The problem with the interaction styles is just how messy they are. I suppose empirical investigation might show that the types have the interaction styles Berens says they do, but I doubt it'll work out in the way she's presenting it. Why would ISTPs and INTPs have different interaction styles while ISTJs and INTJs are the same, even though both pairs of types differ only in their S/N preference? Or, considering it from a function-based framework, why is it that the two Ti-doms have different interaction styles while the two Ni-doms have the same? I guess this is the kind of issue you run into when you put too much stock in Keirsey's asymmetrical division of the types. Keirsey's division seems to work quite well, but it's not the only or even necessarily the best way of grouping the types. But even staying with Keirsey's grouping, why should it necessarily be that each temperament has one type from each interaction style. Couldn't it be that, for example, SJs have a greater tendency towards an in-charge interaction style than SPs? Berens's approach has the issue of trying to awkwardly fit multiple theories together that aren't even really consistent with each other, so the way she assigns types to different groups, like the interaction styles, can get rather messy. It makes sense that Ts and Js would lean more towards a chart-the-course style if introverted and an in-charge style if extraverted, but it doesn't make sense to assign the styles to the types as rigidly as she does.

 

Because it is not about function or theory. It's about real-world patterns. Same with Keirsey. You cannot over-apply it or give it more weight than it even claims to have. You say it is messy, then say it is rigid and forced - well, which is it? Is it contriving a strict pattern or slapping together a contradicting one or is it observing a pattern? I think it shows a clear pattern based on observation, and one which runs counter to others, which supports that individual types are very much individual types and can be distinguished from similar types beyond cognitive functions which can get too abstract or be riddled with stereotypes (ie ISTP and INTP differences).

No, it is not absolute, as in, a person always falls neatly into one category at every turn; neither is it definitive, as if this is the only criteria someone should use for type. It simply helps refine understanding of how types, well, TYPICALLY show up in real life, as a whole personality, not as a bunch of abstract functions strung together.

INTPs and ISTPs would have different interaction styles partly because of Se/Ne differences. The Se mentality is typically more real-world aggressive. This is why ESTPs fall under In-Charge, yet ENTPs are Get-Things-Going. How come SFPs are put in the more exploratory interaction styles? Because of Fi. The functions don't exist in vacuums - these attitudes play off one another in the psychology. The way it combines as a WHOLE is what is considered here.

Forgetting that the personality is more than the sum of its parts is a problem in these online typing communities also. It is great people made effort to grasp cognitive functions in recent years, but now they get as reductionist with it as they formerly did with letter dichotomies.

Instead of being rigid, I think Berens is noting how types actually BREAK with assumptions of how their cognitive mix "should" appear. There is a symmetry here, yes, but it actually contradicts the patterns in other models (ie some J/P differences), suggesting that types are not as simplistically predictable as we would like to them be. An ISFJ is both an SJ and a behind-the-scenes type - this seems contradictory, but not if you consider ISFJs as the personality of a real person and not just a combination of abstract functions.

This is a good tool to examine how types appear as WHOLES in real life interactions. It is a TOOL, not type dogma.

My personal observations (which are in no way indisputable) support that people do follow this model pretty closely, and that it is a pretty reliable aid for sussing out the type of someone who may seem to defy certain assumptions about types. It is just ONE more way to help refine understanding of types and how they actually appear.

I think certain mistypings would ease up considerably if people considered interaction styles.

 

ESTP
Honest self analysis of good/bad without cheating and looking anything up.

Behind-the-Scenes Styles:

4. Taking advantage of opportunities. Stick with what’s important. Talent for pulling together what is just right. Creative problem solving. Building relationships. Attracting the loyalties of others. Being their own true self. Have their own personal style. Play against expectations. Struggle with nurturing their own self-esteem.

With # 1.Becoming an expert. Coming in 2nd.

Get Things Going Styles:

4. Inspiring and facilitating others. Exploring perceptions. Talent for seeing what’s not being said and voicing unspoken meanings. Seek to have ideal relationships. Recognize happiness. Living out stories. Want to authentically live with themselves. Respond to insights in the creative process. Finding the magical situation. Restless hunger for discovering their direction.

^ That is so me out of any of the categories.

With #1. Stimulating action. Coming in 2nd

In-Charge Styles:

4. Taking charge of situations. Tactical prioritizing. Talent for negotiating. Want a measure of their success. Keep their options open. Enjoy acting as a consultant. Winning people over. Caring for family and friends. Enjoy exhilaration at the edge. Disappointed when others don’t show respect.

With #2 Being a leader. Coming in 2nd

Chart-the-Course Styles:

3. Drawing up plans and being prepared. Take responsibility. Getting work done first. Being active in the community. Loyalty to their roles. Cultivating good qualities. Doing the right thing. Bear life’s burdens and overcome adversity. Talented at planning, sequencing, and noticing what’s missing. Having to learn so much in hindsight is painful at times.

With #2 Personal growth. Coming in 2nd

 

You picked ENFP as "so me".

 

An underused tool is the Interaction Styles developed by Berens from bestfittype.com
This is not a new thing, and perhaps there are other threads about this, but I think it does not get revisited enough or used enough in typology communities.

I agree, it does seem like another useful aspect to consider which I've only seen a little bit about.

See if you can guess which goes with which, and consider which you identify with MOST.

okay I'll play

Behind-the-Scenes Styles:
1. Becoming an expert. Seeing new patterns and elegant connections. Talent for design and redesign. Crossing the artificial boundaries of thought. Activate the imagination. Clarifying and defining. Making discoveries. Reflect on the process of thinking itself. Detach to analyze. Struggle with attending to the physical world.
- slightly relate to this
- This sounds like INTP perhaps?

2. Noticing what’s needed and what’s valuable. Talent for careful and supportive organization. Know the ins and outs. Enjoy traditions. Work to protect the future. Listening and remembering. Being nice and agreeable. Unselfish willingness to volunteer. Feeling a sense of accomplishment. Exasperated when people ignore rules and don’t get along.
- not very much like me
- This sounds like ISFJ perhaps?

3. Going with the flow. Knowing what is behind what is said. Uncovering mysteries. Exploring moral questions. Talent for facilitative listening. Relate through stories and metaphors. Balancing opposites. Getting reacquainted with themselves. Have a way of knowing what is believable. Struggling with structure and getting their lives in order.
- Quite a bit like me
- Possibly INFP?

4. Taking advantage of opportunities. Stick with what’s important. Talent for pulling together what is just right. Creative problem solving. Building relationships. Attracting the loyalties of others. Being their own true self. Have their own personal style. Play against expectations. Struggle with nurturing their own self-esteem.
- slightly relate to this
- Possibly ISFP?

