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.

The post Q&A Quickie: Letter Combinations 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.

Now, I can’t make stick people like the greats, and I don’t want anyone to think I’m trying.  This is just literally the best I can draw  Well, pretty much…  {On an interesting side-note about XKCD, I’ve noticed webcomic writers are often IP’s, especially INP’s (the author of XKCD being very classically INP).  It makes sense to me that they would enjoy that format since IP’s focus on and love details; webcomics give them an opportunity to savor each moment and detail, rather than needing to get to the end of a plot arch, the way a J especially might.  I could also go off about IP’s liking “Magnetic Poetry” titles such as “XKCD” or “Death Cab for Cutie” but maybe some other time…}

Everyone thinks :O  It’s kind of a necessary part of being conscious.  But we don’t all do it in the same way or in the same order.  These differences in thought processes are what eventually translate into personality types.  So here, step-by-step in pictures, is the cognition process and how it works for each type.

A common misconception about Introversion vs. Extraversion (which I’ve been soap-boxing against often lately) is that Extraverts are social, prefer parties and constant social interaction and love to be the center of attention, while Introverts are shy and prefer a good book to the company of others, preferring a quiet atmosphere.  While this may be the common definition of Extraversion and Introversion in our culture, it is *not at all* the definition of a psychological Introvert or Extravert and *does not* match with Jung’s or Myers-Briggs’ definitions of I/E.

Instead, Introversion and Extraversion describe where you primarily turn for information and input.  Do you, in Introversion, turn first inside yourself to understand the world, or do you, in Extraversion, turn first to the outside world and others to grasp the world and how it works?

In truth, it’s as simple as that, though those differences affect all a person’s decisions and actions.  For example, Introverts being used to working inside their own heads, are naturally more confident making decisions without needing the input of others, while Extraverts naturally feel off-balance if they don’t get input from others–like running around with their eyes closed.  But since they are constantly interacting with the world for information, Extraverts are very aware of how people will affect and interact with their plans, while Introverts may not be as aware of the effects others will have.

The difference between iNtuition and Sensing has a slew of misconceptions as well.  In reality, Sensing is based on patterns of  things previously experienced while iNtuition is based on things conceptualized through noticed patterns mentally.  Both Sensing and iNtuition functions are used to understand how things and people work universally, but Sensing forms a physical picture, based on previous experiences, and iNtuition forms a mental picture, based on underlying concepts.  What defines an “iNtuitive” individual versus a “Sensor” individual is if they naturally think in concepts early in their cognitive process or experiences early in their cognitive process, respectively.  Those are the only requirements of being an N or an S.

Typical side effects of these focuses, again, are varied.  Sensors, focusing on things they’ve personally experienced, tend to think in a more linear, straight-forward, on-the-ground and in the moment sort of way, which is fine.  {This doesn’t mean that iNtuitives *can’t* think this way, only that for Sensors it will come more naturally.} Only unhealthy Sensors will focus on what’s right in front of them at the *expense* of concepts they don’t yet understand.  iNtuitives, focusing on the underlying patterns they find mentally, tend to think in a more abstract, overarching, complex way, and that’s fine too.  {This doesn’t mean that Sensors *can’t* think this way, only that for iNtuitives it will come more naturally.}  Only unhealthy iNtuitives will focus on abstract patterns at the *expense* of what’s right in front of them.

With N/S as with all the letters, stereotyping those different from you is hurtful as well as something that indicates an insecurity with your own way of functioning.  All the types are equal; there’s no need to put others down in order to feel safe and okay being yourself.

Thinkers are defined by the way they focus early in their cognitive process on the use of things, whether it be information or people.  Feelers are defined by the way they focus early in their cognitive process on the meaning of things, whether it be information or people.  Thoughts teach us the usefulness of objects, situations, people and actions; Feelings bring meaning to objects, situations, people and actions.  *We all have both*, it’s just the order we prioritize them that makes us a Feeler or a Thinker.  Once again, differences in personality stem from those differences in cognition order.

Now while “Thinker” and “Feeler” are accurate terms according to what Jung meant, in our modern culture (and maybe English has more of this connotation than German), these two terms do not mean equal things, when an essential point of Jung’s type theory was that the functions were equal.  These terms have come to imply that Feelers are illogical but nice, while Thinkers are logical and rational, but cold and unfeeling.  These implications can’t be allowed to stand because they’re damaging, degrading and beyond that, simply untrue.

As Jung said, both Thinking and Feeling are “rational” functions (“Application Functions” as we now call them on aLBoP), whereas “Sensation” as he called it and Intuition are the “irrational” ones (which aLBoP calls “Compilation Functions”), meaning that those functions compile patterns about the world rather than coming to conclusions about it.  To imply that Feelers can’t be equally logical or that Thinkers can’t be equally compassionate is just not in line with reality and terribly dangerous. 

Thinker vs. Feeler tends to be dangerous territory where one must tread with utmost care.  It’s an emotionally charged topic and I find one of the groups that gets the most emotional about it is Thinkers who are trying to declare that Feelers are illogical.  The irony astounds me.  While I do run into the occasional Feeler trying to claim moral superiority over us “heartless” Thinkers, they seem to be the minority of the problem.

