Hoping to do the entire Super Simple Series in this whiteboard format eventually, so subscribe to the aLBoP YouTube channel so you see when we post more!  Oh, and because I know there will be confusion (which makes sense as I am the stick figure maven), but while I (Calise) am doing the voiceover for this video, it’s Justin doing the drawing.

Much love, as always! <3

Calise and Justin

The post What is Personality?? New Intro Video appeared first on A Little Bit of Personality.

And as I always say, *don’t* start here!  You’re going to be so ridiculously confused if you do!  Are you one of those people that flips to the end of the book?!  Well, you can’t do that with this!

So far, on Cognition – The Super Simple Version…

Our minds prioritize information according to what’s the most important to us, the information we love the most.  Likewise, our minds process that information with the functions that best fit for our underlying objectives for that type of information.

In Part 1 we learned about the Four Types of Information, and that when we think, we all use all of them, just in different orders.

In Part 2 we learned about the four functions.  We learned that there are two Compilation Functions–Sensing (experiences) and iNtuition (concepts)–and two Application Functions–Feeling (meaning) and Thinking (use).

In Part 3 we learned that cognition steps are each made up of one Type of Information and one function, and each cognitive type is a unique combination and order of four of those steps.

Remember we discussed that the Four Types of Information are what we think about, the functions are how we take in and use that information, Judging and Perceiving are when we prioritize each type of information, and Introversion and Extraversion are where we get information.

And we derived the four cognition orders from requirements we got from the definitions themselves.

IP – Data -> Observation -> Action -> Principles
EP – Observation -> Data -> Principles -> Action
IJ – Principles -> Action -> Data -> Observation
EJ – Action -> Principles -> Observation -> Data

Requirements:

1. Perceivers use Perceiving first, then Judging.  Judgers use Judging first, then Perceiving.
2. Introverts use an Information Toi first.  Extraverts use an Action Toi first.
3. Introverts use Data before Observation.  Extraverts use Observation before Data.
4. “Specifics” use a Specific Toi first.  “Universals” use a Universal Toi first.
5. “Specifics” use Action before Principles.  “Universals” use Principles before Action.

We also learned that Judgers and Perceivers don’t think of Action the same way, with Judgers using Action like a map and Perceivers using Action like a toolbox.

 

 

And finally, in Part 4, we talked about the four possible Function-Combinations and why they always went with particular Types of Information:

When a Compilation Function (Sensing or iNtuition) is Extraverted (Se or Ne), it is always Observation— a pattern-finding database of individuals and their motives.

When a Compilation Function (Sensing or iNtuition) is Introverted (Si or Ni), it is either Principles (Js) or Action (Ps)–an internal playground of information pattern-finding.

When an Application Function (Feeling or Thinking) is Introverted (Fi or Ti), it is always Data–bullet points of information inside your head.

When an Application Function (Feeling or Thinking) is Extraverted (Fe or Te), it is either Action (Js) or Principles (Ps)–applying either meaning or use to your external environment.

Wow, that was quite the review!  Let’s just pick right up where we left off with the Function-Combinations.  I said in the last post that the four Function-Combinations are the four possible ways to start the cognition process.  Well, that’s the perfect way for us to begin assembling the sixteen cognition processes!

The four Function-Combinations are the four possible ways to start the cognition process

I’m going to walk slowly through one of our four Function-Combination options, deducing what we can tell just by knowing that someone starts with that Function-Combination, but then we’ll go faster through the other three.

So, we know that everyone uses all four Function-Combinations at some point in their cognition processes.  But let’s imagine someone who starts with Extraverted Compilation as their First Cognition Step.

 

We learned in Part 4 that Extraverted Compilation (EC heehee) is always Observation & Motivations.  Let’s ignore the fact that we learned who does Observation as their First Cognition Step in Part 3 and find it again.

 

Observation is part of the Perceiving half of the cognition process, and we learned in Part 3 that Perceivers (P) Perceive first, before Judging; therefore, anyone whose First Step is Perceiving (Observation) must be a Perceiver.  So someone who starts with Extraverted Compilation must be a P.

 

We also learned in Part 3 that if a person looks outside themselves first for information, in other words if they Extravert their First Step, then we call that person an Extravert (E).  So if someone’s First Step is *Extraverted* Compilation, then they must be an E.

So if a person’s uses Extraverted Compilation as their First Cognition Step, then they must be an EP.  And guess what?!  We learned in Part 3 that EPs’ First Cognition Step is *Observation!*  Yaaay!!!

We learned in Part 3 that if a person uses a Universal Toi (Type of Information) first, that it makes them a “Universal” type, and it also means that they use Principles before Action, while if a person uses a Specific Toi first, they’re a “Specific” type and they’ll use Action before Principles.

 

Well, you’ll also see that Universal cognition types start first with Compiling zoomed-out information to see how things always work.  Specific cognition types start with Applying zoomed-in information to specific circumstances.  Makes sense, right?

 

 

EPs use Universal Action (Observation & Motivations) first, so they’re Universal types, and they use Extraverted Compilation first!  See how everything fits together and cross-checks?  It makes it stupidly hard to explain simply, but it’s also really cool, imho.

Alright, let’s go through these Function-Combos a little faster, shall we?

 

So again, a cognition process starting with Extraverted Compilation: Always used for Perceiving; therefore P.  Extraverted; therefore E.  Compilation; therefore Universal.  EP, starting with Universal Action; Observation & Motivations using either Se (Extraverted Sensing) or Ne (Extraverted iNtuition).

 

 

A cognition process starting with Introverted Application:  Always used for Perceiving; therefore P.  Introverted; therefore I.  Application; therefore Specific.  IP, starting with Specific Information; Data & Details using either Fi (Introverted Feeling) or Ti (Introverted Thinking).

Now, the Judging Function-Combinations might seem more complicated, but we do know they’re always used for Judging even if they’re used for different Tois.  We also know that if a person uses Judging first, then they’re a Judger (J), so from that we know that they’ll be using the Function-Combos in Judger ways.

 A cognition process starting with Introverted Compilation: Always used for Judging; therefore J.  Introverted; therefore I.  Compilation; therefore Universal.  IJ, starting with Universal Information; Principles & Trends using either Si (Introverted Sensing) or Ni (Introverted iNtuition).

 

A cognition process starting with Extraverted Application: Always used for Judging; therefore J.  Extraverted; therefore E.  Application; therefore Specific.  EJ, starting with Specific Action; Actions & Consequences using either Fe (Extraverted Feeling) or Te (Extraverted Thinking).

See how all the possibilities are covered?  Each Function-Combo is used first by *someone,* and the rest of their functions follow from their First Step, just like everyone’s cognition order followed from the first Type of Information they used.  It’s so interweaving and perdy! <3  And all the options possible, based on the definitions, exist!  All the bases are covered!

Okay.  /end geek-out.  But here we now have 8 types:

 

Step One

If a person’s First Cognition Step is Observation & Motivations via Se, then they’re an ESP, an Extraverted Sensing Perceiver.  (See how that works?  They’re using Perceiving, Extraversion and Sensing first?  I swear all the multi-post lead-up was important, even though the end result is that simple.  That’s all that ESP means, this is their First Cognition Step.)  That means they start their cognition process by watching individuals to compile possibilities and to understand motives based on their experiences of what they’ve seen people do.

 

If a person’s First Cognition Step is Observation & Motivations via Ne, then they’re an ENP, an Extraverted iNtuitive Perceiver.  That means they start their cognition process by watching individuals in order to compile possibilities and to understand motives based on concepts of what people can do and how people work conceptually.

 

If a person’s First Cognition Step is Data & Details via Fi, then they’re an IFP, an Introverted Feeling Perceiver.  That means they start their cognition process by pondering the details of a situation in order to understand and apply the inherent significance of specific situations and to ask questions that help them discover meaningful possibilities.

 

If a person’s First Cognition Step is Data & Details via Ti, then they’re an ITP, an Introverted Thinking Perceiver.  That means they start their cognition process by pondering the details of a situation in order to understand and apply the inherent benefits of specific situations and to ask questions that help them discover useful possibilities.

 

If a person’s First Cognition Step is Principles & Trends via Si, they’re an ISJ, an Introverted Sensing Judger.  That means they start their cognition process by pondering on how the world has worked in their experience in order to compile core principles of how things always work, and predict trends of how things will continue to work.

 

If a person’s First Cognition Step is Principles & Trends via Ni, they’re an INJ, an Introverted iNtuitive Judger.  That means they start their cognition process by pondering on how the world works in concept, in order to compile core principles of how things always work, and predict trends of how things could work.

 

If a person’s First Cognition Step is Action & Consequences via Fe, they’re an EFJ, an Extraverted Feeling Judger.  That means they start their cognition process by watching the cause-and-effect of people’s choices in order to understand and apply the inherent significance of decisions and to chart the most meaningful course of action ahead of them.

 

If a person’s First Cognition Step is Action & Consequences via Te, they’re an ETJ, an Extraverted Thinking Judger.  That means they start their cognition process by watching the cause-and-effect of people’s choices in order to understand and apply the inherent benefits of decisions and to chart the most useful course of action ahead of them.

 

Quoth Brian Regan profoundly, “Say EIGHT!!”  Here we now have eight cognitive types, which cover all the possible options.  We multiplied the 4Toi (Four Types of Information), by two possible functions for each one (two Compilation and two Application) to get eight types.  But you may remember I said there were sixteen unique cognition processes.  Well, let’s cleave them in two again by using the *Second* Step of the cognition process. :O

Step Two

For everyone’s Second Cognition Step, they finish out either Judging or Perceiving and they switch whether they’re Compiling or Applying information, as well as whether they’re looking outside or inside (Extraverting or Introverting functions).

If a person’s Second Cognition Step is Data & Details via Fi, then they’re an EFP, an Extraverted Feeling Perceiver.  That means they ponder on what their observations from their First Step can show them about the details of a situation in order to understand and apply the inherent significance of specific situations and to ask questions that help them discover meaningful possibilities.

 

If a person’s Second Cognition Step is Data & Details via Ti, then they’re an ETP, an Extraverted Thinking Perceiver.  That means they ponder on what their observations from their First Step can show them about the details of a situation in order to understand and apply the inherent benefits of specific situations and to ask questions that help them discover useful possibilities.

If a person’s Second Cognition Step is Observation & Motivations via Se, then they’re an ISP, an Introverted Sensing Perceiver.  That means they watch to see what their situational conclusions from their First Step can show them about individuals in order to compile possibilities and to understand motives based on their experiences of what they’ve seen people do.

 

If a person’s Second Cognition Step is Observation & Motivations via Ne, then they’re an INP, an Introverted iNtuitive Perceiver.  That means they watch to see what their situational conclusions from their First Step can show them about individuals in order to compile possibilities and to understand motives based on concepts of what people can do and how people work conceptually.

 

If a person’s Second Cognition Step is Action & Consequences via Fe, they’re an IFJ, an Introverted Feeling Judger.  That means they watch to see what the universal trends from their First Step can show them about the cause-and-effect of people’s choices in order to understand and apply the inherent significance of decisions and to chart the most meaningful course of action ahead of them.

 

If a person’s Second Cognition Step is Action & Consequences via Te, they’re an ITJ, an Introverted Thinking Judger.  That means they watch to see what the universal trends from their First Step can show them about the cause-and-effect of people’s choices in order to understand and apply the inherent benefit of decisions and to chart the most useful course of action ahead of them.

