Personality Cafe banner

Descriptions of the MBTI Step II� Facets

75945 Views 51 Replies 26 Participants Last post by  Lunacik
Descriptions of the MBTI Step II™ Facets

The Extraversion-Introversion Facets

The five facets of the Extraversion-Introversion dichotomy are Initiating-Receiving, Expressive-Contained, Gregarious-Intimate, Active-Reflective, and Enthusiastic-Quiet.


Initiating-Receiving

This core facet of the E-I dichotomy is broad and general and describes a person's basic orientation to communicating and connecting with others.


Initiating

People at this pole get pleasure from mingling with others in large or small gatherings. They enjoy connecting and helping people in a group make connections with others. They are particularly adept at and enjoy the light conversation characteristics of receptions, meeting breaks, and formal and informal parties. Connecting with people they already know, even if only briefly, is also an essential part of the process. At large social gatherings, they are usually quite comfortable introducing themselves to people they may have heard about but do not yet know. In doing so, they are adroit at finding some common ground from which to get to know the other person.

Initiating people are able to keep a conversation going. They can talk to almost anyone indefinitely and have the socially relevant information that is useful in unstructured settings. They enjoy mixing, so they tend to seek others out. They may even feel somewhat stifled if they can't easily circulate and make contact with a lot of people in informal group settings. They will readily move on to new connections in a conversation as they are good at starting up a dialogue. However, they keep a continuous lookout for new people with whom to make contact. Once initiating people see someone they have not yet had a chance to connect with, they will often wrap up their present conversation and move on to the next person. Initiating people also help facilitate interaction among others. They enjoy "getting things going" in a social situation and often have the kind of information that helps them make such connections.

Receiving

People at this pole are much more comfortable letting conversations come to them than initiating contact. This is particularly so in a group and with people they don't know. At social gatherings they are much more likely to be introduced to new people than to introduce their friends or acquaintances to one another. They are more comfortable talking to people they know than making new connections. Part of their Receiving approach stems from the effort it takes to keep a conversation going with someone with whom they seem to have little in common. In addition, their Receiving approach makes it unlikely that they will have enough common ground for a lengthy conversation with someone they don't know. However, Receiving people are often introduced by an Initiating friend to someone who values their unique job, expertise, personal background, leisure activity, or travel experience. Then this happens, the Receiving person is quite able to talk at length with a new acquaintance because the discussion centers on a topic that he or she knows in depth and enjoys sharing. Unlike Initiating people, Receiving people may feel uncomfortable and adrift in informal group settings if they are not anchored by a known person or topic. As a result, they may literally corner someone they know and spend as much time as possible in conversation with that person.


Expressive-Contained

This facet's focus is on communicating one's emotional state, feelings, and experiences.


Expressive

People at this pole are quite ready and willing to share their feelings, thoughts, personal history, interests, and opinions with others. Indeed, they feel that not doing so would be dishonest and possibly damaging to the health of their relationships. They prefer open and honest communication and are forthright about expressing their feelings. In a meeting or group setting in which an uncomfortable but unacknowledged feeling is circulating, and Expressive person is often the one to bring that feeling into the open. The whole group is then able to deal with it. Expressive people seek two-way and open conversations about feeling states. If a relationship lacks this essential characteristic, they may experience it as not complete or genuine, and usually will say so. They are therefore easy to get to know since it does not take long for them to make their feelings and views known. Their openness also includes whatever aspects of themselves are relevant to the conversation, situation, or relationship at hand. At its best, this facet if Extraversion in its most sincere and genuine form. It is not compromised by self-conscious hesitations, second thoughts, or a wish to impress others. In addition to expressing themselves to others, Expressive people need the feedback others give them. This two-way interaction helps them process their own thoughts, feelings, or issues. People at the Expressive pole often discover how they feel or what they think in discussion with others. Others can thus acquire a very close knowledge of the Expressive person's thought process.

Contained

People at this pole are selective about what and with whom they share information about themselves. This includes, among other things, feelings, thoughts, personal history, interests, and opinions. They tend to reveal their interests most readily when a conversation happens to hit on a favored topic and share their personal history when comfort has been established with another person and such sharing becomes relevant to the conversation. It is often difficult for others to know about Contained people's thoughts and feelings since they tend to be sparing with both words and body language. Then they are under stress or upset, Contained people may be less able to talk to others about their distress than they normally would be. The greater their distress, the harder it is for them to find either the words or the energy to communicate their inner state. They believe that their turmoil is known and can be understood only by them, so others' input would not be helpful. They do not think that others would want to know what is going on with them, or they may fear that discussing themselves will be an interruption or an imposition. It therefore takes considerably longer to get to know Contained people than it does their Expressive counterparts. A sufficient level of trust must exist before they feel free to share truly personal matters. Even when personal affairs are not the issue, Contained people still may not be given to a high level of self-disclosure. This is not because they are guarded, mistrustful, worried, or self-conscious about themselves. Rather, they need to process their experiences internally and at length before they will be ready or even able to share them. Processing an issue through talking to others is usually a very poor way for Contained people to discover their own thoughts and feelings. Talking can even hinder self-discovery because others' input may interfere with their own assessments. External sharing can begin and others' views can be helpful only after the internal processing has been completed.


Gregarious-Intimate

The focus of this facet is on the breadth and depth of one's connections to others.


Gregarious

People at this pole enjoy friendships and associations with a variety of people. The number of relationships and their heterogeneity are both important in their social life. Such relationships are typically enjoyed in group settings, where group interaction is likely, rather than in one-on-one dialogue. Variety in relationships is highly valued because of the diverse interactions involved and the wide range of activities made possible. Being popular and known by a wide circle of people provides Gregarious individuals with the meaningful foundation needed to develop their personal identity. It is from the broad expanse of such networks and the popularity they offer that a sense of personhood occurs. Gregarious people also value the freshness and adventure of making new friends and the chance to connect with others who have larger social networks. They like opportunities to expand their circle of friends and acquaintances through meeting new people. They also see their friendship networks as a way of opening doors to new and bigger horizons of experience. If they want or need to change jobs, they have a readily available network of people with whom they can connect, and they are able to make the most of their contacts. Being cut off from this network is stressful in two ways: It prevents them from knowing the latest news about the many people with whom they interact, and it leaves a void in their sense of self. This void cannot be filled even by frequent contact with their closer friends. Through contacts with many different people, people at this pole develop the social dexterity to respond to diverse expectations without compromising their own identities. They are able to juggle several different people-oriented tasks at once without compromising their performance of any of them. Maintaining connections with a variety of people also gives them a heightened sensitivity to the subtleties of communication. They are apt to pick up on nuances of meaning that may be overlooked by people with fewer social contacts. In large group settings they are aware of the flow of the group's mood or sentiment. However, they may not always be sensitive to the opinions of emotional states of more reserved group members. In smaller groups, where they have more time and opportunity to connect with most people, they can be quite attuned to involving quieter people, who may have unique viewpoints or needs.

Finally, Gregarious people can respond rapidly in social contexts that involve a series of quick exchanges with others. They are comfortable with the lively give-and-take of social mingling that occurs in large groups. In group meetings where they know most of the people, their contributions may carry more weight than those of their Intimate counterparts. One reason is the broad awareness of group sentiments that they acquire by touching base with many people. In doing so, they get a good sense of what views, proposals, or compromises may be acceptable to the majority of group members.

Intimate

People at this pole are most at ease in social exchanges with others whom they know well. They find social mingling and quick chitchat with a large number of people unappealing, if not something to be avoided. They prefer lengthy one-on-one conversations with few interruptions. For them, conversation cannot occur in a group. Rather, it involves a back-and-forth exchange with one person where together they spiral deeper into a topic. They don't like people changing the subject or intruding other topics into the discussion. Their preference for deep, intimate exchange may lead them to avoid large group situations where they don't know anyone. When they are in a large group, they try to find others who prefer one-on-one exchanges. In a large, freely mingling group, they may spend an entire evening talking to one or a few friends with whom a private, exclusive, and well-known connection can be maintained.

People at the Intimate pole greatly prefer a limited range of friendships. They feel comfortable sharing the more personal aspects of their lives with very few people. A Gregarious person might share such details with a much broader circle. For the Intimate person, both the information itself and the sharing of it are reserved for only certain people. For this reason, the Intimate person's friendships entail a significant amount of trust, tend to develop slowly, and require a fair amount of time to maintain. The time commitment is great enough, in fact, that Intimate people feel they simply do not have the time or energy to maintain a large number of true friendships.

Intimate people also tend to be involved in a more selective set of interests and activities than are their Gregarious counterparts. They enjoy concentrating their energy on specific interests that they can explore in depth over fairly long periods of time. They dislike being involved in so many activities that they are unable to give each of them the extended attention they feel is needed, appropriate, and satisfying. Cursory involvement may make the work meaningless or make them feel uncomfortable about not being able to do a better job.

