What's New?



This is an excerpt from the book Higher Thought and Lower Motives




Thinking versus Feeling

Sensing versus iNtuition

Perceiving versus Judging

MBTI® versus Mental Symmetry

An Analysis of the MBTI® splits

T/F and P/J

Distorted Thought

The I/E Split

Mental Life

The Two Meanings of P/J and I/E

Identity and the MBTI® Splits




Science and MBTI®



The Personal Effect of Philosophy

Philosophy versus Science

Philosophy and MBTI®


The INFJ and the INFP


Copyright © 2010, Lorin Friesen


So far, the goal of this book has been to describe the consequences of pursuing irrational thought in the subjective. If the split between logic and feeling is so fundamental and so pervasive, then why haven’t others discovered it? The answer is that they have. In fact, this division forms one of the cornerstones of today’s most widely accepted personality scheme. I will refer to this system by the letters ‘MBTI®,’ which stands for Myers-Briggs Type Indicator.[B] This is a personality test which many companies and organizations use to assist them in placing their employees.

MBTI® was initially proposed by Carl Jung, back at the beginning of the twentieth century. The theory was then modified by Isabel Myers and her mother, Katharine Cook Briggs, during the Second World War, as a way of improving employee effectiveness. Among other things, they developed a personality test known as the MBTI® personality inventory, which today is administered by Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc. Since then, the MBTI® system has been adopted by many other researchers in psychology. In addition, most of the other personality schemes can at least partially be mapped onto MBTI®. Thus, MBTI® can be seen as a paradigm for modern category-based systems of personality types. If we can figure this one out, then the others should make sense as well.[C]

My understanding of MBTI® comes mainly from two sources. The theory was taken from Gifts Differing by Isabel Briggs Myers[D] with Peter B. Myers, while the personality descriptions come from Please Understand Meby David Keirsey and Marilyn Bates.

Now that we have dispensed with the formalities, let us get on to the theory. MBTI® is a ‘pie-slicing’ scheme that divides people into sixteen categories by using four different ‘walls.’ These divisions are Thinking versus Feeling, Perceiving versus Judging, Sensing versus Intuition, and Introverted versus Extraverted. Each person is given a label of four letters, determined by how his behavior is labeled by these four divisions. Thus, for instance, an INTJ would be Introverted rather than Extraverted, iNtuitive[E] instead of Sensing, Thinking and not Feeling, and Judging rather than Perceiving.

MBTI® divides people into sixteen categories using the four following divisions:

  • Thinking versus Feeling, or T/F
  • Perceiving versus Judging, or P/J
  • Sensing versus iNtuition, or S/N
  • Introverted versus Extraverted, or I/E.

Notice that each label divides people into two groups. Therefore, four categories lead to two times two times two times two possibilities—sixteen different personality types.

Notice also that MBTI® is rooted in the concept of ‘either/or.’ For example, a person uses either Thinking or FeelingAccording to MBTI®, he never uses both Thinking and Feeling. This means that none of the MBTI® categories stand on their own. Instead, each is defined with respect to its opposite. Briggs-Myers does suggest that both halves of these divisions are mentally present, and that an individual prefers to use one alternative more than the other. However, as they say, “in all our subsequent work with type, Katharine Briggs and I have taken these four pairs of opposites as basic.”

Another point, this time an issue of verbal housekeeping. Both MBTI® and mental symmetry use the term Perceivingto describe behavior. Unfortunately, these two systems assign almost opposite meanings to this word. Therefore, unless the meaning is clear from the context, I will always group the MBTI® categories in pairs. For instance, rather than talking about Sensing, I will refer to Sensing versus iNtuition or to Sensing and iNtuition. If I refer to the MBTI® divisions by using letters, I will usually put them in pairs such as S/N or I/E. Also, when referring to an MBTI® category, I will always capitalize the term. Thus, for instance, if I use the word thinking, then I am referring to normal thought. In contrast, Thinking is a technical term that describes an MBTI® category.

The Perceiver person is seldom MBTI® Perceiving.

  • Mental symmetry and MBTI® assign different meanings to this word.

Finally, I need to address the question of organization. Writing a book about an integrated theory is not easy—especially one about the mind. This is because a general theory is an integrated ‘web’ of concepts, whereas a book is merely a string of words. Somehow the tangled skein of ideas has to be unsnarled into a single thread of thought. The addition of MBTI® to our presentation makes this process twice as difficult, because now we are trying to explain the mind simultaneously from two different perspectives, all the while maintaining a coherent presentation. As a result, I will have no choice but to get ahead of myself at times and backtrack at others. I apologize in advance for any potential confusion, but I think that the results will be worth the mental effort.

Let us look now at these four different MBTI® divisions, starting with Thinking and Feeling. Because we are examining a system developed by someone else, I will quote from the descriptions of Briggs-Myers. This also protects me, later on, from being accused of putting words in other peoples’ mouths.

Thinking versus Feeling

According to Briggs-Myers, “Thinking is essentially impersonal. Its goal is objective truth, independent of the personality and wishes of the thinker or anyone else.” In contrast, “People (even thinkers) do not like to be viewed impersonally and relegated to the status of ‘objects.’ Human motives are notably personal. Therefore, in the sympathetic handling of people where personal values are important, feeling is the more effective instrument.”

She says that Thinking types “value logic above sentiment.” They “are usually impersonal, being more interested in things than in human relationships.” They are “naturally brief and businesslike, they often seem to lack friendliness and sociability without knowing or intending it.” Finally, they “suppress, undervalue, and ignore feeling that is incompatible with the thinking judgments.”

In contrast, Feeling types “value sentiment above logic.” They “are usually personal, being more interested in people than in things.” They are “naturally friendly, whether sociable or not, they find it difficult to be brief and businesslike.” Finally, they “suppress, undervalue, and ignore thinking that is offensive to the feeling judgments.”

One can see from these quotes that the MBTI® split between Thinking and Feeling corresponds precisely to our division between objective and subjective. From a researcher’s viewpoint, this means that we have ‘hit the jackpot.’ We don’t have to study the relationship between objective and subjective all by ourselves. Instead, we can use the information that has already been gathered by MBTI® in its study of Thinking versus Feeling.

Thinking is objective. Feeling is subjective.

But, MBTI® talks about three other major splits. Are these as fundamental as the separation between Thinking and Feeling? Let me answer this question by describing my encounter with MBTI®. While I was working on the rough draft of this book, my brother was putting together a website describing the theory of mental symmetry. When he posted his information, he offered a prize to anyone who could find a critical flaw in the theory. The major challenge came from a researcher in MBTI®, who claimed that it was more complete than our system. In response, we took several months to analyze MBTI®.

The correspondence of objective and subjective with Thinking and Feeling was the easiest to notice. As you can see from the material written so far, this division formed a basic part of my analysis. As a person, I had spent years struggling with this separation. As we went further and studied the three other divisions, we saw that they were also fundamental. And when I examined my research and writing in the light of MBTI®, I noticed that I too had discovered these same basic splits. Therefore, I decided to revise this book in the light of our new understanding.

So, which is the better theory? MBTI® or mental symmetry? Well, how does one evaluate a theory? With Teacher emotion. And what produces positive Teacher feelings? Order within complexity. Therefore, the theory which manages to tie together more information in a tighter way is the winner. And if one theory can subsume the other—if it is asuperset of the other—then its victory is absolute. This I propose to do in this book. Among other things, I will be explaining all of the fundamental aspects of MBTI® in terms of mental symmetry. Will this mean that MBTI® is wrong? No, that is a Perceiver question rooted in Mercy divisions. Rather, it will mean that MBTI® is a Teacher subsetof mental symmetry. Not wrong, but incomplete. What makes a theory incomplete? Usually, faulty assumptions. But what are the faulty assumptions of MBTI®? Ah, first we have to describe the theory. Then we will look at its assumptions. So, let us move on to the next MBTI® division of Sensing versus iNtuition.

Sensing versus iNtuition

This dichotomy is a little harder to decipher, partially because we will have to use information that we have not yet discussed in detail. But, let us see if we can put the pieces together.

According to Briggs-Myers, “the sensing types, by definition, depend on their five senses for perception. Whatever comes directly from the senses is part of the sensing types’ own experience and is therefore trustworthy. What comes from other people indirectly through the spoken or written word is less trustworthy. Words are merely symbols that have to be translated into reality before they mean anything, and therefore they carry less conviction than experience.”[F]

From this, we conclude that Sensing is strongly related to the physical body. It is also suspicious of verbal input. Which mode of thought uses words? Teacher mode. And, as we shall see in detail in the next book, Server strategy is the one mode that is able to express itself directly through physical action. Thus, this suggests that Teacher thought is related to iNtuition, and that Server strategy and Sensing are connected.[G] Let us see how far we can take this hypothesis.

Briggs-Myers also states that “the proportion of intuitives varies widely from one educational level to another. It is particularly low among students in vocational and general high school courses, and at least twice as high in academic high school classes, and still higher in college, especially in very selective colleges.” This is consistent with our hypothesis of connecting iNtuition with Teacher thought, because Teacher strategy builds understanding and works with general theories—the foundation of ‘higher learning.’

On the other hand, Sensing individuals have problems going beyond the concrete to the symbol: “Sensing children just out of kindergarten, with no instinct for symbols, are not likely to divine for themselves that a letter means anything beyond what it obviously is—a shape on a page.” In other words, the Sensing person emphasizes concrete thought and is unaware of abstract Teacher Thinking.

The Sensing individual is not the only one doing the avoiding. Intuitive individuals, on their part, stay away from the here-and-now. They “dislike intensely any and every occupation that necessitates sustained concentration on sensing, and are willing to sacrifice the present to a large extent since they neither live in it nor particularly enjoy it.” Our research suggests that it is the Server person who, more than any other style, tends to live in the here-and-now.

So what does attract the attention of the iNtuitive? “The intuitives are comparatively uninterested in sensory reports of things as they are. Instead, intuitives listen for the intuitions that come up from their unconscious with enticing visions of possibilities…The common factor in all these manifestations of intuition is a sort of ski jump—a soaring take-off from the known and established, ending in a swooping arrival at an advanced point, with the intervening steps apparently left out. These steps are not really left out, of course; they are performed in and by the unconscious, often with extraordinary speed, and the result of the unconscious processes pops into the conscious mind with an effect of inspiration and certainty.”

Sensing emphasizes physical perception and movement and is related to Server thought.

Intuition avoids the here-and-now, jumps to conclusions, and is related to Teacher thought.

On the other hand, “the sensing types are not in such close communication with their unconscious. They do not trust an answer that suddenly appears. They do not think it prudent to pounce. They tend to define intelligence as ‘soundness of understanding,’ a sure and solid agreement of conclusions with facts; and how is that possible until the facts have been considered? Therefore in reaching a conclusion they want to make sure of its soundness, like an engineer examining a bridge before deciding how much weight it can safely bear. They will not skim in reading, and they hate to have people skim in conversation.”

