mbti step ii — deepening your understanding

MBTI Step II — Deepening Your Understanding

Postal : PO Box 196, North Sydney, NSW 2059, Australia Email : [email protected] www.leadingperformance.com.au

Telephone: (02) 9960 7699 Fax: (02) 9960 8699 Mobile: 0412 030 947

1

EI Scale Descriptions

Init iating/ Receiving

This scale is a core facet of the EI dimension. It is broad and general and describes a person’s basic orientation to communicating and connecting with others.

Init iating Initiators are very good at mingling with others in large or small gatherings and enjoy situations in which

they can both connect with others and help others make connections within a group. They are particularly adept at and enjoy the light conversation characteristic of receptions, meeting breaks, formal or informal parties, dinner parties, and other situations where there is wide latitude regarding how, when and with whom one makes connections. They are skillful at making sure they connect with those they know in a mingling group, feeling like the connection with known friends, even if brief, is an essential part of the process. In large social gatherings, they are also quite comfortable in introducing themselves to people they may have heard about but do not yet know. And in doing so, they are adroit at quickly finding some common link with the person to whom they have introduced themselves so that they both a common ground from which to proceed in getting to know each other.

They are equally skilled at keeping a conversation going, being able to talk to almost anyone indefinitely. Their being a good mixer helps considerably in this respect, because their ease in mixing gives them a broad base of acquaintances and the socially relevant information that is the primary currency of group interaction in structured settings. Yet their skill at and desire to mix often means that they will not talk to one person indefinitely, but will seek out others in an ongoing series of contacts. They may even feel somewhat stifled or constrained if they don’t have the opportunity to circulate and make contact with numerous others in informal group settings. They are as accomplished at moving on to new connections with other people as they are at starting up a conversation. They keep a continuous lookout for new people with whom to make contact. Once they see someone they have not had a chance to connect with, they will quickly wrap up their present conversation in order to move along to the next one.

Continued on next page




2

EI Scale Descriptions, continued

Receiving People at this pole of the scale are much more comfortable letting conversations in a mingling group

come to them than they are at seeking out and initiating a chat with people in the group they do not know or whom they don’t know well. At social gatherings where there is no normative structure about how one makes connections with others, they are much more likely to be introduced to new people by others than they are to join actively in the mixing process and introduce their friends or acquaintances to each other. They are more comfortable talking to people they know and find these connections easier to make than contacts with new faces. Part of their receptive approach to group mixing stems from the effort they sometimes find it takes to keep a conversation going with someone with whom they seem to have little in common, or at least little that they can discover. And partly because of their receptive approach to interaction in unstructured group settings, they may not have a sufficiently broad base of acquaintances and the latest circulating group ‘news’ to find a common ground from which they can carry on a lengthy conversation with someone they have just met.

However receptors often find themselves being introduced by their initiator friends to someone who has wanted for a long time meet a person with receptor’s unique job, expertise, personal background, leisure time activity, or travel experience. In this case a valuable connection has been made, and the receptor is able either to give out or take in a greatly desired wealth of new information. When this happens, the receptor is quite able to talk at length with a new acquaintance, because the discussion centres on an interesting topic that he or she knows in depth and enjoys sharing with another person. Unlike initiators, receptors may feel uncomfortable and adrift in informal group settings if they are not anchored in the group by a person or a topic they know well.





3


Expressive/ Contained

This scale’s focus is on the communication of one’s emotional state, feelings, interests, and experiences to others.

Expressive Expressive people are quite ready and willing to communicate and share their feeling states with others.

Indeed, they feel that not doing so would be dishonest and possibly damaging to the long-term health of their relationships. Their emphasis is on open and honest communication, and they are forthright about expressing their feelings to others. In meetings and group settings in which an uncomfortable but unacknowledged feeling is circulating among the group, they may speak up and bring the issue to attention so the group can deal with it. In personal relationships, they seek 2-way and open communication about feeling states. If a relationship lacks this essential characteristic, they may feel it is not as full or as real as it could be. And the need for such sharing is strong they will express their displeasure at its lack.

It does not take long for them to make their feelings known to others. But this openness is not limited to feelings alone, for they also share their interests just as openly. At its best, this facet is extraversion in its most sincere and genuine form, for what gets communicated by expressive people about themselves is conveyed quite directly. It is not compromised by self-conscious hesitations.

Yet this self-expression is not merely the conveyance of whatever selected qualities happen to be relevant. The expressive person needs to be able to confide in a series of others through whom they can receive feedback and have the opportunity to process thoughts, feelings, or issues in a dialogue. In many instances people at the expressive pole discover how they feel or what they think by discussing issues with others. And in this sense other people get an even closer view of who the expressive person is, for they are treated not just to the finished product, but to large parts of the process by which the person arrives at their thoughts or feelings.





4


Contained Contained people are selective about what they share of themselves and with whom. This is a

generalised characteristic that includes, among other things, feelings, thoughts, personal history, interests, and opinions. Their feelings are not communicated freely and openly either by words or body language. Thoughts may not be shared unless someone asks for them. Interests may not be revealed until the person is in a conversation that happens to hit upon a favoured topic. And their personal history is often not shared unless they are sufficiently comfortable with another person and the conversation takes a turn to the mutual sharing of such details. When they are under stress or upset, they may be less able to talk to others about their distress than they normally would. And ‘less able’ is the appropriate term here, for when they are stressed, contained people are not simply unwilling to discuss personal matters. The greater their distress, the harder it is for them to find either the words or the energy to communicate to others anything about the turmoil that is wreaking havoc inside. And because this turmoil is something that only they know about in detail, they quite often feel that no one else would understand the issues well enough to be helpful.

Consequently it takes considerably longer to get to know contained people than it does their expressive counterparts. A sufficient level of trust must exist before they feel free to share truly personal matters. But even when personal affairs are not the issue, they still may not be given to a high level of self-disclosure. This is not because they are too guarded, mistrustful, worried or self-conscious to share themselves. Rather, it stems from the fact that their experiences need to be processed internally at length before they are ready or even able to share them with others in words. For contained people, most of the time processing things by dialogue or sharing them with others is a very poor way to discover what they feel or think about an issue. Such dialogues may even hinder self-discovery because external processing is simply not how people at this pole find out about themselves. It is only after the internal processing has been done that external sharing can begin.





5


Gregarious/ Intimate

This scale focuses on one aspect of the broader scale, Initiating/Receiving. Here the focus is on the breadth and depth aspect of one’s connections to others.

Gregarious Gregarious people enjoy friendships and associations with a variety of people. For social life, both the

number of relationships and their heterogeneity are important and satisfying. Moreover, these relationships are enjoyed in group settings where there is an opportunity to join in the dynamics of group interaction rather than one-on-one dialogues. This variety of relationships is important and valued not only for the diversity of people with whom one can interact, but also for the wide range of activities that may be enjoyed through maintaining relationships with many different people. Furthermore, popularity, being well regarded, and being known by a wide circle of people provides a satisfying and meaningful foundation on which their personal identity can grow and develop. Good friends may be important in the gregarious person’s social networks, but it is the broader expanse of such networks and the popularity they offer which provides an equal sense of personhood.

Gregarious people also value the newness and adventure of making new friends and the chance to connect with others who are part of larger social networks. The opportunities to expand their own circle of friends and acquaintances through meeting new people are an important part of being with others. They also see their friendship networks as providing a means of opening doors to new and bigger horizons of experience. Yet their broad circle of friends is not maintained only for the social or economic advantages it may give them. Belonging to a large web of friendships and acquaintances is a significant part of their identity. Being cut off from this network is stressful in two ways. It prevents them from knowing the latest news about their friends and what they are doing, and it leaves a void in their sense of self that cannot be filled even by frequent contact with their closer friends.





6


Gregarious (Continued)

Maintaining connections with a variety of people also gives them a heightened sensitivity to the subtleties of communication. They are apt to be particularly skilled at grasping and communicating nuances of meaning that may be overlooked by those who do not have as wide a circle of social contacts. Their forte in large group settings is often being aware of the flow of mood or sentiment in a group. In their sensitivity to the larger group they may not always become aware of the opinions or emotional states of more reserved group members. However in the context of smaller groups where they have more time and opportunity to connect with most of the members, they may be quite attuned to the importance of involving quieter people with somewhat unique viewpoints or needs.

Finally, people scoring towards the gregarious pole have the ability to respond rapidly in social contexts involving a series of quick exchanges with other people. They are comfortable with the lively give-and-take characterising the social mingling occurring in large groups. In group meetings where they know most of the people present, their contributions may carry more weight than their intimate counterparts. One reason is because they are skilled at lively verbal exchanges. Another is because they generally acquire a broader sense of group sentiments by touching base with more people. In doing so, they get a better sense of what views, proposals or compromises may be compatible with the majority of group members.





7


Intimate People scoring at this pole of the scale are most at ease in social exchanges with others they know well.