Get Things Going Styles:
1. Stimulating action. Have a sense of style. Talent for presenting things in a useful way. Natural actors-engaging others. Opening up people to possibilities. Respect for freedom. Taking risks. A love of learning, especially about people. Genuine caring. Sometimes misperceive others’ intentions.
- slightly relate to this
- Possibly ESFP?

2. Being inventive. Talented at building prototypes and getting projects launched. Lifelong learning. Enjoy the creative process. Share their insights about life’s possibilities. Strategically formulate success. An inviting host. Like the drama of the give and take. Trying to be diplomatic. Surprised when their strategizing of relationships becomes problematic.
- slightly relate to this
- Possibly ENTP?

3. Accepting and helping others. Managing people. Hearing people out. Voicing concerns and accommodating needs. Admire the success of others. Remember what’s important. Talented at providing others with what they need. Keep things pleasant. Maintaining a sense of continuity. Accounting for the costs. Often disappointed by entrepreneurial projects.
- slightly relate to this
- Possibly ESFJ?

4. Inspiring and facilitating others. Exploring perceptions. Talent for seeing what’s not being said and voicing unspoken meanings. Seek to have ideal relationships. Recognize happiness. Living out stories. Want to authentically live with themselves. Respond to insights in the creative process. Finding the magical situation. Restless hunger for discovering their direction.
- Quite a bit like me
- Possibly ENFP?

In-Charge Styles:
1. Talent for bringing order to chaotic situations. Educating themselves. Industrious, work-hard attitude. Balance work with play. Having a philosophy of life. Having the steps to success. Keeping up traditions. Being well balanced. Connecting their wealth of life experiences. Often disappointed when perfectionistic standards for economy and quality are not met.
- not like me
- Possibly ESTJ?

2. Being a leader. Maximize talents. Marshal resources toward progress. Intuitive explorations. Forging partnerships. Mentoring and empowering. Talent for coordinating multiple projects. Balance peace and conflict. Predictive creativity. Often overwhelmed by managing all the details of time and resources.
- not like me
- Possibly ENTJ?

3. Communicate and share values. Succeeding at relationships. Realizing dreams-their own and others. Seek opportunities to grow together. Heeding the call to a life work or mission. Enjoy the creative process. Intuitive intellect. Reconcile the past and the future. Talent for seeing potential in others. Often find living in the present difficult.
- slightly relate to this
- Possibly ENFJ?

4. Taking charge of situations. Tactical prioritizing. Talent for negotiating. Want a measure of their success. Keep their options open. Enjoy acting as a consultant. Winning people over. Caring for family and friends. Enjoy exhilaration at the edge. Disappointed when others don’t show respect.
- not very much like me
- Possibly ESTP?

Chart-the-Course Styles:
1. Actively solving problems. Observing how things work. Talent for using tools for the best approach. Need to be independent. Act on their hunches or intuitions. Understanding a situation. Taking things apart. Making discoveries. Sharing those discoveries. Unsettled by powerful emotional experiences.
- not very much like me
- This sounds like ISTP perhaps?

2. Personal growth. Sustain the vision. Honoring the gifts of others. Taking a creative approach to life. Talent for foreseeing. Exploring issues. Bridge differences and connect people. Practical problem solving. Live with a sense of purpose. Living an idealistic life often presents them with a great deal of stress and a need to withdraw.
- slightly relate to this
- Possibly INFJ?

3. Drawing up plans and being prepared. Take responsibility. Getting work done first. Being active in the community. Loyalty to their roles. Cultivating good qualities. Doing the right thing. Bear life’s burdens and overcome adversity. Talented at planning, sequencing, and noticing what’s missing. Having to learn so much in hindsight is painful at times.
- not like me
- This sounds like ISTJ perhaps?

4. Maximizing achievements. Drive for self-mastery. Build a vision. Very long-range strategizing. Realizing progress toward goals. Systems thinking. Talent for seeing the reasons behind things. Being on the leading edge. Maintaining independence. Find it difficult to let go in interacting with others.
- not like me
- This sounds like INTJ perhaps?

 

Interaction Styles were discussed quite extensively in the below thread, which I believe should have been stickied for its usefulness but unfortunately never was.

http://personalitycafe.com/myers-briggs-forum/36866-determing-your-type-made-easy.html

I think it works best as an overlay to the functions and dichotomies-based typing, as it is indeed messy. e.g. ESFJ is Get Things Going, while ENFJ is In Charge. In reality, I wouldn't expect dominant Fe to present so differently because of Si/Ne vs. Ni/Se necessarily. It could, but not necessarily.

OTOH I've seen lots of ESFJs mistype as ENFP and that could easily be due to the Get Things Going interaction style, as well as possible overidentification with tertiary Ne.

I'm Get Things Going and probably ENTP so mine actually works.

 

My rankings:

1. Chart the Course (Perfect match)
2. In Charge, supportive of Chart the Course.
3. Behind the scenes
4. Get things going. (There seems to be a lot of odd elements thrown into this one)

The link from @counterintuitive and then to the test gave me Theorist first, Catalyst 2nd, temperament wise.

I suppose we should count this instance as a success.

However, this might be far less useful for those that cannot explicitly relate to one, or likewise for those that relate to too much. I enjoy the simplicity though. There is a strength in ease of application.

 

The ones I relate to the most in every cathegory from the one I relate to the most to the least.

#1 Chart-the-Course Styles
Actively solving problems. Observing how things work. Talent for using tools for the best approach. Need to be independent. Act on their hunches or intuitions. Understanding a situation. Taking things apart. Making discoveries. Sharing those discoveries. Unsettled by powerful emotional experiences.

#2 Behind-the-Scenes Styles
Taking advantage of opportunities. Stick with what’s important. Talent for pulling together what is just right. Creative problem solving. Building relationships. Attracting the loyalties of others. Being their own true self. Have their own personal style. Play against expectations. Struggle with nurturing their own self-esteem.

#3 In-Charge Styles
Taking charge of situations. Tactical prioritizing. Talent for negotiating. Want a measure of their success. Keep their options open. Enjoy acting as a consultant. Winning people over. Caring for family and friends. Enjoy exhilaration at the edge. Disappointed when others don’t show respect.

#4 Get Things Going Styles
Being inventive. Talented at building prototypes and getting projects launched. Lifelong learning. Enjoy the creative process. Share their insights about life’s possibilities. Strategically formulate success. An inviting host. Like the drama of the give and take. Trying to be diplomatic. Surprised when their strategizing of relationships becomes problematic.

 

They have also developed another type lense called Cognitive Styles which you can read about here and here

The cognitive styles are very much like "function axis" groupings.


In the link in the link test I got improviser first, catalyst second. With the cognitive styles I think I am Customising Mind.
With the ones posted above, I went through and deleted everything I didn't agree with. I've already looked at this stuff but I tried to keep myself from guessing which was which (which only worked for some of them). If I really agreed with it, I bolded it. It gives me a sense of being most in tune with Get Things Going/ In Charge (which correlates with my disc result which is high I then D/S).

