True Personality Typing

STUDY NOTES POST #9: HOW PEOPLE DID, IN TYPING ME AS A FICTIONAL CHARACTER

There was this one post in the Attitudinal Psyche Facebook group, where the person asked an interesting question: " How do you think the folks on Personality Database would type you if you were a fictional character?" There is a person from my dreams (part fictional, part real) who is also my typology twin. We met him earlier, in the "One family, 3 ESFPs" post. He was Arvid, Jr., the one who preferred to be called Arvid because "that was his name ". Funny how we're similar, even down to that. I'm the same way with my name 🤣

Anyway, I found a typing questionnaire online, and posted it several places: in some discord servers I knew had Personality Database type description typists, in the Attitudinal Psyche Facebook group, where I knew theory typists hang, and on Reddit, where I was likely to get both. Here is the questionnaire, and the answers:

I knew I was hard to type, but I didn't realize how hard until nearly everyone failed to type me correctly when I was a fictional character.

So if I had to pick one thing in Arvid's typology/my typology that threw off the typing for most people, it is that we're both social blind 3s. Somebody even confessed that they could clearly understand the whole typology once they knew they were dealing with a social blind 3. It just shows how flawed some 3 descriptions are, if people can't imagine 3s being social blind.

So anyway, now, I'm going to go through the parts of a Personality Database typing that can be gleaned from the questionnaire, and write what people should have seen, and then what they did see

MBTI: ESFP Yes, as we all know from the post I shared earlier, Arvid was an ESFP. However, I don't know how many people typed him as an ISTJ. I have no idea where they got the thinking from, except maybe the correlations, correlating ISTJ to his incorrect Enneagram. My answer to question number 6 is a dead giveaway he was a feeler, and I'm sure the answers to some other questions probably also suggested feeling>thinking. Other answers I got were INTJ and ISFP. How they missed the obvious Se dominance is beyond me

Enneagram: 3w4 sx/sp 3(6?7?)9 While I am clearly 379 in my tritype, Arvid could have also possibly been the 369 tritype instead of 379, as it's not clear whether his head fix is 6 or 7. In my case , my head is clearly 7, which is the one possible difference in our typology (just that one number). Anyway, nearly everyone got the sp/sx right. Two people in the Enneagram group on Reddit got the core right (3), but were newbies, so they didn't try to type anything beyond there. Everything else said about his Enneagram was incorrect. When I pointed out he was a 3 and sx/sp, people's eyes were then opened, and they could totally see 3w4 sx/sp. The top incorrect answer given was 6w5 sx/sp 613. I also had people typing him as a 9 and a 5. I think one person typed him as a 1.

Socionics: SEE (And yes, I've been able to confirm my Socionics is in fact SEE ) There was one person who actually said he was SEE. They got it right. Everybody else was wrong. The most common answer was LSI ( once again, where's the thinking?) Other incorrect answers were ESI, SEI and SLI. I also don't know where everyone got the idea he was introverted

Attitudinal Psyche/Psychosophy: EFVL Only one person got this right. They were the first person who responded in the Attitudinal Psyche group on Reddit. The most common wrong answer was FEVL, but the answer I put for number 8 is a pretty clear indication of 1E. It's also pretty obvious he's 2F with his openness and experimentation in the realm of physics. Other incorrect answers were VFEL, VFLE, LFVE and FELV. I think one person might have even responded FLEV, if I remember correctly

Classic Jungian: ES(F) Only one person took a stab at this one, and got it right. I'm pretty sure they were also the one who said he was SEE in Socionics. Go figure.

So yes, that was a summary of how people typed Arvid based on the questionnaire, and thus how they would likely type me if I were a fictional character

Here's a picture I drew of Arvid, so he could be visualized:

Here's a link to the original blog post where I talk about him:

I hope you enjoyed reading about my experiment

ANNOUNCEMENT: MY NEXT PROJECT

Hi, everyone. I'm sure you've noticed how I'm adding additional typologies to the bottom of my True Types posts. This is actually part of my next project, which was to do the same thing with the Enneagram and Attiduinal Psyche that I did with the MBTI.

That, basically, is to use at least one of the 3 typing systems that are consistently considered accurate, reliable and valid (DISC, SOJT and the Big 5) to figure out someone's Enneagram and Attiduinal Psyche types.

So I have recently started typing the people from my dreams all over again-this time in Enneagram and Attiduinal Psyche. I am looking for trends that develop, so that I know which of the 3 trustworthy systems I could use to type people in Enneagram and Attiduinal Psyche. So far, it looks like it would be a combination of your MBTI type (obtained from comparing your DISC and SOJT results) and your Greek Temperament Blend ( obtained from a surprisingly accurate correlation I found between the Big 5 and the 4 Greek Temperaments in January) for both of them.

I have already found some

MBTI +Greek Temperament Blend = AP type

and

MBTI +Greek Temperament Blend = Enneagram

correlations, so I think I'm on the right track.

I'll get back when I have typed all 200 dream people in Enneagram and Attiduinal Psyche, and I'll let you know what I've discovered

DISC POST #9: QUICK REFERENCE CORRELATIONS BETWEEN DISC PROFILES/RESULTS AND SOJT TYPE FAMILIES

Someone asked for this, and I thought it would be helpful, so here goes:

Primary D-5 of the 6 slots belong to the Te-n type family. I do not have enough results to know which 5 specifically, or to which family the 6th slot belongs

D/I-slots 23, 43, 124, 144, 24 and 44 belong to the Ne-t type family. Also slot 42 from the D/C profile belongs to the Ne-t family

D=I-all D=I results belong to the Se-t type family. The rest of the Se-t results might be two other non wheeled results: D/C (-) and D/I (-). That's just a theory, though

D/C-slots 21, 41, 121, 141, 22 and the non wheeled result D=C belong to the Te-s type family

Primary I-slots 5, 6, 7, 108 and 8 belong to the Se-f type family

I/D-slots 25, 26, 46 and the non wheeled result I/D (-) belong to the Fe-n type family