It’s amazing to me how many Thinkers believe that their reasoning could never be influenced by emotion, because their emotions tend to demonstrate more through feelings like fear, anger, distaste, catastrophizing, and pessimism, which are moods and beliefs as much as giddiness, excitement, sensitivity, security and optimism.  *Every* human being is subject to emotion and while it may gall Thinkers to have them, we are often the most controlled by our emotions when we fail to realize their presence and strength.

I know from personal experience that I’m certainly the most unreasonable when I’m trying to prove how reasonable I am.  My ENTP debate mechanism doesn’t weaken when I angrily slam the door on my INFJ while yelling why I’m sure I’m right, but you better believe I feel like an idiot when I come to my senses and see how emotionally compromised my reasoning really was.

A lot of the stereotypes of T/F are actually characteristics that tend to follow ITs and EFs (as well as the common stereotypes of I/E, as a matter of fact).  Not that ITs are extra smart or have to be mean, and not that EFs are irrational or have to be sweet; instead ITs’ focus on the use of information in conjunction with Introverts’ tendency to get stuck in their own heads, can make ITs act or seem hard-headed and stereotypically “T.”  EF is the same story from the opposite side; EFs’ focus on the meaning of information, along with the Extraverted tendency to get pulled around with what others think, can make EFs look or act flighty and stereotypically “F.”

But of course, part of going into the cognitive process in depth here is to show, once again, that *all* the personality types have the tools at their disposal to make informed, meaningful decisions that take all the information, both use and meaning, into account.  They just have to work *with* their own psyches and not against them.

I’ve heard people think that Js are called “Judgers” because they’re more judgmental.  If they mean they tend to care more if a person is being of use than of meaning, that’s more of a T/F thing than a J/P thing, though being a TJ can certainly compound that tendency.  If they mean that Js are more decisive, that’s *closer* to the real difference.

In actuality, a Judger is defined by when in the cognition process they focus and decide on Action.  Judgers decide on a course of action in either their first cognition step (EJs) or second (IJs).  Percievers, instead, take more time to explore possibilities before acting, with their Action step coming either third (IPs) or last (EPs).

Now these differences can often result in stereotypically J/P actions, like Js liking things to be orderly or Ps enjoying spontaneity, but often that’s simply not the case and people are commonly mistyped over misconceptions of J/P.

For example IPs and especially ITPs, tend to be *more* meticulous than a lot of Js because of IPs’ unique focus on detail.  A lot of IPs *don’t* like surprises and are very particular about things being just so.  EPs tend to be the more quintessential Ps, and even we get meticulous about things that actually matter to us (like ending up with a blog post that was over twice as long as anticipated, trying to get important points across).  In contrast Js can sometimes rush into action in a way that looks spontaneous.  EJs, with Action being their unique emphasis, are often the quintessential Js, with ETJs especially saying the equivalent of “Let’s just get it done already!”

The main differences to watch for are that Judgers’ focus is on what action to take, based on the information they already have, and they prefer to plan ahead and then carry through with that plan; Perceivers’ focus is on exploring additional options and they prefer to react to new information and prefer not to set plans in stone.

It makes sense that EJs would be “More J” and EPs “More P”; because the Extraverts are on the extremes about taking action early versus observing longer, with the Introverts in the middle.  You often find these kinds of extremes in personality typing.  TJs and ITs tend to be more expectedly “T,” FPs and EFs more expectedly “F,” with the TPs, ETs, FJs and IFs somewhere in the middle.

These extremes aren’t necessarily better or worse, just more specialized in that particular function.  Though, it might be said that the extremes in any function have extra need to get in touch with their Paradoxitype for balance.

Cognition – Step One

There are four different ways to embark on the thought process, one of which each of us does naturally without even thinking about it.  You may consciously decide what to cognate about; you don’t consciously decide *how* to cognate.

I make subtle faces sometimes when people say things like “Well, I’m somewhere between T and F,” or “I used to be an Extravert, but now I’m an Introvert.”  I understand people thinking that way, especially when the definitions of the types are vastly oversimplified most the time.  But when you see how the letters define the way you think and how your brain works, which affects your actions but does not determine them, you can see that it’s not the kind of thing that changes during your lifetime.

Now, don’t confuse me, I’m *not* saying that people can’t change or that they’re limited by their personality type and letters.  You *absolutely* can overcome the weaknesses of your own type as well as gain the strengths of every other.  *But* my caveat is that you must start by understanding the way you function naturally.  It is nearly impossible to gain the strengths of other types without first embracing the strengths of your own.  In contrast, it is insanely easy to gain the weaknesses of the other types you may try to emulate, if you are not *first* comfortable with who you are and the way your mind works naturally.

Take home lesson: Your personality type doesn’t change.  You change what you do with it.  Be happy being you and *then* you can adopt the traits you appreciate in other personality types.

Also, don’t do drugs.

Introverts, whether Judgers or Perceivers, begin this thought process inside their heads.  For IJs, the process starts with grasping Principles, which is information as it is universally applicable.  For IPs the process starts with contemplating gathered Data and Details, which is information as it is applicable to specific situations.

Introverts’ primary cognition is like a Heads-up Display, letting them sift through and understand information already in their database, constantly.