For people at this pole, the intimacy involved in sharing secluded parts of oneself with a trusted friend is much more highly valued than is popularity. The shared parts of the Intimate person constitute the real "who I am." An Intimate person who lacks deep friendships is as important to the Intimate person as being popular and having a wide social circle is to the Gregarious person. However, it may be more difficult for the one seeking intimacy to satisfy this need. In group discussions, the views and comments of Intimate people may involve a fairly in-depth consideration of both the topic and their associations to it. Consequently, when the exchange involves a rapid series of remarks by different people, the Intimate person's lengthier processing may delay his or her comments and observations. As a result, a valuable contribution may remain unspoken because of the dynamics of a larger group.

In social contexts, people at the Intimate pole seek out experiences they believe they are more likely to enjoy. They prefer environments with intimate interactions, and they may not value opportunities for networking. Their comfort, interests, and satisfaction lie in intimate connections with others. They want to focus on the substance of their own and their friends' inner lives. In focusing at that level, they may be more adept at picking up nuances of meaning from intimate friends than they are at recognizing the nuances of group dynamics.


Active-Reflective

The focus of this facet is on how a person engages with his or her general environment for entertainment, socializing, and learning.



Active

People at this pole like to be actively engaged with their environment, especially when this means energetic face-to-face interactions with others. They prefer active involvement over passive viewing and find parties more entertaining than watching a performance. They like to be actively and socially engaged rather than detached and removed from the action. Active people may lean toward pursuits that permit them to actively engage with the world. They may also prefer work and activities there they can contribute by speaking rather than writing. They are comfortable meeting strangers and often take the lead and do much of the talking in social interactions. They also tend to learn better by doing, listening, and questioning than by independent study or reading, and they like to communicate by speaking to people face-to-face. Participation is the means by which they come to know themselves, the world, and how self and world are dynamically connected.

Reflective

People at this pole seek out and enjoy entertainment that evokes visual, intellectual, or mental responses. They prefer this over participation in an activity and, in fact, such evocation may actually be the way they participate. They enjoy the interaction of their own mental responses with creative, artistic, intellectual, or cultural works. They participate just as fully as Active people, but with different kinds of activities that can be enjoyed internally rather than externally. For Reflective people, the meaning of things arises from their active mental engagement with them. Physical or verbal interaction with their environment is often unnecessary. Consequently, they tend to learn best from written material that they can read on their own. In this way, their learning can be structured by the (possibly lengthy) mental associations they make to the material. A group process that interrupts their internal dialogue is not an effective way for Reflective people to learn or an enjoyable way for them to use leisure time. They communicate with others most comfortably through writing and reading. Meeting and interacting with strangers can be uncomfortable and they are likely to let others keep a conversation going in social situations.


Enthusiastic-Quiet

This facet focuses on the level and kind of energy one brings to exchanges with others, rather than on the content of what is exchanged.


Enthusiastic

People at this pole are talkative, hearty, and lively. They enjoy conversation for its own sake. They like the give-and-take of conversation and emit and receive energy through talking to others. Verbal exchange is a stimulant; it activates a reservoir of social energy that bubbles forth with high octane and good spirit. As a result, they especially enjoy discussions in group settings; the lively input from several people helps create a conversational event bordering on a spontaneous social art form. Their enthusiasm for connecting in a direct and immediate way also carries over to one-on-one conversation. The basic enjoyment comes from a love of communicating with others.

Enthusiastic people tend to be among the first to know what is going on among their network of friends and acquaintances. This is because they are attracted to settings where people are mingling at a high level of energy. They readily pick up and remember information about people they may not know personally but who are the subject of current conversation. Enthusiastic people seek out group settings where collective energy is high and upbeat. They are attracted to places and events with lots of action and to other people who like the same level of energy. This does not necessarily mean they like raucous parties. Rather, people at this pole enjoy gatherings where the joy of just being with others can flow freely and find expression in whatever form happens to evolve at the time.

Enthusiastic people tend to like being the center of attention and, in their enthusiasm, may overstate or embellish their accounts of events. For Enthusiastic people, the main purpose of an entertaining conversation is not to communicate matters of fact. Rather, it is to create a social, interactional happening that is engaging, lively, and simply fun. Stories are often a primary medium for this kind of exchange. Through stories, they can share the most entertaining sides of their personal histories as well as emotional states in the present moment. While they are not the only instrument by which Enthusiastic people create amusement, stories are a particularly engaging means by which they can entertain themselves and others.

Quiet

People at this pole usually have a calm bearing. They are reserved and quiet, even in group settings where their Enthusiastic counterparts are creating lively and animated interactions. The quiet and reserve of people at this pole are a function of energy level; their response to group and social exchanges is simply at a lower level of energy. The stimulation from interacting with others neither energizes now animates them. In fact, it may drain the energy they have available for interacting with the world. This does not mean they are uninterested or uninteresting. Rather, their level of social output and response is subdued. One effect of their reserve is that the subtleties and meanings of their responses may easily be overlooked or misunderstood. Others may catch their meaning only if they are willing and able to attend carefully to the low-key style of Quiet people.

There is evidence suggesting that this kind of quietude has a physiological basis. It is likely that Quiet people have a highly active internal response to social stimuli. They are not underresponding, although it might look that way to an observer. Studies of brain wave patterns have shown that Introverts exhibit much greater levels of arousal to external stimuli than do Extraverts. This difference is what we may be seeing in Quiet people. Their internal responses are so active and riveting that they minimizing the energy available for making animated reactions that the outside world can see. Whether this phenomenon is specific to the Enthusiastic-Quiet facet as opposed to a generalized feature of an underlying preference for Extraversion of Introversion must await further brain wave studies.

One consequence of being energized internally is that Quiet people may sometimes be more succinct and reveal less than they intended, especially to people who don't know them well. This is not a deliberate effort to economize words, to keep others in the dark, or to maintain a high level of privacy. They say less than they may mean because of the overwhelming richness of the inner experience they are trying to convey. Quiet people may not be able to fully describe their interior world because its parts are so highly interconnected (for Intuitive types) or so rich in detail (for Sensing types). They find it hard to put their awareness and understanding of their inner, personal world into words. They may thus understate things in order to minimize the cascade of inner images that a stronger statement would create. Finally, Quiet people may be the last on a grapevine to hear what is going on. This is partly because they interact with fewer people and thus have less access to the exchange of information. Being one of the last to hear, however, is not the same as not knowing. Quiet people generally do have connections with others who will keep them informed.
See less See more
  • Like
Reactions: 5
1 - 20 of 52 Posts
The Sensing-Intuition Facets


The five facets of the Sensing-Intuition dichotomy are Concrete-Abstract, Realistic-Imaginative, Practical-Conceptual, Experiential-Theoretical, and Traditional-Original.




Concrete-Abstract


This core facet of the S-N dichotomy has a broad focus on how we generally perceive the world and the kinds of things to which we direct our attention.




Concrete


People at this pole are grounded in the tangible aspects of their world. They like factual information and favor things that are tangible and concrete over those that are intangible and abstract. They use their concrete orientation for communicating with others, in their style of learning, and in forming their views of how the world works. Their Concrete approach also shows in their choice of daily activities as well as in their preferences for entertainment and leisure pursuits.


Concrete people are apt to use literal and specific words and to employ images that convey the fine details of sensory impressions. They understand best when others communicate with them in a similar style. Their most trusted referents are words and descriptions pointing to things that are tangible and real to the senses. For them, the world primarily consists of things that can be perceived by the senses and verified experientially. Such verification must be based on some physical, sensory process that is directly experienced by themselves or others. Verification is thus central to a Concrete view of the world. Concrete people tend to rank things according to how verifiable or real they are. They are likely to dismiss abstract concepts because they seem less believable, important, and relevant, not simply because they are intangible.


Concrete people tend to make little distinction between things that are abstract and those that are fanciful. Both have lower credibility, meaning, and value than sensate things. Abstractions are not physically verifiable and do not provide information about tangible things or their relationships. They therefore seem less valuable, useful, or true. Concrete people value specific instructions about how to fix a carburetor, wire a house, or bake a cake much more than the principles of combustion or the theories of electric currents or chemical bonding. Fanciful things are not appealing to Concrete people because they are unreal, or simply boring and a waste of time. A Concrete approach attaches a value hierarchy to intangible things. This does not involve a Thinking or Feeling judgment; rather, it is a function of how grounded something is in the tangible world. Once its "tangibility value" has been determined, Thinking or Feeling judgments can be brought to bear.




