Anna and I have been messing around with the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) personality inventories (a short, free online survey to find your type can be found here). I’ve been surprised not only to find this a point of bonding between us, but also that the theoretical basis and applications are much more complex than I’d thought. I’ve done this personality inventory many times over the last several decades, but it is only this year that I’m learning how cognitive functions fit, both in terms of understanding the relationships between different types, and in terms of understanding (and thus predicting) behavior.

Anyway, this morning I was thinking through some interactions, and thought of a new way of splitting up the personalities. I thought it was helpful, so I decided to share. It has to do with the relationship between extroversion and introversion in cognitive functions, so I’ll back up a bit to that.

< If the following intro/background drags, skip to “SKIP TO HERE” >

First of all, most people think of extroverts as people who talk a lot, and introverts as shy. But the description used by phsychologists has more to do with which kind of interaction costs you less energy: inside of you, or outside of you? That is, if you spend time relating to others, are you more likely tired afterwards (introvert) or energized (extrovert)? Alternatively, if you spend time alone, are you more likely tired afterwards (extrovert) or energized (introvert)?

The third letter in an MBTI personality code is T or F, for thinking or feeling. But it isn’t about whether you think or feel more, but whether you make decisions more on the basis of logic, reason, and facts (thinking), or whether you make decisions more on the basis of feelings, values, and emotions (feeling). To put it another way, would you rather be morally right, or logically right?

Each of these codes has an introverted cognitive function, and an extroverted one. That is, if your first decision-making function is thinking, that may be either introverted thinking, or extroverted thinking. The logic, reason, and facts you use in your decision-making may come from within you, or from outside of you. Similarly, someone with a feeling type may make decisions on the basis of the their own feelings, values, and emotions (introverted feeling), or else those of others (extroverted feeling). Note that this is different from the above description, where a person is generally introverted or extroverted —here it is the decision-making function that is introverted or extroverted.

One implication that has become clear as I think about these things is that extroverted functions are great at interacting with other people; introverted functions are not. So changing the feelings of an extroverted feeler or the reasoning of an extroverted thinker is way easier than for their introverted counterparts. In fact, introverted cognitive functions seem to like being taken at face value, rather than being able to negotiate with others, or even defend or explain themselves. So while an extroverted feeler may enjoy very much coming to terms with others’ feelings and values (resulting in emotional/interpersonal harmony), an introverted feeler will seem more along the lines of “I know what I feel, and I shouldn’t have to explain or change it for you.” Similarly, an extroverted thinker may be good at negotiating logical constructs or the consequence of certain facts with others, whereas an introverted thinker will seem to be logically consistent with regards to their own internal logic, rather than doing much harmonizing with the logic found in those around them.

One more piece to know is that if someone has a top decision-making function aimed in one direction, their next decision-making cognitive function is of the opposite value, and aimed in the other direction. So as an ISTJ, my first decision-making function is extroverted thinking, and my next one is introverted feeling. For my ISFJ son, his first decision-making function is extroverted feeling, and his next one is introverted thinking. The consequence of this is that, for each personality type, one is either better at negotiating feelings (and values and emotions), or negotiating thinking (and logic and facts). The other will likely something they don’t want or like to defend or explain, as it is much more intensely personal.

< SKIP TO HERE >

So, the observation I made is that, regardless of whether you are an introvert or extrovert generally, and regardless of whether you are more of a thinker or feeler, each of us will be better at negotiating with either the feelings, values, and emotions of others, or else the logic, reason, and facts of others. Furthermore, the other set will be guarded carefully away from others, not willingly defended nor explained, nor readily negotiated or modified in the public sphere.

Because of this, I recognized that there are two widely distinct answers to the question “What is the point of conversation?” That is, either you think the point of conversation (generally speaking, of course) is to negotiate/discuss facts, reason, and logic, or else it is to negotiate feelings, values, and emotions.

This was affirmed in the very next conversation. I explained the above insight to my daughter (also an extroverted thinker), who rejoined with a modification of my wording, which I accepted. At which point, I realized we had just done this, and said so. We basically did this:

Me: “Here’s some data.”

Her: “Here’s an improvement on that data.”

Me: “Thanks. Here’s an insight on what we just did.”

Her: “Yes, I agree; that insight is correct.”

A couple hours later, my (extroverted feeling) son walked by a friend, dropped a peppermint patty in front of him, and said “This is candy.” At which point my daughter and I made a face at each other, until I recognized that we just witnessed an example on the other side. That is, while I might say “no duh, that’s candy; do you really think he doesn’t know that?”, because I think of conversation as for sharing/negotiating information, logic, etc. But that wasn’t the point at all for him. The purpose of his words was to negotiate and maintain relationship, not to share information.

One of the blessings for me in thinking about personality is to better value the diversity of ways people think and act, without needing to rely on morality/ethics to explain observed differences (e.g., “these are different because this one is good/better and that one is bad/worse”). For instance, when an extroverted feeler comes to talk with me, there may be nothing informational to say, but rather a desire to negotiate and maintain the relationship (or feelings, or values), my instinct is to say one or both of the following:

1. This is a waste of time; if you have something to say, please say it.
2. My feelings and values are my own; I shouldn’t have to share, explain or negotiate them with you, unless I want to.

You can easily imagine, I hope, how damaging actually saying either of these would be, in most relationships.

An extroverted feeler, on the other hand, may see me coming to lay my facts and reasoning before them, and think

1. This is a waste of time; if I don’t know that you care about me personally, why should I care what you think?
2. My logic and reasoning are my own; I shouldn’t have to share, explain or negotiate them with you, unless I want to.

So whichever perspective you’re coming from, I should think it would be helpful to get where the other side is coming from, because our instinctive, first response can be pretty damaging, if we give it free rein —especially if we explain the difference to ourselves as a moral or ethical one (with ourselves being the good/better, of course!). On the other hand, if we are able to say “Wow, this is certainly not what I’m looking for in conversation, but I get that maybe it is what the other person wants, and that can be OK”, then I think we have a lot more hope of getting along.