I/S-Slots 27, 47, 28 48; as well as the I/C slots 128 and 148 and the non wheeled result I=S belong to the Fe-s type family. I'm not sure about the non wheeled result I/S (-)

I/C-Slots 125,145; as well as the Primary I slot 105, the I/D slot 45 and the non wheeled result I/C (-) belong to the Ne-f type family

Primary S-Slots 9, 109, 11, 112 and 12 belong to the Fi-s type family

S/I-Slots 29, 49, 129, 149, 30, 50; as well as slot 10 from Primary S, Slot 51 from S/C/D and the non wheeled result S/I (-) belong to 2 type families. Those are Fi-n and Ni-f. Some slots belong exclusively to one type family, and some belong to either. I'm still trying to sort that out

S/D-Slots 132, 152 and the non wheeled result S/D (-) belong to the Si-f type family

S/C/D-Slots 31, 32, 52 and the non wheeled result S=C are "FP to TJ in transit" and can be either the MBTI types ISFP or ISTJ

C/S- slot 33, 53, the non wheeled results C/S (-) and S/C (-), and the C/I/S profile slot 153 belong to the Ti-s type family

Primary C-Slots 13, 113, 15, 116 and 16 belong to the Ni-t family

C/S-Slots 34, 54, 35, 55 and Primary C slot 14 belong to the Si-t type family

C/I/S-Slots 133, 136, 156, 36 and 56 belong to the Ti-n type family.

I hope these are helpful for everyone

First of all, *I* didn't type Donald Trump as an ENTJ. I just saw him typed as one, and agree with the typing.

I agree with the typing, for the following reasons:

Donald Trump clearly has conscious Te. He's not a feeler, for sure, as he doesn't promote a sense of unity and community you'd find with conscious Fe. And I think everyone agrees on the conscious Te part I've never seen Trump typed as anything other than ExTx.

He also has conscious Ne, and how do we know this? Because Jung starts the description of Se, by saying no one beats Se1 in realism. Donald Trump is very much the opposite of a realistic person.

And maybe the reason you don't see a lot of Trump's Ne is because he spent most of his presidency with unbalanced functions. I am paraphrasing here, but Jung says in these unbalanced situations, unconscious Fi would lead Trump to be defensive, and attack everyone who went against his plan. Unconscious Si would then lead Trump to develop a thinking pattern that his ideas were the best, until reality smacks him in the face. And isn't that exactly what we saw evolve in Donald Trump over his presidency?

And then on top of that, when I looked for characteristics of DISC in Trump, only D had enough characteristics present to be above 50/50. And Primary D =ENTJ.

So I confirm Donald Trump as

Te1, Ne2, Si3, Fi4 in SOJT

Primary D in DISC

Here's some reading about conscious Te and unconscious Fi from Jung:

DISC POST #8, JUNGIAN TYPOLOGY POST #16: DISC AND JUNGIAN TYPOLOGY ARE ABOUT COGNITION, NOT MOOD

I have come across this situation on more occasions than one, where I give someone a "mock interview " to look at from the True Types posts, when someone tested as having a certain cognition pattern, and them saying, "That person is nothing like me (from an outward behavioral manifestation standpoint)." Then I ask them, "Well, does the person *think* like you?" Then the person says, "Oh, yes! Thanks!"

And why is that? They are so fixated on today's MBTI, that they were expecting the person's behavior to match theirs for the type to be correct. Sadly, today's MBTI, with "functions" totally based on the MBTI letter cluster behaviors, even though it claims to be a cognition-based typology, is actually closer to a mood-based typology.

The only truly cognitive-based typology systems out there are SOJT and DISC. Well, I thought DISC was about behavior, you say. Yes, DISC, *and SOJT for that matter are* about behavior, however, the behaviors both systems address have a *cognitive* basis, in that they are behaviors that are directly tied to a person's cognition patterns, and are emotionless and moodless behaviors, such as "likes talking", "likes having authority ", "likes consistency", "dislikes change", etc.

I'm going to give an example of 2 people who's outward behavioral manifestations were completely different, yet they had the same thinking and decision making patterns, and therefore, the same DISC result and SOJT differentiation pattern. I talked about this a little bit it in Typing In Practice post number 9, which I will link here:

P!nk is very loud, outspoken, and certainly one we would consider an extrovert. She likely considers herself an extrovert too. I'm not sure how she behaves in authority situations, but based on her cognition, I would say likely respectfully. However, when she's with her friends, she's silly, she cracks jokes, she cusses, and cracks jokes about cussing, even.

Blaine (who changed his name to Chris for his own protection and safety) outwardly manifested a lot differently. He was expressive and highly animated with his body language and facial expressions, and liked talking. Yet at the same time, he spoke softly, he took his turn in talking and actively listened. He was very upstanding and moral, he didn't drink, smoke, party, have premarital sex, etc. He didn't get piercings or tattoos until he was well into adulthood (like 25 or so). He was polite and courteous, and was known for his manners with everyone. He would even be polite and respectful with his friends, deeply cared about them and defended them. He never cussed. He saw himself socially as an ambivert.

Despite their differences, these two actually have the same SOJT differentiation pattern: fe-S. They are also both slot 8 on the DISC wheel, with the result I (S) (C).

First watch the video with P!nk in it; then read the "mock interview" with Blaine (Chris). You will see how even though their behavior was drastically different, the way they thought and made decisions was actually the same:

ANNOUNCEMENT: RETURNING AFTER A SABBATICAL

I bet a lot of you are probably wondering where I've been this past week , and why I haven't been writing. It's because I actually took some time away from the business and rush of life, to focus on what's important, as well as generate some goals for the rest of my decade (which I am concluding next year), goals for next year specifically, and goals for my next decade of life, which begins next year. Now that I'm done with that, I now want to share what goals I have specifically for the blog.

By the end of this year, I want to have all the True Types posts I can generate from my dream people posted. I also want to have as many True Types Type Families posts completed as possible. There are a few types that, sadly, I won't be able to write a True Types Type Families post for, though, because the number of dream people/real people I've typed with that MBTI type/DISC profile was not sufficient enough to generate all 5 variants.