IJs’ HUD covers an intricate network of information and they are constantly finding the common threads behind that information; the one line of computer code that causes all the results they see around them.

IPs’ HUD includes a powerful microscope, able to zoom in on and understand the tiniest detail that other types might simply overlook and are able to draw complex conclusions from that data.

Because of their cognitive emphasis on Principles and the way things work universally, IJs care most about the direction the World is headed in and make plans to see that direction accomplished (which leads into their Step Two — Action).  That World Direction can be either good or bad, depending on whether the IJ is healthy or unhealthy.

Because of their cognitive emphasis on Details and specific Data, IPs care most about fully understanding and exploring specific Situations, whether that means using a situation to its fullest as an ITP or fully appreciating a moment as an IFP.  That Detail Exploration can be put to good or bad purposes, depending whether the IP is healthy or unhealthy.

Extraverts, whether Judgers or Perceivers, begin the thought process with their eyes wide open, taking in information from the outside world.  For EJs, the process starts with evaluating what Actions lead to which Consequences, watching how results follow choices.  For EPs, the process starts with Observing individuals in order to understand Motivations, watching what reactions demonstrate about a person’s character.

Extraverts’ primary cognition is like Sonar, sending out signals and watching what the signals bounce off of.

EJs’ Sonar “Pings” are more direct, focusing on the course ahead and loudly pinging the terrain in front of them.  EJs send pings through making decisions and everything is a decision for an EJ, whether it’s forming an opinion of someone or choosing a stance on a cause; they can change course by making new decisions according to the consequences and results their action-pings get (“Ahh!  We’re too close to the underwater wall!  Turn back, turn back!!!”), but each J judgment is decisive.

EPs’ Sonar “Pings” are more passive, trying to map out the entire terrain, not just the course ahead (see, I said in the sidebar that I was going to type cartographers ;)).  Everything an EP says or does is a ping; even just sitting back and watching others ping off each other is pinging for an EP.  EPs watch for the way the people-terrain reacts to their pings to get a complete picture of individuals and the way they function.  Most of all, EPs are constantly pinging themselves in order to understand their own motivations and character and to explore how people in general work.  This can look self-centered to non-EPs, but really EPs are just excited by individuals in general and understand themselves the best (“My submarine is so cool!  Look what this button does!”).

Because of their cognitive emphasis on Actions and the Consequences of choices, EJs care most about the direction the Groups they support are headed in and they make plans to carry out that direction.  Those Groups can be families, friends, people who believe in the same causes, etc.  Once again, the purposes they desire to put their Groups to can be good or bad, depending on whether the EJ is healthy or unhealthy.

Because of their cognitive emphasis on Observing Motivations and understanding what makes people tick, EPs care most about exploring Individuals and the way people work in general.  And, like the other three kinds of types, whether that People exploration is good or bad depends on whether the EP is healthy or unhealthy.

Along with Introversion and Extraversion, Judging and Perceiving, obviously a person’s middle letters interact with their cognition process.  In a lot of ways, first and last letters (E/I, J/P) determine what information a person is gathering or processing, while the middle letters (N/S, F/T) determine what form that information takes within your psyche.

Carl Jung’s original type theory was divided into 8 types, based on a person’s primary form of understanding information.  These were INJ, ENP, ISJ, ESP, ETJ, ITP, EFJ and IFP, though it was Briggs and Myers who later noticed the J/P pattern.

As you can see, in those original 8 types, IJs and EPs are sorted based on their primary function of either iNtuition or Sensing, while the EJs and IPs are sorted by their primary function of either Thinking or Feeling.  We can simplify those 8 types again into just 4:  Is your primary function Feeling (EFJ, IFP), Thinking (ETJ, ITP), Sensing (ISJ, ESP), or iNtuition (INJ, ENP)?

See the pattern?  The IPs and EJs are always buddies and so are the EPs and IJs.

But what does that really mean?  What makes Sensing and iNtuition similar and what makes Feeling and Thinking similar?  Well, as I mentioned in the T/F Definition section above, Jung called Thinking and Feeling the “Rational” functions and Sensing and iNtuition the “Irrational” ones.

Now before conclusions are jumped to, *NO,* I’m not saying that IJs and EPs are irrational (/eyeroll).  A “Rational” function is one in which a person evaluates information based on either how useful (Thinking) or meaningful (Feeling) that information is.  In contrast, an “Irrational” function is one in which a person collects information by seeing patterns, whether in physical experiences (Sensing) or mental concepts (iNtuition).

So Thinking and Feeling are called “Rational” functions because they’re evaluating how to think, feel, process and apply information to specific circumstances and applications; Sensing and iNtuition are called “Irrational” functions because they’re seeing, observing and collecting information for general applicability without yet evaluating it.

{Update: Due to the obviously confusing nature of Jung’s well-intended terms, on aLBoP we’ve updated these terms to clarify the definitions and avoid misconceptions.  It’s a thing we like to do.