 

If a person’s Second Cognition Step is Principles & Trends via Si, they’re an ESJ, an Extraverted Sensing Judger.  That means they ponder on what the cause-and-effect from their First Step can show them about how the world has worked in experience, in order to compile core principles of how things always work, and predict trends of how things will continue to work.

 

If a person’s Second Cognition Step is Principles & Trends via Ni, they’re an ENJ, an Extraverted iNtuitive Judger.  That means they ponder on what the cause-and-effect from their First Step can show them about how the world works in concept, in order to compile core principles of how things always work, and predict trends of how things could work.

 

See, and just from that we see how a person’s first two cognition steps determines their cognitive type!!  We get four letters for each type based on just those two steps!

Now, you *could* potentially figure out everyone’s last two steps by yourself from the cognition order we talked about in Part 3 and our Function-Combinations from Part 4, but I’m not going to make you do that, and I want to point things out as we finish these up.

Alright, so we know that everyone uses all Four Types of Information and all four functions, so by process of elimination, in the second half of the cognition process, everyone uses the two Tois and functions they haven’t yet, according to the Function-Combinations: Perceivers Judge, Judgers Perceive.

For Step Three, everyone switches whether they’re looking inside or outside again (I/E) but the Compilation/Application relationship is interesting between Steps Two and Three.

Remember how I pointed out in the last post that Judgers’ cognition order is a Universal or Specific sandwich, with Perceivers getting like a weird mayo on the outside thing?  Well, what everyone does have, cognitively speaking, is a Compilation or Application sandwich… by which I mean that Universal types use Compilation Functions on either end of their cognition process, with Application Functions in the middle, and Specific types use Application Functions on either end, with Compilation Functions in the middle.

Universal – C -> A -> A -> C
Specific  – A -> C -> C -> A

(ACA were my maiden initials.  Calise is my middle name.  I miss the palindrome :’( lol)

This is because the translation between the Judging and Perceiving halves of the cognition process is made possible by staying either zoomed-out or zoomed-in, so either Compiling or Applying, even when we go to repeat the cognition process over again.

So as everyone switches to Judging or Perceiving on Step Three, they continue either Compiling or Applying, but with a function they haven’t used yet, and switching whether they’re using that function inside or outside.

And that makes sense, because Judging and Perceiving both have one Compilation Function and one Application Function, and one Extraverted function and one Introverted function, right?  And we don’t repeat Function-Combinations.

So if Compilation and Application are making a sandwich (eg. ACCA), and Extraversion and Introversion are alternating (eg. eiei…o lol), then they never line up the same way twice.  And that’s exactly what we’re looking for everyone to get to use all four Function-Combos!  (And interestingly, those examples together, ACCA and eiei, would *always* be an EJ cognition process, because it’s starting with Application and Extraversion. :))

Also remember, Third Step is where our Perceivers start doing their toolbox thing, of Compiling Action and Applying Principles.  {And it’s neat to observe that Perceivers always Extravert Universal Tois, and Introvert Specific ones.  Makes sense that Perceivers would gather their understanding of how the world works on a Universal scale from perceiving the outside themselves, right?  Whereas Judgers always match up Compilation with Universal.}

The transition between the Second and Third Steps is really cool too, because it’s unique to each cognition order, in a way that fits their cognition perfectly:

EPs are the only ones that find world Trends directly from situational Data.

IPs are the only ones that compile what Actions are possible directly from Observing individuals.

IJs are the only ones that gather situational Data directly from Consequences.

And EJs are the only ones that gather their Observations of individuals’ motivations directly from seeing how the world works in Principle.

Step Three

If a person’s Third Cognition Step is Principles & Trends via Te, they’re an EFP, an Extraverted Feeling Perceiver.  That means they watch to see what their situational conclusions from their Second Step can show them about the benefit of the world and what’s occurring in it, in order to understand their personal principles about what is the most use to them and to watch for useful trends.

 

If a person’s Third Cognition Step is Principles & Trends via Fe, they’re an ETP, an Extraverted Thinking Perceiver.  That means they watch to see what their situational conclusions from their Second Step can show them about the significance of the world and what’s occurring in it, in order to understand their personal principles about what means the most to them and to watch for meaningful trends.

 

If a person’s Third Cognition Step is Action & Consequences via Ni, they’re an ISP, an Introverted Sensing Perceiver.  That means they ponder on what their observations from their Second Step can show them about the cause-and-effect of people’s choices in order to understand and compile how decisions and consequences work in core concept and to discover what new actions are possible.

 

If a person’s Third Cognition Step is Action & Consequences via Si, they’re an INP, an Introverted iNtuitive Perceiver.  That means they ponder on what their observations from their Second Step can show them about the cause-and-effect of people’s choices in order to understand and compile how decisions and consequences work based on their experience and to consider what actions have worked the best in the past.

 

If a person’s Third Cognition Step is Data & Details via Ti, then they’re an IFJ, an Introverted Feeling Judger.  That means they ponder on what the cause-and-effect from their Second Step can show them about the details of a situation in order to understand and apply the inherent benefits of specific situations and to ask questions that help them discover useful possibilities.

 

If a person’s Third Cognition Step is Data & Details via Fi, then they’re an ITJ, an Introverted Thinking Judger.  That means they ponder on what the cause-and-effect from their Second Step can show them about the details of a situation in order to understand and apply the inherent significance of specific situations and to ask questions that help them discover meaningful possibilities.

 

If a person’s Third Cognition step is Observation & Motivations via Ne, then they’re an ESJ, an Extraverted Sensing Judger.  That means they watch to see what the universal trends from their Second Step can show them about individuals in order to compile possibilities and to understand motives based on concepts of what people can do and how people work conceptually.

 

If a person’s Third Cognition step is Observation & Motivations via Se, then they’re an ENJ, an Extraverted iNtuitive Judger.  That means they watch to see what the universal trends from their Second Step can show them about individuals in order to compile possibilities and to understand motives based on their experiences of what they’ve seen people do.

 

There’s not much more to say before Step Four; it’s the last one left, both Toi and Function-Combination.  It’s the end of our C/A sandwich and always opposite E/I of our First Step.  It’s always going to be where our minds spend the least time too, and therefore the biggest struggle for us, but we’ll talk more about that later.

Step Four

If a person’s Fourth Cognition Step is Action & Consequences via Ni, they’re an ESP, an Extraverted Sensing Perceiver.  That means they watch to see what the universal trends from their Third Step can show them about the cause-and-effect of people’s choices in order to understand and compile how decisions and consequences work in core concept and to discover what new actions are possible.

 

If a person’s Fourth Cognition Step is Action & Consequences via Si, they’re an ENP, an Extraverted iNtuitive Perceiver.  That means they watch to see what the universal trends from their Third Step can show them about the cause-and-effect of people’s choices in order to understand and compile how decisions and consequences work based on their experience and to consider what actions have worked the best in the past.

 

If a person’s Fourth Cognition Step is Principles & Trends via Te, they’re an IFP, an Introverted Feeling Perceiver.  That means they watch to see what the cause-and-effect from their Third Step can show them about the benefit of the world and what’s occurring in it, in order to understand their personal principles about what is the most use to them and to watch for useful trends.

 

If a person’s Fourth Cognition Step is Principles & Trends via Fe, they’re an ITP, an Introverted Thinking Perceiver.  That means they watch to see what the cause-and-effect from their Third Step can show them about the significance of the world and what’s occurring in it, in order to understand their personal principles about what means the most to them and to watch for meaningful trends.

 

If a person’s Fourth Cognition Step is Observation & Motivations via Ne, then they’re an ISJ, an Introverted Sensing Judger.  That means they watch to see what their situational conclusions from their Third Step can show them about individuals in order to compile possibilities and to understand motives based on concepts of what people can do and how people work conceptually.

 

If a person’s Fourth Cognition Step is Observation & Motivations via Se, then they’re an INJ, an Introverted iNtuitive Judger.  That means they watch to see what their situational conclusions from their Third Step can show them about individuals in order to compile possibilities and to understand motives based on their experiences of what they’ve seen people do.

 

If a person’s Fourth Cognition Step is Data & Details via Ti, then they’re an EFJ, an Extraverted Feeling Judger.  That means they ponder on what their observations from their Second Step can show them about the details of a situation in order to understand and apply the inherent benefits of specific situations and to ask questions that help them discover useful possibilities.

 

If a person’s Fourth Cognition Step is Data & Details via Fi, then they’re an ETJ, an Extraverted Thinking Judger.  That means they ponder on what their observations from their Second Step can show them about the details of a situation in order to understand and apply the inherent significance of specific situations and to ask questions that help them discover meaningful possibilities.

 

And that, my friends, is all the cognition steps for all sixteen cognition orders!!  Let’s look at the sixteen cognition processes of our resulting four-variable types!

ESFP – Observation via Se -> Data via Fi -> Principles via Te -> Action via Ni

ESTP – Observation via Se -> Data via Ti -> Principles via Fe -> Action via Ni

ENFP – Observation via Ne -> Data via Fi -> Principles via Te -> Action via Si

ENTP – Observation via Ne -> Data via Ti -> Principles via Fe -> Action via Si
(This one is my cognition order ^ :D)

 

 

ISFP – Data via Fi -> Observation via Se -> Action via Ni -> Principles via Te

ISTP – Data via Ti -> Observation via Se -> Action via Ni -> Principles via Fe

INFP – Data via Fi -> Observation via Ne -> Action via Si -> Principles via Te

INTP – Data via Ti -> Observation via Ne -> Action via Si -> Principles via Fe

 

 

ISFJ – Principles via Si -> Action via Fe -> Data via Ti -> Observation via Ne

ISTJ – Principles via Si -> Action via Te -> Data via Fi -> Observation via Ne

INFJ – Principles via Ni -> Action via Fe -> Data via Ti -> Observation via Se

INTJ – Principles via Ni -> Action via Te -> Data via Fi -> Observation via Se

 

 

ESFJ – Action via Fe -> Principles via Si -> Observation via Ne -> Data via Ti

ESTJ – Action via Te -> Principles via Si -> Observation via Ne -> Data via Fi

ENFJ – Action via Fe -> Principles via Ni -> Observation via Se -> Data via Ti

ENTJ – Action via Te -> Principles via Ni -> Observation via Se -> Data via Fi

Here’s a link to all four of those in one picture, on my Pinterest.  Feel free to save/share it for reference.

Great Scott, we made it!!  *You* made it!  And now you know what all those little picture symbols and Ne, Ti, Si, etc. really mean… here on aLBoP anyway.  I take no responsibility for what they mean anywhere else.

While the second half of the cognition process is not as high a priority for our minds as the first half, it’s still an essential part of how our minds work.   Remember, we all use all Four Types of Information and we all use all four functions.  While a Thinker doesn’t prioritize meaning as early as a Feeler in their cognition process, the way Ts use meaning is integral to the way they cognate.  Same deal with Feelers and use, Sensors with concepts and iNtuitives with experiences.  While not our prime objectives, our later steps are precious parts of who we are and how we think, ones that contribute back to our central desires.

In the same way that Perceivers use Judging in an essential, toolbox way that helps them use possibilities and situations better, Judgers’ use of Perceiving is essential to their understanding of the world and consequences with complexity and balance.