These quotes bring out several related points. First, notice the speed of thought. Like the proverbial hare and tortoise, the iNtuitive person jumps to the goal while the Sensing person plods his way step by step. This dichotomy can be understood if we examine the operation of Teacher and Server thought. Teacher theories are mental constructs. They are made out of imaginary materials. Because mental structures do not have to endure the stress of external reality, they can be constructed with flimsy material—Perceiver and Server memories that contain a minimum of inherent confidence. Thus iNtuitive thought leaps lightly to the goal, ignoring the stability of its path because it is only a ‘spirit,’ lacking the ‘weight’ of a physical body. But why is iNtuition running so fast? Because it wants the Teacher joy of the ‘aha’ at the end of the road; it wants the Teacher bliss of contemplating the order-within-complexity of a finished mental structure.

On the other hand, the Sensing person lives in the real world—a realm of hard edges and steep cliffs. Leaping before one looks can lead to horrible consequences which must be avoided at all costs. And who is the person who is in mortal danger? Not the passive individual. The couch potato can stare at the world all he wants without making a mistake. Rather, it is action which makes a person vulnerable to physical harm. The one who does can make mistakes. And which mental strategy is responsible for doing? Server thought. Again, we see a connection between Sensing and Server strategy.

Second, notice the role of the subconscious. Briggs-Myers states that iNtuition is performed by the subconscious. Our model of the mind suggests that each cognitive style is conscious in a different part of the mind. These two viewpoints can be reconciled if one understands the nature of Teacher processing. As I have stated several times, Teacher theories do not come ready-made but must be constructed. Forming and assembling the bricks of Teacher understanding requires the cooperation of several modes of thought. If a person is only conscious in one mental mode, as our theory suggests, and if Teacher understanding requires the help of many modes of thought, then each cognitive style, regardless of where he ‘lives,’ will see that Teacher Thinking is accompanied by subconscious processing.

In contrast, the Sensing individual uses a ready-made body to interact with an already-constructed world. He does not have to worry about the big picture, for it already exists. He must, though, focus on details, for the world is a cruel master and tiny mistakes can have disastrous consequences. Therefore, his thinking tends to ‘narrow down’ and lacks the broad-ranging mental interdependence of the iNtuitive thinker.

Finally, notice that Sensing and iNtuition actually describe two different ways of thinking, two different types of internal sequencing. Mentally speaking, Sensing plods from one thought to another, while iNtuition jumps directly from ‘point A to point B.’ This tells us that we are looking at a left hemisphere split, for it is analytical thought that works with sequences and processes. In contrast, the separation between Thinking and Feeling involves the right hemisphere, for it deals with facts and experiences, the realm of associative thought.

T/F and S/N are mirror images.

  • T/F is a right hemisphere split involving Perceiver and Mercy thought.
  • S/N is a left hemisphere division involving Server and Teacher processing.

Thus we have a symmetry between T/F and S/N. Pure Feeling emerges when Mercy thought imposes itself upon Perceiver strategy. In contrast, Thinking appears when Perceiver strategy carves out a region of rational thinking free of Mercy feelings. Similarly, I suggest that iNtuition is the result of Teacher thought unrestricted by independent Server sequences. On the other hand, Sensing emerges when physical action programs Server strategy with sequences and these Server skills impose patterns upon Teacher thinking. We will examine this relationship in detail in the next book.

One last point. We have discovered a connection between Feeling and Mercy strategy, Thinking and Perceiver mode, iNtuition and Teacher strategy, Sensing and Server thought. While these may be related, I suggest that they are not precisely equivalent, because they describe different qualities. Mercy, Perceiver, Teacher and Server are modes ofprocessing. They cooperate to generate intelligence. In contrast, Feeling, Thinking, iNtuition and Sensing are mental splits. They describe how the mind suppresses certain forms of thought in favor of other ways of processing. For instance, MBTI® Feeling involves both Perceiver and Mercy modes. In Feeling, however, Perceiver strategy is controlledby Mercy emotions and becomes the servant of Mercy thought. This distinction between modes and splits is critical, and we will be returning to it several times.

Let us turn back now to our discussion of the MBTI® categories.

Perceiving versus Judging

As I have mentioned, MBTI® uses four divisions to separate people into sixteen different categories. One may have the impression that these four distinctions all have equal status. The theory of MBTI®, however, states that the four splits fall into two different types. The T/F and S/N splits (the two we have already discussed) are treated asfundamental. In contrast, the P/J and I/E divisions are viewed as modifications that adjust the operation of the two fundamental splits.[H]

A similar distinction exists in the theory of mental symmetry. We have found that the four simple styles (Teacher, Mercy, Perceiver and Server) work with mental content, whereas the three composite styles (Exhorter, Contributor, Facilitator) use this content to operate the mind. Thus, when comparing MBTI® with mental symmetry we should find that the T/F and S/N splits relate to the simple styles and should discover that the P/J and I/E splits involve the composite styles.

The connection between T/F and S/N and the simple styles has already been discussed. Now we need to examine the other two MBTI® categories in the light of the composite styles. The problem is that we will only be discussing the Exhorter, Contributor and Facilitator in detail in a later book. So, before we look at the last two MBTI® categories, I will need to present a ‘sneak preview’ of the composite styles. Obviously, this overview will have to be somewhat sketchy.[I]

The composite styles form three stages of a mental ‘pump.’ Exhorter thought is stage one, tying together Teacher theories with Mercy experiences. The Exhorter person ‘learns from life’ as Mercy situations get linked to Teacher theories, and he demands that Teacher theories be applied to real Mercy experiences, ‘where the rubber meets the road.’

Exhorter strategy works with excitement, a derived sensation built upon Mercy and Teacher feelings. Exhorter thought hates to be frustrated and avoids boredom at all costs. It excels at starting; it is not good at finishing or following through. Finally, Exhorter strategy isimagination. The Exhorter person can daydream for hours and he thrives on vision and possibility.

Contributor thought forms the second stage of this pump. It makes decisions based upon Perceiver facts and Server sequences. As far as the Contributor person is concerned, actions are always considered in the light of Perceiver facts, and facts are not true unless they are or can be applied. Unlike Exhorter strategy, which looks for loose relationships between grand Teacher theories and significant Mercy experiences, Contributor strategy builds specific connections between individual Perceiver facts and Server sequences.

Contributor strategy works with confidence. It builds upon Perceiver and Server information, which is also based in confidence. But, confidence can be overwhelmed by excessive emotion. The Contributor person is therefore triply vulnerable to losing control, for not only does Contributor mode use confidence, but its supporting strategies of Perceiver and Server thought use confidence as well.[J]

Facilitator mode forms the third and final stage. It fine-tunes the decisions made by Contributor thought. It adds shades of gray to the black-and-white of Contributor confidence. It takes the ‘plan A’ of Contributor choice and supplements it with elements of ‘plan B’ and ‘plan C.’

The subcortical modes combine to form a three stage mental ‘pump.’

  • Exhorter strategy provides the drive, imagination, and energy.
  • Contributor mode controls, decides, and optimizes.
  • Facilitator thought adjusts, blends and fine-tunes.

By the way, I suggest that this fine-tuning function of Facilitator strategy explains the origins of MBTI®. Our research has discovered that most psychologists and philosophers have the cognitive style of Facilitator.[K] I have just stated that Facilitator strategy blends and averages between the decisions made by Contributor thought. But, MBTI® describes mental splits, in which people choose to follow one mental path rather than another. And operational choices, by definition, involve Contributor thought. Thus it is natural that Facilitators would turn to a system such as MBTI® in order to help them to bridge the mental gaps produced by Contributor choices.

Before we return to the MBTI® categories, we need one more essential piece of information. I have mentioned that Exhorter thought combines Teacher and Mercy memories. Exhorter strategy operates by holding a memory fixed in one of these two modes of thought and using this as a mental anchor for moving through the other. Thus, Exhorter thought, and the Exhorter person, can operate in one of two different modes: In ‘practical’ mode, Exhorter strategy anchors itself in a Teacher theory and finds excitement by moving through Mercy experiences. In contrast, ‘intellectual’ mode roots itself in a Mercy memory and then moves through the world of Teacher theories.[L]

Contributor thought is the second stage of the mental ‘pump’ and is driven by the excitement of Exhorter strategy. Since Exhorter thought has two possible modes, Contributor strategy, and the Contributor person, also tend to fall into either a ‘practical’ or an ‘intellectual’ rut.[M]

Now that we have done our homework, let us analyze the last two MBTI® categories, starting with a few quotes about Judging versus Perceiving.

Myers-Briggs begins, “The judging types believe that life should be willed and decided, while the perceptive types regard life as something to be experienced and understood. Thus, judging types like to settle things, or at least to have things settled, whereas perceptive types prefer to keep their plans and opinions as open as possible so that no valuable experience or enlightenment will be missed. The contrast in their lives is quite evident. Judgment is eternally coming to conclusions—with the finality the word implies.”

What we have here is a separation between Exhorter and Contributor thought. Contributor mode is the ‘judger’ that wills, decides and comes to conclusions. In contrast, Exhorter strategy is constantly searching for new Mercy experiences and Teacher enlightenment.

Does this mean that all Exhorter persons are Perceiving and all Contributor individuals are Judging? To a first approximation, yes. However, it is possible for a Contributor person to let go of control and allow his mind to be driven by subconscious Exhorter urges. His MBTI® type would then change from Judging to Perceiving. It is also possible, though rare, for an Exhorter person to become Judging.

It is usually the Facilitator person—stage three of the ‘pump’—who vacillates between Judging and Perceiving. Depending upon his environment and upbringing, his behavior can vary all the way from the Perceiving of the freethinking artist to the Judging of the hidebound bureaucrat.

I should point out again that the word Perceiving now has two opposite meanings. First, there is the cognitive style of Perceiver, a mode of thought that uses associative processing on abstract data. Second, there is the MBTI® category of Perceiving, a mental bias that avoids solid conclusions. Very seldom does the Perceiver person have the MBTI® label of Perceiving, because facts lead naturally to conclusions and Judging.

Now that we have linked Exhorter mode to Perceiving and Contributor thought to Judging, let us look at a few more quotes:

“It is natural for a judging type to decide what is the best way of doing a thing and then consistently do it that way.” Contributor strategy makes the decisions. It also reassembles plans in order to make them better, or more efficient. As we will see in another volume, Contributor mode is responsible for optimization.

In contrast, speaking of Perceiving: “Spontaneity is the ability to take whole-heartedly the experience or enlightenment of the present moment, even though some intended thing goes undone.” This describes the behavior of raw Exhorter thought. It is driven by its current enthusiasm. It drops what it is currently doing if something more exciting comes along.