When you put all the lenses together I come out as probably ESTP or ENFJ, and slightly less chance of ESFP, ISFP, ISTP or INFJ.


(Sorry don't know how to do spoiler alert thingy).

Behind-the-Scenes Styles:

2. Enjoy traditions. Work to protect the future. Being nice and agreeable. Feeling a sense of accomplishment.

3. Going with the flow. Uncovering mysteries. Exploring moral questions. Relate through stories and metaphors. Balancing opposites. Struggling with structure and getting their lives in order.

4. Taking advantage of opportunities. Creative problem solving.


Get Things Going Styles:

1. Talent for presenting things in a useful way. Natural actors-engaging others. Opening up people to possibilities. Respect for freedom. Taking risks. Sometimes misperceive others’ intentions.

2. Being inventive. Enjoy the creative process. Share their insights about life’s possibilities.

3. Accepting and helping others. Keep things pleasant. Maintaining a sense of continuity.

4. Inspiring and facilitating others. Exploring perceptions. Seek to have ideal relationships. Recognize happiness. Living out stories. Want to authentically live with themselves. Respond to insights in the creative process. Restless hunger for discovering their direction.


In-Charge Styles:

1. Having a philosophy of life. Being well balanced.

2. Often overwhelmed by managing all the details of time and resources.

3. Communicate and share values. Succeeding at relationships. Realizing dreams-their own and others. Seek opportunities to grow together. Heeding the call to a life work or mission. Enjoy the creative process.

4. Talent for negotiating. Want a measure of their success. Keep their options open. Enjoy acting as a consultant. Winning people over. Caring for family and friends. Enjoy exhilaration at the edge. Disappointed when others don’t show respect.

Chart-the-Course Styles:

1. Need to be independent. Understanding a situation. Taking things apart. Making discoveries. Sharing those discoveries. Unsettled by powerful emotional experiences.

2. Personal growth. Exploring issues. Bridge differences and connect people. Live with a sense of purpose. Living an idealistic life often presents them with a great deal of stress and a need to withdraw.

3. Cultivating good qualities. Bear life’s burdens and overcome adversity.

 

"Interaction Styles" are a goofy bastard child of David Keirsey by way of Linda Berens.

And although Keirsey deserves quite a bit of the credit, I think it's fair to say that it took Berens' breathtaking lenscrafting skills to realize their full gooftastic potential.

To fully comprehend the rich, multilayered wankosity of Interaction Styles, the first thing it helps to understand is that David Keirsey's famous foursome — NF/NT/SJ/SP — is really an arbitrary carve-up of the 16 MBTI types. And that's not to say that Keirsey didn't have a lot of insightful things to say (along with some noteworthy misfires) about various personality characteristics that members of those four groups have in common.

But if somebody knew next to nothing about the MBTI other than the fact that, at least in its respectable districts, it's based on four relatively hard-wired dimensions of human personality, it's not hard to imagine that they'd find it somewhat counterintuitive that the folks on one side of two of those dimensions (e.g., the SJs) were supposedly a group with a lot of very noteworthy personality characteristics in common, while at the same time the people on the other side of those same two dimensions (i.e., the NPs) were a group with so little in common that, meh, they weren't even worth mentioning.

But that was Keirsey's perspective. And not to put too fine a point on it, that's a pretty damn goofy perspective.

But Please Understand Me was published in 1978, before Myers' Gifts Differing (1980), and before almost anybody had even heard of the MBTI. And on top of describing the things Keirsey said NFs, NTs, SJs and SPs tended to have in common, Please Understand Me was also the first mass-market book to describe the four MBTI dichotomies, and it also included separate descriptions for each of Myers' 16 types. So both because of its popularity and its timing, and because it was a worthy book in a lot of ways, Keirsey's idea that there was something really fundamental about his NF/NT/SJ/SP carve-up was apparently accepted without much questioning or dissent as the MBTI grew in popularity, and other popular MBTI books — e.g., Type Talk (1988) — also ended up describing Keirsey's four "temperaments."

But Myers had a different perspective when it came to preference combinations, and her perspective was wiser than Keirsey's in at least two, and possibly three, respects. First, her descriptions of the various possible preference pairs makes it clear that she didn't share Keirsey's view that a particular type foursome (like the SJs) could be noteworthy for the number of things they had in common while their opposite counterparts (the NPs) were a group without much in the way of shared characteristics. On the contrary, Myers' descriptions often pointed to those kinds of opposite-combination pairs, and reflected her perspective that it was just as significant (from a personality-impact standpoint) to be on one side as the other.

Second, and consistent with that notion, Myers believed that the most significant preference pairs — from the standpoint of overall personality impact — were the ones produced by the combination of your S/N and T/F preferences, with the result that the most meaningful way to divide the 16 types into four groups was NF/NT/SF/ST. And I think reasonable people can disagree about whether Myers was right, and anybody interested in a longer discussion of that issue — including a leetle Keirsey-vs.-Myers correlational study that I performed using a large official MBTI career sample, and that resulted in a dramatically lopsided win for Myers — can find it in this post (which also includes a bonus spoiler about why I tend to think of the INs as my peeps).

But third, and regardless of whether NF/NT/SF/ST, or NF/NT/SJ/SP, or some other four-way carve-up leads to the groups that somehow have the most in common — or whether that's even a very meaningful question — Myers didn't really view her foursome as fundamental in the same way that Keirsey viewed his. Myers thought there were significant things to be said about virtually every preference combination. The 1985 MBTI Manual (which Myers co-authored) included a brief description corresponding to each of the 24 possible two-letter combinations, and Gifts Differing includes lots of references to shared characteristics that tend to be produced by many of the possible two-letter (and three-letter) combinations.

And the most important two-letter combinations for purposes of understanding what Berens' goofy Interaction Styles are really about are TJ and FP.

In Chapter 3 of Gifts Differing, Myers presented the following Type Table:

ISTJ	ISFJ	INFJ	INTJ
ISTP	ISFP	INFP	INTP
ESTP	ESFP	ENFP	ENTP
ESTJ	ESFJ	ENFJ	ENTJ

And Myers explained that "the Type Table is a device for seeing all the types in relation to each other. It arranges the types so that those in specific areas of the Table have certain preferences in common and hence share whatever qualities arise from those preferences."

And Myers specifically noted, among other things, that "the more resistant types, the thinkers at left and right and the judging types at top and bottom, make a sort of wall around the Type Table; the 'gentler' FP types are inside. The types with both of the resistant preferences, the tough-minded, executive TJs, occupy the four corners."

The 1985 MBTI Manual described TJs as "tough-minded, executive, analytical, and instrumental leaders," while characterizing their opposites (FPs) as "adaptable, affiliative harmony seekers."