Abstract


For people at this pole, real and important meanings lie in ideas and abstractions. The tangible world merely provides the associations from which meaning is created. Physical reality does not have meaning in and of itself, and may be regarded at times as irrelevant, annoying, distracting, or misleading. Concrete reality is primarily a stimulus for directing attention to the more interesting realm of intangibles. Meanings arise from the relationships of "things" to one another, and from their power to generate additional ideas or associations. Abstract people find it appealing to consider the number and variety of possibilities that emerge when one abstracts the meaning of things.


For the Abstract person, ideas are brought to life and given reality by their meanings and associations. A "fact" may be just an isolated occurrence and therefore may have no inherent meaning; it is what the fact represents that is primary. Ideas that cannot be connected to other notions are not as real. They do not have the value, interest, or excitement of ideas with many interconnections. The reality of the person at this pole is made up of ideas, abstractions, symbols, and figurative images. Physical objects or events that appear to contradict an abstraction or idea are likely to be regarded as exceptions, flukes, or simply obstacles to be overcome and worked around. Tangible evidence mainly serves to redirect the pattern of associations the Abstract person tries to make among ideas. The Abstract person will not necessarily abandon his or her ideas because of contrary material facts. Such physical evidence will only later stimulate modifications of ideas, abstractions, and generalizations.


People at this pole tend to communicate using words, expressions, and descriptions that evoke associations. This is because the tangible world is less important than the world of symbols and ideas. Even when referring to specific objects or events, meaning is not limited to what is tangible. Instead, the gist of what is being communicated lies in the abstract associations that can be made to the word. Thus language is primarily a means of implying something rather than specifying it. Using language to describe the details of one's environment is only a secondary consideration.




Realistic-Imaginative


This facet describes how we develop something new through dealing with the tasks and problems of daily living and working.




Realistic


People at this pole focus on things that are pragmatic, where one can make a useful difference. They therefore emphasize objects, activities, ways of doing things, and kinds of knowledge. Realistic tasks may involve everything from the routines of daily living to those required to build a boat or construct a space shuttle. A central goal is efficiency in use of time, energy, and money, especially in serving a useful and tangible purpose. Realistic people attach a value to practical tings that has nothing to do with Thinking or Feeling judgments. Valuing of things stems from the greater attention, credibility, and time that the Realistic person gives to them. Things having little or no tangible impact on the detailed steps involved in a task or activity are considered to be of little value.


Realistic people value "things" in and of themselves as well as the uses to which these things can be put. They therefore tend to get along better and enjoy being with others who also appreciate tangible objects and goals. Such relationships allow Realistic people to benefit from factual knowledge and experience in areas beyond their own expertise. A shared Realistic outlook also provides a means of verifying, sharing, and reaffirming who one is, what life is about, and what is important. The shared worldview of Realistic people leads to a shared sense of humor. The humor of Realistic people differs from that of Imaginative people.


Realistic people like to have a generalized sense of how things work in the tangible world. With repeated experience and practice, their hands-on knowledge of the material world becomes the "common sense" that is so highly valued by Realistic people. Such common sense adds a worthwhile stability and efficiency to daily life. It also helps them feel, quite literally, grounded in the world. It prevents having to deal with the inevitable complications that result when common sense is lacking. The Realistic person therefore attends more to sensible, matter-of-fact things, solutions to problems, and people than to those that might be considered fascinating or imaginative. For Realistic people, things that are merely fascinating or imaginative are apt to offer little utility because they refer to things that are removed from tangible reality.




Imaginative


For people at this pole, tangible things are not nearly as important as the possibilities they suggest. Matters of fact are valuable mainly for the associations and images they bring to mind. Images are real and important; the material things from which they derive are only secondary. In fact, once a chain of associations and images has been inspired by something tangible, the initial object or fact may be forgotten. The Imaginative person will then take great delight in stringing together a succession of creative images. This kind of creative process itself may be valued as much as any of the ideas that are generated by it. For example, Imaginative people may fill journals or sketchbooks with creative output that is never published or shown to another person. When the process has run its course, the Imaginative person may move on to something entirely different or focus on the reality of whatever ideas seems most "promising." There is unlikely to be any practical, step-by-step procedure for getting something done.


Imaginative people value creativity for its own sake; the very newness of an idea is itself appealing. They can mentally play with an idea, exploring a new and previously unknown territory of possibilities. The originality of Imaginative people is frequently inspired by the need for a solution to a practical problem, to which they can respond by trying to transcend what they see as the limits imposed by specific details. The question "tried-and-true" procedures and implicit assumptions about things, operations, objectives, and people. Because they work on the problem at a level that is mentally removed from its tangible details, their solution may not be workable in its original form. However, with a refocus on concrete reality and a little refining, it may turn out to be an ingenious solution.


In business settings, people at this pole are attracted to strategic planning. They may envision new markets, services, and products and construct mental images of a company's future and of how it should recreate itself in order to get there. In other settings, they may become aware of a problem or need and envision a new program to meet it. Their vision will consist primarily of mental images that develop into a tangible form.




Practical-Conceptual


This facet deals with the product or outcome of one's perceptions, rather than with the process of perception itself.




Practical


People at this pole are attracted to others who display practicality and common sense. For Practical people, ideas are valued and useful only when they can be applied to practical, down-to-earth problems. Practical people prefer putting things together from known objects and materials, using familiar and practiced methods. Their creativity is derived from experience. It is grounded in a thorough understanding of the materials used and how these materials are formed and fit together. Any new developments they create will evolve from step-by-step changes, with each stage being fully tested before any modifications are made. People at the Practical pole tend to be builders rather than innovators. They prefer the solid over the nebulous, value certainty over vagueness, and would rather deal with substances than with the purely symbolic. They are more oriented to the details of daily living and their work than to trends and events that may occur in the future. New ideas are accepted if their immediate application can be seen or if they offer tangible improvement over current practices.




Conceptual


People at this pole look for meanings in what they see around them. Tangible things are primarily reflections of a reality greater than the world of the five senses. Their focus is therefore on inferences they can draw at a conceptual level rather than on what is immediately present. They are not content, however, just to make inferences. Inferences give birth to ideas, and ideas are what excite them. They may be interested in documenting or tracing the development of an idea of concept. They particularly enjoy making connections and finding relationships among a variety of ideas. They value abstract intellectual discourse and are attracted to the exception rather than the mundane. They enjoy the stimulation of people with quick and insightful minds with whom they can have a lively exchange of ideas. They value intellectual and scholarly pursuits over practical and active endeavors.


When people at this pole make or build something, it arises out of their mental images. These images include what they are trying to do as well as the meaning their creation has for them. The step-by-step process of putting something together is not nearly as satisfying as the symbolic meaning that they give something when it is finished. Conceptual people are oriented toward the future because insights and images lying beyond what is immediately tangible are foremost. Their interest is not in specific practical accomplishments, but in the ideas and meanings behind their efforts. They are more interested in the concept of a new thing than in the thing itself.




Experiential-Theoretical


This facet emphasizes the process by which one makes knowledge or meaning out of one's perceptions.




Experiential


For people at this pole, something must be validated by experience to be worthy of more than their brief attention. Experiential people are wary of theory, preferring instead the certainty of their own active participation in the world. They want instructions to include specific action steps that are based on practical experience. Experience is the primary criterion for truth and relevance. An Experiential personfinds it difficult to talk about truth apart from the trial and error of experience. Truth and relevance are inseparable for these people. A primary pleasure comes from expertly applying their experience. This provides the opportunity to become immersed in an active, tangible expression of both truth and relevance. The resulting product yields a singular kind of personal fulfillment because it embodies both of these qualities. Experiential people have little incentive for changing methods that have been proven to work repeatedly. Trying to improve techniques that already work is a waste of time that could be spent more productively in accomplishing the task at hand. For the Experiential person, producing something is much more satisfying than attempting an unknown approach. However, if there are no established procedures for a new task, the Experiential person will adeptly use a trail-and-error approach to find out what does work. The trials will begin with what the person already knows from similar situations. Such knowledge tells him or her how well the old methods work and where they need to be adapted.




Theoretical


People at this pole generally operate a level or two removed from the immediately tangible. They search for patterns in what they see and discern meanings in those patterns. Their understanding and knowledge of the world are contained in an abstract series of principles, explanations, and theories. These are derived from understandings, sympathies, and values, depending on whether their judging function is Thinking or Feeling. Theoretical people like to explore things by looking for new connections among the concepts they use to understand the world. These new associations create fresh meanings that promote further explorations. The generation of ideas takes on a life of its own and becomes something sought for its own sake. Theoretical people are therefore ready to try new ideas or ways of doing things just to get this mental process started. A task or work that offers no new ideas or approaches to try becomes boring. Theoretical people like to weave concepts together to form a coherent set of principles or explanations that help us understand or predict something in the world.