We now refer to “Rational” functions as “Application Functions,” because they apply information to specific circumstances, and we call “Irrational” functions “Compilation Functions” because they compile and sift through large quantities of information in order to find universal patterns.}

IPs and EJs start with {Application Functions}, making specifics their primary focus (either specific Data or specific Action respectively), and IJs and EPs start with {Compilation Functions} making things that are generally applicable their primary focus (either general Principles or general people Observations respectively)… and then they switch.    But that’s Step Two.  The point is, everyone does *both* {Application and Compilation} functions, but IJs and EPs start with the Big Picture and zoom in to Specifics; EJs and IPs start with Specifics and zoom out to the Big Picture.

Okay, moving right along here  Believe me, you’ll want this information here for reference when we get into the later steps of the cognition process.  At least there are pictures!!

Now, in practice each primary function–each type’s “Step One”–is pretty straightforward.

INJs’ first step and primary focus is using their iNtuition (N) inside their heads (introverted) to understand how Conceptual Principles apply universally as Trends.  They use their Heads-up Display to visualize conceptual information and organize it into universally applicable pictures and patterns.
We shorthand this as:  Principles via Ni (introverted iNtuition).

ISJs’ first step and primary focus is using their Sensing (S) inside their heads (introverted) to understand how Experiences Principles apply universally as Trends.  They use their Heads-up Display to understand the patterns behind experiences and to organize those patterns so they are universally applicable.
Shorthand:  Principles via Si (introverted Sensing).

ENPs’ first step and primary focus is directing their iNtuition (N) outside themselves (extraverted) to Observe people’s Motivations and character, Conceptually.  They use their Sonar “Pings” to map out conceptually the way an individual functions and the way people function in general.
Shorthand:  Observation via Ne (extraverted iNtuition).

ESPs’ first step and primary focus is directing their Sensing (S) outside themselves (extraverted) to Observe people’s Motivations and character, through Experiences.  They use their Sonar “Pings” to notice the way an individual functions and the way people function in general, through experiencing people with their five senses.
Shorthand:  Observation via Se (extraverted Sensing).

ITPs’ first step and primary focus is using their Thoughts (T) inside their heads (introverted) to understand the Use of gathered Data and Details.  They use their Heads-up Display microscope to be able to evaluate and apply data to specific situations and to see when they’re missing additional data.
Shorthand:  Data via Ti (introverted Thinking).

IFPs’ first step and primary focus is using their Feelings (F) inside their heads (introverted) to understand the Meaning of gathered Data and Details.   They use their Heads-up Display microscope to feel and experience the power and importance of even the minutest detail.
Shorthand:  Data via Fi (introverted Feeling).

ETJs’ first step and primary focus is directing their Thoughts (T) outside themselves (extraverted) to Act and see the Use of Actions.  They use their Sonar “Pings” to decide and map the course ahead according to what will be of the most use for the group/groups they support and to see what works and what doesn’t work.
Shorthand: Action via Te (extraverted Thinking).

EFJs’ first step and primary focus is directing their Feelings (F) outside themselves (extraverted) to Act and see the Meaning of Actions.  They use their Sonar “Pings” to decide and map the course ahead according to what will bring the greatest meaning and experiences to the group/groups they support and to see what actions hurt or help people.
Shorthand: Action via Fe (extraverted Feeling).

And that’s Step One!  Yay!

Cognition – Step Two

Now, the thought process builds on itself; a person takes whatever information they gleaned from Step One, and applies it to Step Two.  They then take the combined information from steps One and Two, and apply that to Step Three; same with Step Four, and the same with applying *all* of that to Step One again on the Rinse and Repeat.

Because Step One is a person’s focus and priority, with the most time spent there, it becomes the context for all the other steps, with Step Two coming in a close second, etc, and Step Four being a person’s weakest area.  So as we go through all the steps, remember:  The information and decisions gleaned from each step gets added to the grand total which is a person’s current understanding of life, the universe and everything.

Okay, now everyone, *SWITCH!*  For “Step Two” of the thought process, the Percievers (EPs and IPs) swap functions and the Judgers (EJs and IJs) swap functions.  I could just say, “to see what Step Two is, swap a type’s first letter and then look above for what they do,” but that would be confusing and I’m not going to do that.  Plus, there is a tad more elaboration required  Isn’t there always?

Step Two is simply your “auxiliary” function at work; so your middle letter that *wasn’t* at work in Step One.  The IPs and EJs, who used their {Application} functions (F/T) in Step One, switch to their {Compilation} functions (S/N) in Step Two.  The IJs and EPs, who used their {Compilation} functions (S/N) in Step One, switch to their {Application} functions (F/T) in Step Two.  Also, if a person was inside their own head before (introverted), they then take that information and apply it outside themselves (extraverted)… and vice versa.

Stated simply:

IJs apply their understanding of Principles and how things work universally from inside their heads (introverted) to specific circumstances outside themselves (extraverted) to see what Action to take and to understand the Consequences of Action.  From the Big Picture of Principles, they derive Specifics in the form of Action.

IPs apply the specific Data and Details they’ve come to conclusions about inside their heads (introverted) to the Observation of people outside themselves (extraverted) to see individuals’ Motivations, understand how people in general function and make character judgments.  From the Specifics of Data, they derive the Big Picture in the form of Observing individuals.

EJs apply their findings from Acting, receiving Consequences and watching specific Actions outside themselves (extraverted) to draw an understanding of Principles and how things work universally, inside their heads (introverted).  From the Specifics of Action, they derive the Big Picture in the form of Principles.