And when it comes to the notion that a T preference and a J preference each make a significant contribution to someone's tendency to be a tough-minded leader, while an F preference and a P preference each make a significant contribution to someone's tendency to be an adaptable harmony seeker, it turns out Keirsey agreed with Myers.

In 1998, Keirsey published Please Understand Me II, which expanded on the original Please Understand Me by, among other things, coming up with a number of supplemental dualities that Keirsey used to subdivide his four "temperament" groups.

And among Keirsey's new dualities was one between what he called directive people and informative people. And by "directive," Keirsey meant people who were more inclined than the informative types to (as he put it) "take charge and tell others what to do"; and by "informative," Keirsey meant people who (as compared to directive types) tended to be "eager to provide information ... but not at all eager to tell others what to do." Comparing ESTJs and ESFJs, as one example, Keirsey attributed the former's directive nature to the fact that they were "tough-minded," and the latter's informative nature to the fact that they were "soft-hearted."

But one of the things that remained constant between the original Please Understand Me and Please Understand Me II was Keirsey's insistence that there was something massively fundamental about the NF/NT/SJ/SP carve-up — and in fact, he significantly rearranged the contents of PUM II to place less emphasis on Myers' dichotomies (he moved those descriptions to the end of the book) and more emphasis on his somewhat strained history (going back to antiquity) of the four "temperaments."

And against that background, it's not exactly surprising that Keirsey decided that his directive/informative duality should cross-cut his famous foursome in a neatly tidy way, with two types within each group being directive types, and two types within each group being informative types.

So... how to accomplish that further subdivision? Well, as Myers had long ago pointed out, it's the T and J preferences that have the most impact on whether somebody's naturally inclined to "tell others what to do," and the F and P preferences that are most likely to incline somebody to take the opposite approach.

So let's start with Keirsey's NFs. How to divide those into directive and informative types? Well, everybody in that group is an F, right? So you can't very well use T/F as a dividing criterion. So that leaves you with J/P, right? And sure enough, that's what Keirsey did. He slotted the NFJs as the directive NFs, and the NFPs as the informative NFs.

And he did the same thing with the NTs. The NTJs became the directive NTs and the NTPs became the informative NTs.

But now let's move to the SJs. Everybody in that group is a J, so you can't use J/P to divide the directives from the informatives. But no problem — you can use T/F! And that's what Keirsey did. He slotted the STJs as the directive SJs, and the SFJs as the informative SJs.

And he did the same thing with the SPs. The STPs became the directive SPs and the SFPs became the informative SPs.

And then Keirsey further subdivided those subdivisions by using E/I to designate a "reserved" and "expressive" version of each directive and informative twosome.

And that all pretty much makes sense, too — if you interpret those categorizations as meaning no more than that the STPs, for example, are the directive types (relatively speaking) as among the SPs, and the NTPs, as another example, are the informative types (relatively speaking) as among the NTs.

Buuut alas, Linda Berens loves her "lenses," and Linda Berens decided that it made sense to create an exciting new (with a hat tip to Keirsey) type lens by plucking the directive and informative types out of their Keirsey-foursome context and presenting them to the world as if STPs (for example) are not just directive as compared to SFPs, but are also directive as compared to, e.g., SFJs.

And that, not to put too fine a point on it, is just silly.

If T/F and J/P are the relevant contributors to whether someone's directive or informative — and as already explained, Keirsey's directive/informative carve-ups certainly reflect that Myersian perspective — then the way anybody with their head screwed on straight would naturally be inclined to divvy up the 16 types in directive/informative terms would be to say (like Myers) that the TJs are the ultimate "directive" types, the FPs are the ultimate "informative" types, and the TPs and the FJs are more mixed types, with the TPs having what you might call the "T facets" of directiveness combined with the "P facets" of informativeness, while the FJs have the "F facets" of informativeness combined with the "J facets" of directiveness.

But instead, here's what Berens' goofy groupings look like:

Directive: TJs; NFJs; STPs
Informative: FPs; SFJs; NTPs

Directive TJs? Check. Informative FPs? Check.

Directive NFJs? Um...

As @Octavarium has already (and rightly!) asked, why the fuck — OK, Octavarium didn't actually say "fuck," but it accurately reflects my take on the situation — why, as I say, the fuck does the S/N difference make the STPs directive and the NTPs informative, while having the exact opposite effect on the FJs (N's directive; S's informative)? Eh? If that doesn't strike you, dear reader, as kind of a what-the-fuck thing, I would respectfully suggest that it may be time to refill your what-the-fuck tank.

And we really know the answer to that question, don't we? And the answer to that question isn't that an S preference makes STPs more directive than NTPs while making SFJs more informative than NFJs.

No! The answer to that question is that Keirsey's directive/informative types were further subdivisions of an initial arbitrary carve-up that then dictated — well, from Keirsey's lover-of-tidy-systems perspective — that there must be two directive SPs and two informative SPs, and two directive NFs and two informative NFs, and so on. And since T/F and J/P really are the relevant contributors for that purpose, the overlay of that on top of the initial Keirseyan foursome resulted in the arbitrary designation of STPs as directive (because they're the T's as among the SPs) and the NTPs as informative (because they're the P's as among the NTs), and so on.

And I know this has been a long post, dammit, but anybody who hopes to fully understand the intelligence-insulting ludicrousness of Interaction Styles should really take a deep breath at this point and spend a moment or two contemplating what Keirsey did here. Because even if you're willing to believe that there really is something special about the initial carve-up of Myers' types into the NF/NT/SJ/SP foursome, there's absolutely no reason that it should follow from that that there's an independent, cross-cutting directive/informative aspect of personality whose relationship with the initial foursome is such that (1) each temperament group has two "directive" types and two "informative" types, and (2) the directive types in each group are not only directive in comparison with the informative types in the same group, but also directive in comparison to the informative types in the other groups.

So the arbitrariness of Keirsey's messy and essentially justification-free assignment of the TPs and FJs to his directive and informative categories isn't an arbitrariness that inevitably follows from, and is a product of, the arbitrariness of his initial four-temperament carve-up. Instead, it's essentially an independent second layer of arbitrariness piled on top of the first — and which leads to the arbitrary, what-the-fuck categorizations previously described, with STPs being declared "directive" and their N cousins (NTPs) "informative," while SFJs are declared "informative" and their N cousins (NFJs) "directive."

And again, the way Keirsey himself performed that second-layer carve-up really reflects his understanding and acknowledgment that, as Myers also noted, it's someone's T/F and J/P preferences that make the primary relevant contributions to their tendency to be what Keirsey called "directive" or "informative" — and what that means is that, unless you allow yourself to be unjustifiably steered off track by both of Keirsey's arbitrary assumptions, what you'd expect is that the relevant type groupings for "interaction style" purposes would be the TJs, the FJs, the TPs and the FPs. Layer on the E/I difference if you want a "reserved" and "expressive" version of each, and you get the ETJs, the ITJs, the EFJs, the IFJs, the ETPs, the ITPs, the EFPs and the IFPs.