Theoretical people learn better if they are given theories and concepts in addition to any relevant factual information. They primarily understand things at that level. Facts are apt to have little meaning by themselves and are likely to be forgotten unless they can be tied to a theory or put into some larger context. Immediate and tangible relationships between things are far less compelling to them. While Theoretical people can certainly recognize beauty in their physical environment, they find the beauty in concepts and theories to be even more awe-inspiring.




Traditional-Original


This facet emphasizes social context as the background that gives meaning to our perceptions.




Traditional


People at this pole prefer doing things in established ways that are shared by most other people. It is appealing to them to rely on the security that comes from fitting in with a community or group. They like the feeling of belonging to or being part of something larger than themselves. This preference involves one's entire lifestyle, not merely specific tasks. It includes style of dress, choice of charities, type of housing, and recreational and leisure activities. Traditional people find the conventional appealing in many respects. Convention offers ways of doing things that are continually validated by the social environment. When they see others living in similar ways, Traditional people are assured that their manner of living is valued and correct. They receive immediate confirmation that their way of living is "on target" by checking it against their social surroundings. As a result they are uncomfortable going against the grain of custom, culture, and traditional norms. Tradition is associated with what is good.


For the Traditional person, fads are suspect because they don't have the validating test of time and experience. Fads also lack the societal breadth and depth that occur when traditional styles and customs are followed. Following a fad is not a effective way of achieving the stable and comfortable relationship to one's environment that comes from acting in accord with the traditional styles and customs of one's group. Another avenue to such stability is to follow family traditions, which affirms one's role and relationships among one's kin. Such traditions provide self-definition and give meaning to one's own and one's family members' lives. Traditional people greatly respect tradition and change their ways only reluctantly. For change to be acceptable, it must be grounded in what was done before and must proceed gradually. For Traditional people, deliberate changes made just for the sake of change are meaningless at best. At worst they may destroy cherished meanings that are the foundations of social, organizational, and family life. Traditions are ways of honoring or appreciating what is right and good. Traditional people admire those who can serve as solid role models for behavior and are interested in passing down their traditions to the next generation. They are often perplexed when the next generation is unappreciative of treasured traditions.




Original


For people at this pole, repetition and sameness in important areas of life are almost a trigger for innovation. Original people do not disrespect traditions; rather, they find that doing things exactly the same way time after time diminishes the meaning in an event. They may prefer to retain the basic theme of something but apply variations on the theme. For the Original person, it is the variations that convey meaning, rather than the theme itself. Exact repetition of a traditional way of doing something would make the activity as dull as a musical score that simply repeated the same theme over and over using the same notes.


Changes in established ways of doing things also give people at this pole opportunities for self-expression. Their originality may be displayed in their approach to tasks or activities, or in their choice of dress, leisure activities, or lifestyle. They can find inspiration to put their best effort into their work by inventing different ways of doing something. Having to do it the way someone else has done it may make their effort dead and meaningless. If the job simply does not allow for anything unique, the Original person will not be able to connect with the work and will become unmotivated. However, Original people do not need to be original in every part of their lives. In many instances, they tend to concentrate their originality in circumscribed areas that are especially meaningful to them. They admire people who stand out because of their willingness to be different. For Original people, eccentricity is a virtue.
See less See more
  • Like
Reactions: 5
The Thinking-Feeling Facets


The Five facets of the Thinking-Feeling dichotomy are Logical-Empathic, Reasonable-Compassionate, Questioning-Accommodating, Critical-Accepting, and Tough-Tender.




Logical-Empathic


This core facet of the T-F dichotomy emphasizes the criteria we tend to use to reach a judgment.




Logical


People at this pole understand the world best if it makes logical sense. Objects, events, and statements must be analyzed using reason. If they are internally consistent and logical, they are accepted as true. If not, the issue in question must be either untrue or not understandable. It should therefore be rejected because illogical statements are not worthy of time and attention.


Logical people start with a set of assumptions or facts and use specific rules to make deductions. They assume that universal rules permit such logical deductions. Therefore, when they don't understand something, they try to find out what the prevailing premises or assumptions are. Even when the other person is unaware of his or her implicit assumptions, the Logical person must discover the relevant premises in order to understand and proceed.


A person at this pole receives a great deal of confirmation that reason is a direct means to accuracy and understanding. This is because many things can be understood logically. Logical people may therefore find it hard to accept contradictory explanations that don't follow the laws of logic. Their worldview is internally consistent and they expect everything to function in that same consistent way. Even though Logical people may at times be inconsistent in their views of themselves, other people, and the world, such inconsistencies are not bothersome if they do not directly contradict a Logical person's scheme for understanding things.


When there are several competing viewpoints on a matter, Logical people are likely to be persuaded only by arguments that make logical sense. Facts must support conclusions and must be capable of fitting into the relevant logical scheme. Facts about another person's emotional state may be just as relevant as "objective" facts. However, they too must fit into a consistent analytical framework. Any inconsistencies in another person's chain of reasoning weaken the credibility of the other person, the other perspective, or both. This is especially true when the inconsistency is central to the person's argument. A person at this pole can strongly disagree with another and still have respect for that individual. This is because logic is a personally detached process. The Logical person respects the other person's ability as a thinker, not his or her viewpoint, because the person is separate from the viewpoint. Being able to think clearly and consistently is a highly valued general ability. Repeated signs of illogic, inconsistency, and contradiction in another's statements can easily lead to diminished respect.


People at this pole tend to apply generalized and impersonal principles to a broad range of relationships. They value rights, fairness, and reasonableness as standards for making decisions in personal and contractual relationships. They apply these standards for deciding about others, and they expect others to judge them the same way. They view rights and reasonableness as good tools for relationships because they can be consistently, fairly, and logically applied. Everyone involved then knows what to expect from the others.




Empathetic


People at this pole see the world as operating within a rational framework of relationships that link people and things to one another. They view detached logic as only one way (and a limited way) of understanding the world. For Empathic people, relationships, life experience, and personal meanings are what is important. Interactions within these areas are transformative. Thus life and the world are best understood as a drama with characters, themes, and plots. Just as the characters in a novel have distinct motivations and personalities that affect the twists and turns of an evolving drama. For Empathetic people, truth is not separate from people and their lives. It therefore makes no sense to apply logically consistent principles irrespective of the people involved. Understanding of the world comes from the mutual sharing of experiences, so understanding can occur through knowing someone else's experience and not just one's own experiences.


Empathic people put logic and reason into their conceptions of how life may be experienced and understood; just as Logical people put empathetic concerns into their logical schemas as a way of understanding them. The use of logic is just another human characteristic among many others. What is known through logic simply takes its place among many other human experiences, modes of understanding, and ways of living. These are all valuable and even necessary for grasping the meaning in life.


Empathetic Intuitive people have an implicit notion that every person's life is a miniature variation on timeless, universal themes. Sharing a common humanity with others is a central aspect of caring for and staying connected to another person. For Empathetic Sensing people, the central focus is on the ups and downs of people they know or their own significant relationships. Empathy and meaning are grounded in the shared experience of personal histories. However, regardless of their Sensing or Intuitive preference, people at the Empathetic pole value other people for their basic humanness as well as for their worth as unique persons.


Truth for Empathetic people is both personal and universal, a view that is easily understood by Empathic people but difficult for Logical people to accept. Similarly, Logical people may find it difficult to convince Empathic people of the universality and absoluteness of detached logical truth. The inconsistencies in values of the Empathetic person primarily involve relationship issues. Compartmentalizing may be one way of handling these inconsistencies, as in heaving separate, circumscribed contacts with friends who don't like each other. The Empathetic person may handle differences in more intimate relationships by accepting them as part of the other's uniqueness as a person. This works best when the differences do not involve key values.


People at this pole pay more attention to the feelings than to the rights of other people. Someone who uses power in the name of "rights" demonstrates heartless self-interest, especially if another person is hurt by this. For the Empathetic person, impacts on people and personal feelings are of far higher value than any rights of standards of fairness that ignore the individuals involved.




Reasonable-Compassionate


This facet emphasizes the standards we use to maintain relationships when we make Thinking or Feeling judgments.




Reasonable


People at this pole tend to see their relationships as primarily task-focused. This includes factoring human needs into one's problem-solving logic, since each person brings his or her needs into situations. Reasonable people, especially men, often demonstrate caring for others by analyzing and solving problems. They may analyze both the immediate situation and the long-range consequences of proposed solutions. They do not believe that sympathizing is a helpful approach to problem solving and decision making. While they may feel sympathy, they demonstrate their care for others by fixing or modifying things. This may involve adjusting an employee's work schedule to deal with a family crisis, making exceptions when circumstances arise, or doing something special in recognition of someone's extra effort.