I also hope to complete all the Typing In Practice posts, where I have an (*) by the person's name on the Accumulated Typings list.

I also hope to keep making edits to my Jungian Typology and DISC posts, so that they express *accurately* what Jung and Marston actually said, but yet using the *simplest* wording possible. The reason is so that anyone, even people who know nothing about psychology can read my blog, and understand exactly what Jung and Marston were talking about.

I hope this finds you all well, and you kind of know what to expect in the way of posts for the rest of this year.

Sincerely,

Content Green Earth 🌎

JUNGIAN TYPOLOGY POST #15: CAN ANYONE IDENTIFY THIS DIFFERENTIATION PATTERN? I'M SINCERELY ASKING

There is one differentiation pattern that I have so far found for 8 of the 16 types, as I've been trying to figure out which variations of type match up with which results in DISC. When you write it out on paper, it looks like this:

I initially thought it might be undifferentiated auxiliary and short primary, long secondary in the same person. But that doesn't make sense, because in short primary, long secondary; *both* of the auxiliary functions would appear to be more present and noticeable than the dominant function, not just one of them. So I was able to eliminate that option pretty quickly.

Then, I thought it might represent an auxiliary/dominant alternation. Where the auxiliary sometimes alternates with the dominant. When this happens you get an undifferentiated auxiliary situation, and the preferred auxiliary is in action.

I originally thought the 3rd conscious function assumed the role of the preferred auxiliary:

But now I'm beginning to think the usually dominant function assumes that role:

Another thought I've had is that possibly, in these people one of the auxiliaries overtook the dominant at some point in differentiation, and became the dominant function 🤔

Another new thought I came up with was an undifferentiated dominant and inferior function, where they are both undifferentiated in role and attitude

As I said, I'm not sure the meaning of this differentiation pattern, or the mechanics of it, if it has a triggered alternation that takes place.

If you are familiar with Chapter 11 and the differentiation side of SOJT, I would certainly like your input. Thanks

JUNGIAN TYPOLOGY POST #14: WHAT I'VE LEARNED ABOUT DIFFERENTIATION PATTERNS

There are 2 factors involved in typing a person in SOJT. The first, and most important is cognition, and that's why all my Jungian Typology (SOJT) articles prior to this one (except for help in reading Psychological Types Chapter 11) have all been about Chapter 10, where Jung talks about cognition. Chapter 11 is where he talks about differentiation, which is the main contributing factor in why people with the same cognition can be so different.

From those Chapter 11 reading helps, I was able to determine that there are 4 phases to differentiation. We're born in Phase 1, which is where everything is undifferentiated. All of us go through phase 2, and enter phase 3 in our adolescence. In Phase 2 just one function or attitude starts to become more noticeable, and in Phase 3, usually by then, only our attitude or auxiliary is still undifferentiated. Most of us stay in Phase 3 until we die, but some of us move on to Phase 4, which is full differentiation (each function has a clear order and a clear attitude) sometime in our adult years. I know I entered Phase 4, myself, sometime between the ages of 35 and 40. I spent nearly 20 years in Phalse 3!😱 Well, enough of me, let's move on.

Here are some common differentiation patterns you'll see in adults

1. Full differentiation

For this example, I used C S Joseph, who I will soon be doing a Typing In Practice post on. Fully differentiated people are the ones who are extremely easy to type, using life themes. That was how I typed him, and confirmed the typing using DISC:

C S Joseph-ENTJ

2. Short primary/long secondary

For this example, I used Alecia Moore, better known as P!nk. People with Short primary/long secondary are fully differentiated, but to the observer and the tester, their auxiliary function is more noticeable and present than their dominant. Ask them, they'll say their dominant function is their main life theme. It just doesn't look that way in observation or testing

P!nk- ESFP

3. Undifferentiated attitude

Undifferentiated attitude is a common differentiation pattern from Phase 3, that continues, for a lot of people, the rest of their life. It is where the functions have a definite order, but when triggered, they alternate attitudes. For instance, Alicia Keys, who's normally Si Fi, alternates with Se Fe when she gets excited. When she calms down she returns to Si Fi (and her unconscious pole functions follow the trend as well):

Alicia Keys-ISFP

4. Undifferentiated auxiliary

This is another common Phase 3 differentiation pattern that stays with many of us for life. It's where both a person's auxiliaries are conscious, and they alternate between auxiliaries when triggered. For instance, when Marshall Mathers writes rhymes for his raps, his less preferred Ne auxiliary gets triggered, and when he stops writing, it's back to Se again:

Marshall Mathers-ESFJ

Those are all the differentiation patterns I've encountered in adults that I understand. There's one that I've discovered, but I'm not sure exactly what it represents, and what the mechanism is. It's going to be the post immediately after this one.

JUNGIAN TYPOLOGY POST #12: SOJT (SIMPLIFIED ORIGINAL JUNGIAN TYPOLOGY) TERMINOLOGY AND ANNOTATIONS

First of all, I have to apologize here, for not posting this sooner. And I apologize for making reference to , what I *should* have been calling "SOJT types" as "Jungian types". I will go back and change that everywhere in my blog that I feel it needs to be changed, for my blog to be easier to understand.

Second, whenever I make reference to "Jungian typology " on this blog, I am specifically making reference to SOJT, not to the MBTI or any other typology that roots itself in Psychological Types.

In SOJT, types are much more specific than they are in the MBTI. There are only 16 MBTI types. They represent only *16* of the *141* types of SOJT. The 141 types of SOJT *represent different patterns of differentiation of the conscious*.

The SOJT types are written out , much the way they are written in these articles:

If you notice, these people use SOJT annotation to indicate how the conscious is differentiated.