So there you go, folks. I hope the truth will set you free, and help persuade you to stop paying any serious attention to Linda Berens — whose many years of distinguished contributions to the typology field have arguably (IMHO) earned her the title of Queen of the MBTI Clown Car.

As sassafrassthelioness has noted, Berens has recently sprung yet another eye-popping lens on the waiting world, which she calls "Intentional Styles" (formerly "Cognitive Styles"). It's a lens that groups INTJs with ESFPs, and INFPs with ESTJs, and it's even goofier than her Interaction Styles — but it's also a subject for another thread.

 

I don't see what's wrong with noting what different types might have in common though - sure, it might be silly to claim that one particular grouping is superior, but as far as I can see Berens has done the opposite of that. She's carved the types up into several different groupings and said they're all equally valid. It doesn't sound silly to me to say that every type has something in common with every other type... Less silly than saying some types have absolutely nothing in common whatsoever. Maybe she's wrong about how she's carved them up, but the idea isn't a bad one on its face.
Would I like to see research? Sure, I guess. But then again, I'm not into this stuff because it's strictly scientific. If that's what I was after I'd just stick to the big 5, but that really doesn't tell me anything useful about myself that I didn't already input into the test. Or other people for that matter - my friend is more "agreeable" than me? Great. Who cares though?

 

If you've been led to believe that the Big Five is "scientific" and the MBTI isn't, you can read quite a lot about the scientific respectability of the MBTI, and about several other issues often raised by people claiming to "debunk" the MBTI — in this post.

There's 50 years of data that supports the validity of the MBTI, and the relevant correlations often involve dichotomy combinations that show up as relevant influences — like the dramatic introversion and N correlations for Cal Tech science majors shown in this post.

But the correlational patterns that are found virtually always reflect the idea that when two or more preferences affect an aspect of personality, they do it in the kind of simple, additive way that means that if the SJs are out at one end of the spectrum, you'll find the NPs at the other end — just like the INs and the ESs in that Cal Tech sample.

By contrast, the kind of counterintuitive cross-cutting of preferences reflected in Berens' Interaction Style groupings have consistently failed to find correlational support, as James Reynierse noted in "The Case Against Type Dynamics" — an article that was published in the official MBTI type journal in 2009, and that pointed at the HaroldGrantian function-stack hoohah peddled by people like Berens and Nardi and declared that the emperor had no clothes.

That article caused quite a stir in the MBTI community — and of course, Berens and Nardi rose to the challenge and pointed Reynierse to a respectable body of data support for their counterintuive crosscutting.

Just kidding. Actually, as I understand it, the scientifically respectable counter-response to Reynierse has basically been... *crickets*

As a final note, and contrary to what your latest post suggested, there is in fact nothing "silly" about "saying some types have absolutely nothing in common" if what you mean is no MBTI-influenced personality characteristics in common. That was basically Myers' perspective on how opposite preferences (and opposite-preference combinations) played out, with the result that she wouldn't have expected an INFP and an ESTJ (for example) to have anything in common as a result of any MBTI current that tugged them both in the same direction.

And 50 years of MBTI correlations strongly suggest that Myers was correct to have that perspective. And it's Reynierse's perspective, and it's my perspective, and I would respectfully suggest that it should be your perspective, too.

 

@reckful, fair enough. I guess the thing is, I find it more interesting to read about all the other stuff. "Scientific" personality typing (which I'm still dubious about anyway) just isn't interesting to me because I don't feel it says anything meaningful.
The other stuff is interesting from a theoretical perspective and also gives me interesting ways to think about myself and the people in my life. I actually don't really care if there isn't any science to back it up. I know that's a weird perspective to someone like you, but you might just have to accept it

 

Well, but it sounds like you're still fundamentally misunderstanding an essential aspect of what it means for a set of typological categories to have scientific (albeit soft scientific) validity — and more importantly, what it means for a set of categories to lack validity.

Deciding that you're going to stick with typological categories that have some respectable body of studies in support of their validity does not not not not not mean that, in thinking and talking about what INFJs tend to be like (for example), you're going to limit yourself to only those personality characteristics where you can point to a bunch of studies that focused on (or at least included) those specific qualities.

Not at all.

I see nothing wrong with you or me pondering what typical INFJs tend to be like, or exactly what an F preference involves, or what FJs tend to be like, etc., based on anecdotal experiences, and I certainly don't see anything wrong with reading sources like Myers or Keirsey or whoever, where authors with years of experience dealing with typed people offer their informed takes — based partly on their own anecdotal experiences (on top of the results of studies) — on what typical INFJs tend to be like, or exactly what an F preference involves, or what FJs tend to be like, etc.

But here's the crucial thing. Although those descriptions, and your and my ponderings, may go well beyond the bounds of what's been scientifically established in terms of the exact and full nature of the relevant categories, at least — and this is the main point, for purposes of this discussion — we know that the categories we're focusing on are real categories. And that's because, whatever the exact and full nature of I, N, F and J preferences may be — and nobody knows at this point, right? — one thing we know with reasonable certainty at this point is that E/I, S/N, T/F and J/P correspond to real, underlying dimensions of human personality, where identical twins raised in separate households are more alike on those dimensions than other pairs, and where correlating the resulting types with a multitude of personality-related things results in statistically significant (and sometimes very dramatic) correlations.

By contrast, imagine somebody spending lots of their time pondering what the exact and full nature of Scorpios and Capricorns are, and reading books by zodiac "experts" who describe what it means to be a Scorpio or a Capricorn. What a sad waste of time, right? And what's the main thing that somebody with their head screwed on straight can point to to back up their view that that's a sad waste of time? The fact that zodiac-based typologies lack validity, by which I mean that in many years of attempts to correlate people's zodiac signs with personality characteristics — or anything else — statistically significant correlations have never shown up in any respectable body of studies.

So it's goofy to be asking all your friends for their birthdays, and thinking about what their personalities are like, for purposes of adding to your own understanding of what Scorpios and Capricorns and etc. tend to be like. Right?

And moving back to the MBTI, what you need to understand is that they've been gathering MBTI correlational data for 50 years now. Thousands upon thousands of data pools. And the correlational patterns that show up in an MBTI data pool don't depend on what anybody's hypothesis or prediction was. The patterns just are what they are. And what Reynierse emphasizes in that article I already linked you to is that there's never been any body of MBTI data pools that provided respectable support for any MBTI subcategories where the relevant divisions cross-cut the patterns that correspond to a simple additive-effect model of the dichotomies that are coming into play.