Being Reasonable means being consistent. When exceptions are made for individuals, they must also be made for others having similar problems. If this does not happen, the making of exceptions is the same as playing favorites. There should be no favorites before the law. For reasonable people, mercy may be equivalent to letting sympathy for one individual overrule principles of fairness.


Reasonable people find it difficult to work for someone who is not consistent. Rewards and punishments from such a person would be divorced from task performance and therefore illegitimate. Reasonable people try to resolve disagreements so that positive or negative consequences are equitably distributed. The fairness in such solutions and the effort it takes to arrive at them are expressions of caring. For the Reasonable person, both giving and receiving fair treatment are ways in which everyone's worthiness is acknowledged. This is far more important than attending to one's own or others' feelings or emotional states, since equity of treatment is independent of oneself or the particular other people involved. Their view is that attending to the feelings won't really solve anything; it is more helpful to attend to the behavior or help the person see the consequences.




Compassionate


People at this pole see the world as personalized and interconnected rather than impersonal and detached. They therefore pay attention to the unique needs that other people bring to situations. Recognizing each person's uniqueness is more important than policies, procedures, and rules. Laws, rules, and agreements help define the boundaries of relationships, but they are not their essence. People relate to each other through their shared experience as human beings. Each person has hopes, hurts, dreams, and discouragements that are similar to one's own. They must be treated with recognition of that fact, not merely with fairness. Compassionate people also care for and about other people in a personalized way. For them, mercy is not spinelessness or an excuse to put sympathy ahead of law. Rather, mercy is the basis on which judgments of another person should be made. It also takes into account unique (and possibly mitigating) circumstances or characteristics of the person, and thus values the person over abstract principles. For the Compassionate person, fairness is not defined as treating everyone the same. Rather, it is judging each person in terms of his or her unique character and circumstances. Failing to take into account another person's uniqueness when making a judgment hurts the other person as well as oneself. That "no man is an island" (in the poem by John Donne) is one reason that the hurt goes both ways for Compassionate people.


Compassionate judgment is active rather than passive. This quality is shared with the Feeling poles of several of the other T-F facets, specifically the Accepting and Tender facet poles. Both failure to recognize the need for compassion and failure to act compassionately hurt the other person because both failures yield the same outcome.


Finally, Compassionate people respond best in relationships if they are treated sympathetically and compassionately. They highly value being recognized as individuals who are connected to others in a network of friendships. Such recognition validates their uniqueness and the importance of their relationships. Sympathy, pleasantness, and compassion will give rise to devotion and loyalty in them, whereas fairness or mere consistency is unlikely to have such an outcome.




Questioning-Accommodating


This facet focuses on how people deal with differences in point of view as they attempt to arrive at a judgment. It is the part of the judgment-forming process that is involved when the judgments must be shared with others.




Questioning


People at this pole seek detached, impersonal truth. There are three typical motivations involved. The first is to find reasons that make logical sense; when questions, statements, events, or observations don't fit together logically, Questioning people ask direct questions. They want what others say to be logically consistent with what they already know. Their Questioning approach is not a personal attack or disregard for other people. Rather, it is a attempt to get at objective truth. Questioning people may be somewhat distrustful of others who want them to agree to something before all their questions have been adequately answered. They tend to approach all statements with some degree of skepticism.


Questioning is also a way to solve problems. A Questioning person who prefers Intuition may question established practices, beliefs, information, principles, designs, or even facts. A Questioning person who prefers Sensing may similarly question solutions, changes, predictions, or the likely success of proposed problem solutions. Questioning people believe that there is a logical order to everything. If something is not working, it must be because assumptions about how its parts should go together are wrong. Questioning such assumptions may very well lead to a solution.


A third approach to Questioning is in dealing with other people. Questioning people may raise questions or objections when they are asked to accept or conform to things that don't make logical sense. They question in order to find a common ground of understanding from which they and the other party can proceed. Truth is independent of personalities for Questioning people. Therefore, their questioning is not intended to disparage another viewpoint or person. If someone cannot satisfactorily answer their questions, however, Questioning people may take offense. Forcing a Questioning person to accept an important decision that has not been thoroughly examined is experienced as an affront to his or her intelligence. Such devaluing of truth is not likely to go unchallenged, and the Questioning person may use sarcasm to communicate his or her disdain. The hurt such a tactic may cause another person is felt to be justified by the offense to truth that has occurred.




Accommodating


For people at this pole, reality is socially defined. Accommodating people are much more concerned with how truth is understood, valued, ad used by others than with an assumed "objective" truth. Their primary focus is on their own and others' experience and understanding of the world. If a person's understanding is incorrect, he or she can be gently corrected, but never disparaged. Direct questioning of someone's statements can be construed as a personal attack. Once that happens, the opportunities for growing a relationship or established consensus are diminished. If their questioning might threaten a relationship or their membership in a group, it is better to trust the statements and motives of others.


People at the Accommodating people may value harmony so highly that they are simply unwilling to question another viewpoint. If differences of opinion occur, they will try very hard to encourage a decision that satisfied everyone. If they are unsuccessful, they will feel somewhat dissatisfied with themselves. Accommodating people also work to ensure that harmony prevails at family gatherings. They will be greatly distressed if other family members are unable or unwilling to make concessions that will keep the peace.


For people at the Accommodating pole, the most important truths are validated by group consensus or by personal relationships. Truth is not separate from people, and groups cannot function well if different perspectives are not accommodated. Agreement and harmony are not merely signs of a good relationship; they are the mortar that keeps it together. Accommodating people avoid hurting other people's feelings and expect the same consideration from others. Disagreements in intimate relationships are particularly distressing; people at this pole often avoid such disagreements and confrontations by letting matters pass unchallenged. It seems better to preserve the relationship by being agreeable than to risk the relationship itself.




Critical-Accepting


This facet describes what we do after our initial judgment has been made.




Critical


People at this pole are interested in correct what is incorrect and settings things right. They want to get at the truth in order to improve things, situations, or procedures. Their overriding motivation is to make things better; to do this, critiquing is necessary to determine an issue's relative merits. Then a way to make things better can be devised. For the Critical person, not to critically evaluate is irresponsible. Because truth is more important than others' feelings, Critical people may not exercise tact in communicating their judgments. They tend to see being honest with themselves and others as kinder in the long run than being untruthful. They usually point out what is wrong before noticing or commenting on what is right. That is because achieving accuracy is a major concern. They believe that there is no point in mentioning things that are all right because it wastes time and will make no improvement. On the other hand, telling someone what they did wrong may help them avoid getting hurt again.


Truth is so valuable to Critical people that they find it distasteful and dishonest when others try to smooth over disagreements or disagree so mildly that their objections are not registered. They do not value merely getting people to agree because that might compromise the truth and make things worse. Hurting someone's feelings is a small price to pay for needed corrections and improvements. Critical people hold that people can recover from hurt feelings but the consequences of a wrong judgment or decision can hurt many people in the long run.


People at this pole tend to put others' feelings, viewpoints, and emotional needs into broader contexts than their Accepting counterparts. They are not oblivious to the human factor, but they do not want to lower their standards or forget what they see as truth. They hold themselves and others to very high standards. To suppress the natural competitiveness that accompanies their high standards would be dishonest. For Critical people, collaborating with others or complimenting them simply with a goal or creating harmony compromises their beliefs or values and is disrespectful. However, when absolutely necessary, they can consciously decide to put up with others' shortcomings and tolerate less-than-optimal standards, performance, or outcomes.




Accepting


For people at this pole, truth is quite different. Accepting people want to affirm a truth that focuses on the value and worth of other people's ideas and viewpoints. "Objective" judgments about the truth are less important than the truth about other people and their relationships. For an Accepting person, the environment is primarily human and social. Passing critical judgment on someone's ideas or contributions may harm the person and also destroy the relationship, whereas being open to and accepting of others' views validates the person and enhances the relationship. Factual or nonpersonal issues are only of passing concern in comparison.


Building up relationships and people is as important to the Accepting person as is avoiding harm. Accepting people, therefore, do not merely tolerate lapses and "deficiencies" in others, they overlook them. Harmony is as essential to human sustenance as sunlight is to living creatures. Even though disharmony may sometimes be unavoidable, it must eventually give way to agreement between people. Acceptance brightens human relations and also nourishes them so they can achieve their full potential.


Acceptance for the person at this pole is a very active response that gives others the space and freedom to be themselves or to be right about an issue. Accepting someone in this way is not weakness, failure to recognize truth, a lack of sound judgment, or a mere passive reaction. Active affirmation of others is so important that it is often maintained despite potential risks to the Accepting person. Risks may range, for example, from financial loss from accepting a spouse's decision to pursue a dream, to personal disappointment at seeing a child fail when given the freedom to test his or her wings. Accepting people tend to first notice and comment on what is right or well done, and offer correction only secondarily. This helps in accepting and affirming others; they are likely to take a collaborative approach, at times putting their own desires or ambitions aside in favor of those of others.