EPs apply their Observations of individuals’ Motivations, character judgments and noticing how people work in general (extraverted) to draw Conclusions in the form of specific Data and Details inside their heads (introverted).  From the Big Picture of Observing Motivations, they derive Specifics in the form of Data and Details.

Like I said, IJs and EPs work in terms of Thinking or Feeling on Step Two; adding to their thought process either Action or Data in the form of either Thoughts or Feelings.

ETPs’ second step of cognition is drawing Data and Conclusions from the Observations they made in Step One, in the form of Thoughts (T) inside their heads (introverted), in order to make Use of those Observations of Individuals, including making Use of themselves.
Shorthand:  Data via Ti (introverted Thinking).

ITJs’ second step of cognition is applying the Principles they came to understand in Step One to individual situations to see the Use of Actions by directing their Thoughts (T) outside themselves (extraverted), in order to find which Actions will be of the most Use to the World.
Shorthand: Action via Te (extraverted Thinking).

IFJs’ second step of cognition is applying the Principles they came to understand in Step One to individual situations to see the Meaning of Actions by directing their Feelings (F) outside themselves (extraverted), in order to find which Actions will bring the most Meaning to the World.
Shorthand: Action via Fe (extraverted Feeling).

EFPs’ second step of cognition is drawing Data and Conclusions from the Observations they made in Step One, in the form of Feelings (F) inside their heads (introverted), in order to understand Meaning of those Observations of Individuals, including understanding the Meaning of Themselves.
Shorthand:  Data via Fi (introverted Feeling).

IPs and EJs work in terms of Sensing or iNtuition on Step Two; adding to their thought process either Observations or Principles in the form of either Experiences or Concepts.

ENJs’ second step is using their iNtuition (N) inside their heads (introverted) to understand how the Consequences of Actions made in Step One form Concepts that apply universally as Principles.
Shorthand:  Principles via Ni (introverted iNtuition).

INPs’ second step is applying the Data, Details and Conclusions they reached in Step One, to Observing people’s Motivations and character by directing their iNtuition (N) outside themselves (extraverted) in order to make Conceptual pictures of individuals and how people work in general.
Shorthand:  Observation via Ne (extraverted iNtuition).

ISPs’ second step is applying the Data, Details and Conclusions they reached in Step One, to Observing people’s Motivations and character by directing their five senses (S) outside themselves (extraverted) in order to understand individuals and how people work in general by Experiencing them.
Shorthand:  Observation via Se (extraverted Sensing).

ESJs’ second step is using their Sensing (S) inside their heads (introverted) to understand how the Consequences of Actions made in Step One are Experiences that apply universally as Principles.
Shorthand:  Principles via Si (introverted Sensing).

See the beautiful balance of the human mind?  Each brain does a dance of zooming in and out of the big picture and specifics; contemplating, then applying; observing, then understanding.  Even by this point, only halfway through the steps, we can see how equal and balanced all the personality types are.  Also we can see how each type can find connections and relate with the thinking of all the others.  Whether it’s through similarity in Introversion or Extraversion and how you primarily process the world, similarity in focusing on either Big Picture or Specifics, or similarity in Judging or Perceiving which means your Step Two is the same as someone else’s Step One; *no type* is so foreign that we can’t understand how they think or feel.

Pretty rock-awesome, no?  Now onto Step Three!!!

Cognition – Step Three

So once upon a time, there were the first two steps.  They lived in harmony, being coordinated and making obvious sense.  N/S applied to Big Picture things, T/F to Specific ones; Action was Specific, Principles were Big Picture; Action was extraverted, Principles were introverted.  It was a time of peace, serenity and reason.

And then the Perceivers got involved…

For some odd reason, which I suppose makes sense in retrospect, Perceivers don’t view Action the same way Judgers do.  The retrospect part is: that’s what makes them Perceivers

While everyone’s Data step is introverted F or T (information applied specifically, inside your head), and everyone’s Observation step is extraverted S or N (big picture information, from outside yourself), in the Action/Principles area, it isn’t so simple.

It seems that Judgers and Perceivers don’t just act at different times, but they view and understand action differently too.  In the cognitive process, Data and Observation are buddies and so are Principles and Action; no matter the order, they come in pairs with character Observation and Data being the Perceiving part and Principles and Action being the Judging part.  Though all four of a person’s cognitive functions work together, the first two and the last two are really BFFs (that’s “Best Friends Forever;” not a {cognitive} term, but still useful!), helping a person zoom in and out to understand all the information and its applications.

So, by this point, we’ve already seen how Judgers do the Action/Principles stage; Js understand Principles as being generally applicable and Action as being specific–Principles in S/N and Action in T/F.

But those weird Perceivers (;D) do just the opposite.  With Perceivers’ emphasis on “perceiving” the way people function in general (the result of Observation + Data), they see Action and decision-making in a similar way to how Judgers see Principles; as generally applicable patterns of information (found via S/N) discovered inside their heads (introverted).

Likewise, Perceivers view Principles in a similar way to how Judgers view Action, as specifically applicable information (found via F/T) with direct results and Consequences in the world (extraverted).

So keep the weirdos in mind as we look at how each type does Step Three.