In SOJT, it is assumed that the conscious has the same attitude (except in undifferentiated attitude), which is why they write just Se-f for ESFP, and not Se-fe. We are dealing with SOJT here, which was never corrupted my Isabel Myers, folks

In undifferentiated attitude, it is assumed that the 2 conscious functions have both attitudes, hence why no attitude is indicated; they aren't e or i; they're both e and I, like in this example:

Going back to our ESFP example, (and perfect, because the differentiation pattern represented above could have been an ESFP) an SOJT practitioner would annotate the type as simply S-f, because there is no clear e/i preference in this person. On my "meet the Se-f family" post , I added "E>I" to show why this particular S-f is part of the Se-f family, as opposed to the Si-f family

In undifferentiated auxiliary, it is assumed that the person has both auxiliary functions in their conscious, and they are not indicated, once again, because that information is unclear. Going back to my ESFP example, an SOJT practitioner would annotate this type as simply Se, because there is no clear auxiliary in this person. On my "meet the Se-f family" post, I added "F>T" to show why this particular Se is part of the Se-f family, as opposed to the Se-t family.

Because of varying degrees of differentiation, people can test as "more than one type" in today's MBTI. Vendrah makes that clear in this article here:

It's because, as stated above, the MBTI types represent *only* the fully differentiated SOJT types. Therefore, anyone with a different kind of differentiation in SOJT can actually have fragments of 2 or more MBTI types in their MBTI function test

One of these differentiation patterns,that can lead to this, is a differentiation pattern I've discovered, that also gets its own unique DISC results. I've come to call this differentiation the "double dominant ", because it too, like the undifferentiated auxiliary, has 3 conscious functions, and the person switches dominance between function 1 and function 2 with what they're focused on at the time. I don't know how SOJT would annotate this specific differentiation , but I just annotate it like, going back to our ESFP example , I annotated it as Se-f/Fe-n, representing, the fact that this person has conscious Se, Fe and Ne, and that the Fe can sometimes be triggered to act as the dominant function.

There is also a phenomenon in typing called "short primary, long secondary " that Vendrah talks about in both articles of hers I posted. I mentioned in the typing in practice post on Pink, that, for an ESFP, if you're analyzing their functions or testing them in any way in SOJT, their functions would come out Fe Se Ti Ni. I also mentioned that that's why it's always important to note the x4 when testing/analyzing other people, because you can get situations where the dominant and auxiliary functions are switched, particularly on tests. In our ESFP example, an SOJT practitioner would annotate this as Fe-s. I, however, think I might go back, and modify my annotations to fe-S, to add a little clarity to the situation.

Also, Jung *did in fact say* in Psychological Types, that it is possible for people to have 3 conscious functions. A misconceptions of Jung page on Facebook reminded me that I had in fact read that somewhere in Psychological Types, by mentioning it themselves in a post or comment. When I actually can find where Jung mentioned that, I'll make it clear here.

And here we go:

So, in summary, that's a wrap of a lot of the SOJT terminology and annotations you will see me using on this blog. Anyone who tells you these concepts do not exist, or are wrong knows nothing about SOJT, and doesn't understand the system

TYPING IN PRACTICE POST #15: ALICIA KEYS

I was actually going to post a different typing in practice first, but decided to go with this one first, since it's one where we can learn a lot of things about typing, so here goes

Alicia Keys was born Alicia Argello-Cook, and raised by a single mother in a rough neighborhood in New York City, called, "Hell's Kitchen". Her mother recognized Alicia's music talent early on, and enrolled her in piano lessons at age 6. She graduated as Valedictorian from her high school graduating class. She was offered a scholarship for Columbia University and a recording contract from Columbia Records at the same time. She chose the recording contract, and the rest is history.

I became interested in her after she had released 2 albums and this poetry book:

I read the book through many times, but this was the first time I read it through in relation to trying to type her. I have seen people type Alicia Keys as everything under the sun, but it was time to get down and dirty, and figure out Alicia's SOJT type, and what MBTI that goes with. So let's get started.

Step 1: I reread the book, looking for functions in the parts where Alicia talks about her own life, or the stories behind the poems. It seemed like I was seeing both extroverted and introverted versions of all the functions, and couldn't determine which judging function and perceiving function were conscious and which were unconscious. At that point, it became clear to me why everyone has such a hard time typing her- she Has an undifferentiated attitude . But I have learned, over the past year, the best practices for accurately typing an undifferentiated attitude, and I will be sharing them here. But let's take a little aside, and talk a little bit about Si.

Jung describes introverted sensing here, on page 363 of Psychological Types, like an interpretation of a painting. I like that description, because it has one be able to easily comprehend how an introverted sensor can actually internalize their experiences with objects

Here's a very obvious example of Si from Alicia's book:

So one function that stood out to me, as being part of Alicia's Jungian type was probably Si. So I went on to step 2.

Step 2: since I couldn't even tell the order of her functions from the book, or by means like the function related themes, I figured the next step to do with her would be to watch videos of interviews, and conduct a function analysis. As I explained in the Typing In Practice post on Madonna, a function analysis would be where I comb through the videos, looking for instances of thinking and deciding, and figure out what functions are present in the process. So I watched the videos a few times. I could definitely see Alicia's undifferentiated attitude. It was as clear as a bell. And I will add 2 of the 4 videos I watched at the end of this post, because they had other great examples of Si: Alicia sharing her experiences with songs, New York City, and the color purple, just to name a few. After I was done here, this was the function tally I had. Notice how close the numbers are for each attitude of the same function. This is pretty typical when typing undifferentiated attitude. At least I now have a dominant and auxiliary function for Alicia now , and can tell she's S-f in Jungian, or using the letters, SFP:

Step 3: I could just abandon the typing right here, and just call Alicia Keys an "A" SFP. But that would not be as specific as I have the potential to get. Really? I can get more specific than that? With the help of DISC, I can. With DISC, I can identify which attitude is the preferred one. I knew from my combined DISC and SOJT typings of dream people, that make up the True Types posts, that there are 2 "A" SFP slots on the DISC wheel. Slot 6 is in the Primary I profile, and prefers extroversion. Slot 132 is in the S/D profile and prefers introversion. So, I played the videos again, this time looking for characteristics of various DISC quadrants, and this was the end result:

So now we have a most resonant MBTI type for Alicia Keys, as we add the letter I as the first letter, with the letters.

In summary, Alicia Keys has an undifferentiated attitude and striking Si. She doesn't fit neatly into an MBTI type, but her best match for MBTI type is ISFP.