Tough-Tender


This facet focuses on the impact of our judgment and how we carry out a decision once a judgment has been made.




Tough


People at this pole stand firm in the judgments they have made. This stems from exercising other facets of their decision making in their assessment. For the Tough person, a thorough, well-considered evaluation must result in the best decision that can be made. Compromise is not appropriate under these circumstances, even if it would avoid hurt feelings or outcomes that might hurt some people. A judgment that was honestly and thoroughly processed must stand, regardless of one's own or anyone else's personal opinion. Anyone who used the same information and the same judging process would arrive at the same conclusion. It does not matter to Tough people whether those conclusions are popular or welcome. The rightness of a conclusion is independent of both the person making the decision and other people.


Tough people distrust considerations based on feelings, personal attachments, or a desire to maintain warmth and harmony. Judgments based on such criteria play havoc with their trusted decision-making process. Personal considerations should be weighed along with all nonpersonal factors in making a decision. But once a judgment is reached, there is no justification for changing it simply because it is unpopular or may have negative personal impact. In fact, the value of a detached Thinking assessment is that unassailable logical truth can be achieved regardless of personal attachments. Compromising the truth is repugnant for Tough people, even if they themselves experience a negative outcome. They want to "stand firm" behind a decision that they believe in.




Tender


For people at this pole, the effects one's decision may have on others far outweighs any logical process by which one reaches the decision. Tender judgments focus on the impacts of a decision on people. Tender judgments focus on the impacts of a decision on people. Kindness, caring, and consideration of others are primary concerns in both making a decision and implementing it. Tender people bring warmth and concern for others to decision making because the well-being of people is integral to their decision-making process. Having arrived at a Feeling decision, the Tender person may be just as convinced of the rightness of a conclusion as if the Tough person. However, his or her tenderness, warmth, and gentleness will be used to communicate the decision to others. If that decision is unpopular or hurtful to some of the people involved, the approach of the Tender person includes caring concern for those people. For Tender people, there is no absolutely correct truth apart from the way things affect people. They therefore insist that others be treated with kindness and consideration. People at this pole also respond best when they are treated with the same gentleness and warmth they so willingly give to others.
See less See more
  • Like
Reactions: 5
The Judging-Perceiving Facets


The five facets of the Judging-Perceiving dichotomy are Systematic-Casual, Planful-Open-Ended, Early Starting-Pressure-Prompted, Scheduled-Spontaneous, and Methodical-Emergent.




Systematic-Casual


This core facet of the J-P dichotomy focuses on how we organize our physical environment, including the flow of events, activities, tasks, and projects.




Systematic


People at this pole have a variety of ways of achieving orderliness in their lives. They have a methodical and deliberate approach to doing both small, brief tasks and large, long-term ones; they have a need to schedule tasks and activities efficiently; and they want to be punctual in beginning and ending things on time. They use structures, methods, and deliberate systematic approaches to use their time efficiently, meet deadlines, and predict how long activities will take. Their approach permits them to have reserves of energy and time that would otherwise be wasted. This gives them the freedom to enjoy doing things for which they would not otherwise have time. They manage their leisure time and activities in the same systematic, well-ordered way, and for the same reason - it allows them to make the most of their leisure time and enjoy it more.


People at this pole maintain that if they were not systematic, too many things could go awry, wasting time, effort, and resources. Inefficiency and waste are unacceptable to them. They try to keep their homes and offices free of clutter and disarray. Clutter disrupts their ability to concentrate. Chaotic environments, be they at work or at home, interfere with their ability to get things done. Systematic people prefer to spend a few hours organizing things at the outset, and a few minutes a day to keep them that way, to avoid wasting time looking for misplaced files, memos, or tools. They consider it crucial to control their time, physical environment, and approach to work. They are quite uncomfortable if they do not have that control because that will lead to disorder that will have disastrous consequences. However, they can readily yield personal control to someone else who is also Systematic, once they know that the other person will maintain the necessary orderly structures.


The need for order and system extends beyond the physical environment for Systematic people. They also seek closure. Leaving decisions hanging is the same as having a messy desk or leaving tools scattered all over. When a task or decision is left unfinished, its incompleteness creates tension. Such tension depletes energy that could be better used for acting on the decision or tending to other matters.




Casual


People at this pole prefer a more spontaneous approach for accomplishing things. For them, system and order are burdens and impediments to working effectively, especially when being orderly inhibits their immediate response to what interests them. Casual people dislike the effort it takes to be systematic and may find such efforts to be quite difficult. They are most comfortable with an easygoing approach to schedules, deadlines, decision making, their physical environment, how they spend time, and how they perform tasks. This casualness entails openness to seeing and experiencing things in new and fresh ways. At times, others may mistake this for laziness. When there is too much order and predictability, Casual people miss the excitement, energy, and variety that spontaneity brings. They actively seek variety and newness and avoid constraining structures and systems. A loose, unstructured approach allows them to see, experience, or respond to opportunities they might otherwise miss. Casual people bring the greatest energy and enthusiasm to their work when, for example, an unexpected task is dropped in their lap. They do not being interrupted and asked to do something else in the middle of the day. Such interruptions create the kind of variety that keeps work from becoming patterned and boring. They like surprises that keep their days from being too predictable and repetitive.


Casual people are at their best when they are free to act on impulse, work on whatever tasks happen to strike their fancy, or respond to whatever requests or events come their way. Although they are certainly able to work systematically when necessary, variety and newness are intrinsically very satisfying to Casual people. They may therefore be at their best in work settings where procedures are not well established, and in non-routine types of jobs and activities. They are likely to thrive and perform well on projects types of jobs and activities. They are likely to thrive and perform well on projects requiring rapid development of goals and methods.


People at this pole are comfortable postponing decisions, and often prefer to do so. They may postpone making an important decision until they are satisfied that they have considered it from all angles. For minor decisions, they may simply prefer to let a period of time pass before they make their final decision. When it is time to decide, they make a decision based on all the information that has been brought to their attention. They are able to make a decision before they are ready if circumstances require this, but they may change it if new information becomes available later. On the other hand, when they have reached a decision after thoroughly weighing the issues involved, they may be quite reluctant to change it later. This is because they have invested so much effort in making the decision the first time.




Planful-Open-Ended


This facet emphasizes how we arrange our leisure time or social activities. Both daily and future plans are involved.




Planful


People at this pole like a definite schedule for their leisure time, one that specifies what day and what time they will do something. Such advance scheduling ensures that everything planned will actually happen. This requires knowing what you want to do ahead of time so a schedule can be devised. Planful people tend to structure any areas of their lives in orderly, planned ways. They like to pan in advance how they will spend each day, including vacation time and recreational activities. They prefer to know the dates and times of parties, dinners, and other social affairs in advance. They can then be certain that they will not miss something by scheduling another activity at the same time. This planfulness also means that they will likely not be available to accept invitations or attend social events on short notice, since their time will already be scheduled.


Their planfulness also extends to future events and goals. Such long-range planning ensures, for example, that they will meet their important financial and education objectives. Planful people are not comfortable leaving such important areas of life to chance occurrences in the future over which they will have no control. They are therefore likely to devote time and energy to gathering the information needed to accomplish such long-range planning.




Open-Ended


People at this pole prefer their leisure time to be unscheduled so they can take advantage of unexpected opportunities that may arise. Planning free time in advance virtually guarantees that something else will come up that is more interesting, important, or rare. In such situations, Open-Ended people may cancel preset plans rather than miss out on a more appealing activity. Their approach to leisure time involves the vibrancy and enthusiasm that results from interacting with an ongoing flow of events. Their liking for variety and improvisation in their use of such time is as meaningful as the specific activities in which they participate.


For Open-Ended people, variety and having the freedom to choose among the events that present themselves are what is most important. They do not necessarily feel they have missed something by choosing one thing over another on the spur of the moment. They may regret having to bypass a particular activity, but this is usually balanced by being able to choose something that matches the mood of the moment. This matching of oneself to the flow of life events and activities cannot occur if the activities and events are planned far in advance. It is only possible with an Open-Ended approach.




Early Starting-Pressure-Prompted


The fairly narrow focus of this facet is on how we manage time with regard to deadlines.




Early Starting


People at this pole much prefer to cope with deadlines by starting a task far enough in advance to allow plenty of time to finish. They tend to become quite stressed when they find themselves working until the last minute on projects that have deadlines. The stress caused by time pressure often spills over into relationships outside of the task they are trying to complete because their tension becomes general and persists until the task is done. This is often noticeable to the other people around them.