The Harold Grant function stack says that SJs and NPs tend to have things in common (as "Si/Ne types") that don't tend to be characteristic of SPs and NJs (as "Se/Ni types"), and that's a crosscutting pattern — and sure enough, it's a pattern that never seems to show up in the real world. It doesn't matter what you're correlating with type: if it's something that's affected by both your S/N and J/P preferences, and the SJs are at one end of the spectrum, you can reliably expect to find the NPs at the other end — rather than finding the SJs and NPs together on one side of the spectrum, with the SPs and NJs at the other. Because that never happens.

And Interaction Styles involve similar crosscutting categories — with ISTPs and INFJs, for example, supposedly sharing personality characteristics that neither type shares with ISFPs and INFPs.

And that's why I don't think there's anything wrong with you spending time gathering unscientific, anecdotal evidence about your friends as you ponder what INFJs are like, or NFs are like, or NJs are like, or etc., but it pains me to picture you spending time gathering unscientific, anecdotal evidence about — or otherwise spending time pondering — what "Chart-the-Course" types are like and what "Behind-the-Scenes" types are like.

If Keirsey or Berens or anybody else wants to try to sell the world on a new set of MBTI subcategories that crosscut the MBTI dichotomies, the burden should rightly be on them to come up with a respectable body of evidence that suggests that those subcategories exist in the first place — and until they do, you should spend your time pondering other things.

And just between you and me: if the new subcategories involve those kinds of crosscutting patterns, you should assume that the odds that they correspond to anything real is very low.

Very, very, very, very, very, very low.

 

Thanks for exposing, @reckful... That was both helpful and respectful.

 

I dont fit any of these styles really.

Im not agreeable but I am very helpful and I will help everyone. I am also very controlling and particular about how I do things. I will disagree with anyone in most cases and that sometimes gets me in trouble. I also am the one keeping everyone doing okay and making sure everything is together. I am the type of person that would drag a drunk friend out of a bar, get them home okay, and be waiting by thier bed with Aspirin saying "Did I not tell you so"? and still not judge them for it. So I dont fit any of these really. Unless of course your just not giving good descriptions.

 

Below are the 16 types, but not identified by MB type nor individual interaction style label, just randomly listed under the parent-category. See if you can guess which goes with which, and consider which you identify with MOST.

Don't cheat and visit the website right away! :tongue:

OK let me see.


Behind-the-Scenes Styles:

INTP:

1. Becoming an expert. Seeing new patterns and elegant connections. Talent for design and redesign. Crossing the artificial boundaries of thought. Activate the imagination. Clarifying and defining. Making discoveries. Reflect on the process of thinking itself. Detach to analyze. Struggle with attending to the physical world.

ISFJ:

2. Noticing what’s needed and what’s valuable. Talent for careful and supportive organization. Know the ins and outs. Enjoy traditions. Work to protect the future. Listening and remembering. Being nice and agreeable. Unselfish willingness to volunteer. Feeling a sense of accomplishment. Exasperated when people ignore rules and don’t get along.

INFP:

3. Going with the flow. Knowing what is behind what is said. Uncovering mysteries. Exploring moral questions. Talent for facilitative listening. Relate through stories and metaphors. Balancing opposites. Getting reacquainted with themselves. Have a way of knowing what is believable. Struggling with structure and getting their lives in order.

ISFP:

4. Taking advantage of opportunities. Stick with what’s important. Talent for pulling together what is just right. Creative problem solving. Building relationships. Attracting the loyalties of others. Being their own true self. Have their own personal style. Play against expectations. Struggle with nurturing their own self-esteem.

Get Things Going Styles:

ESFP:

1. Stimulating action. Have a sense of style. Talent for presenting things in a useful way. Natural actors-engaging others. Opening up people to possibilities. Respect for freedom. Taking risks. A love of learning, especially about people. Genuine caring. Sometimes misperceive others’ intentions.

ENTP:

2. Being inventive. Talented at building prototypes and getting projects launched. Lifelong learning. Enjoy the creative process. Share their insights about life’s possibilities. Strategically formulate success. An inviting host. Like the drama of the give and take. Trying to be diplomatic. Surprised when their strategizing of relationships becomes problematic.

ESFJ:

3. Accepting and helping others. Managing people. Hearing people out. Voicing concerns and accommodating needs. Admire the success of others. Remember what’s important. Talented at providing others with what they need. Keep things pleasant. Maintaining a sense of continuity. Accounting for the costs. Often disappointed by entrepreneurial projects.

ENFP:

4. Inspiring and facilitating others. Exploring perceptions. Talent for seeing what’s not being said and voicing unspoken meanings. Seek to have ideal relationships. Recognize happiness. Living out stories. Want to authentically live with themselves. Respond to insights in the creative process. Finding the magical situation. Restless hunger for discovering their direction.

In-Charge Styles:

ESTJ:

1. Talent for bringing order to chaotic situations. Educating themselves. Industrious, work-hard attitude. Balance work with play. Having a philosophy of life. Having the steps to success. Keeping up traditions. Being well balanced. Connecting their wealth of life experiences. Often disappointed when perfectionistic standards for economy and quality are not met.

ENTJ:

2. Being a leader. Maximize talents. Marshal resources toward progress. Intuitive explorations. Forging partnerships. Mentoring and empowering. Talent for coordinating multiple projects. Balance peace and conflict. Predictive creativity. Often overwhelmed by managing all the details of time and resources.

ENFJ:

3. Communicate and share values. Succeeding at relationships. Realizing dreams-their own and others. Seek opportunities to grow together. Heeding the call to a life work or mission. Enjoy the creative process. Intuitive intellect. Reconcile the past and the future. Talent for seeing potential in others. Often find living in the present difficult.

ESTP:

4. Taking charge of situations. Tactical prioritizing. Talent for negotiating. Want a measure of their success. Keep their options open. Enjoy acting as a consultant. Winning people over. Caring for family and friends. Enjoy exhilaration at the edge. Disappointed when others don’t show respect.

Chart-the-Course Styles:

ISTP:

1. Actively solving problems. Observing how things work. Talent for using tools for the best approach. Need to be independent. Act on their hunches or intuitions. Understanding a situation. Taking things apart. Making discoveries. Sharing those discoveries. Unsettled by powerful emotional experiences.

INFJ:

2. Personal growth. Sustain the vision. Honoring the gifts of others. Taking a creative approach to life. Talent for foreseeing. Exploring issues. Bridge differences and connect people. Practical problem solving. Live with a sense of purpose. Living an idealistic life often presents them with a great deal of stress and a need to withdraw.

ISTJ:

3. Drawing up plans and being prepared. Take responsibility. Getting work done first. Being active in the community. Loyalty to their roles. Cultivating good qualities. Doing the right thing. Bear life’s burdens and overcome adversity. Talented at planning, sequencing, and noticing what’s missing. Having to learn so much in hindsight is painful at times.