Exhorter strategy is highly motivated by excitement and repelled by boredom. The new is exciting; the old becomes mundane and is quickly abandoned. The Exhorter person is also the ‘instant expert.’ Briggs-Myers describes these traits: “One of the liveliest gifts of the perceptive types is the expectation that what they do not yet know will be interesting. Curiosity leads them into many byways of knowledge and experience and into amassing astonishing stores of information. It also wards off boredom, as it finds something of interest in almost any situation.” Perceptive types “take great pleasure in starting something new, until the newness wears off.”

In contrast, Contributor strategy requires stability. It wants solid, lasting connections between facts and actions. Thus, projects are completed and not left hanging; loose ends are tied up. As Briggs-Myers says, “Having once decided to do a thing, the judging types continue to do it. This application of willpower results in impressive accomplishments. The tortoise in the race was certainly a judging type. The hare, because he liked to operate in tremendous spurts, was probably an extraverted intuitive but lacked adequate judgment.” Judging types “take real pleasure in getting something finished, out of the way, and off their minds.”

By now, I think we have established the connection between Exhorter strategy and MBTI® Perceiving and between Contributor thought and MBTI® Judging with sufficient certainty. That brings us to the next question. I have mentioned that Exhorter and Contributor thought can operate in either ‘practical’ or ‘intellectual’ mode. Is the Perceiving/Judging split associated with one of these two modes?

Myers-Briggs answers this question herself: “It is important, especially for introverts, to remember that the JP preference applies to a person’s customary attitude toward the outer world. What shows in most casual contacts with other people (and governs the JP index on the Type Indicator) is the extraverted process, the one usually relied on for the conduct of outer life.” And what is the ‘outer world’? It is a realm of Perceiver objects, and Mercy experiences and feelings. In other words, the P/J split involves the practical side of Exhorter and Contributor thought.

As further confirmation, Briggs-Myers defines the P/J split in terms of practical experiences, not intellectual theories. For instance, judging types “depend on reasoned judgments…to protect them from unnecessary undesirable experiences.” In contrast, perceptive types desire “a constant flow of new experience—much more than they can digest or use.”[N]

P/J is a secondary division that involves practical thought.

  • Exhorter strategy emphasizes Perceiving—when living with experiences.
  • Contributor thought emphasizes Judging—when working with experiences.

The distinction between ‘practical’ and ‘intellectual’ thought could be stated in another way. Practical thought involves the real world of experiences and facts—the realm of Mercy and Perceiver thought. Because these two operate in the right hemisphere, we could refer to T/F and P/J as right hemisphere divisions. What is the difference between these two? T/F is a cortical split, describing two different ways of organizing mental content. In contrast, P/J is a subcortical separation, describing two distinct ways of operating.

While there is a correspondence between the MBTI® divisions and brain regions, it is probably best not to emphasize this relationship too strongly. That is because these two are fundamentally opposed to one another. MBTI® describes mental walls whereas the brain is a device that operates. Using walls to describe operation is like equating a dam to a river. A dam stops water whereas a river, by definition, involves the flow of water.

MBTI® versus Mental Symmetry

We have looked at three of the four MBTI® categories. The remaining split between Introverted and Extraverted is easy to describe. In the words of Briggs-Myers, “the introvert’s main interests are in the inner world of concepts and ideas, while the extravert is more involved with the outer world of people and things. Therefore, when circumstances permit, the introvert concentrates perception and judgment upon ideas, while the extravert likes to focus them on the outside environment.”

“This is not to say that anyone is limited either to the inner world or to the outer. Well-developed introverts can deal ably with the world around them when necessary, but they do their best work inside their heads, in reflection. Similarly well-developed extraverts can deal effectively with ideas, but they do their best work externally, in action.”[O]

While this division is simple to describe, analyzing it is much more involved. What exactly causes a person to focus upon either the internal or the external world? In order to answer this question, we must first compare MBTI® with mental symmetry and work out the theory that ties the two together. This will then give us the structure that is needed to analyze the I/E split.

MBTI® and mental symmetry both use divisions to classify humanity into different categories. Both claim that their way of ‘cutting the pie’ is the correct method, but each uses a different ‘cutting scheme.’ How does one resolve this apparent contradiction?

One could compare this dilemma to the predicament of a person trying to obey two masters. Both have authority, and yet the instructions given by one may contradict the commands of the other. In this type of situation, I suggest that there are three possibilities.

First, the two bosses may be completely independent. In this case, no resolution is possible. Ultimately, one must choose between serving one or the other. Second, one of the managers can be subordinate to the other. Here, it is possible to bring peace. Normally, I follow the sub-manager, because he spends more time handling the details in which I live. However, the big boss has final authority, and his opinion overrides the plans of the sub-manager. The third possibility is for both of the leaders to be sub-managers, and for the big boss to be some other person whose identity is not yet known. In this type of situation, resolution requires learning more about the third and higher authority.

How can one tell what is the final authority when looking at theories of the mind? I suggest that ‘hardware’ takes precedence over ‘software.’ We can understand this distinction by looking at a computer example. Suppose that I want to read the information stored on a floppy disk. Performing this task will face me with various splits or divisions. First, I will have to deal with incompatible disk formats. For instance, my computer may be an Apple Mac, whereas my floppy might be formatted for an IBM PC. Second, I have to worry about differing physical characteristics. For example, my disk may be of the ancient 5 ¼ inch variety, but I have only a 3 ½ inch drive. Which of these two problems is more severe? The hardware one. With the right software, Mac users can read IBM disks, and vice versa. However, no amount of trying, shoving, or even cutting will allow a 3 ½ inch drive to read 5 ¼ inch floppies. Similarly, I suggest that any personality scheme which relates to brain ‘hardware’ is more fundamental—a bigger boss—than one which talks only about behavior or ‘software.’ In fact, we can conclude that the ‘hardware’ based scheme is the final boss, and that the ‘software’ systems are all sub-managers, in the same way that the software which I can run on my computer is determined ultimately by the hardware that I possess.

Hardware is more basic than software.

In my first volume, I described the relationship between mental symmetry and the human brain. I showed that each mode of thought corresponds to the function of a specific region of the physical brain. MBTI® does not make this claim, and does not even talk about neurology. Therefore, we conclude that mental symmetry is the ‘big boss.’ It describes the mental ‘hardware’ upon which all of the software, including MBTI®, is based.

But, MBTI® also claims that its categories are fundamental. As Briggs-Myers says, “in all our subsequent work with type, Katharine Briggs and I have taken these four pairs of opposites as basic.” Similarly, Keirsey say in his book, Please Understand Me: “The point of this book is that people are different from each other, and that no amount of getting after them is going to change them…People can’t change form no matter how much and in what manner we require them to. Form is inherent, ingrained, indelible. Ask a snake to swallow itself. Ask a person to change form—think or want differently—and you ask the impossible, for it is the thinking and wanting that is required to change the thinking and wanting. Form cannot be self-changing.”

But are the MBTI® categories really fixed and unalterable? In the first volume of A Programmer’s Guide to the Mind, we examined the Thinking/Feeling split in detail,[P] and described the process of integrating this mental split. We also saw that it is universally assumed that this split is irreconcilable. Therefore, if that volume is accurate, then at least one MBTI® category is not solid. It is determined by mental software, and it can be changed.

But what about Keirsey’s statement that “form cannot be self-changing”? We learned in the first volume that there are two types of feeling—Mercy and Teacher emotions—and that it is possible to use one to change the other. Thus, the childish ‘thinking and wanting’ rooted in Mercy feelings can be reprogrammed by using Teacher emotions to build a different type of ‘thinking and wanting.’

Is this reprogramming easy? No, it literally involves tearing down and rebuilding personal identity. Me feels as if it is being ‘killed’ and ‘resurrected.’ And, completing this process requires the presence of a universal Teacher theory that explains human personality, a theory which, until now, has not existed. Therefore, we conclude that if mental transformation is impossible, and if a general theory of the mind does not exist, then the MBTI® categories are fundamental and unchangeable.[Q] On the other hand, if the human mind can be transformed, then the theory of mental symmetry is truly fundamental, and other theories, such as MBTI®, are secondary.[R]

But who cares which theory is more fundamental? This is just an egghead argument between two rival intellectual camps, right? Wrong. This book has described, extensively, the pain and suffering that result from a split between objective and subjective. Therefore, if the T/F category really is fundamental and unchangeable, then we as a human race are doomed to the torment of inescapable personal anguish and agony. Thus it is absolutely vital for us to find a theory of personality that is more fundamental than MBTI®.[S]

If T/F cannot be integrated, then personal transformation is impossible.

If personal transformation is not possible, then throw away this book. It is wrong.

Does this mean that MBTI® is wrong? No. The theory is valuable as a catalogue of human incompleteness and inadequacy. It describes naturally occurring mental splits which can only be integrated in a certain order and with great difficulty.

An Analysis of the MBTI® splits

I mentioned earlier that Exhorter thought can operate in one of two modes. Exhorter thinking, though, produces the drive, imagination, and excitement for the entire mind. The result is that the Exhorter dichotomy leads to two different mental circuits.[T] In one circuit, mental modes of thought cooperate to produce practical thinking. In the other circuit, the same mental strategies cooperate in a different way to produce intellectual thought.[U] If we understand these two mental circuits, then I suggest that we will be able to explain the MBTI® divisions. In addition, I suggest that these two circuits can only operate freely as the MBTI® splits become integrated. Let us begin by analyzing practical thought. We will refer heavily in this discussion to the diagram of mental symmetry.

Practical thinking begins with emotional Mercy experiences. These are provided naturally by the external world, which fills Mercy mode with memories, each with an associated emotion. For instance, cookies taste good, but a spanking feels bad. These raw Mercy experiences are seen by both Perceiver and Exhorter strategies. Perceiver thought looks for repeatable connections between Mercy memories. For example, Perceiver strategy may notice a relationship between cookies cooling on the kitchen table and spankings received from a baking mother. As Perceiver facts connect Mercy experiences, the result is a mental map of experiences with emotional highs and lows. This interaction between Perceiver and Mercy thought was discussed extensively in the previous volume.

Emotional Mercy experiences, however, can also be seen by Exhorter strategy, which views them as potential sources of excitement. Whenever a strong emotion appears, Exhorter mode heads for it, like a dog running after a treat. If something more emotional comes along, then Exhorter strategy will drop its current ‘bone’ and head for what is new. Any excitement that does not change will slowly lose its Exhorter attraction. This Exhorter movement provides the drive for human thought.[V]

Exhorter strategy is the first stage in the mental pump; Contributor thought is the second. Thus, Exhorter drive, energy, and imagination push and prod Contributor thinking. Contributor strategy, in practical thought, directs this Mercy-based internal flow by combining Perceiver facts with Server actions.

Contributor thought approaches the internal landscape of experiences in the same way that a tourist deals with a new external landscape. First, the traveler gets out a map, then he begins driving. Internally, practical thought begins by building Perceiver connections between Mercy experiences and then uses Server actions to reach the desired Mercy goal.