Social mingling and quick chitchat with a large number of people is unappealing if not something to be avoided outright. They prefer one-on-one conversations that permit an extended exchange without numerous interruptions from others who either want to talk about something else or with whom sharing the topic being discussed would not be comfortable. Their preference for this kind of exchange is often strong enough that they may avoid large group situations in which they do not know anyone. When they find themselves in a large group, they will make a point to seek out others they know who also prefer one-on-one exchanges. In a large group that is mingling freely, they may even spend an entire evening in the company of one or more friends with whom they can maintain the comfort of a more private, more exclusive, and well-known connection.

People at the intimate pole greatly prefer to maintain a limited range of friendships. These are primarily with others with whom they feel comfortable sharing the more personal aspects of their lives. For the intimate person there is an exclusivity regarding who he/she will share, and both the act of sharing and the information itself reside in a deeper, more secluded part of the self than is the case for a gregarious individual. For this reason the intimate person’s friendships entail a significant amount of trust, tend to develop slowly, and require a fair amount of time to maintain. The time commitment is great enough, in fact, that intimate people feel they do not have time or energy to maintain a number of true friendships.

Parallel to their more limited scope of friendships, people scoring at the intimate pole also tend to be involved in a more selective set of interests and activities. They enjoy concentrating their energy into specific interests that they can explore in depth over fairly long period of time. They dislike being involved in too many activities if the demands are such that they do not have time to give each of them the extended attention they feel is needed, appropriate, and satisfying. Being involved in undertakings to which they cannot devote an adequate level of personal attention may render the work meaningless or make them feel uncomfortable about not being able to do a better job.





8


Intimate (Continued)

For people at this pole, popularity is not as valued as intimacy because it does not arise from sharing with a trusted friend those secluded parts of oneself that are the real ‘who I am’ of the intimate person. These intimate aspects of self, rather than what they regard as superficial popularity, are what is real. The chance to be real by sharing oneself on an intimate level with a few good friends is sufficiently important that if the intimate person lacks such deep friendships for some reason, he/she may feel a lack of affirmation as a person. Having a few deep friendships is as important to the intimate person as being popular and having a wide circle of friends and acquaintances is to the gregarious person, but it may be more difficult for the one seeking intimacy to satisfy this need.

In group discussions, the views and comments of intimate people may involve a fairly in-depth consideration of the topic and associations they make to it. Consequently, when the exchange involves a series of rapid remarks by different people, their lengthier processing of the flow of the discussion may tend to make their responses delayed rather than immediate. As a result, they quite often have valuable contributions that may remain unspoken in the dynamics of a large group. In social contexts, these people favour situations offering experiences they believe they are sure to enjoy. They prefer environments with the kinds of intimate interactions they enjoy, and may not value opportunities for networking. Their comfort, interests, and satisfaction lie in intimate connections with others where their focus can be on the substance of their own and their friends’ inner lives. In focusing at that level, they may be more adept at picking up nuances of meaning from intimate friends than they are at recognising the nuances of group dynamics.





9


Participative/ Reflective

The focus of this scale is on how a person engages with his/her general environment for entertainment, socialising, and learning.

Participative People scoring at the participatory pole of this scale like to be actively engaged with their environments,

especially when this means energetic face-to-face interactions with others. They prefer leisure time amusement through active participation to the passive viewing of performances by others. They are strongly inclined to prefer and enjoy parties over occasions in which entertainment is provided for them. They favour being actively and socially engaged over being detached and removed from the action. They tend to learn better by doing, listening, and questioning rather than by independent study or reading. Participation is the means by which the world and oneself become known to them; neither the world nor self can be truly experienced or discovered apart from its dynamic relationship to the other. Life and oneself become real through the interplay with the other.

Besides this basic orientation to moving through the world, participatory people may lean towards pursuits that permit an active engagement with the world similar to that through which they best learn about it. Thus they may be drawn to active rather than intellectual endeavours, to work and activities where their contributions are made through spoken rather than written communication, and to enterprising rather than intellectual or scholarly pursuits.





10

Reflective Reflective people seek out and enjoy entertainment that evokes visual, intellectual, or mental responses

rather than that requiring their active participation. Their pleasure derives from the interaction of their own mental responses with creative, artistic, intellectual, or cultural works. Their participation is just as full as participatory people, but it is with different kinds of activities and it occurs internally rather than externally. For reflective people, the very meaning of things arises from their active mental engagement with them rather than from the physical or verbal interaction with the environment. Consequently they tend to learn best from written material which they may use for study at their own leisure. In this way their learning can be structured by (possibly lengthy) mental associations they make with the material, rather than by a group process that interrupts the internal dialogue by which they may learn most effectively. Reflective people are apt to be drawn more to intellectually demanding pursuits than to those requiring that a majority of time be spent in organisational issues and networks where social aptitude and executive skills predominate.





11


Enthusiastic/ Quiet

This scale may seem very similar to ‘expressive/contained’, but there are subtle differences in the focus of these two scales. Enthusiastic/quiet has more to do with the level and kind of energy one brings to exchanges with others, while ‘expressive/contained’ focuses on the content of what is exchanged.

Enthusiastic People who score at the enthusiastic pole of this scale are talkative, hearty, and lively. Conversation is

something they enjoy for its own sake. They enjoy the give and take of it, both injecting energy into it as well as drawing energy from it. Conversation is a stimulant, activating within them a reservoir of social energy that bubbles forth with high octane and good Spirit, livening up a group and infecting even the most reserved of social bystanders. Conversation is perhaps most enjoyed where there are several people and the exchange can involve a lively give and take in which new input from each person helps to create an event bordering on a spontaneous social art form. Yet the enthusiasm for talking as a direct and immediate way of connecting with another person carries over to one-on-one talks as well, for the basic enjoyment is a love of communicating with others.

Because they gravitate towards collective settings where people are mixing with a high level of energy, enthusiastic people tend to be among the first to know what is going on among their network of friends and acquaintances, as well as among people they may not know personally but who happen to be the subject of current conversation. Enthusiastic people seek out opportunities not just for conversing with others, but also for being in group settings where collective energy is high and upbeat. They are attracted to places and events with lots of action and to other people who like the same. This does not necessarily mean loud and raucous parties, for noise level does not always reflect the quality of energy in a group. Rather people at this pole enjoy group settings in which the social atmosphere permits and encourages human interaction where the joy of just being with others can flow freely and find expression in whatever form happens to evolve at the time.





12


Enthusiastic (Continued)

But they do not just like to be in attendance where the action is taking place. They also like to take their turn at being the centre of attention, and embellishment is one way of accomplishing this. So when in a group conversation and caught up in the enthusiasm of the moment, they may overstate the details of their topic. They may misstate the facts and over-dramatise certain details of the stories they are telling. However the main purpose of an entertaining conversation is not to communicate matters of fact. Rather it is to create a social, interactional happening that is engaging, lively, and simply fun. For this reason, stories are often a primary medium of exchange. They convey humour about personal histories, thus allowing those who tell and hear them to share the most entertaining sides of themselves with each other. At the same time, they also provide a means through which the energy and emotional states of the present moment may be communicated and shared directly. While they are not the only instrument by which enthusiastic people create amusement, stories are a particularly engaging means by which they can entertain themselves and others.

Quiet People at this pole of the scale normally tend to have a calm bearing. They are reserved and quiet, even

in group settings where their enthusiastic counterparts are creating lively and animated interactions. The quiet and reserve of people at this end of the pole is best described in terms of energy level; their response to group and social exchanges is simply at a lower level of energy. The stimulation from interacting with others neither energises nor animates them. This does not mean they are uninterested or uninteresting, but rather that their level of social output and response is subdued. One effect of this reserve is that the subtleties and meanings of their responses may easily be overlooked or misunderstood unless one is willing and able to attend carefully to the low-keyed style of personal expression that characterises them.





13


Quiet (Continued)

There is evidence suggesting that this kind of quietude has a physiological basis. Rather than reflecting an under-response, as it would appear to an observer, it is likely that quiet people have a highly active internal response to social stimuli that precludes directing their energy into spirited external reactions. Studies of brain wave patterns have shown that introverts exhibit much greater levels of arousal to external stimuli than do extraverts. What we may be seeing in quiet people is just this difference. Their internal responses are so active and riveting as to minimise the energy available for making animated reactions the outside world can see.

As a consequence, their communication may sometimes be succinct and they may communicate less than they mean, particularly to those who don’t know them well. This is not a deliberate effort to economise words, to leave others in the dark, or to maintain a high level of privacy. Their tendency to say less than they may mean stems from the overwhelming richness of the inner experience they are trying to convey. For quiet people making a concerted effort to communicate, the attempt may fall short of fully describing their interior world because its parts are so highly interconnected (for intuitives) or so rich in detail (for sensors). Their description may also be incomplete because their awareness and understanding of that world derives from an internal, personal realm where meanings are not easily put into words. They may use understatement as a means of emphasis, partly to minimise the cascade of inner images that a stronger statement would create. Understatement allows them to continue a conversation without arousing a full deluge of mental pictures that would disrupt the attention needed to continue talking to another person.