INTJ:

4. Maximizing achievements. Drive for self-mastery. Build a vision. Very long-range strategizing. Realizing progress toward goals. Systems thinking. Talent for seeing the reasons behind things. Being on the leading edge. Maintaining independence. Find it difficult to let go in interacting with others.

So overall... mix of INTP, ESTJ, ESTP, ISTP, ISTJ, INTJ... okay...

And Chart-the-Course Styles > In-Charge Styles overall.

 

I am like not supposed to say which types go in which category...?

Anyhoo I actually really like this website and way the types are divided-- its really interesting. I think it adds a good element.

I've always been confused as to whether my mom was INFP or ISFJ, which seem like every different types, but looking at this website, it makes more sense.

Also there's someone who I'm trying to type, and I think she's either ISTJ, INFJ, or INTJ, which all seem SO different, but again they're all in the same category here and the description makes sense to me.

 

I am like not supposed to say which types go in which category...?

I said it already and someone else did too

Also there's someone who I'm trying to type, and I think she's either ISTJ, INFJ, or INTJ, which all seem SO different, but again they're all in the same category here and the description makes sense to me.

Haha, I've also been seen as each of all those three. It's certainly interesting how they are all in the same category here but can be just coincidence too.

 

My guesses:

 

Behind-the-Scenes Styles:

1. Becoming an expert. Seeing new patterns and elegant connections. Talent for design and redesign. Crossing the artificial boundaries of thought. Activate the imagination. Clarifying and defining. Making discoveries. Reflect on the process of thinking itself. Detach to analyze. Struggle with attending to the physical world. INTP

2. Noticing what’s needed and what’s valuable. Talent for careful and supportive organization. Know the ins and outs. Enjoy traditions. Work to protect the future. Listening and remembering. Being nice and agreeable. Unselfish willingness to volunteer. Feeling a sense of accomplishment. Exasperated when people ignore rules and don’t get along. ISFJ

3. Going with the flow. Knowing what is behind what is said. Uncovering mysteries. Exploring moral questions. Talent for facilitative listening. Relate through stories and metaphors. Balancing opposites. Getting reacquainted with themselves. Have a way of knowing what is believable. Struggling with structure and getting their lives in order. INFP

4. Taking advantage of opportunities. Stick with what’s important. Talent for pulling together what is just right. Creative problem solving. Building relationships. Attracting the loyalties of others. Being their own true self. Have their own personal style. Play against expectations. Struggle with nurturing their own self-esteem. ISFP


Get Things Going Styles:

1. Stimulating action. Have a sense of style. Talent for presenting things in a useful way. Natural actors-engaging others. Opening up people to possibilities. Respect for freedom. Taking risks. A love of learning, especially about people. Genuine caring. Sometimes misperceive others’ intentions. ESFP

2. Being inventive. Talented at building prototypes and getting projects launched. Lifelong learning. Enjoy the creative process. Share their insights about life’s possibilities. Strategically formulate success. An inviting host. Like the drama of the give and take. Trying to be diplomatic. Surprised when their strategizing of relationships becomes problematic. ENTP

3. Accepting and helping others. Managing people. Hearing people out. Voicing concerns and accommodating needs. Admire the success of others. Remember what’s important. Talented at providing others with what they need. Keep things pleasant. Maintaining a sense of continuity. Accounting for the costs. Often disappointed by entrepreneurial projects. ESFJ

4. Inspiring and facilitating others. Exploring perceptions. Talent for seeing what’s not being said and voicing unspoken meanings. Seek to have ideal relationships. Recognize happiness. Living out stories. Want to authentically live with themselves. Respond to insights in the creative process. Finding the magical situation. Restless hunger for discovering their direction. ENFP


In-Charge Styles:

1. Talent for bringing order to chaotic situations. Educating themselves. Industrious, work-hard attitude. Balance work with play. Having a philosophy of life. Having the steps to success. Keeping up traditions. Being well balanced. Connecting their wealth of life experiences. Often disappointed when perfectionistic standards for economy and quality are not met. ESTJ

2. Being a leader. Maximize talents. Marshal resources toward progress. Intuitive explorations. Forging partnerships. Mentoring and empowering. Talent for coordinating multiple projects. Balance peace and conflict. Predictive creativity. Often overwhelmed by managing all the details of time and resources. ENTJ

3. Communicate and share values. Succeeding at relationships. Realizing dreams-their own and others. Seek opportunities to grow together. Heeding the call to a life work or mission. Enjoy the creative process. Intuitive intellect. Reconcile the past and the future. Talent for seeing potential in others. Often find living in the present difficult. ENFJ

4. Taking charge of situations. Tactical prioritizing. Talent for negotiating. Want a measure of their success. Keep their options open. Enjoy acting as a consultant. Winning people over. Caring for family and friends. Enjoy exhilaration at the edge. Disappointed when others don’t show respect. ESTP

Chart-the-Course Styles:

1. Actively solving problems. Observing how things work. Talent for using tools for the best approach. Need to be independent. Act on their hunches or intuitions. Understanding a situation. Taking things apart. Making discoveries. Sharing those discoveries. Unsettled by powerful emotional experiences. ISTP

2. Personal growth. Sustain the vision. Honoring the gifts of others. Taking a creative approach to life. Talent for foreseeing. Exploring issues. Bridge differences and connect people. Practical problem solving. Live with a sense of purpose. Living an idealistic life often presents them with a great deal of stress and a need to withdraw. INFJ

3. Drawing up plans and being prepared. Take responsibility. Getting work done first. Being active in the community. Loyalty to their roles. Cultivating good qualities. Doing the right thing. Bear life’s burdens and overcome adversity. Talented at planning, sequencing, and noticing what’s missing. Having to learn so much in hindsight is painful at times. ISTJ

4. Maximizing achievements. Drive for self-mastery. Build a vision. Very long-range strategizing. Realizing progress toward goals. Systems thinking. Talent for seeing the reasons behind things. Being on the leading edge. Maintaining independence. Find it difficult to let go in interacting with others. INTJ

Checking the site…(Interaction Styles)all 4 types in the correct groups. [After some finagling on the site, finding that the styles as groups under the header are the correct links to use…] Got ‘em! All 16 correctly connected, type to descriptions provided. [Why did she have to assign titles? Why can’t they just be left with the 4-letter designations?]

I relate to aspects of the descriptions for (Behind the Scenes) INTP, ISFJ, INFP, ISFP; (Get Things Going) ENFP; (Chart the Course) ISTJ, and INTJ. I agree with a higher percentage of the INFP description statements than with the statements of the others. Strangely the INFJ statement just didn’t seem to touch me at all today.