Notice that, when dealing with Mercy experiences, Perceiver comes before Server. Those who start driving before looking at the map tend to get lost.[W] This relationship can be seen in the diagram of mental symmetry. There is a direct connection between Mercy experiences and Perceiver facts, as well as a connection (through Contributor thought) between Perceiver facts and Server sequences. But, there is no direct link between Mercy experiences and Server sequences. Thus, Contributor strategy is responsible for figuring out which Perceiver fact belongs with what Server action. In this way, Contributor thought harnesses Exhorter drive by channeling it to produce goal-oriented behavior. If Exhorter energy is like steam, then Perceiver facts are the boiler that encloses the steam, Server actions are the wheels that move the locomotive, and Contributor plans are the machinery that translates steam pressure into wheel movement.

Now that we understand the circuit behind practical thought, let us return to the MBTI® categories. Two of the MBTI® splits, I suggest, disable practical thinking: First, the T/F division ruins the content required for practical thought. Second, the P/J split cripples theoperation of practical thought. Let us examine this, beginning with the T/F division.

Remember that practical thinking requires the cooperation of two separate mental paths. Perceiver strategy examines Mercy memories for connections, and Exhorter thought searches Mercy mode for memories with strong emotions. Therefore, if practical thought is to operate correctly, then Mercy memories must both have strong feelings and be connected by solid Perceiver facts. The T/F split asserts that this is impossible. It states that experiences which are analyzed factually cannot contain strong feelings, and that experiences which have strong feelings cannot be evaluated factually.

Two of the MBTI® splits disable practical thought.

·    T/F ruins the content required for practical thought.

·    P/J warps the operation of practical thought.

We could compare this situation to that of an inadequate road map. Suppose that I visit a foreign country, want to see the interesting sights, and bring along a map with a built-in T/F split. Such a map would have a peculiar property. If a location were interesting, then the map would be fuzzy. If the place were boring and totally uninteresting, then the map would be crystal clear. This describes precisely the T/F division. It says that you can either know or feel, but you cannot know and feel.

One can see why today’s typical individual acts lost while appearing to be found. When his environment is non-threatening, then he has a precise mental map that allows him to approach life rationally and factually. However, put him under emotional pressure and his mental map goes fuzzy.

But if practical thought requires both MBTI® Thinking and MBTI® Feeling, and if Thinking and Feeling are always separated, then how is thought possible? The answer is that Thinking and Feeling both artificially generate what is lacking.[X] On the one hand, Feeling creates Perceiver facts by mesmerizing Perceiver thought into 'knowing' what is 'true.' This replaces ‘what is right’ with ‘who is right.’ The map cannot be vague, for the experts have spoken, and the experts must be right! But what if their version of reality does not match true reality? There is no way of knowing, for such a map contains only one map—the opinions of the experts. Unfortunately, as we saw earlier in this book, when emotional 'truth' rules, then it is usually the insane who end up becoming the experts. Thus the blind lead the blind, and they both fall into the ditch.

On the other hand, Thinking can make up for a lack of Mercy emotion by creating imaginary Mercy experiences with synthetic feelings. We can see how this works by looking at the example of business. Buying and selling—the essence of business—require Perceiver thought. I look at the facts of each product. I compare the facts of one product with those of another. In most stores, this Perceiver ‘map’ of products is made crystal clear by the way they are displayed: The articles are laid out plainly and the features of each article are described carefully.[Y]

MBTI® Feeling creates its own 'facts' by mesmerizing Perceiver thought.

MBTI® Thinking deceives Mercy strategy with synthetic feelings.

But where are the Mercy feelings in business? They come from the imaginary object called ‘money.’ Money is more than a physical object such as a bill, coin, or credit card. These Mercy objects generally have little or no intrinsic value. Instead, money is an imaginary Mercy object created as a mental byproduct of buying and selling. Using Perceiver strategy to buy and sell gradually builds a Mercy picture of the ideal transaction as Perceiver facts link together bits and pieces of Mercy experiences from each business exchange. This idealized experience then becomes a source of Mercy emotions.[Z] Thus, Mercy strategy looks at a crumpled piece of paper with a few numbers on it, Perceiver triggers to the concept of money, Mercy thought is reminded of an imaginary image of ‘money,’ and Exhorter strategy gets excited.

But where is the emotion in money? You can’t eat it, sleep in it, or drive it. In fact, you can’t do anything with money. It only becomes useful as it is exchanged for something else. If the economy is sound, for instance, then money can be used to buy food, which can be eaten. This principle may seem obvious, but it is seldom applied. Those who work with money generally ascribe far more emotion to the money itself than to the valuable objects or services that can be purchased with that money. Why? Because business involves Thinking and not Feeling. Thus, the emotions associated with the objects being traded are suppressed and this emotional vacuum is filled by the artificial feeling of ‘money.’ The result is that those who are good at making money hoard the stuff, destroying its use as a medium of exchange for others.

A split between Thinking and feelings distorts the content used by practical thought. In contrast, a separation between Perceiving and Judging warps its operation. We saw earlier that Perceiving versus Judging describes a struggle between Exhorter drive and Contributor control. The Perceiving person wants excitement and energy, and avoids commitment and decisions. In contrast, the Judging individual wants control and stability. He makes choices and brings closure to what he is doing.

In essence, Perceiving emphasizes the direct aspect of practical thought, heading from emotional experiences in Mercy thought to Exhorter excitement. In contrast, Judging uses the indirect aspect of practical thought, in which Perceiver facts, which tie together Mercy experiences, give ammunition to Contributor decisions.[AA] Notice that Perceiving and Judging each emphasize one aspect of practical thought. The Perceiving individual focuses upon Mercy emotions and Exhorter excitement. In contrast, the Judging person uses Perceiver facts to enable Contributor choices.[BB]

While Perceiving and Judging emphasize different aspects of practical thought, both of them still use the same mental circuit. With Perceiving, Exhorter strategy is in charge. Contributor thought automatically chooses the path which Exhorter strategy finds the most exciting. Contributor choices, however, are still present. The Perceiving individual must choose to continue with his current enthusiasm, and choose to move on to the next excitement. In contrast, Contributor strategy is in charge of Judging. Only options with solid Perceiver facts and Server skills are allowed to pass the mental ‘gate’ of Contributor decision. But, Exhorter excitement is still required. Without the proper motivation, there is no reason to make any choices, no mental ‘steam’ to drive the engine of thought.

The P/J split is quite pervasive in our world. During the week, for example, we work at a job, where decisions take priority over excitement. Then, during the week-end, we escape from rules and have some fun. For most of us, the external environment supports this split. Normally we live at home, where spouse and family provide excitement and feeling. We then commute to work, forsaking our family in order to enter an environment of MBTI® Judging.

Some professions force a person to deal mentally with the P/J division. Think, for instance, of the individual who has a job in entertainment. His work provides fun for others. Therefore, is it fun, or is it work? My experience as a professional violinist suggests that it is very difficult to reconcile this dilemma. The tendency is for art or music to turn into ‘just another job,’ unless you are good enough for others to take care of the work and let you concentrate on the art.

The struggle between Perceiving and Judging shows up especially in the interaction between the typical Exhorter person and the average Perceiver individual. The Exhorter enthuses, exaggerates, and moves on continually to greener pastures. In contrast, the Perceiver reigns in his feelings, understates, and becomes the conservative who holds on to tested values. The Exhorter views the Perceiver as a prison guard who specializes in locking up Exhorters, whereas the Perceiver regards the Exhorter as a barbarian trying to breach walls that protect civilization.

T/F and P/J

We have looked at T/F and P/J. Let us now examine the relationship between these two. At first glance, it may appear that these two splits are identical. After all, using Feeling to build up Mercy emotions should lead naturally to an emphasis upon Exhorter strategy and Perceiving. Similarly, the Perceiver facts of Thinking should predispose one to an attitude of Judging.

However, we have seen that Thinking generates its own emotional Mercy experiences. Similarly, Feeling mesmerizes Perceiver thought with its own version of 'truth.' Thus, for instance, it is possible for a person to use Thinking to build a world of mental content, and then find excitement in the artificial emotions generated by these dry facts. This combination describes the businessman. He begins with pure factual numbers of accounting, comparing cost with benefit. Soon, though, he ‘sees dollar signs’ and his Exhorter strategy becomes emotionally driven by visions of financial prosperity. Research from MBTI® suggests that the two MBTI® types who apply a combination of Thinking and Perceiving to the external world make the best businessmen.[CC]

Earlier on, I mentioned that Myers and Briggs state that the P/J and I/E divisions are secondary ones, modifying the fundamental splits of T/F and S/N.[DD] We can now understand the relationship between T/F and P/J. Both involve the same mental circuit of practical thought. T/F, though, affects the content of this circuit, whereas P/J alters itsoperation. Which is more basic? Content. In order to build a house, for instance, one must first acquire building material. Without these resources, construction is impossible. In other words, without content, the mind cannot operate. Thus, P/J depends upon T/F.

P/J is a secondary split that depends upon T/F.

·    T/F must be integrated before P/J can be tackled.

The dependency of P/J upon T/F becomes evident when one attempts to integrate Perceiving and Judging. In practical terms, combining P/J means living within the rules. ‘Perceiving’ is driven by Exhorter excitement. It looks for the latest enthusiasm. ‘Judging,’ in contrast, is an expression of Contributor control. It abhors uncertainty and spontaneity. Imagine putting these two together: “Please sir, give me more rules. I love being controlled. It is so exciting to feel boxed in and restricted.” This certainly does not describe today’s mindset. Give us rules and we run from them. As far as we are concerned, excitement means freedom, and freedom means rebellion from rules.

Is this attitude inevitable? It depends upon the rules. And which MBTI® division deals with rules? The T/F split. By definition, rules are facts—the realm of Thinking—that impact upon emotional experiences—the domain of Feeling. Therefore, if facts and feelings remain separate, then it makes sense that rules will be warped. Thus, in order to deal with the P/J split, we must first address the T/F division.

But is there really a connection between rules and excitement? Let me answer this with an example from the world of music. Suppose that my parents tell me to practice the piano. Practice is usually a Judging type of activity. It involves endless repetition and boring scales. The Perceiving mindset takes one glance and heads for the hills. However, let us fast-forward the clock about ten years. The one who has faithfully practiced finds a whole musical world opening up to him. His proficiency unlocks the door to many possibilities. In contrast, the one who ran away to freedom actually finds himself locked in a musical prison, because he knows only a few chords and a few songs. Somehow, he must derive excitement from this limited repertoire. In other words, the one who followed the rules ended up with excitement, whereas the one who suppressed the rules lost the excitement as well. So, the two are related.

So, how can one combine rules with excitement? Simple. By defining rules in terms of excitement. What makes something exciting? Novelty and unpredictability. What makes a situation boring? Repetition and predictability. In other words, if Perceiver strategy could figure out what makes a situation boring and what makes it exciting, then it would be possible for Perceiver and Exhorter modes to get along, and the P/J split would be resolved.