The cognition process is a beautiful chiasmus, with each type’s Step Three function being a complete mirror-image of their Step Two function, and their Step Four function being a mirror-image of their Step One function.

In Step Three, IJs and EPs use the opposite {Application} function (T/F) than they used in Step Two; IPs and EJs use the opposite {Compilation} function (S/N) than they used in Step Two.

Step Three includes a lot of Paradoxitype elements, since it’s from a person’s tertiary function, it lies beneath the obvious, and yet isn’t a person’s weakest function like Step Four.  Step Three is cool too, because each type-set derives information in a way and order that none of the other type-sets do.  This just shows, once again, how much we all need each other and the strengths that each type provides.

IJs on Step Three, take the specific Consequences of Actions they made in Step Two (via Te or Fe), and derive specific Data and Details from it in the form of either Thoughts or Feelings inside their heads (opposite T/F, introverted).  They’re the only ones to derive Data from Actions.

IPs on Step Three, take their Observations of how people work in general from Step Two (via Se or Ne) and apply it to an understanding of how to use Actions in general, make decisions and to understand Consequences in the form of either Experiences or Concepts, inside their heads (opposite S/N, introverted).  They’re the only ones to derive Actions from Motivations.

EJs on Step Three, take the universally applicable Principles of how the world works they came to understand in Step Two (via Si or Ni) and apply it to the Observation of people and their Motivations to understand how people work in general by directing their Senses or iNtuition, outward (opposite S/N, extraverted).  They’re the only ones to derive Motivations from Principles.

EPs on Step Three, take the specific Data and Details they’ve found in Step Two (via Ti or Fi) and derive specific Principles of the way the world works by directing their Thoughts or Feelings outward (opposite T/F, extraverted).  They’re the only ones to derive Principles from Data.

ITJs’ third step of cognition is drawing Data and Details from the Consequences of Actions they made in Step Two, in the form of Feelings (F) inside their heads (introverted), in order to make Meaningful Conclusions.
Shorthand: Data via Fi (introverted Feeling).

ETPs’ third step of cognition is using the Data and Conclusions they came to in Step Two to see universal Principles, by directing their Feelings (F) outside themselves (extraverted), in order to understand the Meaning in the world.
Shorthand:  Principles via Fe (extraverted Feeling).

EFPs’ third step of cognition is using the Data and Conclusions they came to in Step Two to see universal Principles, by directing their Thoughts (T) outside themselves (extraverted), in order to make Use of the world.
Shorthand:  Principles via Te (extraverted Thinking).

IFJs’ third step of cognition is drawing Data and Details from the Consequences of Actions they made in Step Two, in the form of Thoughts (T) inside their heads (introverted), in order to make Useful Conclusions.
Shorthand: Data via Ti (introverted Thinking).

INPs’ third step is applying their Observations of people from Step Two, to finding patterns inside their heads (introverted) from the things they’ve Experienced with their five Senses (S), to decide on courses of Action based on Linear scenarios and general Consequences.
Shorthand:  Action via Si (introverted Sensing).

ENJs’ third step is applying the universal Principles they learned in Step Two to Observing people’s Motivations by reaching out (extraverted) and Experiencing people with their five Senses (S).
Shorthand:  Observation via Se (extraverted Sensing).

ESJs’ third step is applying the universal Principles they learned in Step Two to Observing people’s Motivations by directing their iNtuition (N) outside themselves (extraverted) to form Conceptual pictures of people.
Shorthand:  Observation via Ne (extraverted iNtuition).

ISPs’ third step is applying their Observations of people from Step Two, to finding patterns inside their heads (introverted) in the form of Concepts through their iNtuition (N), to decide on courses of Action based on Conceptual scenarios and general Consequences.
Shorthand:  Action via Ni (introverted iNtuition).

You get the drill  On to Step Four!

Cognition – Step Four

If you have trouble remembering Step Four, just remember it’s what you suck at.  I’m joking… kinda.  While it’s totally feasible to overcome and work with the weaknesses of this last step, it will always bring up the rear.  It’s just not possible in our limited humanity to be equally good at everything.  We don’t have the brainpower, time or energy.  But as we let our Step Four be taught and mentored by our Step One, it too can become strong… though maybe not *as* strong…

But since it’s our weakest area, Step Four is where we feel the most off-step, vulnerable and get the most defensive of our choices.  While we all use our Feelings in one of the steps, Step Four is where we get the most overemotional no matter what function we use there.  No matter what your Step Four is, it would be prudent to learn to cool it when it comes to your weakest area.  Be patient with yourself; recognize that this weakest area is where you’re most likely to be incorrect.  Be willing to recognize when you’re wrong, and go back to your Step One (your greatest strength) to find your own errors in judgment.  Otherwise the errors in your thought process are going to be misapplied on the Rinse and Repeat and skew your whole method of thinking.

IJs on Step Four take the specific Data and Conclusions they found in Step Three and use that information to Observe the general character and Motivations of Individuals by directing their iNtuition or five Senses outside themselves (opposite N/S, extraverted).

Individual Observation is the hardest for IJs because while their primary focus of Principles may be universal, Principles are also single threads behind infinite applications; people are the most complicated applications of all, and IJs can make blanket character judgments if they try and make those applications too simple and apply Principles as straightforwardly to their Observations as they do to Action or Data.