Now, that being said, our later steps, and especially our last steps, are always our weakest, because our minds just don’t spend as much time there.  As finite beings, we’re limited and we just don’t have enough mental energy to spend equally on everything, and our cognition process is all about prioritizing, in a good way.

We also tend to be insecure when it comes to our later steps, especially the last one.  But this ends up being a vicious cycle when our insecurity impels us to focus too heavily on those later steps.  In fact, when we’re insecure or scared in general, we tend to hang out at our Last Step.  When we do this, we ignore crucial things that our First Cognition Step is telling us and make terrible errors in judgment, choices and overall understanding.

Our First Cognition Step is first because deep down we love it the most, and because we spend the most time there, that’s what we’re naturally best at.  It gives us nuanced information that we just can’t get from our later steps.  And when we fixate on our later steps, we end up getting less able in our First Step, which is just a mess.

The answer is to return to the North Star stability of your First Step, and focus on discovering what it’s really telling you.  Strengthening your cognitive strengths, it seems, naturally helps your cognitive weaknesses grow stronger too.  Works Every. Single. Time.

But you’ve been told that what your mind prioritizes just isn’t good enough, that it’s not smart enough, important enough, cool enough or responsible enough.  “Why can’t you just be more like *not* you?” our culture demands of us.

That’s one thing that all the types have in common: they’re all pressured to be someone else.  We’re all pressured to feel guilty for specializing in the things we love the most.  We all get told that the way we think is broken and wrong.

But cognition isn’t supposed to limit what you’re *allowed* to do or be.   When done correctly, understanding your cognition should be *permission* to do and be the fullest version of you; permission to love the things you love the most.   Permission to see that the way you think is good and not broken.  And help to see that you, *as you,* can become the hero you’ve always wanted to be.

In Part 6, we’ll talk about the who and the why of cognition, what each cognition type specializes in better than any other type.

But, guuuuys!!  You made it through the entire cognition process!!!  /Party for you!  While understanding the physics of thought has literally *endless* applications, now you know the foundations that all the applications build upon.  We still have plenty of Super Simple to go, but now it’s just the cool results of these immensely simple patterns.  These sixteen options cover all the possibilities, and we need that diversity of people and specializations.

Now that the entire cognition process itself has been given the Super Simple treatment, I may not rush Part 6 nearly as much as I rushed Parts 3, 4 and 5.  After all, there’s already a pretty good, relatively straightforward post called Type Specializations: What Makes *My* Type Special, and while I’ll love to put it through the Super-Simple-O-Matic (-_- believe me, there is nothing automated about writing these, ROFL!) it’s not nearly as urgent.

Oh, and if you want to read my first description of the cognition process, written more confusingly but in somewhat more detail, and stick figures ;), check out The Cognition Process in Stick Figures.  You, being a pro at the cognition process now, should totally be able to handle it, and I *am* still pretty proud of the cute stick figures, considering that post was written almost three years ago now.  (Although, please forgive words like “linear” for Sensing, etc.  aLBoP was super baby at that point and we were still defining our terms and learning how much we needed to differentiate ourselves from other typing systems.  Stuff like that makes me super cringey when I look back at my early posts, but the SSS is a chance for me to remedy all that!  It’s super incredible what you can learn to do better in just a few years!!)

On the aLBoP Guided Tour?  For now, until there’s more Super Simple, What Do All These Letters Mean Anyway? is up next!

The post Cognition – The Super Simple Series! | Part 5: Assembling the Cognition Process appeared first on A Little Bit of Personality.

Oh and of course, if you haven’t read Parts 1, 2 and 3 yet, then I love you but you really shouldn’t be here yet.  Go read those first and then come back.  Don’t worry, I’m patient.

Alrighty, I’m really excited for this part too because there’s a lot about why Functions function the way that they do that I really haven’t gotten the opportunity to explain to the whole class, and they are really pretty frickn’ awesome!
 
A little bit of review, since the last post was long: (heehee, my fingers want to capitalize A Little Bit… I wonder why ;D)

Last time our intrepid heroes were reading Cognition – The Super Simple Series…

Our minds prioritize information according to what’s the most important to us, the information we love the most.  Likewise, our minds process that information with the functions that best fit for our underlying objectives for that Type of Information.

There are Four Types of Information and four functions.  Cognition Steps are each made up of one Type of Information and one function, and each cognitive type is a unique combination and order of four of those steps.

Remember we discussed that the Four Types of Information are what we think about, the functions are how we take in and use that information, Judging and Perceiving are when we prioritize each type of information, and Introversion and Extraversion are where we get information.

Now we’re going to play cognition step matchmaker with the 4Toi (Four Types of Information) and the four functions.  But the Four Types of Information are picky when it comes to being paired off, they won’t hook up with just any function or get information from just anywhere.  So let’s meet our lucky bachelors… or bachelorettes?  Eh, whatever, they’re inanimate and we all do all four. 

Here we have another double-dichotomy!  This double-dichotomy shows the four Function-Combination options; Introverted vs. Extraverted combined with Application Functions vs. Compilation Functions.  These are the four possible Function-Combination options and we all use each one once in our cognition process.

{And one thing you’ll find in common with most aLBoP’s double-dichotomies, this double-dichotomy correlates with the Four Types of Information, while not actually *being* the Four Types of Information.  This is because the 4Toi is made up of such basic, fundamental variables–being vs. doing (Information vs. Action) and zoomed-out vs. zoomed-in (Universal vs. Specific)–that you find the 4Toi correlating with patterns all throughout nature, as well as fractally throughout human intelligence… but that’s a topic for another day.}

Okay let’s take each of these options in turn and talk about what they really are and why each only gets matched up with certain Types of Information during the cognition process.

Remember, Compilation Functions compile massive quantities of information into universally applicable patterns that *always* apply, while Application Functions apply information to specific circumstances by deciding which information and choices best match with that function’s aim and purpose.

The two Compilation Functions are Sensing (experiences) and iNtuition (concepts).

The two Application Functions are Feeling (meaning) and Thinking (use).

And Extraversion turns outward for information while Introversion turns inward.

We like to use the analogy of a sonar for when a function is Extraverted; Extraversion uses sonar “pings” by poking people and the world to get a read on the things outside of it.

And when a function is Introverted, it’s like a HUD (heads-up display), constantly checking and aligning the information inside the mind.

When a Compilation Function is Extraverted, it “pings” the outside world to finds patterns by watching reactions to choices.   Those reactions create a database of possibilities, showing what an individual can do and be.  Also, people’s reactions demonstrate their universal, zoomed-out character; over time, Extraverted Compilation creates a database of an individual’s reactions to see the kind of person they are and if they can be relied on as a source of information and trusted.  It’s like a sonar to x-ray the shape of someone’s heart (cue the Backstreet Boys’ song in my head and suddenly I’m 14 again).

Since Extraverted Compilation is always about watching for patterns in people’s choices, it is always paired with Universal Action, aka Observation & Motivations.

So Extraverted Compilation… should we shorten it to EC?  (Incidentally, Ecee was my nickname growing up; oddly appropriate considering this is my mind’s favorite Function-Combination.)  But then again EC stands for other things.  And that would mean shortening Extraverted Application to EA… so let’s not. lol

So Extraverted Compilation can come either by way of Sensing, in the form of learning from hands-on experience of seeing how individuals and situations *have* reacted in the past, or it can come by way of iNtuition, in the form of concepts of how individuals and situations *could* react.  Both come in the form of large databases, but Extraverted Sensing (Se) finds patterns in what individuals have already done and Extraverted iNtuition (Ne) finds patterns in what individuals could potentially do.

So whenever you see Extraverted Sensing (Se) or Extraverted iNtuition (Ne), they are always Observation & Motivations, and therefore always Perceiving.  That’s why the little shorthand is useful, so don’t be scared of it.  

When an Application Function is Introverted, it uses the information already compiled inside the mind, and filters it into bullet points of information, ready to apply to the specific situation.  It turns inside, zooms in on the information it already has on its HUD, and examines, “What do I already know, and what information am I missing?”  In other words, it determines what Data and Details it has at its disposal and makes situational conclusions based on those bullet points of data.  It asks questions and looks for specific informational flaws.

So, Data *is* the Specific Information inside your head, so is it any surprise that Introverted Application functions always serve as our Data & Details step?

Now the main reason I originally started using Data & Details instead of just saying Data, was because the word “Data” conveys more of the use, Thinking version of Data, but not as much the Feeling, meaning side of it.  Half the types use their Data to find the efficient use of specific situational information, but the other half uses their Data to understand the inherent meaning of situations and Details, holding close the intrinsic significance of moments.  Both use Specific Information to determine conclusions and ask questions, but Introverted Feeling (Fi) focuses on the meaning of Specific Information, while Introverted Thinking (Ti) focuses on its use.

So whenever you see Introverted Feeling (Fi) or Introverted Thinking (Ti), they are always Data & Details, and therefore always Perceiving.

Caveat: I should really say, whenever you see Fi, Ti, etc. on aLBoP, because nine times out of ten if you see function shorthands elsewhere on the internet and in books, they’ll have no real definitions beyond things like, “Well, it kind of makes you emotional and stuff…”  Which, besides not being especially useful in application, are usually ridiculously simplified and restricting.  All I’m gonna say atm.

Extraverted Compilation Functions = Observation & Motivations
Introverted Application Functions = Data & Details

Will you look at that?!  We have cognition patterns forming again! Now we have matching Function-Combinations for the entire Perceiving half of the cognition process!  And again like with our double-dichotomy in the last post, each half of the cognition process gets one of each variable; one Extraverted function, one Introverted, one Compilation Function, one Application Function.  And we can tell that that’s a pattern that’s going to continue into the Judging half, because the options left follow that same pattern.

But, remember from Part 3, the Judging half of the cognition process was where things went a little crazy, right?  Because Judgers think of Action like a map and Perceivers think of Action like a toolbox, ‘member?  Well this is where we’re going to see that dynamic play out in the functions, where the rubber hits the road.

When a Compilation Function is Introverted, the mind becomes a fantastic playground of information pattern-finding.  The great scenario generator, Introverted Compilation is always the most zoomed-out step, because inside the mind there are no borders to the information it can compile and find patterns in.  Introverted Compilation uses its HUD to sort through huge databases of compiled information in order to find the universal rules of what makes things work.

Now, here’s where Judgers and Perceivers differ.

Judgers use this vast internal playground to find patterns in how the world as a whole works, what Principles are universally true and how to predict world Trends, so their Actions will interact with said world correctly.

And Perceivers use the Compilation mind-playground to visualize scenarios of Action, find patterns and parallels in what makes a category of Action work and get desired Consequences when different world situations arise.

So Introverted Compilation is always a Judging step, which is good to remember, but for Judgers it’s always Principles & Trends, and for Perceivers it’s always Action & Consequences.

Like with all the variables, there are two ways to compile in your head.  Introverted Sensing (Si) finds patterns in past experiences to see what Principles (for Js) or Action (for Ps) have worked in the past, and to find the threads behind what consistently works.  Introverted iNtuition (Ni) finds patterns in the overall mental concepts of information to see how information always fits together as Principles (for Js) or Action (for Ps), which can be used in new ways and to find the core connections behind what always works.

Alright, so Introverted Sensing (Si) and Introverted iNtuition (Ni) are always the zoomed-out, compiling side of Judging, but for Judgers they’ll always be Principles & Trends, and for Perceivers they’ll always be Action & Consequences.