Notice that we are really dealing with a question of life versus death. Death is the ultimate predictability, the final boredom. A dead body just sits there and does nothing.[EE] In contrast, life is the greatest unpredictability and the source of all novelty. This principle applies to both physical and mental living. Boring people are not mentally ‘alive.’ Their bodies may be animated, but their minds ‘gave up the ghost’ long ago. In contrast, a person with mental ‘life’ is exciting, a wellspring of individuality.

The relationship between Perceiving, Judging, and ‘life’ is obvious when applied to the physical body. What happens when life-force becomes separated from the body? A person dies. Thus, we have filled our modern world with rules designed to ensure that life-force and body are never separated—that the ‘Perceiving’ of life-force always remains boxed in within the ‘Judging’ of the physical body. We in the West may like to pretend, in our entertainment fantasies,that we can live outside of our bodies, but we do everything in our power to prevent this fantasy from turning into reality. Why? Because we know that, when it comes to our physical bodies, excitement is always found within the rules.

Physical life itself demonstrates that P/J can be integrated.

·    We stay alive by keeping the ‘Perceiving’ of life-force within the ‘Judging’ of the physical body.

Thus, we conclude that the whole concept of a P/J split is actually a myth of wishful thinking, contradicted by the reality of physical life and the protection of modern civilization. What perpetuates this fantasy? The division between the me of the physical body and the me of Mercy identification. In the physical me, common sense has integrated P/J. In contrast, mental idolatry perpetuates the division between P and J within the me of Mercy identification. But then, we already knew this, didn’t we?

So, what are the Perceiver rules for life? We will be looking at this question in more detail in a later volume. However, let me suggest two basic principles.

First, lasting excitement is impossible when Mercy strategy mesmerizes Perceiver thought into 'knowing' what is true. This is because emotional 'truth' is rooted in specific Mercy events, and any single experience will always become boring. For instance, visit a small town where Perceiver ‘rules’ are all defined by tradition, or attend a religious ritual in which tradition determines 'truth.' How much excitement and unpredictability will you find? One can answer this by observing the behavior of the local teenagers, especially those with the cognitive style of Exhorter. Most of them are doing their best to run away from the stifling hand of emotional 'truth.'[FF]

In contrast, Perceiver confidence makes novelty possible. This is because Perceiver strategy learns facts by looking for connections between many Mercy situations. This gives Exhorter thought the freedom to choose between multiple Mercy experiences. North American multiculturalism provides an example. As long as we have lived under the rule of law, we have been able to enjoy the excitement of multiple cultures. As this rule of law is being replaced by distinct societies and political correctness, we are losing the ability to appreciate other cultures. Our world is becoming boring and predictable.

Second, excitement within rules is impossible if rules are designed to avoid strong feelings. Exhorter excitement requires intense emotions; without feelings there can be no excitement.[GG] Thus, if Perceiver thought is programmed with rules that avoid any contact with emotional situations, then Exhorter strategy will be forced to find excitement by rebelling from these rules.

Today’s infatuation with political correctness provides a good example. If my words offend someone, then these terms must be struck from my vocabulary. If my actions threaten someone, then this response, and any other any actions even remotely resembling it, must be completely avoided. Thus, each emotional issue is increasingly quarantined by a barbed-wire fence of taboo and quickly surrounded by a no-man’s land of disapproval. Both speech and interaction are sanitized of emotional intensity, all in the name of protecting people.

But, how on earth can Exhorter strategy ever live within rules that block off all strong feelings and declare them to be off-limits? They force Exhorter thought to choose between mental death and rebellion. When a society practices taboos, be they of the ‘new and improved’ politically correct variety, the ‘classic’ version produced by fundamentalist religion, or the ‘original’ primitive society brand, the end result is to drive all excitement underground.

Notice the relationship between these two basic life principles and the T/F split. The first describes MBTI® Feeling, in which Mercy feelings determine Perceiver 'facts.' The second summarizes the opposing worldview of MBTI® Thinking, which protects Perceiver logic by avoiding Mercy feelings. In both cases, a reconciliation between MBTI® Perceiving and Judging is impossible. Thus, as we said before, if one wants to reconcile Perceiving and Judging, one must first integrate Thinking and Feeling. How can Thinking and Feeling be brought together? We answered that question in the first volume.

Distorted Thought

So who cares if practical thought is distorted? Does it really matter? Our society is surviving quite nicely, isn’t it? Let me answer this with an analogy. Imagine driving a car with a windshield through which you can see only bright lights. You aren’t able to view the road, the ditch, or the center line, only bright lights. Now try driving. Your only hope would be to follow the red taillights of the car in front of you and try to avoid focusing on the headlights of the oncoming cars. Then, you might get to your destination, or rather, to the destination of the car you are following.

I suggest that this describes the situation in which practical thought operates upon a basis of Feeling. In essence, Feeling is like the proverbial deer on the road mesmerized by the lights of passing cars. Feeling fixates the mind upon the ‘bright lights’ of society. Does this strategy work? Yes, as long as there are good role models to follow and bad ones to avoid. Then, the average person can make some progress without either ending in the ditch or colliding with an oncoming car. But, when the role models themselves lose their way, then human existence becomes a chronicling of human collisions and personal ditches—the type we see paraded on television talk shows and headlined at grocery checkout counters.

Now let us alter our imaginary windshield into one that shows only roads, but not cars, lights or road signs. Avoiding the ditch or the oncoming lane would no longer be a problem. Instead, the difficulty would lie with motivation. First, where would you go, if you could see only a network of roads, leading who-knows-where? You would have to assume that the roads were built to connect interesting locations. But, what if road-building took over and people began to construct massive freeways simply because the technology was there? Then, the roads would be full of vehicles travelling everywhere, but going nowhere.

Second, someone who can see the road but not the cars will assume that he is driving on an empty highway. If you are continually faced with the headlights of oncoming vehicles, then you will try to stay on your side of the road. But, if you cannot see other traffic, you will eventually lose respect for the rules of the road and begin to take shortcuts by cutting across other lanes. Obviously, an accident will not be far away.

I suggest that this describes mental operation based upon Thinking. The ‘roads’ of skill and logic are all well-defined. But, all of the emotional traffic has been eliminated from consideration. Thinking, therefore, becomes its own reason for existence, and the societal landscape is soon littered with roads going everywhere. Why? Because those who suppress feelings easily conclude that feelings can be ignored. But people do have feelings, there is an emotional landscape, and there are oncoming cars.[HH]

For an example, we can turn to the world of economics. Business began as a way of facilitating the exchange of goods. This purpose has been all but forgotten. We spend billions developing new ‘highways’ of commerce. Do they head anywhere or serve any purpose? We don’t care. Instead, we are enthralled with the wheeling and dealing, the shuffling of billions between national boundaries—wealth that is only remotely connected with the goods upon which it is based. And, those who get rich the quickest are generally those who take all the shortcuts—until they have an ‘accident’ and wonder what hit them.

Even those who stay within the economic ‘lanes’ lose out on much of the enjoyment. Suppose that I spend all of my time driving from one vaguely defined point to another. How much fun will I have? Not much, because I never get anywhere. All of my hours are spent whizzing by a faraway landscape on the other side of metal and concrete barriers. Similarly, those who wheel and deal are so busy exchanging one item for another that they never have any time to enjoy the wealth that they supposedly possess.

Earlier on, I suggested that emotional 'truth' leads to pain and suffering. This section reiterates that message. Feeling and Thinking persons may be diametrically opposed in their method of operation, but they do agree on one basic issue. Both are convinced that Perceiver logic is impossible in an environment of strong emotions. Therefore, both end up paying the price in personal pain and suffering.

The I/E Split

Let us step back now from the Mercy goo of personal involvement and turn to the rarified Teacher air of theory. We have seen that T/F and P/J are both distortions of practical thought. We have also learned that Exhorter strategy, which drives the mind, can operate in either practical or intellectual mode. Therefore, if T/F and P/J are related topractical thought, then symmetry would suggest that S/N and I/E are related to intellectual thought.[II] Let us pursue this concept and see where it leads.

We will begin by clarifying the concept of mental symmetry. In essence, a vertical ‘mirror’ is used to divide the diagram of mental symmetry in two. Whenever a trait or interaction is found, one looks for its mirror-image on the other side.[JJ] For instance, practical thought is centered upon Mercy experiences and Mercy feelings. The mirror-image of Mercy is Teacher. Therefore, if intellectual thought is the mirror-image of practical thought, then intellectual thinking should focus upon Teacher memories and Teacher emotions.

Our analysis of MBTI® has already uncovered one symmetry: The T/F split results from a conflict between Perceiver facts and Mercy experiences, and the S/N split comes from a separation between Server actions and Teacher words. Our ‘mirror’ of symmetry shows us that Server is the opposite of Perceiver, Teacher the opposite of Mercy, and that interaction between Server and Teacher modes is the ‘opposite’ of interaction between Perceiver and Mercy modes. This tells us that T/F and S/N are mirror-images, because they result from mirror-image conflicts.

So where does this endless ‘reflection’ lead us? It predicts the nature of the I/E split. On the one hand, we have the mental circuit of practical thought. The T/F split distorts its content, whereas the P/J split warps its operation. On the other hand, there is the mental circuit of intellectualthought—which we are still trying to figure out. By symmetry, the S/N split should be a distortion of the content of intellectual thought, whereas the I/E division should warp its operation. In addition, the I/E split should be secondary, dependent upon S/N, in the same way that P/J is a secondary separation that depends upon T/F.

I/E is a secondary split that depends upon the primary division of S/N.

·    S/N must be integrated before I/E can be brought together.

Let us look at this second point. What exactly is the difference between the internal and the external world? How do I know if a certain sensation comes from inside or outside my mind? I suggest that it is my physical body that tells me the difference. When I hear a real voice, for instance, it comes from sound waves impinging upon my ears. This auditory input is produced by a person or machine that I can see with my eyes and touch with my hands. It is this hearing, seeing, and touching that lets me know that I have experienced something from the external world. In contrast, internally generated speech lacks these signs. Nothing is heard by my ears, and no sound is being generated by either a person or a machine. In other words, without a physical body, I cannot distinguish between internal and external.

But what is the S/N split? It is a separation between Sensing—which comes from the physical body—and iNtuition—which struggles to stay free of the limitations imposed by physical sensation. Thus we see that there definitely is a relationship between S/N and I/E, and that S/N is the more fundamental of the two.

By the way, what would be required to integrate these two splits? First, the words of iNtuition would have to become compatible with the actions of Sensing. That would mean removing the hypocrisy between what I say and what I do. No longer would I be able to speak one message with my lips while broadcasting another with my actions. Second, internal imagination would have to become compatible with external reality. No more escapism or wishful thinking.This would make it possible to integrate I with E. Are these two requirements difficult? Very. Are they impossible? No.