Here's the videos, where you can see great examples of Si in Alicia Keys. Note what she says about songs in the first one, and New York City and the color purple in the second:

If you would like more information about the SOJT type S-f preferring I>E, you can read the following True Types post, where I do a "mock interview" with my dream buddy, Dave:

ANNOUNCEMENT: CHANGING THE TYPING PROCESS FOR ONLINE TYPING

Hey, everyone, after I have had problems with the few reliable tests that I picked for testing people online recently, here is what I'll be doing from now on, if I get online typing requests:

1. I will send you 10 rows of adjectives from the Trent-Smalley paper DISC assessment. You will rank the adjectives in each line from the most like you to the least like you. I will personally score your results and not a robot.

2. I will ask you to write me 10 instances of yourself thinking and deciding. I will analyze these 10 instances, to figure out which functions are at work in your thinking and decision making processes

3. I will confirm your type with the MBTI facets and letters.

4. I will share the results, including an explanation of why I typed you the way I did. I will explain the reasoning behind every letter. But note in my typings J/P is not a conscientiousness dichotomy. In my typings, it is letter that tells whether the judging or perceiving function is your dominant function.

So yeah, I'm taking all the automation out of my online typings, and I'm going to use my brainpower to type you all. That's what I should have been doing all along.

Thanks for following and reading my blog. I hope you're learning a lot. I sure am.

TRUE TYPES TYPE FAMILIES POST #1: INTRODUCTION TO THE TRUE TYPES TYPE FAMILIES POSTS

Wow! I've finally succeeded with a few MBTI types, in doing what I had hoped with the True Types Posts. That was to chronicle all 5 slots belonging to the same MBTI type on the DISC wheel.

As I said in DISC Post 2, a lot of the SOJT types that Vendrah mentions in an article of hers are found on the DISC wheel. As I said in True Types Dynamics post 2, at that point it was apparent to me that each DISC profile contains 5 SOJT types that are all related to each other, including :

A fully differentiated type

A short primary/long secondary type

An undifferentiated auxiliary function type

An undifferentiated attitude type, and

A "more than one type " type, featuring a double dominant

Now that I have located all those 5 SOJT types within DISC profiles for some of them, I am now going to do what I really wanted to do with the True Types posts, other than just a chronicle. That was to create type descriptions for the SOJT type families ( the fully differentiated type and the 4 undifferentiated variants that DISC slots), by highlighting everything the 5 SOJT types in the type family have in common, which *should* be the MBTI type descriptions (but we know how far the MBTI has gone of course); and then to highlight the differences between each SOJT type in the type family, and what makes each SOJT type in the type family different from each other

So I hope you learn a lot from reading these True Types Type Families posts, and get a better understanding of what these types are like in reality

TRUE TYPES POST #43: RAMÓN C

DISC: D/C profile; result: D/S/C, slot 141

SOJT type: Se-t (D<A, auxiliary serves as dominant)

MBTI type most resonant: ESTJ

What were  you  like  in high school? 

I was a total rebel, and didn't participate in school activities. I was not "in".

What is your  greatest  fear? What do you  do to address it? 

My greatest fear is that I'll be taken advantage of. I'm trying to overcome it, but it's hard

Was  there a time in your life where you felt you hit  rock bottom? What was the  situation  behind  it? 

Nope. I am a very achievement oriented person, so I don’t think there *is* a rock bottom, unless you're talking about where you start

Where  would  you  put yourself  on the social spectrum, and why? 

I would say an extrovert who's not focused on people

What are some things that really bother you? 

Being told what to do, people trying to control me and unreliable people

What,  would you say, are your biggest strengths? 

My biggest strengths are being reliable and dependable, and getting things done

What,  would you say,  are your  biggest  weaknesses? 

I seem angry to a lot of people, and they think I don't care. I can also be impatient and arrogant

When  you  switch  your  attitude between  introverted  and  extroverted,  or vise versa,  what are  you  like?

When I'm introverted, I become very shy and withdrawn.

What was the hardest  thing  you  ever had  to  do? Why was  it  so  hard? 

I don't think anything is too hard. I'm always up for good challenges, and I look forward to the hard times, because they give me something I can rise above and conquer. And I like doing that

What are you  like  when  you're  sad? 

It was when I was suffering from depression, and before I was taking antidepressants to control it. That was so long ago, I really can't remember

How masculine/feminine  do  you  feel  in relation  to others  of your  gender? 

I'd say super-masculine for the most part, except for my long curly hair in the pony tail

Here's  4 focuses  you can have in  life: tasks, people,  objects and ideas.  Which one would  be  your  primary focus and why? Which one  would be your  secondary  focus  and why? 

My primary focus is tasks. I'm definitely a task master. Do we have to have 2? The second one is so *hard* to identify. I guess I'll go with objects for the secondary focus, because I'm not a people person, and I'm *definitely* not an ideas person

What do you  do to have fun? 

I don't have fun. I really need to learn how.

What was  the  nicest thing you ever  did  for  someone,  and why did  you  do  it? 

I was dependable and reliable, and it was an extention of my strengths

Thanks, Ramón, for sharing with us

Additional typologies I've been able to do since:

Big 5: low in O and A; high in C, E, N (SLOEN)

Enneagram: 8w9, sx/so, 837

Attitudinal Psyche: FLVE

Greek Temperament Blend: Choleric Dominant

Psychosophy: FLVE

JUNGIAN TYPOLOGY POST# 11: JUNG'S FUNCTIONS IN A NUTSHELL

Hello, everyone, for the next several days, I will be posting a whole backlog of posts to my blog, in several different categories of posts, but I felt that this was the most important of the posts, so I'm posting it first.

People seem to have all kinds of weird ideas of what Jung's functions actually are. A lot of those , we can thank Grant and Beebe for. So I will write a short and brief summary of what Jung actually says the functions are in Psychological Types Chapter 10. All these summary descriptions are pulled out of that chapter

Jung's functions:

Jung says there are 4 functions: thinking, feeling, sensation and intuition.