Finally, quiet people may be the last on the grapevine to hear what is going on. This is partly because topics are passed most quickly on a grapevine to those who interact with more people and who exchange more information in their contacts with others in a short amount of time. But being one of the last to hear is not the same as simply not knowing, and quiet people generally do have connections with others that will keep them informed.




14

SN Scale Descriptions

Concrete/ Abstract

This is one of the core facets of the SN dimension. It has a broad focus on one’s general perceptions of the world and on the kinds of things to which one directs his/her attention.

Concrete People scoring at the concrete pole of this scale are grounded in and anchored to the tangible aspects

of their world. This preference is much broader than just a liking for factual information. It is a generalised orientation that includes a strong favouring of things that are tangible and concrete over those that are intangible and abstract. This orientation extends not just to the objects of one’s perception, but also to communication and learning styles, to views of what the world is like and how it works, to preferences for entertainment, and to the values one places on the things and activities that occupy one in day-to-day life.

The concrete person is not only apt to use literal and specific words, but also to employ images that convey the find details of sensory impressions. They understand best when others communicate with them in a similar style. They trust words and descriptions that are tangible and thus real to the senses.

For concrete people, the world primarily consists of things that can be perceived by the senses and verified experientially. Verification must be based on some physical, sensory process.

People at the concrete end of this scale tend to make little distinction between things that are abstract and those that are fanciful. Both have lower credibility, meaning, and value compared to sensate things. Specific instructions about the steps required to fix a carburetor, wire a house, or bake a cake are valued much more that the principles of combustion, the theory of electric current, or theories of chemical bonding. At best fanciful things are considered not to be entertaining because they are unreal; at worst, they are simply boring and a waste of time. Thus there is a hierarchy of value attached to intangible things that does not involve a thinking or feeling judgment. This initial value ascribed to a thing stems from how grounded in the tangible world it is. Once its value in that sense has been determined, then thinking or feeling judgments can be brought to bear.





15

SN Scale Descriptions, continued

Abstract For people at this pole, meaning does not lie in physical reality, which may be regarded as irrelevant,

annoying, distracting or misleading, depending on the context. Instead, the real and important meanings lie in ideas and abstractions…ie in the associations which the tangible world merely brings to mind. Concrete reality is primarily a stimulus for directing one’s attention to the more interesting realm of intangibles. Yet it would be a mistake to think that meaning derives simply from the fact that something is abstract or removed from physical reality. Meanings of the ‘things’ in the abstract realm derive from their relationships to each other and from the number and variety of possibilities which can spring to life when thinking about them.

The meanings generated among ideas and the associations that can be made among them are what bring the ideas to life and make them real. Ideas which cannot be connected to other notions are not as real and do not have the value, interest, or excitement generated by the interplay among ideas having many interconnections. The reality comprised of ideas, abstractions, symbols and figurative images is the world within which the person at this pole lives. Physical objects or events that appear to negate an abstraction or idea are likely to be regarded are exceptions, flukes, or simply obstacles to be overcome and worked around. Tangible evidence mainly serves to re-direct the pattern of associations which this kind of person will try to make among his/her ideas. Facts will not necessarily cause the person to abandon their ideas and give material things greater credibility. Any adjustments required by contrary physical evidence will tend to occur only at the abstract level which ideas, abstractions, and generalisations are modified.

Because the tangible world is less important that of symbols and ideas, the person at this pole will tend to communicate using words, expressions, and descriptions whose meanings lie primarily in the associations they evoke rather than in their tangible referents. The gist of what is being communicated lies in the abstract associations that can be made to the word. Language is thus not a means of describing the details of one’s environment. It is primarily a means of connoting rather than denoting.





16


Realistic/ Imaginative

This scale is centered on a particular aspect of the core concept ‘concrete/abstract’. It describes the meanings one gives to or makes out of one’s basic perceptions. It is concerned with how one uses these perceptions to approach tasks or problems in work or daily life.

Realistic There are several major aspects to this kind of perceptive awareness. The first is a focus on things that are

practical. The emphasis here is not just on objects, but also on ways of doing things, on kinds of knowledge, and on efforts and activities whose outcomes make a constructive difference in the tasks and activities in which one is engaged. These tasks may involve everything from the routines of daily living to those required to build a boat or erect a space shuttle. But the emphasis is always on ways of doing things that will be more efficient in time, energy, and money and that serve a useful and tangible purpose. With this emphasis there is also a value attached that has noting to do with thinking or feeling judgements. This valuing of practical things stems from the realistic person giving much more attention and credibility to them than to things having little or no tangible impact on the detailed steps involved in a task or activity.

Another facet of this kind of perception is that because the realistic person values the practical side of things, he/she will also tend to get along better with and enjoy being with people who are similarly attentive to seeing things as they really are. For the realistic person, a practical benefit of spending time with others of a similar bent is that one has access to their factual knowledge and experience in areas beyond one’s own expertise. A shared realistic outlook provides the basis for humour, which is a means of bonding with another person. Humour is tied to how one sees the world, and the humour of realistic compared to imaginative people is quite different.

If one pays attention to ones physical environment, then eventually one acquires a generalised sense of how things work in the tangible world. Over time and with repeated experience and practice, this ‘hands-on’ knowledge of the material world becomes the ‘common sense’ that is valued by realistic people.




17


Realistic (Continued)

The realistic person also attends more to sensible, matter-of-fact things and people than to those that are fascinating or imaginative. Fascination and imagination are included to have somewhat negative associations because they refer to things removed from the tangible reality in which we spend our lives.

Imaginative For imaginative people tangible things are not nearly as important as the possibilities that they

suggest. Matters of fact are mainly valuable for the associations and images they bring to mind. These images are what is real and important; the material things from which they derive are only secondary. In fact, once a chain of associations and images has been inspired by something tangible, the initial object or fact may be forgotten in the deluge of ideas that follow. When this happens, the imaginative person will take great delight in the very process of chaining together a succession of creative images. This process itself may be valued as much as any of the ideas that are generated by it. And when the process has run its course for the time being, the person at this pole will settle back down again to reality. Only in this case the reality will most likely be whichever idea seems most ‘promising’, rather than a practical, step-by-step procedure for getting something done.

Imaginative people value creativity. The very newness of an idea itself is appealing because it allows them to begin mentally playing with it. Yet it is a mistake to think that they are simply dreamers and out of touch with practical concerns, for their originality is frequently inspired by the need for a solution to a practical problem. They respond to such problems not by attending to specific details, but by trying to solve them through transcending what they see as the limits imposed by the details. Because they work on the problem at a level mentally removed from its tangible details, their solution may not be workable in the form in which they originally propose it; however with a refocus on concrete reality and a little refining, it may turn out to be an ingenious solution.





18


Imaginative (Continued)

People at this pole often tend to peer over the horizons of day-to-day living. In business settings, they are the ones who may do strategic planning, envision new markets, services, or products, and construct mental images of what direction as company should be going to meet its future and how it should recreate itself in order to get there. In other settings they may become aware of a problem or need and envision a new programme to meet it. The vision will primarily consist of mental images which, even when practical efforts are underway to implement it, will continue to guide the unfolding of it in its tangible form.





19


Practical/ Inferential

The focus of this scale extends beyond one’s immediate perceptions to what one makes or creates based on those perceptions.

Practical People at this pole focus on the tangible over the abstract in many different ways and contexts. They

are attracted to others who display practicality and common sense. They are more apt to pay attention to physical appearances of people or places when seeing them for the first time than to obtain a vaguer gestalt of personality of atmosphere. While they may make inferences about the character of people they meet, these are likely to be based on the physical details and impressions they notice. For practical people, ideas are valued and useful only when they can be applied to practical down-to-earth problems.

They prefer putting things together from known objects and materials using familiar and practices methods. While they may be creative in their work, that creativity is grounded in a thorough understanding of the materials used and how they can be formed and fit together. This understanding derives from their past experience with them. Thus any new developments they make will evolve from step-by-step changes, with each stage being fully tested before they proceed with any changes. They tend to be builders rather than innovators, prefer the solid to the nebulous, value certainty over vagueness, and would rather deal with substances than with the purely symbolic. They look to the future for tangible gains rather than opportunities, and are more oriented to the details of daily living and their work than to trends and events as they may be extrapolated into the future.





20


Inferential People at this pole look for meanings in what they see around them. To them tangible things are

primarily reflections of a reality greater than the world of the five senses, and their focus is mainly on inferences rather than on what is immediately present. But they are not content just to make inferences. Inferences give birth to ideas, and ideas are the currency in which they think. They particularly enjoy making connections and find relationships among a variety of ideas. Thus they value abstract intellectual discourse and are attracted to the brilliant rather than the mundane. They enjoy the stimulation of people with quick and insightful minds with whom they can have a lively exchange of ideas.