When an Application Function is Extraverted, it looks at the world to find current needs outside itself and see what’s required to make the outside circumstances meet the function’s objectives.  While Introverted Application looks for what information is missing inside the mind, Extraverted Application sonar “pings” the external road ahead to see what’s missing in order to achieve the outside objectives it desires.

Perhaps the Function-Combination that typifies the word “Judging” the most, Extraverted Application is all about weighing and applying judgment calls about what will be best, whether its job is to prioritize use or meaning, action or worldview.

And like Introverted Compilation, Extraverted Application is always a Judging step, whose use differs between Judgers and Perceivers.

Judgers use Extraverted Application to look outside themselves and decide both their goals and determine what Actions and choices will lead to the Consequences they desire.  They also interpret the effects of previous Actions to understand Consequences more accurately.  They use Extraverted Action to plot their map’s course and review where the paths they’ve already taken have led them.

Perceivers use Extraverted Application to look outside themselves and watch how the Trends of the world are going, checking for what it might need to match their objectives for it.  Their minds work in conjunction with their zoomed-out Action to see what tools the world needs from their toolbox.

So Extraverted Application is always a Judging step, but for Judgers it’s always Action & Consequences, and for Perceivers it’s always Principles & Trends.

Half of the cognition processes use Extraverted Feeling (Fe) as their Extraverted Application Function.

When Js use Extraverted Feeling (Fe), they look outside themselves to see what Actions would bring Consequences that are the most intrinsically significant, and decide which choices will lead to the most meaningful outcome.

When Ps use Extraverted Feeling (Fe), they look at the world outside themselves to discover what causes meaningful Trends, to determine Principles of what matters to them the most, and to find what the world needs to make it more meaningful.

The other half of the cognition processes use Extraverted Thinking (Te) as their Extraverted Application Function.

When Judgers use Extraverted Thinking (Te), they look outside themselves to see what Actions and choices would most efficiently produce the useful Consequences they need to achieve the most beneficial outcome.

When Perceivers use Extraverted Thinking (Te), they look at the world outside themselves to discover what causes useful Trends, to determine Principles of what tends to be the most effective, and to find what the world needs to make it more beneficial.

Okey doke, so Extraverted Feeling (Fe) and Extraverted Thinking (Te) are always the zoomed-in, applying side of Judging, but for Judgers they’ll always be Action & Consequences, and for Perceivers they’ll always be Principles & Trends.

And now we have the Judging half of the cognition process!  Tada!

Introverted Compilation Functions = Principles & Trends (for Js) OR Action & Consequences (for Ps)

Extraverted Application Functions = Action & Consequences (for Js) OR Principles & Trends (for Ps)

That is *all* the possible Function-Combinations!!  This means there’s three possible uses for each function: one Perceiving option, one Judging option for Js, and one Judging option for Ps.

When a Compilation Function (Sensing or iNtuition) is Extraverted (Se or Ne), it is always Observation— a pattern-finding database of individuals and their motives.

When a Compilation Function (Sensing or iNtuition) is Introverted (Si or Ni), it is either Principles (Js) or Action (Ps)–an internal playground of information pattern-finding.

When an Application Function (Feeling or Thinking) is Introverted (Fi or Ti), it is always Data–bullet points of information inside your head.

When an Application Function (Feeling or Thinking) is Extraverted (Fe or Te), it is either Action (Js) or Principles (Ps)–applying judgment calls to your external environment.

So the longer explanations were to help you understand *why* certain Types of Information only hook-up with certain Function-Combos, but really it’s as simple as these four statements above.  My hope will be that understanding why will help it be *easier* to understand, but if you forget, just reference these four statements.

And these four Function-Combinations are the four possible ways to start the cognition process!

So why is all this so important for understanding yourself, others, and the consistency of the human mind?  The reason I love Function-Combinations so much is because of the incredibly equal footing on which they place every cognition process.  So much junk-personality-typing tries to define the spectrum of humanity by separating them by narrow traits to the exclusion of all other traits, which limits and incapacitates people.

People tend to get so focused on if a person “is” F/T, S/N, E/I or J/P, or even Fe/Fi, Ni/Ne, etc.,–and sure, the letters are a good shorthand for what we prioritize first, and what is the most important to us–but so often, that focus makes us forget that each of the four functions is an integral part of *all* cognition processes.

I love how Function-Combinations just serve to demonstrate that life shouldn’t be a battle of opposing functions and viewpoints.  This isn’t some stupid war of S vs N or F vs T, and certainly not Fe vs Fi *eyeroll*.  Everyone needs to learn from experience (Sensing), concepts (iNtuition), meaning (Feeling) and use (Thinking), to function healthily.  (Functions to function! heehee)  Function-Combinations help to highlight that there are three very different ways to use experience, three ways to use concepts, etc.  And each of those beautiful variations leads to such a magnificent array of perspective and objective!

Okay, but here’s the thing: originally I’d planned to lay out everything about cognition steps, cognition order, Function-Combinations and putting it all back together, all in *one* post!  All of that was going to be rolled up into Part 3!  But then as I wrote it, I realized that, while I want to make this simple enough for anyone to understand, I really wanted to teach the *why* too!  So then keeping it super simple meant breaking it up into digestible pieces… so Part 3 became Parts 3 and 4, with Part 4 being Function-Combinations and putting the whole cognition process together!  But I realized when I was 85% of the way done with Part 4, that I was totally rushing putting all the pieces back together, which is kind of the point!  So Part 4 became Parts 4 and 5. -_-

My point is, hold that thought!  In Part 5 we’re going to use everything we’ve learned so far to assemble cognition steps, and use those to make sixteen completely unique cognition processes!!!  So stay tuned! <3

On the aLBoP Guided Tour?  Cognition – The Super Simple Series! | Part 5: Assembling the Cognition Process is up next!

The post Cognition – The Super Simple Series! | Part 4: Function-Combinations appeared first on A Little Bit of Personality.

I’ve explained the ins and outs of cognition order in a much more complicated way in the past, but today I really want to break it down into simple reasons *why* cognition does what it does.  Because the mind doesn’t do anything without a reason.

So at this point (assuming you’re not starting here, because this is Part 3 and that’d be silly), we’ve covered the Four Types of Information that our minds acquire and process in Part 1, and the Functions which are the means by which our minds compile and filter that information in Part 2.  In this post we’re going to start putting it all together and see how our minds go about prioritizing that information, based on what matters to us the most.

As we talked about in the first post, our minds prioritize information according to what’s the most important to us, the information we love the most.  Likewise, our minds process that information with the functions that best fit for our underlying objectives for that Type of Information.

Okay, so we have Four Types of Information and we have four functions.  Coincidence?  I think not!  Partially, it’s because of dichotomies and stuff, but also it’s because we’re going to pair them off!  Play cognitive matchmaker.

As you see in this picture, Cognition Steps are each made up of one Type of Information and one function, and each cognitive type is a unique combination and order of four of those steps.  Each of the sixteen cognitive types has its very own thought process, prioritizing different information and objectives than all the others.

Cognition steps flow one into the next, with each step being derived from the step before it, and adding more onto it.  And all our cognition steps contribute back to our first, most beloved step, when we start the cognition process over again.  And over and over and over and… you get the idea. 

While we all use all the Types of Information and functions, the way in which we use them, and the order we use them in, makes an enormous difference in how we think.

Remember how we talked in Part 1 about the Perceiving and Judging halves of the cognition process?  Well this is where that comes in.  If the Four Types of Information are what we’re thinking about, and the Functions are how we’re taking in and using that information, Judging and Perceiving are when we prioritize each Type of Information.

Remember, we learned that the Perceiving half of the cognition process is made up of Data & Details, and Observation & Motivations.  We also learned that Perceivers (P) use this half of the cognition process first.

Since Perceiving focuses on possibilities and how individuals and situations *interact,* Observation & Motivations and Data & Details are BFFs; they always go together to form half of the cognition process.

So Perceivers (Ps) use Data & Details and Observation & Motivations as steps One and Two of their cognition process; though that doesn’t tell us which of those two comes first, Data & Details or Observation & Motivations.

But let’s map this as we go.  If we use a toolbox to represent Perceiving, for reasons I’ll explain in a little while, then we can map out the beginning of Perceivers’ cognition process as toolbox, toolbox, or P, P:

The little arrows represent that we derive one Type of Information from the one before, so for Perceivers that’s getting Step Two Perceiving information from Step One Perceiving information.

But what about the other half of the cognition process?  And what is the alternative to starting with Perceiving?

Not-so-spoiler alert, it’s the Judging half of the cognition process.

In Part 1 we learned that the Judging half of the cognition process is made up of Principles & Trends, and Action & Consequences.  We also learned that Judgers (J) use this half of the cognition process first.

Judging focuses on plans of action and how the world and consequences *interact,* and not to be outdone, is just as inseparable as the Perceiving half of the cognition process, with Principles & Trends and Action & Consequences always working together.

Same deal; Judgers (Js) use Action & Consequences and Principles & Trends as steps One and Two of their cognition process; though that doesn’t tell us which of those two comes first, Principles & Trends or Action & Consequences.

Back to our little graphical representation, if we use a map to represent Judging, for those same reasons I’ll explain later (which means I guess I can’t refer to these pictures as a map or that’ll get super confusing), then we can chart out the beginning of Judgers’ cognition process as map, map, or J,  J:

But since ½ +½ = 1 whole, last time I checked, this means we can deduce what steps Three and Four will be for everyone.

Once Perceivers are done with Perceiving what’s up with situations and individuals, they Judge how the world and consequences are working.  Once Judgers are done working out their Judgments of what’s going on with the world and consequences, they Perceive situations and individuals.  So Perceivers’ thought process goes P, P, J, J, while Judgers’ thought process goes J, J, P, P.

That’s just algebraic and not super useful yet, but it does already show us how Judgers/Js are more focused on Action and plans, prioritizing it in either their First or Second cognition steps.  And it shows us how Perceivers/Ps are more focused on possibilities, focusing on Observing those possibilities in either their First or Second cognition steps.

I hope that doesn’t seem complicated if this is your first time hearing the cognition process, but seriously that prioritization is what *creates* P/J and defines it.  Does a person use the Perceiving half of the cognition process first or the Judging half?  Perdy simple when you get down to it.

Okay, but now what order do our Ps and Js go in?  To find the answer to that question, we need to turn to the two parts of our double-dichotomy.  Need a refresher on what a double-dichotomy is?  That can be arranged.

A dichotomy is made of two opposite variables that have no overlap.  A double-dichotomy is a pair of independent but related dichotomies that can be used together to cover all the options.  Remember?  Got it?  Okay, moving on.

Now, by definition, Perceiver vs. Judger is a dichotomy too; they do opposite halves of the cognition process first and second, with no overlap.  So why do we need two more variables?  Why can’t we just cross it with one of the other dichotomies and call it a day?

Well, because both Judging and Perceiving contain *one of each* of the other two dichotomies, Information/Action and Specific/Universal.   Judging contains one Information Type of Information… okay that’s super confusing. -_- Linguistics.  This is why we usually refer to the Four Types of Information as the 4Toi (the i is little so it doesn’t look like an L).  Let’s do that now.

*Ahem*  Judging contains one Information Toi and one Action Toi.  It also includes one Specific Toi, and one Universal Toi. (See how much faster that is?)  Perceiving too; one Information, one Action, one Specific, one Universal.