Let us turn now to the first point—that S/N distorts the content of intellectual thought, and I/E warps its operation.[KK] In order to see how the MBTI® splits distort intellectual thought we first have to understand how this thinking works. And herein lies a problem. Our bodies and our natural world force us to develop practical thinking. Therefore, we find practical thought easy to comprehend. In contrast, intellectual development occurs only as we suffer through school and other ‘artificial’ environments. However, this supposedly ‘artificial’ environment has created our modern world of science and technology. And here we can find concrete expressions of intellectual thought.[LL] We will look at two illustrations, the first guided by Server strategy and the second by Teacher thinking.

Practical thought, as we know, is centered upon Mercy feelings. Intellectual thought, in contrast, is guided by Teacher emotion—the mirror-image of Mercy feelings. What makes Teacher mode feel good? Order-within-complexity. A machine, I suggest, is a prime example of order-within-complexity. Every machine has a function: a stove cooks, a car drives, a radio communicates, and so on. In other words, each machine carries out some Serveraction—it has a Server skill.

How is a machine formed? First, it is constructed out of parts—which also have functions. A car, for instance, contains wheels that turn around, pistons which go up and down, and shafts that spin. Thus, both a machine, and the parts of a machine, carry out Server functions. Second, individual parts are assembled to create the machine. In other words, Perceiver connections are made between the various components: the knob on part A is inserted into the hole in part C, part B is bolted onto the flange extending from part A, etc. The end result is a whirring order-within-complexity that gives joy to Teacher strategy.

A machine creates order-within-complexity by tying together elements with Server functions. In contrast, mathematics is a form of intellectual thought that uses Teacher words. Math is built upon letters, numbers, and other symbols. Each of these elements is associated with a visual outline and a sound, both of which are interpreted by Teacher thought.[MM] Mathematics is the practice of arranging symbols into equations—stringing together individual Teacher elements to form Server sequences. How are these equations constructed? Through the use of logic. What drives logic? Perceiver truth and Perceiver rules. Thus, just as machines contain Server functions that are assembled into a Perceiver object, so mathematics uses Perceiver logic to assemble Server equations.

Machines and mathematics are both examples of Teacher order-within-complexity.

·    A machine integrates elements which each have a Server function.

·    Mathematics ties together equations that use Teacher words.

So where are the splits? Doesn’t the theory of MBTI® imply a conflict between Teacher and Server thought? It does. First, there is the S/N split, a struggle between Teacher and Server thought. On the one hand, Teacher-based iNtuition such as mathematics has a tendency to overwhelm Server confidence, just as Mercy-based Feeling attacks Perceiver knowing. This explains the ‘absent-minded professor.’ His mind is so full of general Teacher theories that he literally loses the ability to carry out Server actions. He becomes physically clumsy.

On the other hand, the person who constantly repeats Server actions ends up creating artificial general Teacher feelings, just as the Perceiver facts of business produce the imaginary Mercy feelings of money. This mental effect is illustrated by the behavior of the artist and the athlete. They literally fool themselves into feeling that their petty actions hold the key to comprehending life, the universe, and everything. Thus, the Server ‘machinery’ of physical movement takes over Teacher processing.

Second, there is the E/I division, a conflict between Contributor confidence and Exhorter excitement. When dealing with the external world, every idea and plan must be screened through the filter of practicality and doability. As the Engineer’s joke goes, you cannot build an object out of ‘unobtainium.’ It doesn’t exist. Similarly, you cannot carry out an action which is undoable. You will fail. Thus, the real world forces external thought into a type of ‘Judging’[NN] mode, in which Contributor thought takes precedence over Exhorter excitement. Of course, those who are in marketing and management often like to pretend that anything is possible, but that is simply wishful thinking.

Speaking of wishful thinking, I suggest that this describes the internal world of most individuals. Here, reality usually gives way to fantasy, and Exhorter excitement takes precedence over Contributor decisions. Do internal fantasy and external reality collide? Frequently. This inherent incompatibility can be seen by comparing NASA space footage with the typical Star Trek episode. In the real world of space travel, Contributor decisions rule supreme. Every action and plan is repeatedly studied and practiced. Nothing is spontaneous. Everything proceeds cautiously and carefully. In contrast, Star Trek is ruled by Exhorter excitement. Almost every episode contains a crisis of cosmic proportions, in which the crew meet a new race of beings, encounter some god-man, evolve into new beings, or suffer from some deadly disease. Similarly, the solution to the problem is inevitably worked out on the spur-of-the-moment and implemented between commercial breaks. This externalization of mental fantasy is a left-hemisphere parody of the ‘Perceiving’ mindset, in which every situation is tapped for maximum Exhorter excitement, regardless of Perceiver or Server content.

Mental Life

So far, our discussion of MBTI® has looked at the individual splits. Now, we will turn our attention to the theory of MBTI®. We begin by describing this theory as presented by Briggs-Myers—without any extra commentary. Then, we will use our understanding of the mind to analyze these statements. Let me repeat. The following paragraphs reflect the view of Briggs-Myers. The concepts originate with her.

As we already know, two of the splits—T/F and S/N—are regarded as fundamental. MBTI® calls one of these two categories the ‘dominant’ and the other is referred to as the ‘auxiliary.’ The dominant is in charge, while the auxiliary acts as its assistant. Briggs-Myers compares this relationship to that of a general and his aide. One of these two modes handles the external environment, whereas the other deals with the internal world. A person can be either Extraverted or Introverted. If he is Extraverted, then the externally facing mode is the dominant one and the internally facing one is the auxiliary. For the Introverted, the situation is reversed and the inward-facing one is dominant.[OO]

Each of the sixteen MBTI® types has a dominant category and an auxiliary category.

·    One of the two primary splits (T/F or S/N) is dominant while the other is auxiliary.

·    The dominant split may express itself either externally or internally.

This leads again to the sixteen possible MBTI® categories: First, a person may use either Thinking or Feeling. Second, he may combine this with either Sensing or iNtuition. Third, either the first (T or F) or the second (S or N) category is dominant. Fourth, either the first or the second category deals with the external environment. Two choices times two choices times two choices times two choices equals sixteen possibilities.

So how does one know which of the two basic categories of T/F or S/N is dominant and which faces the external world? This information is provided by the secondary categories of P/J and I/E. First, Briggs-Myers states that the P and J division describes the external behavior of a person. She further states that external behavior will appear Judging if either T or F handle the external world. In contrast, if S or N deal with the external environment, then behavior will appear Perceiving. In other words, T/F is Judging and S/N is Perceiving.[PP]

According to MBTI®, T/F is ‘Judging’ and S/N is ‘Perceiving.’

Let us tie this concept down with a few examples. Suppose that a person is STJ—Sensing plus Thinking plus Judging. Judging means that he presents either T or F to the external world. The ‘T’ tells us which of these two it is. The other basic category, in this case ‘S’, faces inward. Thus we conclude that he combines Extraverted Thinking with Introverted Sensing.

Here is another example: SFP. Perceiving means that either S or N faces externally. In this case it is S. The other main category, F, here deals with the internal world. So, SFP combines Extraverted Sensing with Introverted Feeling.

One more example: NTP. Here the P tells us that N faces externally. That leaves T for the internal world. Thus we have Extraverted iNtuition and Introverted Thinking.

Moving on now to our second point, I or E indicates which of the two primary modes is dominant. ‘I’ means that the Introverted one is dominant and the Extraverted one auxiliary. In contrast, ‘E’ indicates that it is the Extraverted split that is dominant.[QQ]

For instance, let us decipher ENTJ. First, the ‘J’ shows that ‘T’ is facing the external world. Thus we have Extraverted Thinking combined with Introverted iNtuition. Second, the ‘E’ tells us that the Extraverted mode is dominant. This describes dominant Extraverted Thinking combined with auxiliary Introverted iNtuition.

How about INFP? The ‘P’ says that iNtuition is Extraverted. Thus, Feeling is Introverted. And, the ‘I’ tells us Introverted Feeling is dominant and supported by auxiliary Extraverted iNtuition.

Now that we know how the system works, let us analyze it, beginning with the interpretation given to P/J.[RR] The key is to realize, in the words of Briggs-Myers, that “JP reflects only the process used in dealing with the outside world.” But what is the ‘outside world’? It is filled with Mercy experiences andMercy feelings. In other words, as I stated a few paragraphs ago, P/J describes the operation of practical thought. Over the years, psychologists have observed how people respond to their surroundings and have slapped a label of ‘P’ or ‘J’ upon this behavior.

But, we have just analyzed the operation of practical thought. It combines two aspects—map and road. First, Perceiver strategy learns how Mercy experiences are connected. Then, Server mode uses actions to reach the desired goal. In essence, Perceiver thought handles the map while Server mode drives the car. Or, one could say that Perceiver thought is the navigator and Server strategy is the pilot.

I have suggested that the MBTI® categories describe distortions of normal mental processing. So, let us suppose that our map keeper, for some reason, has to navigate with a distorted map. We can imagine the possible result: “The map says that you need to take the third exit. No, wait. Cancel that. Now it says to take the next exit. Stop. Change in plans. We are going the wrong way. We should actually be going north, not south.”

Now let us invite our psychologist to observe. He will see a person obsessed with making decisions, who needs and wants closure. In other words, he will see Judging behavior. And which MBTI® division messes up the mental map? The T/F split. Thus, we can conclude that Judging and T/F are related.

On the other hand, suppose that the driver has the following problem: He tries to turn left and the car keeps going straight ahead. He pushes on the accelerator and the motor coughs and sputters. He slams on the brakes and he veers to the right. What type of road do you think that this driver will prefer? One without lanes, without ditches, and without turnoffs. In fact, given the condition of his car, he would prefer a dry lake bed upon which he could drive anywhere. Our wise psychologist will respond by calling him Perceiving: “He wants to keep his options open; he does not like to make decisions.” And which MBTI® split affects the action circuitry? The S/N split. Thus, we can say that S/N is related to Perceiving.

That is the negative reason. There is also a positive side. Someone who specializes in map-keeping is probably going to spend most of his time deciding where he wants to go. Thus the one who uses T or F to deal with the external world will behave in a Judging way. In contrast, someone who prefers to drive will tend to avoid deciding where to go and simply try to continue moving. Therefore, applying N or S to the external world will produce Perceiving-like traits.

Now that we have dealt with the P/J issue let us examine the distinction between dominant and auxiliary. If we understand the requirements for mental life, then I suggest that we can decipher Briggs-Myers’ concepts. I have mentioned several times that any network of memories which extends to all four simple styles will become ‘alive.’ In other words, mental life requires the cooperation of Teacher, Perceiver, Server and Mercy thought. Mental ‘life’ has one primary characteristic. It tries to stay alive. It wants to be ‘fed’ with compatible input and it resists being ‘killed’ through disintegration.