In meeting new people or visiting new places, their attention is given mostly to overall impressions which they derive from looking at the collage of details rather than at specific items. They do not build impressions of things of people piece by piece, so when they happen to notice a particular detail about a person or thing, they use it to elaborate the mental image they are constructing based on their overall impression.

When they make or build something, it arises partly out of mental images they have of what they are trying to do and partly out of the meanings which their creation has for them. The step-by-step process of putting something together is not nearly as satisfying as the symbolic meaning that they may ascribe to it when it is finished. Because insights and images lying beyond what is immediately tangible are foremost, inferential people are oriented towards the future and the opportunities that lie there. And the significance of one’s life lies not in one’s specific practical accomplishments, but in the meanings behind the efforts that one has given to the world.





21


Experiential/ Theoretical

This scale has a somewhat narrower focus than the concrete/abstract scale. Here the emphasis is on the process by which one constructs knowledge or meaning out of one’s perceptions.

Experiential For experiential people, if something hasn’t been validated by repeated experience, it probably is not

worth any more than their brief attention at best. People at this pole are distrustful of theory, preferring instead the certainty of their own active participation in the world around them. Descriptions of how to do something are most helpful if they are stated concretely in terms of specific steps and the practical why’s and wherefore’s derived from the experience of someone who has learned by doing. Experience is the primary criterion. Furthermore, truth and relevance are inseparable to these people. One of their primary pleasures comes from expertly applying their experience, for doing so provides the opportunity to immerse oneself in an active, tangible expression of both truth and relevance. The product that results will then embody these two qualities, which together produce a singular kind of beauty.

This is little incentive for making changes in methods that have been tested experientially over and over again. Trying to improve techniques that already work is a senseless waste of time that could be spent more productively in just applying a tried and true method to the task at hand. The resulting productivity is much more satisfying than attempting an unknown approach. On the other hand, if there are no established procedures for a new task, the experiential person will be quite adept at the trial-and-error approach to find out what does work. The trials will begin with what he/she already knows from similar situations and will proceed efficiently through the constant feedback that tells how well the old methods work and where they need to be adapted.





22


Theoretical People at this pole generally operate at a level or two removed from things that are immediately

tangible. They search for patterns in what they see and discern meanings in those patterns. Their understanding and knowledge of the world are contained in an abstract series of principles, explanations, and theories, or understandings, sympathies, and values, depending on whether their judging function is thinking or feeling. Because this is their perceptive focus, they are less interested in routine or factual matters. They prefer to explore things by looking for new connections among the concepts they use to understand the world. These new conceptual associations create fresh meanings which in turn offer chances for further explorations. Theoretical people are always ready to try new ideas or ways of doing things. When any task or work has been sufficiently explored so that there seems to be no more new ideas or approaches to try, it becomes boring.

Theoretical people learn better if they are given theories and concepts in addition to any relevant factual information, because their primary understanding of things lies at that level. Facts are apt to have little meaning per se, and they are likely to be forgotten unless they can be tied to a theory or at least a set of interrelated concepts, because that is the level at which primary truth resides. Relevance for the theoretical person refers mainly to whether he/she can make any connections at a conceptual level, rather than whether there are any immediate and tangible relationships between things. While these people can certainly recognise beauty in their physical environment, they also see it in their concepts and theories.





23


Tradit ional/ Original

This scale emphasises social context as the background that confers meaning on one’s perceptions.

Traditional Those at this end of the scale prefer doing things in established ways that are shared by most people

around them. Here the main appeal is in the safety and security that derive from fitting in with one’s community or peers. The focus is much broader than just specific tasks. It involves one’s entire lifestyle as well, and ranges from style of dress, choice of charities, and type of housing to recreational and leisure time activities. The conventional is appealing in many respects. It offers way of doing things that are continually validated by one’s social environment. This one is assured that one’s manner of living is good, valued, and true by seeing others living in similar ways. Just as one receives immediate feedback on specific tasks from an experiential approach, here one receives immediate confirmation of whether one’s way of living is ‘on target’ by checking it against one’s social surroundings. It is uncomfortable to go against the grain of custom, culture and traditional norms.

For the traditional person, fads are suspect because they do not have the validating test of time and experience nor the breadth and depth of societal approval that traditional styles and methods do. Following the traditional styles and customs of one’s society are both a means of confirming one’s place in the social order and helping to verify the truths about life and living that are embodies in that order. Family traditions are likewise a way of reaffirming one’s role and relationships among one’s kin. They help define who one is and they give meaning to one’s own life as well as to the lives of other family members. Thus traditions are highly respected, even to the point of being sacrosanct. Changing them is done only reluctantly. Any changes should be done gradually, and are acceptable only if they are grounded in what was done before. Deliberate changes just for the sake of change are meaningless at best. At worst they may destroy cherished meanings that are the foundation of social and family life.





24


Original For original people, repetition and sameness in important areas of life are almost a trigger for

innovation. Instead of meaning deriving from traditional and standard ways of living and doing things, unthinking or unfeeling repetition is one of the quickest ways to render something meaningless. This does not mean that traditions are anathemas but rather that for some things doing them exactly the same way time after time diminishes their meaning. Traditions are made more meaningful if they are carried out with enough variation to give them fresh and new expression while at the same time retaining the basic theme. As in a musical piece with theme and variations, for the original person, it is the variations when convey meaning. Exact repetition of a traditional way of doing something would make the activity as dull as a musical score which simply repeated the same theme in the same notes over and over. This applies to virtually all areas of life, including work, play, civil and cultural ceremonies, family traditions and holidays, and styles of dress.

Changes in established ways of doing things also give people at this pole opportunities for self-expression. Their originality may be displayed in their approach to tasks or activities, or in their choice of dress, leisure activities, or lifestyle. Inventing different ways of doing something is a means by which they can find inspiration to put their best effort into their work. Having to do it the way someone else has done it may render their effort dead and meaningless. If the job simply must be done a certain way, then there is nothing unique the original person can bring to it, in which case the intrinsic motivation of being able to connect oneself with one’s work no longer exists. This does not necessarily mean that in every area of life original people will be unhappy if they cannot invent something new. In many instances, these people tend to concentrate their originality in a circumscribed range of areas that are especially meaningful to them.




25

TF Scale Descriptions

Logical/ Empathic

This is a core facet of the TF dimension. It emphasises the criteria one uses to reach a judgement.

Logical For the person at this pole, the world is comprehended only to the extent it can be shown to make

logical sense. The ultimate criterion for judging the truth of something is whether it is internally consistent and logical. Reason is the primary tool for understanding things. Objects, events, or statements that are inconsistent and illogical virtually beg for analysis until they either make sense or have to be discarded as untrue or incapable of being understood, and therefore not worth spending one’s time trying to figure them out. One of the implications of this approach to knowledge is that one must grasp the premise or starting point of things in order to comprehend them. Logic is a structured process that starts with a set of assumptions or known facts and proceeds to make deductions from them according to specific rules. One of the implicit assumptions behind this means of knowing is that the world operates according to the same set of universal rules that one can use for making logical deductions.

Consequently when logical thinkers do not understand something or someone, they seek to uncover the implicit premise that is operating or being sued in the situation.

Because there are so many examples of things that can be understood logically, a person at this pole receives a great deal of confirmation that reason is a direct means to understanding and truth. Because this confirmation is received so frequently, it may be difficult for a logical person to accept paradoxical explanations. Moreover, because the logical person’s view of the world is internally consistent, he/she expects the world and other people to function the same way. This does not mean that one will never find inconsistencies in a logical person’s views. Logical inconsistencies in oneself, other people, or the world are not bothersome if they are compartmentally separated in his/her logical scheme for understanding things.





26

TF Scale Descriptions, continued

Logical (Continued)

When there are several competing viewpoints on a matter, the person at this pole is likely to be persuaded only by arguments that make logical sense. This means that facts must be supportive, and when they are presented, they must be capable of fitting into the logical scheme that the person at this pole has constructed in order to understand the issue. Facts about another person’s emotional state may be just as relevant as ‘objective’ facts, providing they fit into a consistent analytical framework. Inconsistencies in another’s chain of reasoning are suspect. While this person will mentally rank inconsistencies in terms of how seriously they undermine a line of thought, any logical discrepancies in an argument weaken the credibility of the other person, their perspective or both.

Because logic is a personally detached process, these people can strongly disagree with another and still have respect for that individual. What is respected is the other person’s ability as a thinker, and not their viewpoint. The ability to think clearly and consistently is a highly valued general ability that the person at this pole admires in others. Respect for another may not depend on how incisive a thinker they are, for these people can recognise the value of different abilities from their own. But repeated signs of illogic, inconsistencies, and contradictions in another’s statements can easily become the basis for diminished respect.