Thinking and feeling are *rational* functions. That means they are involved in human interactions. In the MBTI, they are called *judging* functions because they are involved with decision making.

Sensation and intuition are *irrational* functions. That means they are involved in non human interactions. In the MBTI, they are called *perceiving* functions, because they are involved in thought processing.

Thinking focuses on *tasks*.

The role of thinking is to *make decisions* through *evaluation/analysis*

Conscious *extroverted* thinking is thinking projected outward. Therefore, an extroverted thinker will *externalizing* their decisions. They evaluate and analyze things *outside* of other things. [This usually involves them writing, slowly and methodically, a well thought out plan, with many goals attached. Their decisions lead them to be quite successful in life and confident in what they do, and how they believe it should be done]

Conscious*introverted* thinking is thinking projected inward. Therefore, an introverted thinker will make decisions by analyzing and evaluating in the opposite direction. Therefore, introverted thinkers evaluate and analyze things *inside* of other things. [That's why an introverted thinker generally decides "no", until they can be assured that all the potential pitfalls they see in their internal analysis will be addressed.]

Jung believed *unconscious* functions balance out the conscious functions, but when things get out of balance, the unconscious functions take on a life of their own. Marston (forefather of DISC), who's life's study was the conscious and unconscious said, in his book The Emotions of Normal People, "Whatever we don't like about a person's behavior comes from their unconscious ". And after reading Chapter 10 numerous times, it has become apparent to me that Jung believed Marston's statement wholeheartedly. Here's what he had to say about unconscious thinking:

Unconscious extroverted thinking (in conscious introverted feelers), when out of balance, is characterized by defensiveness and egotism, which leads to stubbornness and uncooperative behavior

Unconscious introverted thinking (in conscious extroverted feelers), when out of balance, is characterized by negative and depreciating thoughts about oneself, which leads to immature behavior responses and mental illness

Feeling focuses on *people*

The role of feeling is to *make decisions* through *hunches/gut reactions*

Conscious *extroverted* feeling is projected outward. That looks like a person making decisions that will create harmony and unity in their relationships (interpersonal).

Conscious *introverted* feeling is projected inward. That looks like a person making decisions that will create harmony and unity inside of themselves (intrapersonal).

Unconscious extroverted feeling (in conscious introverted thinkers), when out of balance, is characterized by attitudes that don't encourage relationship formation, and a withdrawal into solitude

Unconscious introverted feeling (in conscious extroverted thinkers), when out of balance, is characterized by attacking those who don't agree with the extroverted thinker, and those who want to change the extroverted thinker's plan

Sensation focuses on *tangibles*

The role of sensation is to: observe a *tangible* object in *reality*

Conscious *extroverted* sensation is projected outward, and it comes across as enjoying the experience with the object in the moment

Conscious *introverted* sensation is projected inward, and it comes across as a subjective view of the experience. [This subjective view, I have observed is usually a precedent, but it can also be a personification of an object, or internal biological functions associated with experiencing the object as well.]

Unconscious *extroverted* sensation (in conscious introverted intutives), when out of balance, is characterized by lack of self control and self restraint, which leads to addiction

Unconscious *introverted* sensation (in conscious extroverted intuitives), when out of balance, is characterized by one not trusting their observations, which leads them to ignoring reality, until reality ultimately rears its ugly head

Intuition focuses on *intangibles*

The role of intuition is to: observe an *intangible* object in the *unconscious*

Conscious *extroverted* intuition make assumptions about the missing idea *outside* of the concept . [Therefore, they create something bigger and better than the original, because they looked on the outside for the missing puzzle piece]

Conscious *introverted* intuition makes assumptions about the missing idea *inside* of the concept. [Therefore, they refine a concept with their own interpretations like INFJ Isabel Myers did with the concepts I'm discussing here, much to Jungians' dismay]

Unconscious *extroverted* intuition (in conscious introverted sensors), when out of balance, is characterized by distrust in their ideas, which leads to seeing danger in everything, being self-protective, irrational fears and phobias

Unconscious *Introverted* intuition (in conscious extroverted sensors), when out of balance, is characterized by distrust in their ideas, which leads to being suspicious, not trusting people, being nosy, irrational fears and phobias

[My personal experience and additions]

Everything else is a paraphrase of Jung

I hope everyone finds this helpful 👍

JUNGIAN TYPOLOGY POST #9: GRANT'S "FUNCTIONS"/THE STACK AND JUNG'S FUNCTIONS/PSYCHOLOGICAL TYPES ARE NOT THE SAME

I said in my announcement about letter cluster behaviors, that I was going to write this, and some people have made me mad in a Jungian typology group I'm in, because they're in fact, typing people in a very "Grant-ian" way. But I'm going to address that in the second way Grant and Jung are not the same. But let's start with the first reason they're not the same. This one should be obvious if you read my announcement about the letter cluster behaviors:

1. Grant just took 8 letter clusters associated with various behaviors and called them "functions". Jung's functions, on the other hand, are fundamental aspects of reality.

With Grant: SP behavior = Se, SJ behavior =Si, NP behavior = Ne, NJ behavior = Ni, TJ behavior = Te, TP behavior = Ti, FJ behavior = Fe and FP behavior = Fi

Whereas with Jung (Jung's quote): " To sum up, we have considered four kinds of realities: (1) static reality that comes to us through sensation; (2) the dynamic reality revealed by intuition; (3) static images given to us by thinking; (4) dynamic images sensed by feeling. "

2. Because Grant's "functions" are actually behaviors, he had to change the definition of each "function", depending on its location in the stack, to make it conform to the MBTI type descriptions.

Whereas Jung's functions maintain the same definition no matter their location, because they are thinking patterns first and foremost. They do change orientation, when they move from the conscious to the unconscious, in how they're perceived and how well the duties of the function are performed. However, the definitions and duties of the function to not change.

To show what I mean about Jung's functions changing orientation of how they're perceived and how well the duties are performed, but the functions not changing definitions or duties, I will use the following example: Ni1 in INPs vs. Ni4 in ESPs.