IPs on Step Four take the Consequences of Actions made in Step Three and apply it to what they see to make specific Principles of how the world works universally by applying their Thoughts or Feelings outside themselves (opposite T/F, extraverted).

Principles are the hardest for IPs because their primary focus of Data and Details means their minds are focused on depth over breadth of information; they explore the world, primarily on their own (introverted) focusing on detailed specific applications of information, and can’t possibly expect to also be as good at understanding how that information applies to the entire world.

EJs on Step Four take the understanding of Individual Motivations they Observed in Step Three and draw specific Data, Details and Conclusions from them in the form of Thoughts or Feelings inside their heads (opposite T/F, introverted).

Conclusions are the hardest for EJs because their primary focus of Action means they’re always in motion and it’s difficult for their minds to slow down and examine the Data themselves, and yet their Actions are so oriented around people and the actions of others that it’s difficult for them to analyze a specific situation for its intrinsic value and Conclusion without being influenced by others’ opinions about a given situation or data.

EPs on Step Four take the specific Principles of how the world works that they learned in Step Three and apply them to a general understanding of how to choose Actions, make decisions and to understand Consequences in the form of either Experiences or Concepts, inside their heads (opposite S/N, introverted).

Actions and Consequences are the hardest for EPs because their primary focus is Observing, a focus that continues on with them throughout deriving Data and Principles from those Observations; it’s all about information-gathering, up until the last second, when formed scenarios finally become literal action… but often what an EP pictures in their mind doesn’t pan out when actually put into motion.

ENPs’ fourth step and weakest function is applying the Principles they learned in Step Three, to finding patterns inside their heads (introverted) from the things they’ve Experienced with their five Senses (S), to decide on courses of Action based on Linear scenarios and general Consequences.
Shorthand:  Action via Si (introverted Sensing).

INJs’ fourth step and weakest function is applying the specific Data and Conclusions they came to in Step Three to Observing people’s Motivations by reaching out (extraverted) and Experiencing people with their five Senses (S).
Shorthand:  Observation via Se (extraverted Sensing).

ISJs’ fourth step and weakest function is applying the specific Data and Conclusions they came to in Step Three to Observing people’s Motivations by reaching out (extraverted) to form Conceptual pictures of people (N).
Shorthand:  Observation via Ne (extraverted iNtuition).

ESPs’ fourth step and weakest function is applying the Principles they learned in Step Three, to finding patterns inside their heads (introverted) in the form of Concepts (N), to decide on courses of Action based on Conceptual scenarios and general Consequences.
Shorthand:  Action via Ni (introverted iNtuition).

ETJs’ fourth step and weakest function of cognition is drawing Data and Details from the Observations of Motivations they made in Step Three, in the form of Feelings (F) inside their heads (introverted), in order to make Meaningful Conclusions.
Shorthand: Data via Fi (introverted Feeling).

ITPs’ fourth step and weakest function of cognition is using the Consequences of Actions they made in Step Three to see universal Principles, by directing their Feelings (F) outside themselves (extraverted), in order to understand the Meaning in the world.
Shorthand:  Principles via Fe (extraverted Feeling).

IFPs’ fourth step and weakest function of cognition is using the Consequences of Actions they made in Step Three to see universal Principles, by directing their Thoughts (T) outside themselves (extraverted), in order to make Use of the world.
Shorthand:  Principles via Te (extraverted Thinking).

EFJs’ fourth step and weakest function of cognition is drawing Data and Details from the Observations of Motivations they made in Step Three, in the form of Thoughts (T) inside their heads (introverted), in order to make Useful Conclusions.
Shorthand: Data via Ti (introverted Thinking).

Cognition – Rinse and Repeat

“This is the song that never ends!  It just goes on and on, my friends!”

Now I got that song stuck in your head.  I’m sorry, I truly am.  What happens when we reach the end of the thought process?  When we’ve finished our weakest step and everything is accumulated in our brains?  We do it again of course!  Like a toddler yelling, “Again!  Again!” we just do the whole thing over, this time applying everything we learned the time before to fresh steps.

So we become an amalgamation of all our Thoughts, Feelings, Experiences and Concepts.  This is why the cognition process demonstrates in everything we are.  Our decisions, conclusions, worldview and our motivations are what define us; the things that truly make us who we are.

But I hope that this demonstrates just how much all the types have in common, while also demonstrating how different and unique we all are too.  We need each and every type for the special things they bring to the table.  It’s a beautiful Jenga game that would all fall down if any one type were to be lost.

I hope you recognize too how special and balanced your own way of thinking is, and that if you learn to use it healthily, you can feel confident, powerful, useful and meaningful in your own skin.

Here on the aLBoP Guided Tour?  Yay!  That means you’ve finished the three Dictionary Posts!  You earn an aLBoP gold star!  Oooh, ahh! o_o  Now we get into how to type actual people and characters, with stick figures Gwen and Phil in our Typing Tutorial!

Want a unique picture of how *you* think?  I made a picture for each of the 16 unique cognitive processes!  Because you’ve always wanted to be a stick figure.

Just click on each picture to zoom in, then you can right click to save or to Pin/Tumblr/Share the large version!