In keeping with their reliance on detached logic, people at this pole tend to apply generalised and impersonal principles to a broad range of relationships. Consequently they value rights, fairness, and reasonableness as standards for making decisions in personal and contractual relationships. They use these for their own decisions about others, and they expect others to judge them by the same set of consistent standards. For them, rights and reasonableness are good tools for relationships because they can be consistently and logically applied so that every person involved knows that to expect from the others.





27


Empathic For people at this pole the detached logic of thinkers is seen as but one means for understanding the

world, and not necessarily the best one at that. Like thinkers, empathic persons know that the world operates according to a coherent scheme. But it is not one of deductive logic or rational inference. Rather it is a framework of relationships linking people and things to each other. What is important are these relationships, the meanings they have for those connected by them, and the life experience of living things. All three of these things—relationships, meanings, and life experiences—are continually being transmuted by their interactions with each other. Thus life and the world are best understood as a drama with characters, themes, and plots. Just as the characters in a novel have distinct motivations and personalities that affect the unfolding of the story, so too do the characters in real life, and their personalities similarly affect the twists and turns of an ever-evolving drama. From this perspective, the world does not function according to a set of logically consistent principles that can be understood separately from their knower. Rather it is best understood through one’s participation in the drama. Because truth is not separate from people and their lives, one comes to understand the world by sharing one’s experience of it with others and by recognising that another’s experience may have just as much value for understanding what life is about as does one’s own.

For the empathic person who is also intuitive, on some deep psychic level each person’s life is a miniature variation on the universal themes of the human drama that have run through every generation of humankind from its beginnings. Caring for another means finding that place in oneself where one shares a common humanity, and then reaching out from that common psychic foundation to let the other know that they are not alone. To the person who is sensing and empathic, the personal triumphs and tragedies involving one’s own kin and significant relationships are the primary focus of concern. Meanings arise from the family or relationship histories one shares with another. These past experiences with others create the groundwork out of which caring and sharing arise, and empathy is anchored in the shared experience of these histories. But regardless of their sensing or intuitive preference, those who score at the empathic pole value other people for their basic humanness as well as for their worth as unique persons.




28





29


Empathic (Continued)

Truth is thus both personal and universal, but it is not detached from people. This kind of truth may be difficult for empathic people to communicate to logical thinkers, but not to other empathics. Similarly, logical people may find it difficult to convince empathic people of the universality and absoluteness of detached logical truth. The reason is that for empathic people, the full truth is about people and life. Any talk of ‘detached’ truth can only be about fragments of the real thing. And just like quotations taken out of context, fragmented truth that is not anchored in life and people is at best misleading or irrelevant; at worst it is false and possibly harmful because it ignores the human element on which real truth is focused.

The empathic person also may experience inconsistencies, but they primarily involve relationship issues. Compartmentalising may be one way of handling these inconsistencies. For example, incompatibilities between people with whom one has relationships may be handled by separating one’s contacts with them in time and space. A conflict between one’s values and those of someone else may be managed by limiting the scope of one’s friendship with that person to certain topics or activities. In more intimate relationships where separation by time and place is difficult, the empathic person may handle differences by accepting them as part of the other’s uniqueness as a person. This works best so long as the differences do not involve key values that touch broad areas of the relationship.

People at this pole pay more attention to another’s feelings than to their rights. So when someone in a position of power exercises their ‘rights’ and in the process hurts someone else, the first person’s rights may be seen merely as a justification for heartless self-interest. The feelings of concern here are not just emotions, but the full complexity of relationship bonds that connect us to other people, as well as strands of personal identity that are woven together from our life experience. The feelings created by these things are what make us human, and they are of far higher value than any rights or standards of fairness that fail to take them into account on a personal basis.





30


Reasonable/ Compassionate

This scale emphasises the standards by which one maintains relationships with other people when making thinking or feeling judgements.

Reasonable People scoring at the reasonable pole tend to conceive their relations with others as primarily task-

focused. But because the coordination of tasks with others involves working closely with the human element that each person brings to the situation, on this scale the emphasis includes a considerable amount of factoring human needs into one’s problem-solving logic. People who are reasonable may care just as much about other people as their compassionate counterparts, but they express it differently. For reasonable people, caring, especially with men, quite often is demonstrated by efforts to analyse and solve problems. This may include not just analysis of the immediate situation but also of the long-range consequences of possible solutions. For these people sympathy is fine, but it will not solve the problem as they see it. One cares for others by fixing things or adapting them whether that involves adjusting an employee’s work schedule to deal with a family crisis, making exceptions on a individual basis when extraordinary circumstances arise, or doing something special for another in recognition of their extra effort.

Being reasonable means being consistently fair. Thus when exceptions are made for individuals, others having similar problems need to have similar exceptions made for them. If this does not happen, it is clear that the one making exceptions is playing favourites, and the reasonable person will find it difficult to work for someone who is not fair. From this point of view, preferential treatment means that rewards and punishments are obtained by standards that have nothing to do with task performance and are thus illogical and illegitimate. A person who supervises others using unreasonable standards will not be respected.





31


Reasonable (Continued)

In cases of interpersonal disagreements, a reasonable person will attempt to reach a just solution or compromise in the sense that positive or negative consequences are equitably distributed. The fairness in such solutions and the effort it takes to arrive at a fair resolution are an expression of caring. For the reasonable person, both giving and receiving fair treatment are ways in which one’s own and the other party’s worth as people are acknowledged; attention to one’s own or others’ feelings are less important.

A common thread running through all situations in which fairness is an issue is that there are standards of equity and justice that are independent of the people involved. Applying these generalised rules assures that all people whose situations fit the principles will be treated the same. There should be no favourites before the law; mercy may simply be a euphemism for caving in and letting one’s sympathies for an individual case overrule principles of right and fairness.

Compassionate Empathy is the capacity to put oneself in another’s shoes and imagine how the other person’s

experience would feel to oneself. It arises from a recognition that one shares with others a common humanity. Compassionate people are not just sympathetic. They see the world as personalised and interconnected rather than impersonal and detached. Consequently they attend closely to the unique needs which other people bring to situations. Policies, procedures and rules are not nearly as important as a recognition of the unique human material that is in each person. Relationships are between people, and it is on the level of shared experience as human beings that people must ultimately relate to each other. Consequently others need to be treated not just with fairness, but with a recognition that behind each face and name is a person with hurts and hopes, dreams and discouragements, laughter and tears that are similar to one’s own. Compassionate people do not just respect another’s humanity. They care for and about other people in a personalised way.





32


Compassionate (Continued)

For compassionate people mercy is neither spinelessness nor an excuse to put sympathy ahead of law. Mercy is the basis on which judgements of another should be made. It takes account of the unique (and possibly mitigating) circumstances or characteristics of the person and values the person more than abstract principles. From this point of view, fairness is not treating everyone the same. Rather it is judging each person in terms of their unique character and circumstances. And in making judgement, if one fails to take into account another’s uniqueness as a person, one hurts the other person as well as oneself. John Donne’s recognition that “no man is an island” is one of the reasons why the hurt goes both ways for the compassionate person.

A common thread this perspective shares with the feeling poles of several of the other scales is that compassion-judgement is active rather than passive. Failure to recognise another person’s need for sympathy or leniency in difficult circumstances may be as harmful as failing to act when one is aware of it. If one does not or cannot act compassionately, one clearly hurts another; but not recognising another’s need for such treatment is also harmful because it yields the same outcome.

Finally, compassionate people, because they relate to others on a general level of shared humanity, respond best in relationships if they are treated sympathetically and compassionately. Their primary concern is to be recognised as valuable human beings who are connected to others in a network of friendships that validates their importance as unique people and the importance of the relationships in which they are involved. Fairness will not engender devotion and loyalty in them, but sympathy, pleasantness, and compassion will.





33


Questioning/ Accommodating

This scale focuses on what we tend to do as a first step in coming to a judgement about our perceptions.

Questioning People at this pole pursue the thinker’s goal of a detached, impersonal truth, but their emphasis here

has several facets that are different from the other scales. Questioners may proceed from several orientations. One of these is to find out how and why they should be convinced of something, and they need a reason that makes logical sense. So by asking direct questions they probe aspects of another person’s statement, a situation, an event, or an observation that does not fit their notion of how things work. In this orientation, they seek to find logical consistency between what they already know and what they see, hear, or are trying to learn. Disagreement is not personal at this stage, because the truth is separate from the personal qualities of the people making statements about it.

The second orientation from which they may proceed to question is when they are trying to solve problems. Especially if their other type preferences happen to be N or P, and if they are trying to overcome an obstacle to a problem, they may begin questioning established practices, beliefs, information, principles, designs, or even facts.