Ni manifests the same way in both INPs and ESPs. It's hard to define, so I'm not going to try to define it, but its definition is the same in both types. Its duties are also the same in both types. Some of its duties are to suspect, to ponder, to assume (draw conclusions), and more.

However, in INPs, Ni is looked at favorably by others. They generally perceive the INP as someone making good assumptions and drawing accurate conclusions. Sometimes they mess up, and those moments they tend to remember, but they usually get it right. INPs can be suspicious of people or things, but once again, it's usually perceived by others as them being cautious and not fanatical, and is seen as a good thing. Their pondering is actually perceived by others as a good thing as well, because it shows that they're looking at many possible angles to draw the conclusion from, and people think that's important.

Then, by contrast, ESPs have Ni4. In ESPs, the Ni is looked at by others with disfavor. People generally perceive ESPs as people who are very suspicious of others, and have a hard time trusting them. They often perceive ESPs as people who "jump to conclusions", and are more often wrong than right.

See how the function stayed the same and performed the same duties? However, what changed were how well the duties were performed, and how people perceived the duties of the function, as a result.

And I'm glad I used Ni as an example, because that gets me into the very "Grant-ian" typings and weird function definitions I've been seeing floating around in a group that's *supposed* to be Jungian typology

One is the belief that you must have Ni to have a relationship with God. 🤔 Huh, you've really got me, there. I just described the duties of Ni as suspicion, pondering and drawing conclusions. What the heck does that have to do with having a relationship with God? To whoever came up with that idea, God is omnipresent. He knows everything there is to know. He can be anything a human needs him to be to connect with him. There were many people who had a relationship with God in the Bible who had Ni in the undifferentiated realm (in other words neither conscious nor unconscious Ni): King David-an ENFP, King Solomon-an ENTJ, Isaac-an ISFJ, Jacob-an ISTJ, Moses-an ISTP, Joshua-an ENTP, Nehemiah-an ISFP, the apostle John-an ISTP, Simon Peter-an ENFJ*

* these typings were listed as DISC profiles in "Understanding How Others Misunderstand You " by Ken Voges and Ron Braund. I put them with the corresponding MBTI types

Another one I've seen is that people with Te4 write poetry. What the heck does Te have to do with writing poetry, and ever since when was poetry something not done well 🤔? That belief obviously had its origin in a "Grant-ian" MBTI theororist, because, first it singles out Te in a specific location, and second, because it is a completely different definition of Te from Te1, Te2, or Te3, and has nothing to do with Jung's Te at all. Well, anyway, in this group, people were using this "Grant-ian" MBTI theororist's theory to justify typing Taylor Swift as an ISFJ. "Taylor writes poetry. Therefore she has Te4, and she's an ISFJ ". Highly laughable 😆😂🤣. Anybody typing her correctly can clearly see that she's in the D (Dominance) quadrant of DISC. She's just about as opposite an ISFJ as you could be! 😆😂🤣 In my Typing In Practice post on her, I typed her as ENTP, and trust me, ENTP makes a whole lot more sense!

So that's 2 ways that Grant's "functions" and Jung's functions are different. I'm sure there's more, but I believe I've done enough writing for now, so I'll just end things here, and let you digest it

TYPING IN PRACTICE # 11: THE SUPREMES

I said I was going to type a bunch of Detroit area "hometown heroes " I had, growing up in Metro Detroit. I've typed Eminem. I'm in his generation, so for me , he didn't really fit the "hometown heroes " category, although he does for many people of younger generations. However, the Supremes really were "hometown heroes" for me, in every sense of the word. And the Supremes were pretty much over by the time I was born, and when I moved up to the Detroit area, they were totally a thing of the past. Yet the fact that Diane (Diana) Ross, Florence Ballard and Mary Wilson all grew up in poverty, yet went on to become one of the greatest female singing groups of all time made them "local legends" and "hometown heroes", and with that , my education into the Supremes began.

I got so caught up in the Supremes, from that education, I auditioned for a Motown cover band to sing Supremes songs. I also have an "Essential" Supremes collection released in the mid to late 2000s, when a music distributor released the "Essential" series. I even went so far as to voice type them: Florence Ballard as a "Dugazon", a hybrid voice that has the high notes of a soprano, but the low notes of a mezzo soprano; and Diane and Mary were both mezzo sopranos with different tone quality. But I never personality typed them until now.

The resources I used for the personality typings were: "Where Did Our Love Go?: the Rise and Fall of The Motown Sound" by Nelson George, and "Dreamgirl: My Life As a Supreme " by Mary Wilson.

Step 1: identify everyone's DISC quadrant: Diane (Diana) Ross liked having authority, liked to take charge of situations, and was very determined and persistent. She clearly belongs in the D quadrant. I noticed Florence Ballard had enthusiasm, liked talking, was a promoter of people, was spontaneous, loved to have fun and liked being popular. Those things put her in the I quadrant. I noticed Mary Wilson was loyal, accommodating, sympathetic, nurturing and a peacemaker. I decided that was enough to put her in the S quadrant, yet it was not, as we shall later see. So far , for letters, we have: Diane: ET, Florence: EF, Mary, IF.

Step 2: at this early point, it was also clear that all 3 women had a conscious sensation function; because singing, dancing, performing and entertaining were all thematic in their lives. If not the overarching theme, objects was at least the incidental theme for all 3 women. So we know, none of them was an intuitive. We have only sensors present. So far for the letters, we have Diane: EST, Florence: ESF, Mary: ISF

Step 3: figure out the overarching themes. Diane's was pretty easy to see: it was power, fame, sucees, money, etc. These are all themes for ETs as either overarching or incidental. However, since these are overarching themes, we know that Te is not only conscious but in first place for Diane. Therefore, we have a type identification for one of the 3: Diane (Diana) Ross is an ESTJ. Now to move on to Mary and Florence

Step 4: I figured out the overarching theme for Mary, and it was people. So I initially typed Mary as ISFJ, but I realized if she really *were* an ISFJ, she would have probably had Diane angry at her, for "dropping the ball", more than Florence. And she would have picked up on Mary's sensitivity and dislike for change, and would have been seeing Mary as a hindrance to her dream. And, since that was not the story, I took a look at those S traits, and realized they were common secondary S traits (where S is above 50/50, but not the highest letter). As a result, I did an actual DISC assessment on Mary Wilson, and found her to be I=S, which is in Jungian typology, F-s preferring extroverted>introverted. This means that although Mary Wilson could sometimes resemble an ISFJ, more often than not, she functioned as an ESFJ. So now, we have a type identification for Mary Wilson as an imperfect, but we'll take it, ESFJ. Now on to Florence.

