is also called the dual-seeking function. It perfectly complements and drives the activity of the leading function. Entertaining, soothing, energizing.
6: The subject is more comfortable using this function than the suggestive function but still can only use it sporadically.
7: The ignoring function is also called the observing, or limiting function. A person has very little use of this element, as it is the rival image of the base function, representing an antithetical approach to the same domain.
It lies in the subconscious as a persistent annoyance to the individual.
8: A person uses this element mainly as a kind of game, or to ridicule those who he thinks take it too seriously. They often intentionally go against its conventional usage simply to prove a point in favor of their creative function.
However, this function is used quite often in private, to produce information of its element to support their creative function when focusing on making contact with the external world.
Socionics “Model A”
Function number pattern
Accepting Producing
Ring 1 = Mental
Ring 2 = Vital
Block 1 = Ego (valued)
Block 2 = Super-ego (unvalued)
Block 3 = Super-id (valued)
Block 4 = Id (unvalued)
1
4
6
7
2
3
5
8
Strong
Weak
Weak
Strong
Complementarity is a corollary of Duality.
Ego and Super-ID complement each other.
Ego conflicts with Super-Ego.
iD conflicts with Super-Id.
both valued or both subdued
Functions and Complements:
Functions and Conflicts: (?)
1: Leading
2: Creative
3: Role
4: Vulnerable
1: Leading
2: Creative
5: Suggestive
6: Mobilizing
5: Suggestive
6: Mobilizing
7: Ignoring
8: Demonstrative
4: Vulnerable
3: Role
8: Demonstrative
7: Ignoring
Based on the Socionics schema, Duality refers to {1:5; 2:6} = {1:~3; 2:~4}
This is equivalent to {1:4; 2:3} in the Jungian, MBTI, Berens schema.
Block 1 describes people's preferred and most comfortable and natural role or "mode of operation" when interacting with other people or the environment.
Block 2 is the source of much self-consciousness.
In Block 3, people appreciate direct help to the Super-id and see tasks related to it as chores best left to others, but also as a source of frequent recreation.
In Block 4, people see Id elements as a relatively easy, if somewhat boring and meaningless exercise, good for sharpening one's skills, but not worth focusing on too much.
RL:/.../MBTI interrelationships5a.ods saved 02/28/2016 19:20:58
Page 1
Complementary Info Metabolism Traits:
Ne
Ni
Fe
Fi
Si
Se
Ti
Te
Socionics
Information
Metabolism
Element
Extraverted logic
(thinking)
Extraverted ethics
(feeling)
Abstracted definition(?)
(rather, concerned with these
Information Aspects)
external dynamics of objects
(explicit meaning of purposely observed
structures)
internal dynamics of objects
(implicit meaning of purposely observed
structures)
external statics of objects
Extraverted sensing
(explicit meaning of naturally observed
structures)
Extraverted intuition
(implicit meaning of naturally observed
structures)
Introverted logic
(thinking)
Introverted ethics
(feeling)
internal statics of objects
external statics of fields
(explicit meaning of naturally observed
processes)
internal statics of fields
(implicit meaning of naturally observed
processes)
external dynamics of fields
Introverted sensing
(explicit meaning of purposefully observed
processes)
Introverted intuition
(implicit meaning of purposely observed
processes)
inFJ
internal dynamics of fields
English
Acronym Symbol Mental Processes
Te
Fe
task oriented, efficient, accurate, pragmatic; less abstract
L
responsible for the perception of an emotional state in an individual and the bodily and linguistic expression of emotions. Fe is able to influence others' emotional
condition and to communicate its own, "infecting" others. Fe is used especially in generating and recognizing excitement and enthusiasm.
Se
responsible for the perception, control, defense, and acquisition of space, territory, and control. It observes outward appearances, estimates whether forces are in
alignment or conflict, and uses strength of will and power-based methods to achieve purposes. Se understands territory and physical aggression. It is also the function
of contact and apprehension of qualia.
Ne
sees possibilities; seeks the essence (permanent but not obvious traits) of people or things; estimates potential and latent capabilities; speculates on causes,
but sees each manifestation as distinct
Ti
analytic; interested in logical explanations and distinctions, categories and meaning, consistency and structure, independent of application; interprets information
according to how it fits into a (concrete or abstract) validating system
Fi
L
responsible for understanding the quality, nature, and proper maintenance of personal relations; makes moral judgments; and aspires to humanism and kindness.
Fi has a strong understanding of the social hierarchy and how people feel about each other, their attitudes of like or dislike, enthrallment or disgust, repulsion or
attraction, enmity or friendship.
Si
responsible for perception of physical sensations; questions of comfort, coziness, and pleasure; and a sense of harmony and acclimation with one's environment
(especially physical). Si understand how well a person or thing's behavior agrees with its nature as well as the differences between comfortable behaviors
and positions and uncomfortable ones.
Ni
seeks to understand and forecast evolution of processes over time; is acutely aware of events that occurring outside of immediate perception.
These are the Information Aspects (i.e, inputs) that align with each Information Metabolism Element of the psyche. They are not the same thing.
Objects vs. Fields is an elaboration of E/I. Objects are discrete, categorical, structural. Fields are continuous and involve interaction (e.g., attitude,
orientation) between the observed and the observer or among objects (e,g,, mechanics).
Static perception = Pe(Ji) vs. Dynamic perception = Pi(Je). Dynamic perception {Si, Ni} involves memory, association, expectation (incl. potentialities beyond
past observation.) Static perception {Se, Ne} is opportunistic, descriptive, dissociative, self-limiting rather than inductive.
So, as processed by a leading function:
“Dynamics of objects” = E__J (= E__j) = purposefully observed (Pi) structures (E).
“Statics of objects”
= E__P (= E__p) =
naturally observed (Pe) structures (E).
“Dynamics of fields” = I__J (= I__p) = purposefully observed (Pi) processes (I).
“Statics of fields”
= I__P (= I__j) =
naturally observed (Pe) processes (I).
External = {T, S} vs. Internal = {F, N} describes explicit vs. implicit understanding. So, in a leading function:
“External dynamics of objects” gets us to E_TJ (L_E = Logical Extrovert), whose Information Metabolism most easily processes explicit meaning of purposely
observed structures.
See:
http://www.sociotype.com/socionics/information_elements/
http://www.sociotype.com/socionics/information_elements/Ti
http://www.sociotype.com/socionics/types/LII-INTj/
http://www.sociotype.com/socionics/model_a/
http://www.sociotype.com/socionics/information_elements/
http://personalitycafe.com/socionics-forum/116936-reinin-dichotomies-traits-test-determine-type.html
http://www.cognitiveprocesses.com/16Types/16Types.cfm
RL:/.../MBTI interrelationships5a.ods saved 02/28/2016 19:20:58
Page 2