A third orientation for questioning is when they are dealing with other people. Here they may raise questions or objections when they have a hard time learning, accepting, or ‘going along with’ things that don’t make sense. Questioning is their effort to find a common ground of understanding from which they and the other party can proceed. Because, for the most part, rational truth can be determined separately from personalities, from their point of view it is unreasonable to expect them to keep silent under such circumstances.





34


Accommodating

For accommodating people, reality is socially defined. While they may give a nod to the notion of an ‘objective’ truth existing independently of other people, they are much more concerned with how that truth is understood, valued, and used by others. Their primary focus is on their own and other’s experience, understandings, and perceptions of the world. From this viewpoint, objective truth takes a back seat to the variety of ways it may be grasped by specific people. One person’s understanding of something may be gently corrected but should not be disparaged if it happens to be somewhat off the mark. Direct questioning of another’s statements can come too close to being construed as a personal attack. And once that happens, the opportunities for growing a relationship or establishing consensus in a group are diminished. This can be disaster for an accommodator, who in such a situation may be in a quandary about their membership in a group or the meaning of an important relationship.

In fact, accommodators may value harmony so highly that they are simply unwilling to question another’s viewpoint. If a divergent opinion is raised in a group, accommodating people will make a concerted effort to achieve a group decision that appeases all of those with differing views. They will go to considerable lengths to find compromises that satisfy everyone. Disharmony is sufficiently painful for these people that a family gatherings they will make concerted efforts to assure that harmony prevails. Family members who are unable or unwilling to make concessions to others that will keep the peace will be a source of great distress to an accommodator.

Unlike questioners, who tend to think truth is separate from personalities, for accommodating people the most important truths are those that are validated by group consensus or by personal relationships. In this view, groups are hindered from functioning well if efforts are not made to accommodate the diversity of perspectives held by their members. And to an accommodator, agreement and harmony are not merely signs of a good relationship. They are the mortar that keeps it together. So disagreements in intimate relationships are particularly distressing. For this reason, people at this pole avoid disagreements and confrontations by letting matters pass unchallenged. From their point of view, it is far better to preserve a relationship by keeping the peace than it is to challenge the other person over a matter that is of only minor importance compared to the relationship itself.




35





36


Crit ical/ Accepting

This scale describes what one does once an initial judgement has been made. The scale also describes the general values and outlook of people scoring at the poles of the scales.

Crit ical People at this pole are not so much interested in disparaging others or their views as they are in setting

things right, getting at the truth, improving things, situations, or procedures, and in general bettering some particular part of the world. But one cannot improve things without critiquing them. Without the willingness to pass judgment on things and determine their relative merits, there is no way one can know how to make them better. To forgo rendering a critical evaluation may be an abdication of one’s responsibility for getting at the truth. In this perspective, truth is a higher value than others’ feelings. Their need for veracity may make it somewhat difficult for critical people to take time to consider how to word their thoughts in tactful ways. They tend to see honesty, both with themselves and others, as kinder in the long run than a response that is untruthful. Because this is one of their main concerns, they are likely to point out what is wrong before they get around to noticing what is right. From their point of view, it is not helpful to comment on things that are all right, because there is no improvement to be made by doing so.

For critical people, truth is a sufficiently high value that efforts to smooth things over, to state criticisms so mildly that they do not register as criticisms, and to appease conflicting interests just to get people to agree about something is distasteful. From the perspective of someone at this pole, people can recover fairly easily and quickly from hurt feelings. But the consequences of a wrong decision can create a long-term disaster not just for one person but for many.

People at this pole are not totally oblivious to others’ feelings, viewpoints, and emotional needs, but they tend to put them in broader contexts. When they take account of the human factor, they do not lower their standards or forget what they see as truth, for those are always in the back of their thinking. Instead, if they must, they make a conscious decision to put up with others’ shortcomings and tolerate what they may see as less than optimal standards, performance, or outcomes.




37





38


Accepting If one were to speak of truth as seen by an accepting person, it would be of an entirely different order

from that of a critical person. People at this pole are interested in affirming truth concerning the value and worth of other people’s ideas and viewpoints. ‘Objective’ judgements about the truth of a situation are acknowledged, but are subordinate to the truth about other persons and their relationships. From this perspective, one’s environment is primarily human and social. Only secondarily is it comprised of physical things whose nature is independent of the people using them. For accepting people, passing critical judgement on someone’s ideas or contributions produces a kind of wounding that not only may harm the person, but also can destroy bonds of relationship. Because people and the bonds among them comprise the substance of one’s social and personal world, it is far more important to avoid this destruction than it is to give primacy to factual or non-personal issues that are of passing concern.

But even more than this, the accepting person’s emphasis is not just on avoiding harm, but on building up relationships and people. They do not just tolerate lapses and ‘deficiencies’ in others, but overlook them. And while disharmony may be as inevitable as the dark of the night and overcast rainy days, it must eventually give way to an affirming level of accord between people. If harmony is not forthcoming, personal relationships become as grim as a world where the sun never shines. Acceptance is a way of making certain that the sun does shine in human relations. It not only brightens them, but it also gives them the essential nourishment without which they would fail to blossom in their full potential.

Thus the acceptance of another as he/she is should not be seen as weakness, a failure to recognise the uncomfortable truth, a lack of sound judgement, or as merely a passive reaction. In fact it is a very active response to others. It involves giving the other person space and freedom to be who they are as well as allowing that person to have an impact on oneself and one’s life in the process of exercising such freedom. This active affirmation of others is a sufficiently important value that it is often maintained despite potential risks to the acceptor. The accepting person may also be quite active in encouraging others to blossom by recognising their positive characteristics or achievements before noticing or commenting on those that are less deserving of acclamation.




39





40


Tough/ Tender

This scale focuses on the implications and impacts of one’s judgement and on the style with which one stands by that judgement.

Tough After reaching a considered appraisal of persons, things, or situations, people at this pole stand firm in the

judgements they have made. This is not blind, arbitrary stubbornness. Rather it stems from their exercising other facets of the thinking function in making an assessment and arriving at a thorough, well-considered evaluation. Once the relevant information has been deliberated and the conclusion has been reached, the person at this pole feels secure that their judgement is the best that can be made given the information available to them. If they believe they have had sufficient information on which to make a sound judgment, then there is no reason for them to compromise it.

Of course not all conclusions are nice, easy to live with, and positive; some may result in very unfortunate outcomes. Nevertheless, if the judgment was honestly and thoroughly processed, then it must stand regardless of what one’s own or anyone else’s personal opinions are about the matter. Thus the tough-mindedness stems from one’s belief in the soundness of the process by which one arrived at a judgment.

Tough-minded people distrust considerations based on sentiment, feelings, personal attachments, or a desire to keep other people happy. Part of this mistrust stems from the fact that judgements based on such criteria give priority to people or personal matters that may be affected by one’s conclusions. Such a situation should not happen, because it completely undercuts the end result of a trusted decision-making process. Personal considerations are not necessarily irrelevant to one’s decision-making process; they must be weighed along with all non-personal factors. But once the weighing is completed and a judgement reached, there is no justification for changing one’s decision simply because it is unpopular or has negative personal impacts. In fact, the value of a detached thinking assessment is that one can arrive at an unassailable logical truth regardless of personal attachments. And for the tough-minded, compromising the truth just because someone (including oneself) does not like it is repugnant.




41





42


Tender For tender people, the logical process by which one arrives at a judgement is far less impressive or

important than the effects one’s decisions may have on others. Rather than being based on a detached logic, tender-minded judgements focus on personal impacts as the primary criteria to be considered in making decisions. Yet this is not just simply a matter of putting personal considerations into a system of detached logic as a thinker would do. In this aspect of the feeling judgement, the considerations are not at all detached. They are directly focused on kindly consideration of other people. This awareness involves recognising every person’s human need for warmth, for the sort of gentle treatment one would give a fragile flower, and for a safe haven from the harsher realities of a sometimes uncaring world. For these people, judgements do not just take into account such concerns. They are about such caring.

Thus tender-minded judgements do not centre on whether warmth or gentleness should be brought to bear in evaluating a person or situation. Rather they focus on how best to give such attention to another and how to make the communication of mutual concern a part of relationships. From this perspective, truth is never detached from people. Truth lies in those human qualities in us all that bloom best under solicitous attention. To make the most appropriate judgement from this pole of the scale, one must attend to nuances of such qualities in others. If one has done so, then one can respond from a similar part of oneself and make a personal connection that acknowledges shared human needs and their singular expression in the other person. Thus there is no absolutely correct truth that needs to be firmly defended. Truth lies mainly in the general human characteristics that are manifested uniquely in each person and in the relationships people construct together out of their common humanity.

Because this is the focus of tender-minded judgements, people at this pole also respond best when they are treated with the same gentleness that they value in relating to others. ‘Firmness’ may be an impediment to their making the warm-hearted personal contact with another that would provide a common ground from which a relationship could grow. They respond best when they are treated with the same warmth they so willingly give to others.