Step 5: Florence was definitely the hardest of the 3 to type. She suffered from depression her entire post adolescent life. But it was still clear that Florence's overarching theme was, in fact performing. That was her overarching theme, and people were just incidental. That led me to type her as ESFP, but confirming that Florence was, in fact an ESFP was a nightmare, because Florence was "depression". But the cool thing about DISC is, it is not mood related. I looked for S (Steadiness)traits in Florence, and found none. Also, what started Florence's depression was Diane and Berry Gordy (incidentally, I believe Berry Gordy is a High D as well as Diane) decreasing Florence's performance opportunities ( a real blow to an SP). When Florence's depression was so bad that she started losing interest in everything (except eating, sleeping, etc), Diane ultimately saw Florence as a stumbling block to her pursuing her own dream, and had Florence removed from the group. Florence was replaced, and the group went on. ESFPs would generally be able to take blows like that , and just wait in the wings for the ESTJ to leave the coop, much like ESFJ Mary Wilson was able to do. But because of Florence's undealt with emotional problems and trust issues she developed from being raped, she became more susceptible to spiraling into depression, when she felt like her performance opportunities were taken from her. Florence is a very sad example of what ESFPs are like when they don't take care of their mental and emotional health. Surprisingly, Florence did not commit suicide, but died from heart disease, at only 32.

So, there we have it. The 3 women who grew up in poverty in Detroit, and rising up to become one of the greatest female groups of all time, were:

Diane (Diana) Ross, an ESTJ

Florence Ballard, an ESFP, and

Mary Wilson, an ESFJ

ANNOUNCEMENT: WHY I NO LONGER USE, AND WILL NEVER AGAIN USE, MBTI LETTER CLUSTER BEHAVIORS IN MY TYPINGS

Another thing that I noticed a lot of Jungian typologists using, that really screws up typings big time, are the MBTI letter cluster behaviors.

These are behaviors that are assigned to various MBTI letters clustered together. The idea to do this arose from Briggs and Myers, as they assign behaviors to ST, SF, NT and NF.

As I mentioned in the book review of Gifts Differing, the way that Briggs and Myers assigned behaviors to the letter clusters was by combining the total of all 4 types that had the same middle letters into one tally, not mentioning, for example, that the SFs who made up 61% of sales professionals, 44% of nurses and 42% of educators were almost entirely ESFJs 😯.

People who work with the Strong Type Indicator (a system that combines the MBTI and the Holland Career Inventory) says that SFs are going to score highest in the S (Social) career cluster, which is where nurses, teachers and sales professionals are all located. Well, from my own personal experience, and seeing what people who are typed correctly get for Holland Career Inventory results, I can tell you that yes, ESFJs do, in fact score highest in S. However, ISFJs tend to score higher in the C (conventional) career cluster, with positions like secretary, accountant, etc., than they do in the S career cluster. ESFPs and ISFPs on the other hand, often score low, or even *lowest* in the S(social) career cluster, because as S1s, they are more interested in physical work than mental work, so they tend to prefer the active career clusters of R (realistic) examples: skilled trades, culinary, transportation; A (artistic) self explanatory; and C (conventional) over the more passive career clusters of I (investigative) examples: scientist, doctor; E (enterprising) examples: management, marketing and S (social).

So anyway some people say that it was Briggs and Myers who also associated behaviors with the other letter clusters as well, doing like they did before, lumping all 4 types with the same series of letters together, even though the behavior associated came overwhelmingly from only 1 of the 4 types. And some say that Harold Grant did this. But whether Briggs and Myers did it, or Grant did it, it makes no difference. It was done. And it created one of the most inaccurate typing systems out there today, Type Dynamics.

In Type Dynamics, Grant takes 8 of these letter clusters, and calls them "functions". He calls the following letter cluster behaviors these "functions". He calls SP "Se", he calls SJ "Si", he calls NP "Ne", he calls NJ "Ni", he calls TJ "Te", he calls TP "Ti", he calls FJ "Fe", and he calls FP "Fi".

Disclaimer: a lot of people get confused by Grant's functions, because they think that they are the same as the functions Jung talks about in Psychological Types. To clear this up, they are *not* the same. I can write another blog post about that on a later date, but for now, know they are *not* the same.

Anyway, the point of this is, there's lots of MBTI purists and Jungian typologists out there who believe it's okay to use the MBTI letter cluster behaviors in typings, as long as you don't call them "functions". However, I've seen it leading to typings of all practical people as TPs, all compassionate people as SFs, all people who like to solve and create "brain teasers" as NPs, etc. I'd hate to say it, but that's causing a lot of mistypes, folks.

I quit using the letter cluster behaviors in typings about 6 months ago, because I realized that *the letter cluster behaviors are essentially the same thing as the Grant stack*. You will see I used them as confirmations in some of my early typings, such as the one I did on LiJo. But I have since ceased.

So yeah, I'd hate to tell those above mentioned MBTI purists and Jungian typologists, but if you're using the MBTI letter cluster behaviors in typings, you're using the very same Grant stack that you're speaking out against. You're just calling it by a different name. The MBTI letter cluster behaviors are the "functions" of the Grant stack, and the fact that you're not calling them "functions" like Grant did, doesn't change that. And gee, you see how accurate *NOT* Grant's Type Dynamics typing system is. So why are you using it in your typings, under a different name? Good question. Food for thought 🤔

Anyway, in summary, that's why I quit using the MBTI letter cluster behaviors in typings, and will never use them in typings ever again.

Off the soapbox. Rant over. Now back to our regularly scheduled program 😆😂🤣 Sorry, I just had to throw that last sentence in there 😅