Early Starting people prefer to know their assignments well in advance. They can then begin their work early and not be pressured to get it done at the last minute. They do their best work when they can avoid last-minute rushes. Unexpected tasks or events that use up the time they had reserved for a scheduled project will be quite distressing for them. Severe time pressure can become so stressful for Early Starting people that they may find it hard to concentrate on what they are doing. They will then use their available time inefficiently.


Early Starting people feel like failures when they miss a deadline or were so rushed that they were not able to do their best work. Finishing just in time may be somewhat disconcerting, particularly if they have not had a chance to check their work thoroughly. Having time to spare after a task is completed is especially satisfying to them and they explicitly include such time for checking or reviewing in their plan.




Pressure-Prompted


People at this pole do their best work when they are under sufficient time pressure that meeting the deadline is a challenge. They find it hard to work well without the time pressure of a deadline. In fact, others observing them may have grave doubts that they will complete the job on time. Pressure-Prompted people find the adrenaline rush of trying to meet a tight schedule almost enjoyable. They may put off working on a project until the deadline is close enough that they will have to make a significant effort to finish it in time. This can be mistaken for procrastination, but it is actually not an avoidance of doing the task. While they appear to be doing nothing and letting valuable time slip by, they are actually working inside their heads. During this "inactive" time these people are doing something very similar to what a steam engine does when it stands idly by building up a head of steam. Pressure-Prompted people need a "gestation" period to stimulate the energy they need to tackle the project. If they are working on several projects, this gestation may even occur while they rush to finish other tasks whose deadlines are imminent.


The Pressure-Prompted approach to work involves more than just enjoying the energy aroused by time pressure. People at this pole feel that they actually do their best work under the stress of a severe time constraint. They have more ideas, work more efficiently, and think more clearly under those conditions. Depending on what kind of work they are doing, they may not know how long it will take them to finish. However, their awareness of the time available helps them determine what to include in the finished product and what to discard. Time pressure is thus an important part of their work style and they can use this to structure their finished product. If Pressure-Prompted people meet a deadline with time to spare, they are likely to feel that they began too soon and wasted time that could have been spent on something else. In fact, their enthusiasm may also fade near the end of a project if they finish too early. Such waning of enthusiasm may be a short-lived problem, however, as Pressure-Prompted people usually have several other imminent deadlines to which they can turn their attention.




Scheduled-Spontaneous


This facet centers on the degree of structure in one's daily activities.




Scheduled


People at this pole are comfortable with routine because it enables them to function efficiently. The appeal of routine is that time and energy are not wasted and things can be done "correctly." Routine promoted concentration and ensures continuity in work, so that it all flows together smoothly, efficiently, and as flawlessly as possible. Scheduled people enjoy fitting themselves into a routine that allows them to blend their own abilities and energy with those of other people. This ensures a predictable and productive flow of tasks and activities. They like structuring their daily activities in a known sequence because it prevents the energy waste that could occur if they had to suddenly shift gears. Scheduling their time allows them to look forward to all parts of their day, whether they are restful, satisfying, personally meaningful, or exciting. For scheduled people, routine itself is restful and comfortable in that one is not caught by surprise.


For the Scheduled person, routine also includes broad spans of time, in addition to morning rituals of rising, dressing, and getting ready for work. Weekly, seasonal, and yearly patterns of work, leisure, and family time are involved. The repetition used for some daily and longer-term routines is itself meaningful, providing a kind of anchor by which friendships and family relations are maintained.


Scheduled people are able to function without a fixed pattern of daily activities, for no one's days are all the same. However, they are apt to feel uncomfortable without a structure by which their days and weeks can be organized. If such a structure is missing, they may seek was of recapturing at least parts of their previous routines to restore order and avoid distressing confusion.




Spontaneous


People at this pole are energized by the prospect of variety in their daily work. The very thought of following the same routine day after day feels cramped and confining. They can work within a routine when it is necessary but find it painful to do so. They work best and with greatest energy when their work presents them with constant variety, and they will likely find as many ways as possible to introduce it into their work. Otherwise, they will become bored. They like the freedom to decide what tasks they will do and when. If they have this freedom, they may begin their workday by tackling whatever task strikes their fancy first, moving on to the others as they feel inclined, regardless of any deadlines attached to tasks.


Spontaneous people may also be bored by the thought of longer-term routines. Annual family vacations, holiday and birthday celebrations, and other recurring events may leave them cold. They may suggest some variations in ways of celebrating seasonal holidays just to keep them fresh. If there is too much routine in too many areas of their lives, people at this pole can break the monotony by exploring new activities. They may take courses at local colleges, join clubs, do volunteer work, or otherwise spend leisure time doing things they have never tried before. Variety and the freedom to respond on the spur of the moment are essential for their mental health. Being stuck in a rut from which there is no obvious escape is one of the worst things that can happen to them.




Methodical-Emergent


This facet is narrowly focused on how we sequence the smaller tasks that need to be done in order to finish larger projects. Time and scheduling are not considerations here.




Methodical


For people at this pole, getting ready to tackle a large project begins with organizing themselves and whatever materials, tools, or other people they will need. They may make lists of what they need to do and make notes about the specific steps required and the order in which they will do them. They make sure they have the necessary materials available or arrange to acquire them when they are needed. They may even arrange their materials in the order in which they will be used. They therefore will be unlikely to have trouble finding what they need when they need it. If help from others in doing something is necessary, Methodical people will contact those people well in advance. They may also call to remind these helpers shortly before they are needed.


Methodical people believe that approaching tasks in this way saves time; it also minimizes mistakes and reduces costs. These efficiencies produce faster and better work, as well as personal satisfaction. Methodical people enjoy organizing their work, tools, and materials. Doing so frees them to concentrate on doing a good job. If they have to work on a task with someone who is not Methodical, they may find the resulting inefficiencies frustrating. They may do as much advance organization as possible to minimize such frustration and accomplish the task efficiently.


Methodical people are likely to read through the complete set of directions that come with a project before starting to work on it. That way they know what tools and tasks are required and what sequence they should follow. By doing this, they may get a good enough grasp of the project that they can complete it correctly with only minor detours. Methodical people like to set sub-goals or milestones to help them assess whether they are on track.


Methodical teachers and trainers function best by making well-ordered lesson plans that build the students' knowledge sequentially. This ensures that important objectives are covered adequately. They also organize their lesson plans around explicit learning objectives. The lesson's parts must fit together well so that students will be best able to grasp new material.




Emergent


People at this pole tend to treat projects as explorations or discoveries and take delight in finding out what to do and how to do it as they go along. They do not usually start a large task by beginning with the first step. In fact, they may not complete any of the steps in a particular order, unless this is absolutely necessary. When they do make an outline or a list of required tasks in tackling a large project, it is apt to be very general. The list may include the tasks to be done, but it will not necessarily reflect the order in which they need to be or will be done. Taking tie to organize tools, materials, and people before beginning is not satisfying, interesting, or efficient for Emergent people. They prefer a looser, less structured approach to preparing for and carrying out tasks. They are eager to tackle parts of a task that interest them first, and they proceed to the other steps the same way. When a strict sequence of steps is required to complete the task correctly, they may discover this sequence by trial and error. As a last resort, they may read directions. Their exploratory approach means that they most likely will look for tools only when they get to a stage that requires them. At that point, they may have difficulty finding them; the tools may have been left with another project, or not yet returned to their usual place.


If they read directions at all, people at this pole almost never read them completely through before beginning a project. That would take the exploratory spirit out of the whole endeavor. They may glance at any diagrams shown, begin looking for parts that match those in the picture, and proceed from that point. If a part is missing or mislabeled, they will likely discover this only after they have already partially assembled the piece.


With the exploratory approach of Emergent people, the completion of one task leads to starting another. This trial of associations from one task to another can be best described as playing the whole thing by ear. At the end, the Emergent person will have an overall picture of how all the pieces fit together. This approach is particularly suited to new situations or projects where the specific tasks involved are not known, or where improvisation is needed. By tackling the core piece first, Emergent people spend most of their time and energy on what is most important. They then don't need to spend as much energy on the "frills".