43

JP Scale Descriptions

Systematic/ Casual

This scale reflects a fairly general and broad orientation and is one of the core facets of the JP dimension. Because it refers to generalised concepts, it may seem quite similar to other JP scales whose focus is more specific. However here, the emphasis is on the general pattern rather than on how that pattern is expressed in narrower contexts. This scale includes the flow of events, activities, tasks, and projects as well as the organisation of one’s physical environment.

Systematic People at this pole prefer orderliness in many areas of their lives, and they achieve it in a variety of ways.

Their preference for a systematic approach to life in general may be expressed in the neatness with which their homes and offices are kept free of clutter and disarray, in their methodical and deliberate approach to doing small, short tasks as well as large, long-term ones, in their ability to schedule tasks and activities efficiently, and in their punctuality in beginning things on time and ending them on schedule as well. Ordering their lives with structures, methods, and deliberate systematic approaches gives them the ability to do things efficiently, to meet deadlines, to be able to predict fairly well how long know activities will take, and to have reserves or energy and time that would otherwise be wasted. The systematic efficiency with which they imbue their approach to living gives them the freedom to enjoy doing the things for which they would not have time otherwise. Their leisure time and activities are likely to be systematic also, and for the same reason they can make the most of it when they approach it systematically.

These people place an emphasis on a systematic approach because they are fully aware that without it, too many things can go awry. When that happens, time, effort, and resources are needlessly wasted. Systematic people dislike inefficiency and waste. Offices with papers scattered in chaotic disarray, files inaccurately labeled, and furniture poorly arranged are physical and mental impediments to getting one’s work done and doing a good job. It is better to spend several hours arranging things well initially and a few minutes a day thereafter to keep them that way than it is to spend an hour or more each day looking for




44





45

JP Scale Descriptions, continued

Systematic (Continued)

each misplaced file or a note that was there just a minute ago. For most systematic people, their desire for order reflects a need for control over their situation, including time, physical environment, and their approach to doing their work. They feel quite uncomfortable if they do not have that control. Without it, it is only a matter of time before the resulting disorder produces a disaster. However if they are working under someone else who is systematic, they can readily yield the need for personal control once they feel assured the other person will maintain order on all fronts.

The need for order and system extends beyond the physical environment. Systematic people also like closure. Leaving decisions hanging is the psychological equivalent to leaving one’s notes and papers scattered all over one’s desk, or leaving one’s tools buried on a workbench amidst sawdust, sandpaper, and scrap lumber. Lack of closure is an impediment to work because, like the tools or papers, the lack of a clear-cut decision hangs around in one’s mind taking up space and occupying time that could be better spent acting on the decision or tending to other matters.

Casual For people at this pole, system and order are burdens that tend to make one’s work or day several

times heavier than they are when approached in a spirit of spontaneity. Not only do these people dislike the effort it takes to be systematic in many areas of their lives, but they may find such efforts to be quite difficult. They prefer an easy-going approach to many things, including time schedules, deadlines, decision-making, the layout of their physical environment, how their day will be spent, and how they will approach the tasks they are doing. This casualness can be mistaken for laziness, but in fact it is an openness to seeing and experiencing things in new and fresh ways. Too much order means that things are too predictable to have the excitement, energy, and variety that spontaneity brings. Casual people actively seek variety and newness and prefer to avoid structure and systematic approaches because these constrain how things are done and what happens. From their point of view, a loose unstructured approach allows them to see, experience, or respond to




46





47


Casual (Continued)

opportunities they might otherwise have missed. These people may bring the most energy and enthusiasm to their work, for example when they discover first thing in the morning that they need to do an unexpected task that someone has dropped in their lap. Further, they do not mind being interrupted and asked to do something else in the middle of the day, because the interruptions create the kind of variety that keeps work from becoming patterned and therefore boring. They like surprises that keep their days from being too patterned and repetitive.

Casual people find a motivating spark to things when they are free to act on impulses, to work on whatever tasks happen to strike their fancy on a given day, or to respond to whatever requests or events impinge on them and their work at a given time. This does not mean that they are only able to work or function in non-systematic ways, but rather that they find variety and newness intrinsically satisfying and thus are likely to do their best when their work has those qualities. Thus they may be gifted at work for which procedures are not well established, for projects in which goals and methods need to be developed on the fly, and for other non-routine types of jobs and activities.

People at this pole are comfortable postponing decisions, particularly if they feel they are lacking information that could be relevant to it. They dislike making important decisions until they are satisfied that they have considered it from all angles. And sometimes their being satisfied is simply a matter of time rather than their having access to known sources of information. If they are still undecided but forced by circumstances to make a decision, they can do so, but they may change it if new information becomes available later. On the other hand when they have thoroughly considered and weighed the pros and cons of important matters and have managed to reach a decision, they may be quite reluctant to change it later because they have invested so much effort in making it in the first place.





48


Planful/ Open-ended

The emphasis in this scale is on how one arranges leisure time activities and is thus a more specific focus compared to the somewhat broader content of the ‘systematic/scheduled’ scale. This scale relates both to daily plans as well as to events in the future.

Planful In planning their leisure time, people at this pole prefer a definite schedule so they can know what

they are going to do on a given day, and even when they will be doing it. If free time is structured by knowing what one is going to do and when, then one can make sure of seeing or doing all that one had planned without having to worry about missing out on something. This is because if one decides ahead of time what one wants to do, then it is easy to schedule free time to make sure that one can see or do all of it. Otherwise, there is a risk of missing out on something by not planning the day’s schedule well enough.

The same applies to dates that need to be made further in advance. Because Planful people tend to structure many areas of their lives and time in orderly, planned ways, they prefer to know in advance the dates and times of parties, dinners, or other social affairs so they can be sure to reserve them. In this way, they can make certain that they will be able to attend and not have to miss because they have scheduled another activity at the same time. This rationale stems not from being very socially active, but from the fact that if one prefers to plan ahead, it is quite likely that one will not be available on short notice.





49


Open-ended People at this pole strongly prefer their leisure time to be unscheduled so they can take advantage

of unexpected opportunities that may arise. Planning one’s free time in advance virtually guarantees that something else will come up that is more interesting, important or rare, and it would be a shame to miss it. In such situations, open-ended people may cancel plans that were already made in order not to miss out on a better activity. One creates a vibrancy and enthusiasm to life by placing oneself in an ongoing flow of events and interacting with them on the fly to create a tapestry of continuous variations in how one spends leisure time. This variety and improvisational style of creating it are as meaningful as the specific activities that one chooses to include in it.

People who approach their leisure time this way will not necessarily feel they have missed something by choosing one thing over another on the spur of the moment. The important thing is variety and having the freedom to choose spontaneously from among the oncoming flow of events that present themselves. If one activity has to be passed over, there may be some regret, but it is usually balanced by knowing that one made a choice that matched one’s mood and inclinations at the moment. This matching of oneself to the flow of life events and activities cannot occur if they are planned far in advance. It is only possible if one keeps leisure time open-ended.





50


Early Starting/ Pressure Prompted

This JP scale has a fairly narrow focus and is primarily concerned with time management regarding deadlines.

Early Starting People at this pole much prefer to cope with deadlines proactively by starting far enough ahead that

they have plenty of time to finish whatever task or project has the deadline. They tend to be extremely stressed in situations where they find themselves working right up until the last minute on projects with deadlines. They do not work well under such circumstances and are likely to make many more errors than when they are able to plan their work to have enough time to review it, put finishing touches on it, and check it for accuracy. The stress they feel when working under time pressure often spills over into relationships outside of the task they are trying to complete. The tension these people feel and others most certainly notice will continue until the task is complete. If they have a choice, they greatly prefer to know about assignments well in advance so they can begin their work far enough ahead that they are not under time pressure to get it done at the last minute. They do their best work when they can schedule it so as to avoid last minute rushes, and they may be quite distressed by having something unexpected arise that consumes too much time they thought they had reserved to complete a task or project.

When they are personally stressed and under severe time pressure in working on an extremely critical project, they may find it hard to concentrate on the task and may become very inefficient in how they use their time. They feel like failures if they do not meet a deadlines, or if they have been so rushed that they have not had time to do their best work. They regard having time spare after a task is completed as especially satisfying. Finishing just in time may be somewhat disconcerting, particularly if they have not had a chance to thoroughly check their work. They generally like to have extra time to review what they had done, check it for errors and possibly make some last-minute refinements that enhance their finished product. If this time is not available to them, they may find they have made more errors than if they had been able to work at a comfortable pace and finish early.