This is also why on the pictures, the Judging Toi are diagonal from each other, as are Perceiving, because the columns are Specific vs. Universal, while the rows are Information vs. Action.  Because J/P have one of each, they have a jig-jog thing going:

This is the beginning of the cognition process not behaving as obviously as we might expect, but in a good way, like your best friend who never stops surprising you.  There’s more of that to come, but there are always simple reasons behind the complexity, so no worries, k?  Just stick by me.

Okay, so let’s start with Information vs. Action first because it provides us with something super useful: Introversion and Extraversion.  Remember in Part 1 we talked about how psychological Introversion and Extraversion are not the same as social introversion and extroversion?  Social introversion and extroversion don’t even get to be capitalized.

The 4Toi are what information we’re thinking about, the Functions are how we’re taking in and using that information, and J/P are when we’re thinking about each Type of Information.   Now we’re adding where we’re gathering that information in the form of Introversion and Extraversion.

“Intro” is a Latin prefix meaning “inwardly,” or “within,” while “Extra” is a Latin prefix meaning “outside,” or “beyond.”  “Vert” comes from a Latin root meaning “to turn.”

And it’s as simple as that:  Where do you turn for information?  Inwardly/within or outside/beyond?  And the answer is that we each do half-and-half!

The thing about the cognition process is that it’s full of checks and balances so that, when used correctly, it’s always cross-checking to be sure its information is accurate.  Not only is a healthy mind grounded in valuing all four Types of Information, but it relies on the truth it discovers both by watching the world outside itself, and by reflecting and aligning information with the internal knowledge it has.  Everybody does both.

So, while a person is defined as a psychological Introvert (I) or Extravert (E) by where they turn *first* for information, all of our minds are constantly going in-and-out, back-and-forth, cross-checking our internal information with our external information.

Long story short, Extraversion and Introversion are just directional tags indicating whether a function is pointing outside the mind, watching, or inside the mind, considering.

Okay, so the mind always alternates looking inside and outside.  Introverts start inside, then look outside, then inside, then outside.  Extraverts start outside, then turn inside, then outside, then in again.  Pretty simple right?  It’s how we keep cross-checking our information to be sure it’s accurate.

Introversion looks first inside the mind to understand the way things are (Information), and Extraversion looks first outside at what people do (Action).

So just from that, we can see everyone’s first two steps:

The Perceivers perceive first.  Introverted Perceivers use the Information side of Perceiving first; Data & Details, which is Specific Information.  Extraverted Perceivers use the Action side of Perceiving first; Observation & Motivations, which is Universal Action.  Then, each uses the other side of Perceiving.

IP – Data -> Observation -> J -> J

EP – Observation -> Data -> J -> J

The Judgers use their judgment first.  Introverted Judgers use the Information side of Judging first; Principles & Trends, which is Universal Information.  Extraverted Judgers use the Action side of Judging first; Action & Consequences, which is Specific Action.  Then, same deal, each uses the other side of Judging.

IJ – Principles -> Action -> P -> P

EJ – Action -> Principles -> P -> P

Yay!  And that’s not all, folks!  There’s one more thing we can learn from the I/E dichotomy.

Because Extraversion and Introversion are about your primary source of information, outside or inside, it’s inextricably linked to the way the mind perceives individuals and situations.  In other words, Extraversion and Introversion determine the order of the Perceiving half of the cognition process.

Extraverts draw their perception from Observing individuals first, then use that information to notice Data and make conclusions about what’s going on in the situation at hand.

Introverts draw their perception from contemplating on the Data at their disposal, and then use that information to Observe how individuals work.

We can see this was already at work in our Perceivers’ perception:

IP – Data -> Observation ->J -> J

EP – Observation -> Data -> J -> J

See how the Extraverted one Observes first and the Introverted one focuses on Data first?

Let’s add it to our Judgers’ Perceiving:

IJ – Principles -> Action -> Data -> Observation

EJ – Action -> Principles -> Observation -> Data

:O Holy guacamole!  Did we just determine *half* of the cognition orders?!  4/4, that’s all the Judgers’ cognition steps!  (Well, besides Functions, but we’ll get into that in Part 4 ;D)

What about the Perceivers?!  With the Judgers it looks like Information and Introversion always coincide, and so do Action and Extraversion.  So can we extrapolate how Perceivers judge from that?

Ah ah ah, let’s not be hasty!  Though it might be natural to assume that the pattern continues, this is where our main little twist comes into play.  But the reasons, while cool and with complex results, aren’t hard to understand.

Because, let’s not forget the other half of our double-dichotomy: Specific vs. Universal!

Specific vs. Universal. The colors have no deeper meaning, I just needed two colors lol

Specific cognitions focus first on understanding the Specific applications of information for a more zoomed-in perspective in the form of either Specific Information (Data & Details) or Specific Action (Action & Consequences).

Universal cognitions focus first on understanding the Universal Patterns of information for a more zoomed-out perspective in the form of either Universal Information (Principles & Trends) or Universal Action (Observation & Motivations).

Like with Introversion and Extraversion, everyone does both Specific and Universal, of course, and we dance back and forth, checking and balancing, but we each have one our minds prioritize first.

Now, because Functions play a big role in Specific/Universal, I’ll be able to go into more about how this really works in practice in the next post.  But we’ve already seen this in action in all the cognition processes, right?

But Specific/Universal has another awesome ramification.  Whether our primary focus is on the zoomed-in applications of information or the zoomed-out patterns in information, is inextricably linked to how we see the world and its interplay with consequences.  In other words, Specific vs. Universal has everything to do with the order of the Judging half of the cognition process!

“Specifics” draw their judgments from a study of people’s Actions to make decisions, and use the resulting Consequences of those actions to then form Principles of how the world works and predict world Trends.

“Universals” draw their judgments from looking at Principles of how the world consistently works, to spot Trends of how the world will respond to people’s Actions to produce Consequences, and from that, make decisions about what to do.

So, let’s look back at our cognition patterns.  Does that match with what we already know of Judgers?

IJ – Principles -> Action -> Data -> Observation

EJ – Action -> Principles -> Observation -> Data

Yup!  IJs look at Principles first, and decide what Action to take from those Principles.  EJs decide what Action to do first, and then apply the Consequences to understand how Principles work.

Now we can see with our Judgers that they have Universal or Specific sandwiches.

IJ – Principles (U) -> Action (S) -> Data (S) -> Observation (U)

EJ – Action (S) -> Principles (U) -> Observation (U) -> Data (S)

See how IJ has Universal Tois on the ends, with Specific Tois in the middle?  And EJ has Specific Tois on the ends, with Universal Tois sandwiched in the middle?  This is because when our minds convert information from J to P and vice versa, the transaction seems to require it remaining in the same kind of universal or specific currency.

For example, when EJs switch from Judging to Perceiving, they use zoomed-out Principles (Universal Judging) to help them Observe (Universal Perceiving) how individuals work in a zoomed-out way.  And when they go to repeat the cognition process, they use zoomed-in situational Data (Specific Perceiving) to help them make zoomed-in Action (Specific Judging) decisions.

But now, let’s apply our Action/Principles order to the Perceivers and see what happens! /excited!

IP – Data -> Observation -> Action -> Principles

EP – Observation -> Data -> Principles -> Action

Yaaaay!  Four distinct cognition orders!!

But… but…?!  Perceivers’ cognition process isn’t doing it right!  If that was a sandwich you’d get peanut butter all over your hand!!

IP – Data (S) -> Observation (U) -> Action (S) -> Principles (U)

EP – Observation (U) -> Data (S) -> Principles (U) -> Action (S)

Okay, so this is where all our weird exceptions and wrenches-in-the-works come together, and where I finally get to explain why J is a map while P is a toolbox.

See, the thing is, Judgers and Perceivers think of Action very differently.  Not only do Judgers Act and find Principles earlier than Perceivers, when Perceivers *do* get to Judging, they do so quite differently from Judgers.

When Judgers focus on Action, it’s applied to specific circumstances.

Like a map, there are goals and destinations and each choice is a path that will either lead closer to one’s intended destination or not.  Principles are constant and universal patterns of existence that Action will have to follow in order to reach where you’re trying to go.

You’re never going to get to Toronto by driving toward Mexico City… er unless you’re driving from farther North in Canada, I guess… um… Anyway, Action is like a map for Js: each path leads somewhere and if you want to get where you’re going, you have to pick the right one.  A healthy Judger will be able to lay a course with scalpel-like finesse, able to hone in on exactly where they’re going and exactly how to get there.

In contrast, when Perceivers focus on Action, it’s by finding universal patterns of how Action always works.  Now, it’s still the same Type of Information; Actions & Consequences and making decisions, but it’s all about compiling which Actions universally and consistently work.

Perceivers understand Action like a vast toolbox of options, constantly being stocked with every type of choice, material, and resource that can be pulled out of the arsenal whenever the need arises.

And for Perceivers, Principles are applied, specific circumstances; the world is always a new situation with new problems to solve and new things to fix with your toolbox-arsenal of options.  Whatever need may arise, it’s the job of the Perceiver Action-toolbox to be at the ready with a band-aid, guacamole, or a rubber chicken; whatever tool the current situation calls for.  Each action is a resource with a time and season it’s used for.  The more options you have, the more vastly different specific situations you’re ready for.  A healthy Perceiver will never find a dead-end with their toolbox at their side, knowing there are always more options and new ways to adapt to anything.

So which one’s *better*?  Well, since the Four Types of Information are equal, based on equal variables forming balanced dichotomies, and since we all do all of them anyway, just in different orders, the resulting cognition processes are all equal too.  But we also need people who focus on each of them, since as individuals we just don’t have enough energy to focus on all Four Types of Information equally.  Over and over again that’ll be the theme you hear here:  We need healthy people of all types because the world is a complex place and we can’t do it all ourselves.

Okay, recap!  We have four unique cognition processes; let’s cross-check all our requirements.

IP – Data -> Observation -> Action -> Principles

EP – Observation -> Data -> Principles -> Action

IJ – Principles -> Action -> Data -> Observation

EJ – Action -> Principles -> Observation -> Data

Requirements:

1. Perceivers use Perceiving first, then Judging.  Judgers use Judging first, then Perceiving.
2. Introverts use an Information Toi first.  Extraverts use an Action Toi first.
3. Introverts use Data before Observation.  Extraverts use Observation before Data.
4. “Specifics” use a Specific Toi first.  “Universals” use a Universal Toi first.
5. “Specifics” use Action before Principles.  “Universals” use Principles before Action.

Yay, they all match all the criteria!  /Party!!  (FYI, we’ll go more into how Introversion/Extraversion and Universal/Specific work in practice in the next post, which is very cool and exciting to me.)

But, isn’t it awesome that these requirements, which we saw are just natural results of the definitions themselves, mean that there are no other possible options!  For example, you couldn’t have a type whose cognition order went Data, Action, Observation, Principles because Perceiving Tois always stick together and Judging Toi always stick together.  You couldn’t have a type that cognated in a Principles, Action, Observation, Data pattern because as soon as they use an Information Toi first, they’re an Introvert and use Data before Observation.  As soon as you have Four Types of Information, you have four possibilities for First cognition steps, and as soon as you have a First cognition step, all the rest of the steps follow.  Four cognition options.  Period.  Is that rock-awesome or what?!