In reading the patterns pertaining to the 4 styles, I relate from best to worst:
Behind the Scenes

 

The theme is getting the best result possible. People of this style focus on understanding and working with the process to create a positive outcome. They see value in many contributions and consult outside inputs to make an informed decision. They aim to integrate various information sources and accommodate differing points of view. They approach others with a quiet, calm style that may not show their strong convictions. Producing, sustaining, defining, and clarifying are all ways they support a group's process. They typically have more patience than most with the time it takes to gain support through consensus for a project or to refine the result.

Chart the Course

 

The theme is having a course of action to follow. People of this stylefocus on knowing what to do and keeping themselves, the group, or the project on track. They prefer to enter a situation having an idea of what is to happen. They identify a process to accomplish a goal and have a somewhat contained tension as they work to create and monitor a plan. The aim is not the plan itself, but to use it as a guide to move things along toward the goal. Their informed and deliberate decisions are based on analyzing, outlining, conceptualizing or foreseeing what needs to be done.

Get Things Going

 

The theme is persuading and involving others. They thrive in facilitator or catalyst roles and aim to inspire others to move to action, facilitating the process. Their focus is on interaction, often with an expressive style. They Get-Things-Going™ with upbeat energy, enthusiasm, or excitement, which can be contagious. Exploring options and possibilities, making preparations, discovering new ideas, and sharing insights are all ways they get people moving along. They want decisions to be participative and enthusiastic, with everyone involved and engaged.

In Charge

 

The theme is getting things accomplished through people. People of this style are focused on results, often taking action quickly. They often have a driving energy with an intention to lead a group to the goal. They make decisions quickly to keep themselves and others on task, on target, and on time. They hate wasting time and having to back track. Mentoring, executing actions, supervising, and mobilizing resources are all ways they get things accomplished. They notice right away what is not working in a situation and become painfully aware of what needs to be fixed, healed, or corrected.

In a past work role I was very much in a Chart the Course position, but it was not devoid of Behind the Scenes approach. I found that role to be very enjoyable overall. In my personal life, however, I take a much more evidently Behind the Scenes approach.

 

Behind the Scenes: #3 Going With the Flow (and might I say, if I had to choose one out of all groups, this one sounds most like me, deep down).

Get Things Going: #4 Inspiring and Facilitating

In Charge: #3: Shared Values

Chart the Course: #2: Personal Growth

 

Wow; I had fallen away far too long!

Since the whole "functions vs dichotomies" war has just been fired up again (which is how I found this); I should point out that my take on Interaction styles relies more on dichotomies that functions (in fact, the model itself is based strictly on dichotomies).

Both Interaction Style and temperament stem from the old classic temperaments, which are based on expressiveness and responsiveness. The main expressiveness factor is I/E. Both T/F and J/P figure in responsiveness. But the temperament models were not designed with MBTI dichotomies in mind, so they don't line up perfectly, but do parallel in definite ways. Myers had started out trying to create another "four-temperaments-renamed" system like Social Styles or DISC, but then as she integrated Jung's concepts, then eventually put together the four factor system known as MBTI.

Really, there were two strains of ancient temperament; Hippocrates and Plato. Hippocrates is what became the 'classic" social temperaments, now embodied int he Interaction styles, while Plato was more about trades (think "leadership" styles), and included something that would amount to a perception factor ("observant vs imaginative"), which of course was picked up by Keirsey (using Plato's names).
So the two temperament theories come together in the typology through Berens' models, which include Keirsey and Interaction styles along with both MBTI dichotomies and Jungian functions.

This gives us a clue that the S/N factor is apart of one version of temperament theory, while I/E is apart of the other. T/F and J/P end up apart of both, but in a sort of mixed up fashion.
So across the board, F and P will tend to be more "people focused" (called "informing" in the Interaction Styles, and "motive focused" in the Keirsey groups according to Berens). T and J tend to be more "task focused" (called "directive" in the Interaction Styles and "structure focused" in the Keirseyan temperaments).

Structure/Motive was not mentioned in the breakdown on p.2, as regarding certain groups being "more" directive and informative than others, which then makes this look all "arbitrary", as it was portrayed, but that factor is the key to all of this, and what led me to finally figure how type matches up to a full model of classic temperament (which includes "blends" on at least two levels of interaction; social and leadership).
Structure/Motive is not as well known, because Keirsey did not recognize it, but concluded "opposite" temperaments in his matrix (S/N plus "cooperative/pragmatic") had "nothing in common". It was Berens who introduced that, and then in Keirsey's last two books, he finally acknowledged SJ and NT having in common traits he called "annoying", and SP and NF being "contagious". (in addition to finally dividing the eight last-three-letter groups by I/E, forming what h called the "roles of interaction", which were the same as Berens' groups). Berens' model completed what Keirsey started.

Since S/N is tied to the Keirseyan groups (which is "blind" to I/E), this is what figures in which of the other factors end up part of which model. In Plato's system, the "Guardian" and "Artisan" were both "observant", and the Idealist and Rational were "imaginative". When Keirsey mapped these groups to the MBTI types, it so happened that the "observant" types connected to J/P (which also indicated the attitude of Sensing, though Keirsey ultimately rejected that) and the "imaginitive" types connected to T/F (the other preferred function).
The Interaction Styles would happen to connect to T/F and J/P in the opposite fashion, but even more intertwined, as I/E becomes the other factor, and being "blind" to S/N, you end up with one three letter group for both S and N indicating whether the "directing/informing" factor is determined by T/F or J/P.

Again, this at this point has nothing to do with functions, except that for the N's, Interaction Style is connected with the attitude. However, since the T/F dichotomy is pointing to functions, and F/P is pointing to the attitude of the functions, pairing the two dichotomies then indicates function-attitudes. So the "people-focused" F plus the "people-focused" P then is double people-focused, and the task-focused T plus the task-focused J is doubly task focused.
TP and FJ then end up as "somewhere inbetween" (which I have long realized from this site: Achilles Tendencies, the Essay) People-focused F plus task-focused J or task-focused T plus people-focused P.

Again, this is not really about the functions, but does happen to correspond to them.
It automatically figures why the "human-affect" focused F would be "people-focused", and the "impersonal" T would be "task"-focused. J, which from the simple "dichotomy" perspective, is more about "closure", will also end up more "task" focused (right as I write, having another discussion with ESFJ wife about how she's essentially a "doer", even with the F). P is more "open", and thus will tend to be less demanding or critical of people. The same by looking at it from functions, where using an external standard for judgment and an individual standard for perception will tend to be more "closed" and less responsive to people, and an external perception will be more "open" to the emergent data.

 

Yes Behind the scenes.

 

The interaction style model is a great tool when used correctly. As Best Fit Types website indicates, for the best results determine your core essential motivations by looking at the temperament groups, then do the same with the interaction styles. I battled with determining my best fit type for a decade by trying to use cognitive functions. I was able to finally determine my preferred type using Linda V. Berens and Dario Nardi's model. I posted my thoughts here years ago.