51





52


Pressure Prompted

People at this pole actually find it hard to work well without the time pressure of a deadline. They are rarely inspired to do their best work unless they are under sufficient time pressure as to seem to others that they have a good chance of not completing the job. They find the adrenaline rush of trying to meet a tight schedule almost enjoyable and may put off working on a project until the deadline is close enough that they will need a significant effort to finish it in time. This can be mistaken for procrastination, but it is far from it, for their delay in getting started is not an avoidance of doing the task. While they appear to be doing nothing and letting valuable time slip by, they are actually working in their heads. During this ‘inactive’ time these people are doing something very similar to a steam engine when it stands idly building up a head of steam. They require a gestational period—which may appear to others as inappropriate delay—to generate the spurt of energy they need to tackle the project. If they are working on several projects, this gestation may even occur while they rush to finish other tasks whose deadlines are imminent.

Yet this approach to work is more than just enjoying the aroused energy created by time pressure. They actually do their best work under the stress of a severe time constraint, for they have more ideas, work more efficiently, and think more clearly under those conditions. Depending on what kind of work they are doing, they may not necessarily have a good idea of how long it will take them to finish. But they play with the time they have and use it to help them determine what aspects of a project to include in the finished product and which ones to discard. The time pressure thus becomes an important part of their very style of work, and frequently they will use it interactively to structure their finished product. If they have time to spare, their reaction is likely to be one not of satisfaction, but of feeling that they began too soon and wasted some of that time meeting the deadline when they could have spent it on something else. Their enthusiasm may also fade near the end if they finish too early.





53


Scheduled/ Spontaneous

This scale centres on one aspect of the broader systematic/casual scale. Here the focus is primarily on the degree of structure in one’s daily activities.

Scheduled People at this pole find a comfort in routines that enables them to function efficiently without wasting

time and energy unproductively. Routine is appealing because it is a comfortable way of getting things done and making sure they are done correctly. Without routine, concentration is lost as well as the continuity in work that makes it all flow together smoothly, efficiently, and as flawlessly as possible. In this approach, there is personal satisfaction in fitting oneself into a routine because one can blend one’s abilities and energy into a predictable and productive flow of tasks, activities, and people. Scheduled people enjoy structuring their daily activities in a known sequence. It saves them the energy required for constantly and unexpectedly shifting gears, and it allows them to look forward to those parts of their day that are restful, satisfying, personally meaningful, or exciting.

The routine here is not that of merely repetitive tasks or events that are ordered in the same sequence day after day or hour after hour. And it is also larger than just daily schedules. It includes broader spans of time from morning rituals of getting up, dressed, and ready for work, to weekly, seasonal, and yearly patterns of work, leisure and family time. For some of these daily and longer-term routines, the repetition itself becomes meaningful providing a kind of anchor by which friendships and family relations are maintained.

This does not mean that scheduled people cannot function without a fixed pattern of daily activities, for no one’s days are all the same. But they are apt to feel uncomfortable without a structure by which their days and weeks can be organised. If such a structure is missing, they may seek ways or recapturing at least parts of their previous routines as a means of restoring order to what may otherwise seem to them like distressing confusion.





54


Spontaneous People at this pole are cramped at the very thought of having the same routine day after day, but are

energised by the prospect of what they see as delightful variety in their daily work. They are able to work within a routine when it is necessary, but find it painful to do so, and will try to find as many ways as possible to introduce variety into their work just to keep from becoming bored. They work best and with greatest energy when their work presents them with constant variety or they have the freedom to decide on their own what tasks they will do and when. If they have this freedom, they may begin their work day by tackling whatever task hits their fancy first, and then move on to the others as they feel inclined. They are not necessarily oblivious to deadlines, but within existing (and external) constraints may still do such work in the order of their own inclination insofar as this is possible. These people may be bored by the thought of longer-term routines, such as how and where to spend family vacations, how to celebrate holidays, birthdays, and other recurring events in friendships and among family. They may suggest different ways of ‘doing’ seasonal holidays just to keep them fresh by giving them newness and variety. This does not mean that they feel a need to completely revamp how these holidays are celebrated, but they do feel a need to introduce some variation on how they have been celebrated before.

If there is too much routine in too many areas of their lives, people at this pole may be motivated to break the monotony of their days or weeks by exploring new activities. This may mean taking courses at local colleges, joining clubs, doing volunteer work, or otherwise spending their leisure time doing things they have never tried before. This variety is essential for their mental health, for one of the worst things that can happen to them is to be stuck in a rut from which there is no obvious escape.





55


Methodical/ Emergent

This scale focuses on the sequencing of smaller tasks that need to be done to finish larger projects. Time and scheduling are not considerations here. This is one aspect of the broader systematic/casual concept.

Methodical In getting ready to do a large project, methodical people begin by organising themselves and

whatever materials, tools, or other people they will need. For themselves, they may make notes about which specific steps need to be done in what order or at what times. They make sure they have the necessary materials available or else arrange to have them delivered when they are needed. They may even lay the materials out in an order that makes it easy to get them when they are needed at a given stage of the project. If certain tools are required, they will get all of them before starting so they are close at hand when needed. They most likely will not have trouble finding these tools, because they will have kept them stored in a systematic arrangement or a definite location so they are easy to find when they are needed. If help from other people is necessary for the project, they will contact those people far enough in advance to make sure they will be available. Depending on the time frames involved, they may also call their helpers shortly before they are needed to remind them and make sure that they can still help out.

If asked to explain why they approach tasks this way, the answer most likely will be that it is much more efficient and takes less time. It also minimises mistakes, and in work settings may also reduce costs. These efficiencies are sources not only of faster and better work, but also of personal satisfaction. Methodical people take pleasure in organising their work, tools, and materials, for it frees them to concentrate on doing a good job. If they are working on a common task with someone who is not methodical, they may find the resulting inefficiencies frustrating. If they have the freedom to do so, they may even organise as much of the effort as they can just so they can work better.





56


Methodical (Continued)

Finally, when putting together something that comes with directions, methodical people are likely to read through the complete set of directions before starting in order to get an idea of what tools and tasks are required and what sequence they should follow. In doing so, they may get a good enough grasp of what the project entails that they are able to complete it correctly even if some of the directions happen to be slightly unclear or misleading.

Methodical teachers function best by making lesson plans that are well-organised and build the student’s knowledge sequentially. Without lesson plans, the important objectives are apt to be missed or covered too briefly. Yet it is not sufficient just to have plans. The plans must be organised around explicit learning objectives, and the parts of the lesson must tie together in a way that makes sense and maximises a student’s ability to grasp new material. And good lesson planning involves making sure that each topic is allocated the amount of time that is needed to cover it adequately.

Emergent Emergent people do not necessarily start a large task by beginning with the first step. They tend to

treat projects as explorations or discoveries, and they take delight in finding out what to do and how to do it as they go along. Thus when tackling a large project, if they make an outline or list of required tasks, it is apt to be very general rather than detailed. For them, taking time to organise tools, materials, and people before beginning is neither satisfying, interesting nor efficient. They prefer a much looser, unstructured approach to preparing for and carrying out tasks. They may do minimal preparation, being eager to tackle that part of a task that captures their attention first, and proceed to the other steps in the same manner. When at some stage a strict sequence of steps is required to complete the task correctly, they may discover this sequence by trial and error, or, as a last resort, by reading directions. Because they take an exploratory rather than a strictly sequential approach to doing complicated tasks, they most likely will look for tools only when they get to a stage that requires them. At that point, they may have difficulty finding them. The tools may have been left in place with another project, or simply have yet to be returned to the general vicinity of whatever place they are normally stored.




57





58


Emergent (Continued)

If they read directions at all, people at this pole almost never read them completely through before beginning a project. That would take the exploratory spirit out of the whole endeavour. Most likely they will glance at whatever diagrams are shown, begin looking for parts that match those in the picture, and proceed from that point. If a unit has been incorrectly packaged or is missing some parts, they are likely to discover the fact only after they have partially assembled the piece to the point where they need the missing part.

With projects having no fixed set of directions, emergent people take considerable pleasure in doing specific tasks in whatever order their exploration of the work leads them. This is because if the project is an exploration, completing one task nearly always suggests or leads to another. By following this trail of associations from one task to another, the project will be completed by a process best described as playing the whole thing by ear. At the end stage the emergent person will normally have obtained an overall picture of his/her effort that will enable all of the pieces to be fit together in a coherent way. This approach is particularly suited to new situations or projects in which one must discover what tasks need to be done, or in which one is required to improvise in completing certain tasks or stages.

Teachers at the emergent pole prefer an adaptable approach to implementing lesson plans. Their plans are likely to be general rather than detailed, and to leave much room for improvisation. They may introduce new material that was not in their outline, digress and explore a particular topic in more depth than they originally planned, or be guided by the class’s interest into areas that are not listed in their lesson plan. They will still be able to cover the major learning objectives of the class period. But they will address them in a sequence that arises dynamically out of their unique interactions with a particular class on a particular day.

mbti step ii — deepening your understanding

Documents