This fundamental drive leads naturally to conflict between competing life ‘forms.’ Suppose that two ‘living’ mental networks both inhabit the same mental region. The very existence of one will tend to attack the other, because each will want to be ‘fed’ with its own diet and will feel threatened if it is exposed to the ‘food’ of the other.

By the way, notice the parallel between ‘life’ and general Teacher understanding. Teacher theories begin by explaining everything, just as petty monarchs think that they rule the entire inhabited world. In a similar way, Mercy-based life begins in blissful ignorance of any other forms of existence. The prime example is the baby. Unaware of the very concept of person, he is absolute ruler over his own tiny world.

The problems begin when general Teacher theories, mental life forms, petty monarchs, and growing infants discover the existence of others. Now there is conflict, because what one wants generally differs from what the other desires. Is this conflict the final stage? For many, yes. However, I suggest that a further stage of mutual cooperation can be reached, in which individuals accomplish more by combining their efforts. This is where Teacher thought encounters order-within-complexity, Mercy strategy learns about love, countries discover trade, and toddlers become friends.

Let us return now to the issue of mental life. I have suggested that conflict is inevitable when ‘life-forms’ overlap. Every human, as it turns out, is faced with two competing worlds. On the one hand, our physical bodies live within a solid, functioning, natural environment. Interacting with this external world programs our minds with a ‘living’ network. On the other hand, we also have a thought life driven by the internal pump of Exhorter to Contributor to Facilitator. Coping with this internal pressure also builds a ‘living’ mental network. Our imagination directs our thoughts in one direction, and our environment pushes them in another.

How can we stay mentally alive and avoid internal conflict, with a minimum of effort, when there are two sources of ‘life’? Well, we know that life requires the cooperation of all four simple styles. Two of these strategies, Perceiver and Mercy, reside in the right hemisphere, while the other two, Teacher and Server, use the left hemisphere. Suppose that we use the two styles of one hemisphere—either Perceiver and Mercy, or Teacher and Server—to deal with the external environment, and the other two to interact with the internal world.[SS] All of our requirements have now been met. There is an operating mental network, both internal and external worlds are being handled, and there is no mental overlap.

The MBTI® categories describe the absolute minimum requirements for mental life.

·    Mental life emerges when Mercy and Perceiver cooperate with Server and Teacher.

·    Mental life must cope with both the internal world and the external environment.

·    In minimal life, one pair of modes works internally, while the other pair deals with externals.

I suggest that we have just analyzed the theory of MBTI®. What it describes is the absolute minimum requirements for mental life. It says that each person uses his preferred side of the S/N split (which involves Server and Teacher[TT]) to handle either the internal or external world, and then assigns one side of the T/F division (involving Perceiver and Mercy[UU]) to face the other direction. Is it possible to live life ‘more abundantly’? Of course. But that would require tearing down the existing mental ‘life’ in order to rebuild it at a higher level. In other words, it would take personal transformation—the topic of the previous volume.

If this interpretation is valid, then MBTI® personality ‘types’ describe the assumptions that any one individual makes on his way to building mental ‘life.’ This mental building, I suggest, occurs in the same way that a physical building is constructed. First, a foundation is laid, then the superstructure is assembled. One does not live in the foundation—rather, one lives in the structure that is placed upon the foundation. In MBTI® terms, therefore, I suggest that the auxiliary mode describes a person’s underlying assumption, whereas the dominant mode reflects his operating assumption.

Minimal life is based heavily upon assumptions.

·    The MBTI® dominant describes a person’s operating assumptions.

·    The MBTI® auxiliary summarizes his underlying assumptions.

Let me give you an example. Suppose that a person is an ESFP. ‘P’ means that Sensing is Extraverted. ‘E’ tells us that the Extraverted mode (Sensing) is dominant. So, the ESFP has a dominant Extraverted Sensing combined with an auxiliary Introverted Feeling. Let us begin our analysis with the auxiliary. Introverted Feeling means that the ESFP assumes an internal world of Mercy feelings free of Perceiver logic. This provides his mental foundation.

Based upon this internal foundation, he operates in the external world. Here, he assumes that he can always remain in the here-and-now of Sensing, and that he can avoid the theories and ideas of iNtuition. If you compare David Keirsey’s portrayal of the ESFP with Lane Friesen’s descriptions of the seven cognitive styles, you will see that the ESFP corresponds to what we call the undisciplined Exhorter. He ignores theories and ideas and uses his physical body to involve himself in the latest fad and enthusiasm. That is his external behavior—what we observe. Underneath the surface, however, lies a hidden foundation of personal Mercy feelings. These emotions are protected from Perceiver logic at all costs. This foundational assumption is guarded by either auxiliary or dominant thought, as the situation requires. If the auxiliary is used, then facts, consequences, and guilt are ‘partied away,’ using Mercy feelings to re-mesmerize Perceiver thought into acquiescence. In contrast, the dominant mode of Sensing separates the Exhorter person from Mercy hurt by moving his physical body. Thus, friends who condemn the undisciplined Exhorter are dropped, and situations that constrict are left behind.

Why are most ESFPs Exhorter persons? Because Exhorter strategy demands excitement, excitement demands strong feelings, and the only instant strong feelings are Mercy ones. In addition, the Exhorter person’s conscious control of Exhorter strategy allows him to tiptoe through the minefield of strong feelings without getting blown up by random obsessions or compulsions. Therefore, the tendency is for an Exhorter person to become the typical ESFP and for other styles to pursue other shortcuts to mental life.

Related to the ESFP is the ENFP. Both share the same fundamental assumption of Introverted Feeling. Thus, according to the previous paragraph, both ESFP and ENFP would tend to describe primarily the Exhorter individual. However, the ESFP is dominant in Sensing, whereas the ENFP has a dominant of iNtuition. This, I suggest, corresponds to the type we call the visionary Exhorter. I have mentioned that the undisciplined Exhorter handles problems by ‘moving on.’ This locks his mind into practical thought, because he is continually following an external stream of Mercy-based excitement. Now, suppose that this undisciplined individual is forced to stick with some unpleasant situation. Eventually, Exhorter strategy will flip modes, anchor itself in the now-solid Mercy crisis, and begin moving through the rarified air of Teacher theory. Thus, the Exhorter person will discover intellectual thought. Has his auxiliary foundation changed? No. He is still rooted in an internal world of Mercy feelings. But, his dominant mode of thought has flipped[VV] from the practical world of Sensing to the intellectual realm of iNtuition. Thus, he will be an ENFP rather than an ESFP.[WW]

I mention these two examples for two reasons. First, they are the easiest to analyze. The typical Exhorter person is an open book. He airs his dirty laundry in public, with gusto. Second, this volume looks at the simple styles—which concentrate on mental content. Therefore, we will only be looking in detail at four of the Introverted MBTI® types, leaving the other types for a later volume. Thus, I present these two examples in order to give us a flavor of Extraverted thought.

The Two Meanings of P/J and I/E 

Now that we understand the four letter labels used by MBTI® to classify people, we need to go back and add more detail to our explanation about the P/J and I/E splits. Notice that MBTI® actually assigns two different meanings to these two divisions. Initially, we learned that P/J refers to a split between Perceiving and Judging, whereas I/E describes the division between Introverted and Extraverted. Now we see that these same splits are used as ‘helpers’ to decode the four letter labels. What is the connection between these two meanings, and is MBTI® justified in taking this approach?

Let me start by giving you my final conclusion. In essence, I suggest that this arrangement makes sense as long as we are talking about normal people living in a typical natural environment. Now that I have given you this cryptic answer, let us look at the details, beginning with P/J.

First, we have P/J as a division. I have suggested that this describes two different ways in which practical thought can operate. When Perceiving is emphasized, Exhorter drive and excitement guide Contributor choices. In Judging, Contributor thought controls and channels Exhorter motivation. Thus, Perceiving is spontaneous while Judging makes decisions.

But why does the P/J division apply to practical thought? Because that is how Briggs-Myers defined this split. And why did she define it this way? Because we humans live in an external world of concrete objects, experiences and emotions, and this world imposes itself upon our minds.

One could compare the P/J relationship to the flow of a river. What forms a river? The combination of flowing water and a landscape full of hills and valleys. Perceiving looks for the excitement and novelty of finding mental ‘canyons’ down which attention can ‘flow.’ Judging, in contrast, controls mental flow by building ‘dams’ of decision, in order to achieve the mental stability of controlling when and where the ‘water’ will travel. But what is the ultimate source of this mental topography? The physical world, with its physical objects. Thus, it is the landscape of the external world, both literally and figuratively, as it is recorded in Mercy and Perceiver thought, that makes it possible to think of practical experiences in terms of Perceiving versus Judging.

MBTI® assigns two different meanings to P/J.

·    P/J describes a split between Perceiving and Judging.

·    P/J also categorizes the primary MBTI® splits: S/N is Perceiving; T/F is Judging.

Consider, though, the person who works in a big office or bureaucracy. He spends very little time worrying about physical location. Instead, he traverses a verbal landscape full of procedures and protocols. Such an individual can choose either the excitement of ‘flowing’ with the procedures that he encounters throughout his working day, or else the control of choosing which regulation to enforce. This too is a separation between Perceiving and Judging, but in this case it involves abstract thought—left hemisphere processing. Is this a natural situation? No. The world of bureaucracy is a man-made one. It is far more natural for Perceiving and Judging to involve the practical world of concrete Mercy experiences. But, as red-tape gradually envelops the natural world, then an intellectual form of Perceiving versus Judging becomes increasingly prevalent.

Therefore, when Briggs-Myers states that P/J involves the world of experiences, she is assuming the presence of a natural world. In order to avoid any potential ambiguity, this book will explicitly define P/J as a separation between Exhorter excitement and Contributor control involving practical thought.

Now let us turn our attention to the second definition which MBTI® gives to P/J—the meaning used to decipher the four letter codes. This states that S/N are Perceiving and that T/F are Judging. This definition is also explicitly given by Briggs-Myers with respect to the external world. For instance, if a person is an INTP, this means that his external behavior is iNtuitive. Why? Because the ‘P’ in this label refers to S or N, and the presence of a ‘P’ means that his behavior appears Perceiving. As I mentioned in a previous section, it is the external world that is responsible for making S/N appear Perceiving and T/F looking like Judging. Why? In simple terms, ‘sticks and stones can hurt my bones, but words can never hurt me.’ Thus, I am free to choose Teacher words without fear of consequence. In contrast, if I choose the wrong Mercy experiences, I could end up dead. Similarly, my Server actions do not have to be part of some overall Teacher plan, but they must take into account Mercy consequences. As a result, the physical world forces T/F to be Judging, while giving S/N the freedom of Perceiving.

But, as with the first definition given to P/J, it is also possible for this meaning to be overruled by human interference. In today’s media-driven politically-correct Western world, it is no longer possible to speak whatever one chooses. As most politicians know, talk is not cheap. Instead, one must be very careful about what one says.[XX] In contrast, civilization has removed most of the consequences from our actions. Even if we hurt ourselves and destroy our environment, society usually steps in, patches up our wounds, and pays for the damages. Thus, current modern society forces us to use Judging with Teacher words, while allowing us at the same time to become increasingly Perceiving[YY] with Mercy experiences. In such an artificial world, S/N corresponds to J, and T/F to P.

Notice that with both MBTI® definitions of P/J, the external world is responsible for determining this relationship. But, it is possible to set up an artificial world which contradicts these definitions. Because of these potential ambiguities, I repeat again that we will use P only to describe practical thought that is Exhorter driven, and J to label practical thought controlled by Contributor strategy.

This book will not assume that S/N is Perceiving and T/F is Judging.

·    Civilization can create an artificial world in which S/N is Judging and T/F is Perceiving.

In contrast, we will not ascribe to the MBTI® practice of calling T/F Judging and S/N Perceiving, because this definition contradicts the purpose of this book.[ZZ] The person who integrates T/F through personal transformation discovers that he no longer needs to control his Exhorter urges. Instead, he can allow attention and motivation to flow naturally along the mental landscape that he has constructed. Thus, by focusing upon T/F to the extent of undergoing personal transformation, a person breaks through MBTI® Judging into MBTI® Perceiving. This sort of ‘breakthrough’ can be seen whenever a skill is learned. When a person practices, Judging is in charge. Actions that are wrong are stopped and movement which is correct is repeated. During a performance, though, Perceiving takes over, as the mind is allowed to flow along channels that have been perfected through practice.[AAA]

As for the suggestion that S/N is Perceiving, this book hopes to demonstrate the the world of thought and action is not a ‘blank slate’ in which anything is possible. Instead, both individuals and society go through stages, and whenever a person or group makes a transition from one stage to another, then certain doors open and others close—in a very Judging-like manner.

Now that we have finished discussing P/J, let us turn our attention to I/E. I suggest that an ambiguity exists here as well. As with P/J, we will begin by looking at the I/E division itself. Why is there a struggle between the Internal and the External worlds? Because we live in a world full of specific Mercy experiences that barge their way into our minds, but we are not told how to put these various pieces together. This leaves us with two choices. We can either use Serveractions to bring order to our external world, or we can use Perceiverfacts to put the puzzle pieces together internally.

Why is there a conflict between these two methods? Because the external world forces us to use Server actions that are physically possible. In contrast, the internal world does not have to concern itself with questions of doability, but can follow imagination wherever it leads.

By the way, this means that E of I/E is the analog to J of P/J. With Judging, Contributor thought is continually making choices based upon Perceiver facts. Similarly, the Extraverted mindset makes decisions on the basis of Server skills.[BBB] In contrast, I corresponds to P, because both allow themselves to be directed by Exhorter excitement wherever it leads.

Why is the I/E conflict an intellectual struggle? Because of the structure of the external world. It feeds our minds with concrete ‘bricks,’ forcing us to put them together using abstract Teacher thinking. And, as the struggle between philosophy and science illustrates, the type of general Teacher structure that is developed depends strongly upon the presence or absence of Server confidence.[CCC]

Consider, however, the modern world of high-tech gadgets. Each device contains its own tiny electronic world of general Teacher order that enables it to carry out amazing Server functions. In mental terms, it is a Server ‘brick.’ Everywhere we turn, we find such gadgets.[DDD] Somehow, we must make sense of this new world. Is this a Teacher dilemma? No. These gadgets are all full of Teacher order, backed up by the general Teacher understanding of science. Instead, both they and we lack Mercy purpose. As I mentioned in the previous book, objective science has turned us into idiot-savants, who fill Teacher wonders with infantile Mercy content.

Thus, consumer technology turns the I/E dilemma from a Teacher problem into a Mercy crisis. How do we make sense of our high-tech world? One way is to embrace the external Mercy icons, advertising, gimmicks, and fads that fill our world. The other option is to enter the world of internal Mercy thought, and to work out how the tools of high-tech could be used to produce a better society.

Is there a conflict between these two methods? Yes. That is because the external method surrenders to the mesmerism of the crowd, while the internal method uses Perceiver confidence to construct a mental world of what could be.

Because technology has the power to change the nature of I/E, this book will explicitly assign to this division the meaning given by the natural world. Thus, whenever talking about I/E, we will be referring to a conflict involving generality—an intellectual struggle between two possible worldviews.

Let us move now to the second meaning that MBTI® gives to I/E. When used as part of the four letter code, it determines which of the two primary divisions is dominant and which is auxiliary. For instance, in ESTP, the P tells us that S operates externally, and that T functions internally. Then, the E informs us that External Sensing is dominant, and Internal Thinking is auxiliary.

The unstated assumption of MBTI® is that every person is caught in a struggle between the internal and external worlds, and that he is forced to survive by balancing the demands of these two. But why must a person be caught dangling between these two? Because we assume that there will always be a balance of power between the internal and external realms.

MBTI® assigns two different meanings to I/E.

·    I/E is a division between Introverted and Extraverted.

·    I/E also describes dominant and auxiliary. If the dominant is I, the auxiliary is E (and vice-versa).

On the one hand, we are driven to control our external natural world, but we assume that we will never completely succeed. Our physical vulnerability motivates these efforts, our physical body allows us to act, and our finiteness[EEE] limits the effect of these actions. Thus, there is a balance between the parts of nature that have been tamed by man and the ‘wild nature’ which remains beyond human control.

On the other hand, we also are driven to understand our internal personal experiences. Here too, we assume that our efforts will be only partially successful. In this case, it is our emotional vulnerability that motivates us, Perceiver facts are the tools we use to bring stability to the sea of internal feelings, and our task is limited by inadequate Perceiver confidence and limited Teacher understanding.

The end result is a balance of power between internal and external—a cold war which neither combatant can win.

But, suppose that we gained mastery over the forces of nature. To a large extent, this has happened today. Those of us who grow up in such groomed surroundings can enjoy our physical surroundings without fearing personal harm from natural forces. In addition, we no longer need to learn the ‘survival skills’ of coping with nature. As a result,both dominant andauxiliary modes can be Extraverted. A solid internal world is not required. Instead, we can depend entirely upon our external surroundings to provide the structure for our minds.

Looking at the opposite extreme, suppose that an individual managed to come up with a Teacher theory which included all subjective Mercy experiences, and that he gained sufficient Perceiver confidence to hold on to this understanding in all situations. For him, both dominant and auxiliary would be Introverted. This would not mean that he ignored the external world. However, he would be able to construct an internal world—or dominant, based upon an auxiliary of internal content.[FFF]

Let us summarize, beginning with the MBTI® division of I/E. If the natural environment becomes sufficiently manicured and civilized through societal transformation, it is then possible to approach the external world using the type of wishful thinking that is normally reserved for the internal world, causing the distinction between I and E to vanish in favor of external structure. In contrast, the individual who rebuilds his mind using Perceiver and Server confidence can approach his internal world with the same rigor that is normally reserved for the external world. In this case, it would be internal content that would bridge the I/E division.

It is this struggle between I and E which forms the core topic of this book. As knowledge and technology grow, we are increasingly being forced to choose between one of two paths. Either we can use knowledge to construct a mental foundation for existence, or else we can build our minds upon the external foundation of technology. I suggest that the one who builds internally will find that he is increasingly unable to participate in the mindless activities of today’s society. Thus, an auxiliary that is truly Introverted will lead, in today’s world, to a dominant that is alsoIntroverted. In contrast, I suggest that the one who builds his mind upon external structure will find himself immersed within a system that increasingly discourages independent thought. Thus, he will discover that an auxiliary that is Extraverted leads inevitably to a dominant that is also Extraverted.

This book will not use I/E as a means of organizing dominant and auxiliary.

·    When civilization grooms the world, both dominant and auxiliary can be Extraverted.

·    With personal transformation, both dominant and auxiliary can be Introverted.

Therefore, this book will not use I/E as a means for classifying dominant and auxiliary, because our society is changing into a form in which this relationship, is no longer valid. Does this mean that the concept of dominant and auxiliary is wrong? No. I have mentioned that Exhorter thought always moves through one hemisphere in the light of a mental ‘anchor’ located in the other hemisphere. But, the relationship between dominant and auxiliary does not have to involve internal and external. Instead, it is the combination of incomplete knowledge and inadequate technology that creates the struggle between internal and external environments which allows MBTI® to assume that the I/E division can be used to classify dominant and auxiliary. These conditions, though, are no longer present. Technology spans the globe, and mental symmetry describes the mind.

Identity and the MBTI® Splits

In the first volume, I talked extensively about personal transformation. We saw that there is an internal conflict between two different me’s, one defined by the physical body, and the other the result of Mercy imagination. At the end of that volume, I suggested that mental growth involves moving these two me’s forward one at a time—a process I compared to walking. This chapter has introduced the four MBTI® categories, and I have suggested that mental growth involves integrating these four splits. These two concepts, I suggest, describe the same thing from a different viewpoint.[GGG]

Suppose that I want to integrate the MBTI® splits. Where should I start? Well, we already know that T/F must be tackling before dealing with P/J and that S/N must be handled before I/E. This tells us that I could start with either T/F or S/N.

Which of these two should I choose? I suggest that it depends on whether I want to approach change as an individual or as a member of a group. This is because of the nature of my physical body and the physical world. As I have mentioned before, the natural world fills my mind with emotional Mercy experiences. Thus, bridging Thinking and Feeling means honestly facing my personal experiences, a process which I can and must do individually and privately. And, when I have accomplished this task, I can rebuild my external environment in the light of my internal visions by using my body to perform Server actions. Thus, the individual has everything that is needed to deal with the T/F split.

On the other hand, the S/N division must be tackled as a group. This is because the human body has no way of directly sensing Teacher emotion. Instead, it is only as I encounter order-within-complexity that I become aware of Teacher feelings. And how can a single individual create such feelings of unity combined with diversity? By cooperating with other humans. Because many people are working together, there is a sense of complexity. And because many people are working together, there is an order which ties together this complexity. This produces feelings of Teacher generality.[HHH] Similarly, individual Server actions cannot change the Teacher order of the natural world. But, if enough individuals work together, they can produce a civilization with its own artificial Teacher order.

We conclude that there are two possible ways of integrating the MBTI® splits. If I want to start with T/F, I must change myself through the narrow path of individualism. On the other hand, I can integrate S/N by travelling the broad road with others.

Transformation can follow two possible paths.

·    Personal transformation integrates T/F then P/J, followed by S/N and finally I/E.

·    Social transformation integrates S/N then I/E, followed by T/F and finally P/J.

What is the narrow path followed by the individual? Personal transformation. What defines me as an individual person? My identity. Thus, personal transformation means redefining and changing me. Let us take a few paragraphs to outline this process in MBTI® terms.

Initially, I have no identity. