Boye Akinwande is a contributing guest writer for CelebrityTypes and Ryan Smith is one of the admins of CelebrityTypes. In this article, Akinwande and Smith elaborate on the duality of type-triads, both across, as well as along, the function axes.
By Boye Akinwande and Ryan Smith
In this article we are going to elaborate on the idea of commonalities and divergence between the types who share both their function axes, as explored with Smith in the previous installment of this series. Besides the framework posited by Gregersen and Smith (Determining Function Axes, 2012), we are also going to be drawing upon Oliver Bryant’s idea of the functions’ affinity with Bayesian and Frequentist modes of reasoning, which he coined in 2011, but which has to our knowledge not been described in public until this piece was published on CelebrityTypes earlier in 2015.
It is our intention to run through each of the eight type-triads (SFPs, NTJs, etc.) in order to show both how they are alike (in terms of their function axes), but also how they are dissimilar (in spite of it).
SFPs and NTJs: Bayesian Committers
- For both SFPs and NTJs, the arrangement of the functions allows for a polarization in terms of a relatively uncompromised inner world (Ni and Fi) as well as a corresponding counter-orientation towards an external world that appears to them on objective and comparatively unfiltered terms (Se and Te).
- As Bryant has pointed out, both SFPs and NTJs are strong Bayesians, meaning that their style of reasoning is highly singular and focused on achieving a satisfactory solution to the specific problem at hand – their drive to make a direct impact on the external world that is in accordance with their personal desires is greater than will ceteris paribus be seen in other types.
These are the points on which SFPs and NTJs converge because of their shared function axes. However, since the ordering of their functions is reversed, SFPs and NTJs also tend to diverge.
- Because of their conscious orientation towards Se-Fi , SFPs tend to act as free spirits, quick to act on their desires, and quick to create an exciting and enjoyable environment around them for themselves and others to enjoy.
- NTJs, being consciously orientated towards Te-Ni, tend to put their temperamental Bayesianism to work in intellectual matters where their intuitive use of Bayesian inference can often cause them to be seen as dogmatic and one-sided. In their minds they have already reviewed all of evidence necessary to surmise the truth concerning a given problem. Now they are interested in advancing their ideas and pursuing the solution that they have surmised, not in wasting time on tangents that are only tentatively relevant. For this reason, NTJs are commonly perceived as both incomparably decisive and relatively closed to divergent perspectives when it comes to intellectual matters.
SFJs and NTPs: Frequentist Connectors
- As discussed in the previous article, Si and Ti are naturally more empirical and less ideational than Ni and Fi. While Si and Ti are typically not as objective or unfiltered as Se and Te, they nevertheless exemplify another aspect of the empirical mindset insofar as both Si and Ti strip the present occurrence of its immediate context in an attempt to see it as a Frequentist data point amidst a stream of similar Frequentist data points.
- Hence, what Si and Ti lose in directness and realism compared to Se and Te, they make up for with their indirect and meticulous, textbook-like approach where they approach each occurrence with reference to similar and adjacent occurrences, like putting together the pieces of a puzzle (sometimes at the expense of examining the individual piece in full).
These are the points on which SFJs and NTPs converge because of their shared function axes. However, since the ordering of their functions is reversed, SFJs and NTPs also tend to diverge.
- Because of their conscious orientation towards Si-Fe, SFJs tend to be very receptive towards the sentiments, wishes, and ideas held by the people around them. SFJs often absorb these ideas and naturally identify with them, using them as a guideline for how they should interact with others, or how to proceed in a given matter where the solution is otherwise non-evident. Compared to their SFP counterparts, they tend to tread far more carefully, but on the downside, they may also be seen as inhibited or unoriginal by comparison.
- Rather than connecting sentiments and ideas in their immediate environment, NTPs, being orientated towards Ne-Ti, tend to be more receptive to intellectual ideas and novelties, which they seek to connect to adjacent (but possibly irrelevant) bodies of knowledge that are already known to them. By sorting out the associative ramifications of an idea (i.e. connecting it to an idealized Frequentist string of similar insights), NTPs often have an easier time arriving at “pure” intellectual knowledge than other types. But it also tends to come at the cost of making that knowledge applicable to actually solving the intellectual challenges at hand. The case of NTP Hayek vs. NTJ Keynes seems to be a good example here.
STJs and NFPs: Divergent Perceivers
- As discussed in the previous installment in this series, Si takes note of the environment around it in a meticulous manner. And as discussed in Akinwande’s article on The Hidden Significance of Fi, the Fi function tends to retain the individuality of both the Fi type’s own proclivities, as well as those of the entities surrounding them (be they objects or persons). In combination, this means that STJs and NFPs have the most divergent forms of perception of all the types. Colloquially speaking, the Si-Fi combination takes note of every individual tree in the forest without detaching to see those entities as interchangeable. Since entities are more narrowly partitioned than in the cognition of other types, there simply seems to be much more reality out there for STJs and NFPs to consider. (This is one reason why ENFPs tend to express more wonder and excitement at the world than ENTPs; in their minds there are more entities to be cognized and savored and thus far more possibilities.)
- On the other hand, the combination of Ne and Te also means that STJs and NFPs are better equipped to handling this kind of divergent perception, since these functions are very well-suited to handle extensive bodies of knowledge. In sum, however, the Si-Ne, Te-Fi makeup of STJs and NFPs gives rise to an experience of external chaos that can be ordered through routines, patterns, and laws. In STJs, this penchant for ordering is usually evident, and it tends to come at the expense of novelty and the unknown. With NFPs, their ordering penchant is typically less obvious, but can be seen in the way many INFPs withdraw their judgments from the world in order to be able to control them, or in the way ENFPs may often over-commit to a scheme or arrangement that offers some solution as if it offered the whole solution on account of their tertiary Te. An exploration of these similarities between the STJ and NFP cognition, and what the two triads might learn from each other, can be found in Smith’s essay on Freud and Empedocles.
These are the points on which STJs and NFPs converge because of their shared function axes. However, since the ordering of their functions is reversed, STJs and NFPs also tend to diverge.
- Since STJs have both divergent perception and a conscious orientation towards Si and Te (both of which are empirical functions in the sense defined in the last installment in this series), it follows that novelty and unfamiliarity which have not yet had a chance to undergo empirical ordering in the mind of the STJ may easily be perceived as a threat to the current order that they have established for themselves. Hence STJs will often prefer to keep a firm grasp on what has already been mentally ordered by them and where they know that their knowledge of the entity or occurrence is reliable.
- As for NFPs, being orientated towards Ne and Fi, there can often be a tendency for them to romanticize novelty and to cognize untested possibilities as beautiful dreams containing new light, guaranteed to shine brighter than any light that ever shone.[1] This approach can often be worthwhile in creative pursuits, but in terms of everyday reality, it easily ends up lacking consistency in application and perseverance in addressing the problems that the older schemes already addressed (albeit in an imperfect way). Hence it may be said that while NFPs are often very open to novelty, there is frequently also an element of escapism in their championing of new ideas.
STPs and NFJs: Convergent Perceivers
- As discussed in the previous installment in this series, both Ni and Fe incorporate a lot of information into their analyses in order to take a holistic, overarching view of the subject matter under their scrutiny. The clearest example of such a disposition can probably be found in the personality of Pythagoras. Compared to Si and Fi, Ni and Fe take a broader, more universal view of the world where the smaller disparities between entities, events, and people are fused together into fewer, but more interdependent and interpenetrating wholes.
- Because of their preference for Ti over Te, STPs and NFJs are not, ceteris paribus, as reductionistic or straightforward as SFPs and NTJs. But on the other hand, since STPs and NFJs do have Se, their perception of the world is still far more direct and straightforward than is the case with SFJs and NTPs (who rely on Si). Thinking in interpenetrating wholes, STPs and NFJs may superficially resemble SFJs and NTPs, but beneath the surface, STPs and NFJs are much more attuned to cognizing entities and events on the basis of how they fit into the current situation; they are not the meticulous connectors that SFJs and NTPs are, but far more attuned to outcomes and agendas.
These are the points on which STPs and NFJs converge because of their shared function axes. However, since the ordering of their functions is reversed, STPs and NFJs also tend to diverge.
- Using the empirical (ST) functions along with their proclivity for convergent perception, STPs are the definitive troubleshooters and realists of our world. Their unmatched, broad discernment renders them capable of quickly sizing up the immediate situation, along with the problems, solutions, and possibilities that it fosters. As indefatigable goers-out-to-things, they tend to navigate the empirical domain (i.e. the “real world”) with greater ease than can be seen in other types.[2] In contradistinction to the other ST types, the STJs, the STPs, being characterized by convergent perception, need not compartmentalize the world around them in order for them to function. Indeed, relying too much on rules and regularities will simply hamper their flexible stance towards the world. The case of STP Patton vs. STJ Montgomery may serve as a good example here.
- Where the entities and events of the empirical domain effortlessly “come together” for the STPs, the NFJs are more ideational, since their conscious orientation leans stronger in the direction of Ni and Fe. Instead of being attuned to the specific entities and events of existence, their convergent perception tends to concern itself with how social groups (or even societies) may come together and with ways for people to unite in support of joint moods and values that are thought to be to their mutual benefit. In this respect, we can contrast the NFJs with the other NF types, the NFPs, who certainly have the idealism to want to bring people together, but who, because of their divergent perception, are less easily able to conceive of harmonious and mutual ideals, tending to get lost in the depths of their personal perspectives and outlooks instead. On balance, it is our contention that the Ni-Fe orientation of NFJs serves to make them the most ontologically holistic of all the types, capable of engaging with broad and complex issues in a nuanced way that encapsulates the “wholes” of the universe and relates them to humanity’s place in it. Pythagoras and Plato seem to be the greatest exemplars of this mindset.
NOTES
[1] This expression is a paraphrase from Joan Evans’ ‘Taste and Temperament’ (J. Cape 1939).
[2] This expression is a paraphrase from P.V. Martin’s ‘Experiment in Depth’ (Routledge & Kegan Paul 1955).