Teachers and trainers at the Emergent pole prefer an adaptable approach to lesson plans. Their plans are likely to be general rather than detailed and to leave much room for improvisation. They may introduce new material that was not in their outline or digress and explore a particular topic in greater depth than they originally had planned. They are likely to explore new areas that were not in the plan at all if class interest warrants this. They will still cover the major learning objectives, but their sequence arises dynamically out of their unique interaction with a particular class on a particular day.
See less See more
  • Like
Reactions: 5
Good stuff. I'm about to do the MBTI step I & II practitioner course. I wonder where I will fall in these sub-categories.
  • Like
Reactions: 3
Cool, so this would describe me then:

E: Initiative Expressive Gregacious Active Enthusiastic
N: Abstract Imaginative Conceptual Theoretical Original
F: Emphatic Compassionate Questioning Accepting Tender
P: Casual Open-Ended Early Starting Spontaneous Emergent
I hope its okay if I ask. I just want to clarify one thing: so one can use this to determine the dichotomies? That is, by seeing how many of the facets apply, you can construct the personality type (mbti type) of the person you're observing, right?
Cool, so this would describe me then:

E: Initiative Expressive Gregacious Active Enthusiastic
N: Abstract Imaginative Conceptual Theoretical Original
F: Emphatic Compassionate Questioning Accepting Tender
P: Casual Open-Ended Early Starting Spontaneous Emergent
I took the Step II a few years back, here's what I got. I capitalized the side of the facet scale I tested as. If neither is capitalized, it means I scored in the midzone.

E/I
Initiating-RECEIVING
Expressive-CONTAINED
Gregarious-INTIMATE
Active-REFLECTIVE
Enthusiastic-Quiet

S/N
Concrete-ABSTRACT
Realistic-Imaginative
Practical-CONCEPTUAL
Experiential-Theoretical
Traditional-ORIGINAL

T/F
LOGICAL-Empathetic
REASONABLE-Compassionate
QUESTIONING-Accomodating
Critical-Accepting
Tough-TENDER

J/P
Systematic-CASUAL
Planful-OPEN ENDED
EARLY STARTING-Pressure Prompted
Scheduled-SPONTANEOUS
Methodical-EMERGENT

I would agree with most of this. I do think I might be more towards the middle on Early-Starting/Pressure Prompted as I do need a little bit of pressure to get going and having trouble starting too far ahead of the deadline. I go crazy with too much pressure though and don't think as well.

Also, I'm probably more theoretical on the theoretical end rather than in the middle although experience can be a great learning tool.

I'm out of preference for TENDER. I see the exception to the rule much of the time. It's not worth implementing some decision that's just going to hurt a bunch of people.

Otherwise, pretty much spot-on.
See less See more
I hope its okay if I ask. I just want to clarify one thing: so one can use this to determine the dichotomies? That is, by seeing how many of the facets apply, you can construct the personality type (mbti type) of the person you're observing, right?
Not quite. I've known people who scored out of preference for 3/5 facets in a dichotomy. Overall a J but P on 3 of the facets. I think if you're extreme J on 2 of the facets and only slight P on 3 of the facets, you might still be J overall. Also I think some facets might weigh more into type than others but I'm not 100% positive on that.

Also I've read that only the first 93 questions determine your overall type, the remainder factor into the facets only.
After reading these facet descriptions, some of these sound alot alike. For example, the questioning/accomodating and the critical/accepting scales. How is someone who is questioning but accepting different from someone who is critical but accomodating?

Same with compassionate and tender, from both of these descriptions, it sounds like they avoid doing things that could hurt someone. Yet someone could score as reasonable and tender (like me) or conversely as compassionate and tough? How are they different?
  • Like
Reactions: 3
After reading these facet descriptions, some of these sound alot alike. For example, the questioning/accomodating and the critical/accepting scales. How is someone who is questioning but accepting different from someone who is critical but accomodating?

Same with compassionate and tender, from both of these descriptions, it sounds like they avoid doing things that could hurt someone. Yet someone could score as reasonable and tender (like me) or conversely as compassionate and tough? How are they different?
The difference is before and after judgment.

Questioning-Accommodating


This facet focuses on how people deal with differences in point of view as they attempt to arrive at a judgment. It is the part of the judgment-forming process that is involved when the judgments must be shared with others.


Critical-Accepting


This facet describes what we do after our initial judgment has been made.
The difference is before and after judgment.
Yeah, I noticed that, I'm just wondering how that plays out in actual life. Like, a specific scenario and how someone questioning and accepting acts v.s. someone critical and accomodating acts.
Have you heard of the Reinin dichotomies of Socionics?

This is like this, but more detailed. Just BTW.

EI - Initiating, Contained, Gregarious(though small talk bores), Active/Reflective(torn), Enthusiastic(quiet under strange social situations)
NS - Abstract, Imaginative(with practical tendencies to solve problems and think tactically), Conceptual, Theoretical, Original
TF - Logical, Reasonable, Questioning, Critical, Tough/Tender (balanced)
PJ - Casual, Open-Ended, Pressure-Prompted, Spontaneous, Emergent(I have no consistent method for solving math/physics probs on paper other than starting from the beginning to end in order) (lol, and I want to be a scientist?)

I don't think strategic thinking and tactical thinking are along an N-S dichotomy and the Contained/Expressive defies lines of intro/extraversion in socionics and I think it also applies in MBTI.
Not quite. I've known people who scored out of preference for 3/5 facets in a dichotomy. Overall a J but P on 3 of the facets. I think if you're extreme J on 2 of the facets and only slight P on 3 of the facets, you might still be J overall. Also I think some facets might weigh more into type than others but I'm not 100% positive on that.

Also I've read that only the first 93 questions determine your overall type, the remainder factor into the facets only.
Thanks for the reply! So how do you propose this would be best used?
Initiating-RECEIVING
Expressive-CONTAINED
Gregarious-INTIMATE
Active-REFLECTIVE
Enthusiastic-Quiet

S/N
Concrete-ABSTRACT
Realistic-IMAGINATIVE
Practical-CONCEPTUAL
Experiential-THEORETICAL
Traditional-ORIGINAL

T/F
LOGICAL-Empathetic
REASONABLE-Compassionate
QUESTIONING-Accomodating
Critical-Accepting
Tough-TENDER

J/P
Systematic-CASUAL
Planful-OPEN ENDED
Starting-Pressure Prompted
Scheduled-SPONTANEOUS
Methodical-EMERGENT

Pretty sterotipical INTP:tongue:
See less See more
Initiating-RECEIVING
Expressive-CONTAINED
Gregarious-INTIMATE
Active-Reflective
Enthusiastic-Quiet

S/N
Concrete-ABSTRACT
Realistic-Imaginative
Practical-CONCEPTUAL
Experiential-THEORETICAL
Traditional-ORIGINAL

T/F
LOGICAL-Empathetic
REASONABLE-Compassionate (Could also be somewhere in the middle)
QUESTIONING-Accomodating
CRITICAL-Accepting
Tough-TENDER

J/P
Systematic-CASUAL
Planful-Open Ended
Starting-PRESSURE PROMPTED
Scheduled-SPONTANEOUS
METHODICAL-Emergent

I guess I'm an INTP ?
See less See more
Thanks for the reply! So how do you propose this would be best used?
Basically, there are the four "main" dichotomies, broken down into the facet sub-scales.

You take the aggregate of each sub-scale and add (or subtract) them to get your total score for that overall dichotomy.

If that overall score is somewhere in the middle, then your preference is unclear. If it's slightly in favor one way or the other, then it's slightly clear, etc.

For sake of simplicity, you can just assign a plus sign to the right of the scale, and a minus sign to the left of the scale. It doesn't really matter though, which side you assign plus or minus, they're just so you can do the math.


So you could look at it like this:

+ E/I -
+ S/N -
+ T/F -
+ J/P -

And just go down the list, and tally everything up in each dichotomy by scoring yourself on each facet.

For example, if you scored like, overall +28 on extraversion, that could be because you scored really high on gregarious and low on the other E facets (maybe even somewhat in favor of a few I facets), or moderate on each E-I facet but slightly more E on each one, or you know, whatever. It can be any combination, it's just that when you tally each sub-facet for a given dichotomy up it adds up one way or the other, and that gives your overall preference.

The idea is that the dichotomies are the abstract, general preference you have, where the facets represent the nitty gritty.

It's really similar to how the Big 5 works actually.
See less See more
  • Like
Reactions: 4
Hey, I'm from Romania so none of these stuff is really something I could be familiar with since there are no courses about MBTI available. So my question for you is this: is there an online place where I can get a certification or something like that?
Hey, I'm from Romania so none of these stuff is really something I could be familiar with since there are no courses about MBTI available. So my question for you is this: is there an online place where I can get a certification or something like that?
I'm not familiar with the details of the certification process, but if my memory serves me, one big part of the requirement for certification is that you possess at least a bachelors degree in psychology.
I'm not familiar with the details of the certification process, but if my memory serves me, one big part of the requirement for certification is that you possess at least a bachelors degree in psychology.
Nope. I am certified in Step I and II. My furthest academic achievement is a high school diploma. :)

Step III, on the other hand, requires at least a master's degree in an approved field.


@letter_to_dana

www.opp.com is the distributor for MBTI in Europe, though it looks like all of their training is in the UK. But here is a link to recognized training partners that may offer something closer: Find a Training Partner
  • Like
Reactions: 1
1 - 20 of 52 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top