The post The Cognition Process in Stick Figures appeared first on A Little Bit of Personality.

In order to understand how people make good decisions, we need to explore *why* they make the decisions they do.  Namely, *why* do the different types have the specializations and focuses they do; how do each of us see the world and people and how do we choose to affect the world the way no one else can?

How we view the world is based on how our cognition interacts with our experiences.  Based on our cognitive patterns, two different types will interpret the same experiences quite differently.  Through those experiences, each type tends toward a different worldview.  Now I’m not talking about who you voted for or where you choose to spend your Sundays, though those choices are certainly based on your worldview and personal experiences.  No, I’m talking about optimism, pessimism and our intentions of world and self change.  I have to note that *each* of these, when healthy,  are valid and necessary ways of viewing the world so that as a society we don’t miss anything or go off wildly half-cocked.  In fact you can be sure that a broken culture is the result of one or many of the types’ unique strengths being ignored in favor of a few select types.  More on that later though.

Not just for the sake of tooting my own horn (though, as an ENTP, you know I love to ), I want to point out that you’re not going to find this information anywhere else.  I see the patterns and I share them; I don’t get them from anywhere “official” because those individual human beings who are just people too, haven’t discovered them yet.  Sometimes Tony Stark is better at inventing something in a cave than researchers in a million dollar lab with their heads up their booties could ever be.  If the “experts” want to tell the “amateurs” they’re wrong, feel free… they should just prepare to have said butts handed back to them.

Here are the graphs, because I <3 pretty graphs!

The two graphs correspond, the second being a “flipping” of the first, with each type’s place in the first graph corresponding to its place in the second.

The graph on the top is about the way each type tends to view people.

• I’s, whose primary functions are inside their own heads, concentrate their focus on people on the whole, while E’s, whose primary functions are through taking things in from the world outside themselves, concentrate their focus on individuals.

• F’s, who focus on the meaning of people and things, tend to be more optimistic about people.  T’s, who focus on the use of people and things, tend to be more pessimistic about people.

• Idealistic — IF’s tend to think people on the whole are good and meaningful.  When they do feel cynical, it tends to be about individuals failing.  (“People rock!”)

• Optimistic — EF’s tend to think individuals are good and meaningful.  When they do feel cynical, it tends to be about people on the whole failing.  (“You rock!”)

• Pessimistic — IT’s tend to think people on the whole are bad and useless.  When they do feel optimistic, it tends to be about individuals who matter to them.  (“People suck!”)

• Skeptical — ET’s tend to think individuals are bad and useless.  When they do feel optimistic, it tends to be about people on the whole who matter to them.  (“You suck!”)

The graph on the bottom is about what each type chooses to do about how they view people.

• S’s, who take in the world in a linear, literal, on-the-ground way, care especially about keeping things the same and protecting what is already there, while N’s, who take in the world in a conceptual, non-linear, far-reaching way, care especially about changing things to reach their full potential.

• J’s, who focus on the relationship between actions, consequences and principles of the way things work, specialize in the direction the world and groups are headed in.  P’s, who focus on the relationship between data, the way things are, and the motivations of individuals, specialize in exploring the world and people.

• Game Changers — NJ’s focus on changing the world.

• Motivators — NP’s focus on changing individuals, starting with themselves.

• World Protectors — SJ’s focus on keeping the world the same.

• Individualists — SP’s focus on keeping individuals the same, starting with themselves.

• ISFJ — The Idealistic World Protectors — tend to think people on the whole are good, so they desire to protect the parts of the world they love.  (The Knight)

• ISFP — The Idealistic Individualists — tend to think people on the whole are good, so they desire to keep the parts of people they love the same.  (The Explorer)

• ENFJ — The Optimistic Game Changers — tend to think individuals are good, so they believe it’s possible to change the bad parts of the world.  (The Veteran)

• ENFP — The Optimistic Motivators — tend to think individuals are good, so they believe it’s possible to change the bad parts of individuals, starting with themselves.  (The Standard-Bearer)

• ESFJ — The Optimistic World Protectors — tend to think individuals are good, so they desire to protect the parts of the world they love.  (The Cavalry)

• ESFP — The Optimistic Individualists — tend to think individuals are good, so they desire to keep the parts of people they love the same.  (The Morale Officer)

So how can we snap out of it, overcome fear and return to sanity?  How can we know what decisions to make when we’re scared?  I’ll explain in Part 2 – Playing to Your Strengths

The post How to Make Good Decisions While Still Being You: Part 1 – Optimism, Pessimism and What We Do About It appeared first on A Little Bit of Personality.

My second semester of college, I needed a class that was a few more credit hours but nothing I looked at seemed quite right.  I was taking everything I could that semester for the major I wanted (probably the eighth major I’d settled on) and I would have been happy to just focus on classes I actually cared about, but I had a partial scholarship that required a certain number of credit hours, so I had to take something.  Rather than a fun class, I felt obligated to take something useful and my eye fell on a class called “Life Planning and Decision Making.”  I told my INFJ (who was my ex-boyfriend at the time) that I finally decided to take the class when I couldn’t decide whether or not to take the class.

The post How to Make Good Decisions While Still Being You: Intro appeared first on A Little Bit of Personality.