I love that, as hard as I’m working to give you a simple explanation, in so many ways cognition *isn’t* simple.  It’s beautiful and fractal and complex in a lovely, grown-up sort of way that isn’t what you’d expect at first glance.  It’s straightforward, with an elegant physics and reasons behind *every* thing, no matter how small, but it also keeps surprising you, no matter how well you think you know it.  It’s my very favorite song, a fascinating symphony of humanity and life.  And I can’t tell you how much I <3 it.

Wow!  You made it through the most complicated post of the Super Simple Series so far!  See, this was one of the hardest ones and you’re doing great!

Now I’m going to post Part 4 at very soon, so when you’re ready you can go on and read about how Functions fit into our handy dandy Cognition Steps!  But now is the perfect time to take a brief intermission.  Stretch your legs, use the restroom, listen to some music, visit our concession stand, look far away for 30 seconds.  And then before you know it, we’ll meet again at Part 4: Function-Combinations.  Oh yes.

On the aLBoP Guided Tour?  Cognition – The Super Simple Series | Part 4: Function-Combinations is up next!

The post Cognition – The Super Simple Series! | Part 3: Cognition Steps and the Anatomy of the Cognition Process appeared first on A Little Bit of Personality.

I’m very excited for this post as there is sooo much confusion and stereotyping about what functions really are.  In this post we’re looking at just how simple and straightforward cognitive functions are, and yet how they’re complex in application and, when understood correctly, should help us understand our complexity as humans more, not limit us into boxes.  But I’m getting ahead of myself, as usual.

If we define “Cognition,” as we did in Part 1, as the action of your mind acquiring and processing information, “Functions” are the tools our minds use to acquire and process that information. 

Functions are the means by which we take in each Type of Information.  Functions also help our minds determine our mind’s objective or end goal for that information.  They help us find patterns in and narrow down important information, and evaluate and apply information to the world around us.

So Part 1 was about what information we gather and process, and Part 2 is about how we gather and process that information.  Got it?

There are four functions; two Compilation Functions and two Application Functions.  Everyone uses all four; we just use them in different orders and apply them to different types of information.

Compilation Functions compile massive quantities of information into universally applicable patterns that *always* apply.  They find similarities and trends in otherwise overwhelming quantities of information in order to find the common threads that run through all of it.

The Compilation Functions function like enormous databases of information collected over the course of your life that serve as reference compendiums for life.

Application Functions apply information to specific circumstances by deciding which information and choices best match with that function’s aim and purpose.  They evaluate and weigh the importance of information as well as decide how to use it in practice.

The Application Functions function like filters for information that are constantly working to apply and decide how information will be used in any given scenario.

The Compilation Functions

Sensing and iNtuition are the two Compilation Functions.

“Sensing” gathers and compiles information from our own experiences, things we’ve personally seen, heard, touched, felt, smelled, danced, etc.  (I’m pretty sure dancing is the sixth sense.)  It finds patterns in the experiences we’ve had so that it can understand the way things and people currently work, or have worked in the past.  It helps us treasure and appreciate things that already exist and helps us protect good things from being lost.

Everyone uses the Sensing function at some point during their cognition process, but a person is considered a Sensor (S) if they use Sensing to process information in one of their first two cognition steps.

“iNtuition” gathers and compiles information in the form of concepts.  A concept is the overall idea or mental image of information.  iNtuition compiles these overall ideas and finds patterns and connections between them, in order to find new ways to use them. It helps us see how things are connected to one another and see what’s missing.

Everyone uses the iNtuition function at some point during their cognition process, but a person is considered an iNtuitive (N) if they use iNtuition to process information in one of their first two cognition steps.

I find that Sensing and iNtuition tend to cause people the most confusion, but despite what some might tell you, don’t get hung up over claims of one function being smarter, more practical, more athletic, or more philosophical than any of the others.  Sensing focuses on experiences and iNtuition focuses on concepts, no matter who is using it or what Type of Information it’s compiling.

The Application Functions

Feeling and Thinking are the two Application Functions.

“Feeling” filters and applies information in order to understand its meaning－its intrinsic significance in the grand scheme of things－and in order to reach the most meaningful result from a given circumstance.

Feelings inform us of what truly matters to us, and what is important in our lives.

While everyone uses the Feeling function at some point during their cognition process, a person is considered a Feeler (F) if they use Feeling to process information in one of their first two cognition steps.

“Thinking” filters and applies information in order to understand its use－its value in helping the user to employ the information and resources at their fingertips－and in order to reach an outcome of efficient utility.

Thoughts inform us of what’s most beneficial or detrimental for whatever goal we have at the time.

While everyone uses the Thinking function at some point during their cognition process, a person is considered a Thinker (T) if they use Thinking to process information in one of their first two cognition steps.

And no, despite what the internet may tell you, in all its wisdom, Feelers are not any more emotional or kind and Thinkers are not any more logical or hard.  That is bull-turds.  The definition that holds up repeatably and consistently in practice is when a person prioritizes use or meaning in their cognition process.

I want to really emphasize again that these are the definitions of the functions, and how they work for each of us.  We just use them in different orders and matched up with different Types of Information, based on what our minds desire and love the most.  It might seem like a redundant point to hit, but it’s incredible how much stereotyping and type-bigotry sneaks in, when that one little point gets ignored.  Not to mention that when definitions get forgotten, everything just gets way more complicated than it really is.

So don’t feel boxed in by systems or sources that use terms like “dom” or “dominant functions.”  As we’ll discuss in the next few posts, the cognition process has a beautiful physics to it, full of elegant cause-and-effect and reasons behind each motion.  In contrast, using jargon that you’ll see splattered across the Internet like “Fi dom” or “Ne dom,” implies that a person should be boiled down to just one function, and ends up entirely too subjective to have any sort of repeatability or science.  While some people might prefer to narrowly label both others and themselves by a single box or trait, human beings are so much more gorgeously complex than that.

Now, what does it really mean to “prioritize” a Type of Information or a function and what’s the deal with this “cognition process” we keep talking about?  In the next post we’ll discuss one of my very favorite parts of cognition: Cognition Steps and the Anatomy of the Cognition Process!

On the aLBoP Guided Tour?  Cognition – The Super Simple Series | Part 3: Cognition Steps and the Anatomy of the Cognition Process  is up next!

The post Cognition – The Super Simple Series! | Part 2: The Four Functions appeared first on A Little Bit of Personality.

The new and improved return of Personalized Typings and introducing Cognitive Orientation Guidebooks (COGs)!!!

What are COGs?
Cognitive Orientation Guidebooks or COGs, are aLBoP’s definitive guides to the 16 cognitive types.
Each one includes:

• E vs. I
• P vs. J
• First and Last letter combinations
• N vs. S
• F vs. T
• Middle Letter combinations
• Each type’s unique Cognition Steps
• Type Specializations
• Type Angsts (including all *8* that haven’t been released yet!!)
• Paradoxitype

And averages 10,000 words each!  That’s just under 160,000 words total :O!

How much are they going to cost?

Since these took us months upon months to write, let alone develop theories, most of which can only be found on aLBoP, it would be completely reasonable for us to charge a lot for the COGs.

We’re not going to do that.  In fact, we’re not going to charge anything for them at all!  *gasp!*  That’s right, my friends, these behemoths of cognition are *free to everyone* so that you can learn about not only yourself, but everyone you know… for free

What are you playing at?

The British have much cooler idioms than we do in the States.  We have many hopes with making the COGs free; here are the ones I can think of off the top of my head:

Word of Mouth

If you like the COGs and they’ve helped you, we hope you’ll share them with your friends!  Quote them, email them!  Use your handy-dandy social media!  We’ll have html versions up later and you’ll be able to Pin the crap out of them!  I hope you do

Personalized Typing Packages

We’re using the COGs to overhaul our whole Personal Typing system so now we can type not only you, but whomever you can give us a picture of through the power of Facial Typing!  And the whole thing is now much much faster since the COGs mean we don’t have to reinvent the wheel with every person we type!  And cheaper too, at $15 for the basic package  Want that extra personalized touch?  For $25 we’ll *also* live chat (either text or video) with you for hours about all your cognition questions!  There’s some other options there too, in case you either want to give, or receive a little extra love.

COGs will make you want to be Personally Typed even more!

 

While we know you’re smart and tenacious, we honestly doubt your ability and stamina to comb through nearly 1,000 pages of cognitive information to make sure that you and your loved ones are typed correctly!  If you want to try, then go for it; it doesn’t take any more of *our* time!  But I read and see *soooo* many people mistyped online and in person, even plethoras of aLBoP readers.  It’s usually honest mistakes especially over letters like J/P (which pretty much flip your entire cognition process on its head!), and I can always see where the train went off the rails, but I really don’t find it a good use of anyone’s time for me to go around dropping “You’re not really a XXXX” bombs on everyone’s head.  It must be requested of me

 

We want you to be able to read them all!

You and the relationships you have with people in your lives are important to us!  We want you to be able to read and get to know and appreciate*all* the cognitive types, not just your own!  Including any types you’ve struggled with, so you can see where people are coming from and that stereotypes are not all she wrote.

We want you to learn from them!

We’ve seen a markedly huge improvement in the tone and caliber of our overall interactions with the aLBoP audience over the course of the last two years.  A mishmash combination of us making a name for ourselves, misconceptions and stereotypes being pointed out, more amazing people finding us and everyone learning together… what we’re doing actually seems to be working!  *faint*  And on the even brighter side, so many of you have shared with us how aLBoP has helped you understand yourself better and improved your life in various ways, which has in turn lifted and inspired and given us hope for people and the future.  And aLBoP has given us friends, wonderful friends all across the world!!  And if we can have more of that — a better digital culture, the feeling that we’ve been able to help real people, and real life friends — then sign us up!

There are so many good reasons to give you the COGs for free!  So use them!!  Share and read them to your heart’s content!  And let us type you and your friends, your children (toddlers and older are easier, babies are still in beta… in more ways than one), your favorite historical figures or celebrities, the person you have a crush on… everyone, so that you can use the COGs to understand them and love them for the unique people they are!  COGs and Personalized Typings go together like oreos and cream cheese, like nori and rice, like tater tots and ketchup… Time to wrap up and have a food break, Calise?  I think so.  While you enjoy those, I’m pretty sure we’re going to have a little “WE FINISHED” party, here at aLBoP headquarters (aka the little house with the red door).  Cause I’m pretty sure my INFJ and I have earned it!

Much love,
<3 Calise (and Justin, her INFJ)

The post They’re Here: Personalized Typing Packages and COGs!!! appeared first on A Little Bit of Personality.

We’re loving your questions and I’ve been hard at work on Group Dynamics: The Avengers!  (I have to say, the video is looking pretty sweeet :D)  Have a lovely weekend everyone!!

The post Q&A Quickie: Behavioral vs. Cognitive Psychology appeared first on A Little Bit of Personality.

What if, like colors, genders or flavors, Personality Types create a beautiful cornucopia of complexity and balance, where each member contributes to the whole, an equal and necessary component, without which there would be a gaping hole?  And what if becoming special is simply a matter of owning who you are and choosing to pursue the very thing *you* love most?

These are Type Specializations.

This topic is one of my very favorite things about personality typing because it’s so wrapped up in what every type *is* and not only what every type specializes in, but what *drives* every type.  It’s easy to focus on cursory traits that may or may not come with a certain type – yes, ISTJs are usually fond of rules and yes, ENTPs often like taking risks; yes, INFPs spend a lot of time exploring inside their own heads and yes, ESFJs can often be found being great hosts and hostesses – but why?  What is that common thread that laces itself through a personality type?  What means the world to *your* personality?

Type Specializations are made up of two components, Scope and Objective.

Scope

Scope is a type’s field of view, to which they unconsciously and primarily apply all information.  Where does your mind go when you don’t have to be thinking about something else?  What do you love most and therefore apply all other information back to?

 

Theoretical vs. Particular (I vs. E)

As Optimism, Pessimism and What We Do About It explained (though perhaps not my best explanation ever), Introverts focus on people in theory, whereas Extraverts focus on particular people.

Since Introverts spend the most time working with information inside their heads, where people are fairly theoretical, they think first about how information applies to people in general — i.e. “someone like this.”

Extraverts spend the most time getting information from the people right in front of them, so they think first about how a particular individual would interact with the information they have — i.e “Larry.”

For example, if I were to discuss ninjas vs. samurai with My INFJ, he would apply our discussion first to theoretical people inside his head, and would say things like, “Well, ninjas are cool because of the whole silent but deadly thing, but I can appreciate how samurai make honor and chivalry look bad-a.”

My ENFJ mom, on the other hand, would apply our discussion first to particular people she’s interacted with, and would say something like, “I knew a samurai once and he was one of the nicest guys.  You know, just a great family man and he told really funny jokes about katanas.  There was a ninja who worked in my office and he was… nice enough.  He didn’t kill anyone *I* knew, so I can’t really complain.  I can’t say I’d invite him over for dinner, but I guess if he came I wouldn’t necessarily know…”

Though the other I/E types might differ in specifics from those examples of INFJ and ENFJ, it would still hold true that the Introverts would apply things to people Theoretically first, and the Extraverts would apply things first to Particular people they’ve interacted with.  That is, of course, not to say that Introverts can’t apply things to Particular people or that Extraverts can’t apply things to people Theoretically; like all things in personality typing, it’s about which one you focus on and prioritize.

Collective vs. Individual (J vs. P)

The second variable that Scope is based on is Collective vs. Individual.

Judgers, with their cognitive emphasis on decisions, plans and worldview, are focused on the Direction of Action (remember the Map?).  Their focus on planning and universal principles in their decision making means that they have to look at the collective actions of people to understand ahead of time how people and the world will act in order to make plans ahead of time.  As they watch the decisions of the collective, they care more and more about the destination of that collective.

Perceivers, with their cognitive emphasis on possibilities, observation and information gathering, are focused on the Exploration of Action (action like a Toolbox).  Their focus on exploring all the possible options makes it necessary to have trusted sources of information, and therefore need to understand the motivations of individuals.  As they come to understand the motivations of individuals, they grow to care more about exploring those individuals and fulfilling their needs.

These four combinations of two variables create the four Scopes.

The Four Scopes

IJs, who focus on Principles and the root causes behind the workings of the universe, care most about the direction of the World as a whole, cultures, etc.  They are the most zoomed out of all the types, focused on the big picture of where the world is going and why.

 

 

 EJs, who focus on Action and the Consequences and results of choices, care most about the direction of their particular Group, those united with them in common purpose and directive.  They are the second most zoomed out of the types, in terms of size of scope, focusing on the collective outcome of many specific individuals, though their emphasis on Specific Action tends to make them more zoomed in.

 

 

 EPs, who focus on Observation and the Motivations behind character, care most about the exploration of particular Individuals, starting with the exploration of themselves.  They are the second most zoomed in of the types, in terms of size of scope, focusing on single specific individuals, though their emphasis on Universal Action tends to make them more zoomed out.

 

 

 IPs, who focus on Data and Details and the conclusions they lead to, care most about the exploration of Situations and what theoretical individuals could choose in a given scenario based on those details.  They are the most zoomed in of all the types, focused on delving deep into specific, specialized information. 

As different as these four Scopes are, like the sixteen types within them, they are equal, so long as each recognizes the need and value of the other three.  We cannot fully understand the information in which we specialize unless we see it in context of everyone else’s specialization.

 

Objective

Objective is what a type tries to accomplish with and for their Scope.  It’s also what side or angle of that vast Scope they prioritize.  Where do you sink your precious effort?  What excites you about your Scope, more than anything?Objective is based on a person’s two middle letters.  It’s actually much easier to explain than Scope, with variables drawn pretty directly from the definitions of the letters they demonstrate.

 

Puzzle Pieces vs. Word-Nets (S vs. N)

I’ve explained in this post, as well as in LMA that Sensors think in Puzzle Pieces; they examine one piece of information at a time, and each piece of information has its own unique spot in the whole, where it snaps into place.  Meanwhile, I explained in those same posts that iNtuitives think in Word-Nets or Webs; each piece of information connects to every other through patterns and has to be viewed in context of all the other pieces of information.

The same principles apply to how each type focuses on Objective.

Sensors focus on the intrinsic value that their Scope already has to offer.  Their Objective centers on getting the most out of what their Scope already is, and prefer not to change their Scope.  But a truly healthy Sensor will realize that in order to appreciate and utilize everything they love about their Scope, the bad parts of it may have to be changed.

iNtuitives focus on how the value of their Scope is increased by connecting it with the value of other information.  Their Objective centers on getting the most out of what their Scope can be, often by seeing how to change it.  But a truly healthy iNtuitive will realize that in order to get the most out of their Scope, they need to appreciate what it already is, and not change the good parts.

Use vs. Meaning (T vs. F)

Going briefly into this pair since the definitions are the same as described in LMA.

Thinkers focus first on the Use of information and the Objective of their Scope is no exception.  Thinkers prioritize and find the most joy getting the most Use out of their Scope.

Feelers focus first on the Meaning of information, including the Objective of their Scope.  Feelers prioritize and find the most joy understanding fully the Meaning of their Scope.

It should go without saying at this point (but if it did, would I be mentioning it?) that both the use and meaning of all the Scopes is essential.  The End.

 The Four Objectives

STs focus on the Use of the Puzzle Piece they care about most, their Scope.  Their aim is to get the most Use out of their Scope as it already is, and to give their Scope a protected environment where it can flourish in the use it already has.  Their goal is to find the inherent Value and intrinsic worth their Scope has.

Since they focus on the Use of experiences, they tend to focus on the past of their Scope; that’s where they gather the most information, after all, as you can really only learn use from *past* experiences.  They are therefore very protective of the past of their Scope, desiring it to be as useful as possible.

They tend to think in terms of right and wrong.

NTs focus on how the Use of their Scope connects to the Use of everything else.  Their aim is to find ways to maximize the Use of their beloved Scope, and raise it to its full Potential, even if that requires their Scope to change.  They love to find new possible uses for their Scope.

Since they focus on the Use of concepts, they tend to focus on the future of their Scope and examining conceptually how to “new and improve” their Scope, adding to its usefulness by going forward into possibilities.  They use their iNtuition to see the context of how their Scope connects to everything else to see what it’s still missing and needs to be added.

They tend to think in terms of truth and error.

SFs focus on the Meaning of the Puzzle Piece they care about most, their Scope.  Their aim is to understand and enjoy the Meaning of their Scope as it already is, and to protect the Meaning in their Scope so that they and others may have the chance to Experience meaning as it is, before it’s lost.

Since they focus on the Meaning of experiences, they tend to focus on the present of their Scope.  The time to grasp the full Meaning of an experience is *while* experiencing it and SFs try to get as much out of that current experience as possible.  Though they focus on the current moment of their Scope, healthy SFs make experiences into something so much more meaningful than just one freeze frame of time.

They tend to think in terms of pleasure and pain.

NFs focus on how the Meaning of their Scope connects to the Meaning of everything else.  Their aim is to understand the full significance and Meaning of their Scope, and help it achieve even more Meaning, even if that means their Scope needs to change.

Since they focus on the Meaning of concepts, they tend to focus on their Scope within time as a whole.  Context is the big word for NF, looking at how their Scope fits into the Big Picture of everything and seeing the significance of their Scope within that context.

They tend to think in terms of justice and mercy.

When we combine the four Scopes with their four options of Objectives, we can see the sixteen Type Specializations.  And it is only with all sixteen combined that the entire spectrum of zoomed in and zoomed out, the collective and the individual, use and meaning, as things are and as they can be, are all fully realized and valued as they should be.

Each type’s *entire* cognitive process revolves around their unique combination of these variables.  It prompts every thought, motivates every action, counsels every judgment and inspires every worldview; it is the end goal to which each type aspires.

The Sixteen Type Specializations

This graph shows not only the sixteen unique Type Specializations, and most the info we’ve covered up to this point but, like all my graphs, it’s really two graphs for the price of one!  The first graph is arranged by Scope, according to the 4Toi (Four Types of Information), *but* the position of the each type inside its handy little box in the first graph, correlates with which big box it goes in in the second graph!  This way, each box is a microcosm of the whole graph!  The second graph is arranged by Objective, but the *tubular* part is that, even though Objective is by middle letters, it’s *also*arranged by the 4Toi, because the four function combos correlate with the 4Toi too!!!  Yay!!!

 

INTJ
The Dragon
World Potential Specialization
Possible Use of the Theoretical Collective 

 

ISFJ
The Knight
World Experience Specialization
Protective Meaning of the Theoretical Collective

The ISFJ Knight is the chivalrous protector of Meaning in the World as it stands, dedicated to the Principles that keep the World Experience safe.  Dependability their mantra, the ISFJ Knight is determined to uphold what it means to them to be a pillar of their collective, which to them is bigger than any of the individuals within it.  The Knight enjoys the World as it is and finds great joy in serving and nurturing that world in a rugged, on the ground sort of way.  As an IFJ though, they struggle with overly positive character judgments and therefore need to turn to the Principles they advocate to be sure the World they love and the people safeguarding it are still living up to everything they were meant to stand for.

 

INFJ
The Paladin
World Meaning Specialization
Possible Meaning of the Theoretical Collective

The INFJ Paladin is all about context and the application of Meaning.  With a fantastic understanding of universal principles and how they weave their way through the World at large, they are excellent at making principles *useful*, turning them into action and applying them to everyday situations, cutting right to the core of *why* things work.  They take the meaning throughout the world and use it to make real life decisions, as well as move the world closer to the meaningful ideal that those principles help them see.  Like the other IJs, they struggle with understanding the intentions of individuals and need to remember not to equate someone breaking or upholding a principle as a measure of that person’s character.  Also, their fear of standing out from the crowd and desire to be liked as who they really are, can make them doubt their own better judgment and keep them from recognizing the flaws in others.

ESTJ
The Cannon
Group Value Specialization
Protective Use of a Particular Collective

The ESTJ Cannon is the “Action Corner” of the graph, specializing in doing and doing well, protecting their Group of people with similar end goals, so that the rest of the group can do the same.  They’re excellent at understanding how to use actions and consequences to the pragmatic use of their Group’s intrinsic Value.  They focus on using the Group they already have in front of them, getting the most utility out of the people they have at their fingertips, and their aim is to protect and free up the members of their Group so that they can fulfill their own roles and help the Group shine and work like clockwork.  But while we love the “point and shoot” nature of our ETJs, the need for pointing *before* shooting cannot be overemphasized, and the Cannon needs to be sure not to leap into action before they’re sure their understanding of the intricacies of a situation (EJs’ last) is a complete picture.  Also, being the action-specialist, the Cannon needs to be careful not to judge others’ worth on their ability to act.

ENTJ
The Crusader
Group Potential Specialization
Possible Use of a Particular Collective

Focused on the Potential of their Group as it can be, the ENTJ Crusader is a passionate recruiter to their causes, able to see the future capacity of their like-minded team and make it happen.  They have a powerful ability to rally others to action and show them why causes and purposes matter so much, because they understand just what a Group can do to change the world for the better, given the chance.  One of the main ways the ENTJ Crusader seeks the future success of their own team, is to rush into battle against opposing teams, ready to defend their team’s ideals at a moment’s notice, unafraid or even spoiling for a fight.  But the Crusader needs to watch out for oversimplifications about the finer details of situations.  With their last step being data and details, ENTJs tend to build up strawmen arguments without considering the complexity of a situation and end up hurting or estranging people who may have been on their side if given a chance.  Passion is good and it’s one of ENTJ’s greatest assets, but without complexity it can end up being one of their greatest liabilities.

ESFJ
The Cavalry
Group Experience Specialization
Protective Meaning of a Particular Collective

The social leader, the ESFJ Cavalry loves to Experience the Group and improve the Group’s Experience.  They love to charge at the front of their party on a shining white steed as an example of what to do and how to act, encouraging those who follow in their wake.  Loving a oneness with the Group as it currently stands, they excel at understanding and leading the social consciousness and people love following their fun, charming lead.  But with their relationship with the Group being so important to them, the Cavalry needs to remember to be real and help steer social expectations in a meaningful direction, rather than getting pulled along with them.  If the ESFJ lets their desire to be popular or fit in with the Group exceed their love of the Group and the members in it, they can end up hurting the very people they intended to enjoy in the first place.

ENFJ
The Veteran
Group Meaning Specialization
Possible Meaning of a Particular Collective

With a focus on the Meaning of action and how their Group fits into the context of all of time, the ENFJ Veteran has a timeless quality that both looks to the past and the overarching Meaning of what people have done and what events have transpired, but lives and acts in the moment.  They live for their connections with their Group, which for them is anyone connected with them in common Meaning or understanding, and the victories and defeats of their friends are indistinguishable from their own joys and travails.  But even as their empathy is their greatest strength, it can also put them in danger of Faramir Dilemma, as choosing between Group members can be like ripping themselves in two.  If they ignore what details and situations say about their friends, they can end up pulling down the Meaning of the whole Group in order to protect the Meaning of one.

ESTP
The Spartan
Individual Value Specialization
Protective Use of Particular Individuals, starting with themselves

The ESTP Spartan is the champion of Individualism, loving to explore the Value of Individuals as they already are and have been, starting with the ESTP themselves.  The Spartan’s goal is to see just how much they can do with what they already have in their self-hood arsenal, just how spectacularly cool they can be without losing who they are at all.  They love to use the whole world as a sounding board to find out just what they are and enjoy that self, and love to enjoy others and teach them to do the same.  There is no problem at all with the ESTP Spartan enjoying themselves, but they need to be sure that their healthy stubbornness about maintaining the person they are doesn’t turn into stubbornness about their actions which, as EPs, they’re likely to suck at.  It is completely possible to keep the core of the person you are while being willing to change the bits of yourself that you didn’t like in the first place.

ENTP
The Swashbuckler
Individual Potential Specialization
Possible Use of Particular Individuals, starting with themselves

Ever unpredictable, the ENTP Swashbuckler does what works; they excel at applying and adapting the tools in their observed arsenal to whatever new and unusual situation they might come up against, disregarding the rules and following their gut.  Focusing on the Potential of Individuals, starting with themselves, the Swashbuckler is all about exploring and pushing the limits of what they as a person can do and be, and encouraging others to do the same. With their love of observing people and their motivations, the Swashbuckler is excellent at seeing, understanding, and changing their own character to become the larger-than-life person they *want* to be.  But the Swashbuckler, with their last cognition step being action, needs to be careful not to be flippant with the damage mistaken actions can cause.  An ENTP who no longer *cares* about the effect of their mistakes on others is no longer well-intentioned, which leaves them a hollow shell of the person they wanted to be in the first place.

ESFP
The Morale Officer
Individual Experience Specialization
Protective Meaning of Particular Individuals, starting with themselves

The ESFP Morale Officer puts themselves in charge of the Individual Experience, making sure that each person, including themselves, gets to enjoy and be enjoyed to the fullest extent of who they are.  Focused on loving and enjoying people as they already are, the Morale Officer makes people feel like they matter, and knows how people feel *right now* is important.  ESFP’s biggest fear is that they’ll never have a lasting impact on anyone, and so they may feel more desperate to please individuals in the moment, often at the expense of standing up to them.  But while the ESFP may be trying their best to choose action to make others happy, they need to realize that sometimes you need to make someone unhappy in the short run in order to make them *happier* in the long run.

ENFP
The Standard-Bearer
Individual Meaning Specialization
Possible Meaning of Particular Individuals, starting with themselves

The ENFP Standard-Bearer specializes in understanding the context of Individuals and what they *Mean,* starting with themselves.  They see the timeless intrinsic significance of what Individual people are and can be, and love to explore that people-Meaning and share it with others.  They also shine at helping Individuals rally around the Meaning that they personally could accomplish in the world.  But with their primary focus starting with the Meaning of themselves, the Standard-Bearer needs to be cautious not to defend their own Meaning (especially actions, which as EPs they’re likely to be self-conscious of), to the point that they end up making others feel of less worth, or like they have to compete with the ENFP in order to have their own Meaning and significance.

ISTP
The Weapons Specialist
Situational Value Specialization
Protective Use of Theoretical Individuals

The ISTP Weapons Specialist is the master of mastery; the specialist of specialism.  Their focus is centered on getting the most out of the Situation at hand, focusing on their hard-earned skills, achieved through jumping full-throttle into falling in love with something and immersing themselves totally and completely in it, using their bodies and minds together as a precision instrument at whatever speaks to them.  They love to push themselves to the limits of what’s possible in a Situation, just to explore what can be done in a given moment.  But with both their ST and IP focusing on getting the most use out of their past experiences, and because the way in which they used their past Situations is so important to them, the Weapons Specialist needs to beware claiming that they’ve experienced every possible type of experience.  With their final cognition step being principles, the ISTP may have trouble fully realizing how universal the universe really is.  But this is really good news for the Weapons Specialist, as it means there is always a new adventure waiting and new ways to use their very special specialism.

INTP
The Alchemist
Situational Potential Specialization
Possible Use of Theoretical Individuals

The INTP Alchemist is all about finding new ways to get the most Potential use out of every moment, finding joy in modes, methods and systems, ideas and possibilities, natural explorers in the realm of what could be.  They love to use their minds to explore the world by themselves, using abstract thought to find solutions to problems and to understand the nuances of data and specifics, innovating in order to use each Situation as effectively as possible.  But with a love of mental specializing and a fear that they need to be the smartest kid in the class or be rendered worthless, the Alchemist needs to remember that (as this post demonstrates) they don’t have to specialize in everything and aren’t lessened by needing others’ strengths as much as others need them.  They especially need to be aware that specific data does not unilaterally apply to every Situation and it’s tempting for an INTP to imply that being good at details means that their worldview is correct, when usually the two are entirely unrelated.

ISFP
The Explorer
Situational Experience Specialization
Protective Meaning of Theoretical Individuals

The ISFP Explorer explores the Experience of every moment, getting the most meaning out of every exploration, and every moment is a new adventure.  Treasuring the little things is the Explorer’s deep love and they have a beautiful understanding of details and their importance.  As IP question askers, they’re intent on finding why each moment matters in a wonderfully goofy, immersive way.  But since the things they explore are so desperately important to them, they may try and offset the fear of loss by either holding desperately to the things and Experiences they’ve accumulated, or by growing aloof and trying not to care about anything too much.  But the Explorer can remember that there will always be more moments and details to Experience and treasure, so they can both feel free to let go of the ones they have, and feel free to really immerse themselves in whatever Experiences may come their way.

INFP
The Ranger
Situational Meaning Specialization
Possible Meaning of Theoretical Individuals

The INFP Ranger is the Meaning explorer, a question asker whose aim is to understand the context of each Situation within the whole.  Where INFJs love to find how Meaning applies to action, the INFP instead loves to explore the philosophical what-ifs of Meaning, like INTPs do with use, finding new ways that the power of details and delving deep into theory can reflect on the Meaning of the whole.  The Ranger needs to remember though, that since they explore Meaning by themselves, focusing on details, and Principles are their last cognition step like the other IPs, they need to remember that meaningful details that apply to one Situation do not a universal principle make.  But as the INFP Ranger focuses on the potential Meaning of Situations and turning that into character judgments, both where they excel, they can contribute such a light of understanding to others.

 “You Shouldn’t Be Special”

One thing that isn’t unique to any of the types?  Feeling like it isn’t okay to specialize in the things that matter most to them.  No matter the specialty, no matter the type, we all feel guilt at times about who we are and what we choose to care about.  Be it from those who feel guilty themselves about their specialty, or those who are jealous of our strengths, the outside world is forever trying to knock us down and prevent our feeling special and of worth.

But one of the most crucial principles to understand about Type Specializations—whether we’re looking at someone else and wishing we had their strengths, or when someone else jealously looks at us and says, “Well, it’s not fair, you’ve always had it easy.  I’d be good at that too if I were your type.”— is that no type has it easy.  No type is born with their specialty being easy.

Is it easy for ISFJ Knights to always be there when they’re needed, noble and dedicated?  No.  Is it easy for the ENFJ Veteran to be so patient and understanding with the members of their group or for the ISTP Weapons Specialist to be so vigilant at the things they love?  No.  But they care that much.  They care about their Scope and Objective enough to overcome obstacles, even when it’s hard, even when it’s thankless and even when they get crap, because it matters that much to them.  And *every* type is like that about their specialty.

I’ve been told I come off very self-confident, in person especially, which is a traditionally ENTP trait.  That certainly wasn’t something I was born with and it never came easy for me (like laughably so), but, with my cognition and specialty revolving around the person I am and who I wanted to be, it was worth it to me to overcome my fears of coming off awkward or stupid.  It took a lot of trial and error and I still get weird looks when I wear stripey knee socks or dance like no one is looking, but I own it because my specialty of being who I want to be is more important to me than never looking stupid.

If you want another type’s specialty, in addition to your own, which you already work hard for, then you have to overcome their obstacles too, be willing to put up with the crap they put up with and have discipline in the areas they have, in order to gain those strengths.  If you don’t care enough to put yourself through that, then that’s fine, but don’t pretend that someone else had it made because they were willing to put the time and effort into an area that your heart wasn’t in.

Hopefully you now have a good idea of your own specialization.  (If not, we’d be happy to help )As we understand what we’re best at and what has always mattered the most to us, we can reflect back over our lives and why things mattered to us and understand how to make our lives reflect that passion in the future.  We can also see why sometimes things were hard to give up, and how we felt scared or angry when our specialty was in jeopardy.

So, let me fulfill my specialty as an ENTP; let me show you through aLBoP just how much your specialty is needed, just how heroically and greatly you can use it, and just how special you are.  The world needs your talents, your strength and your fervor.  We need you.  Let’s celebrate *you* and show you how to shine as the unique and special person you are.

On the aLBoP Guided Tour?  Up next is The Cognition Process in Stick Figures!

The post Type Specializations: What Makes *My* Type Special? appeared first on A Little Bit of Personality.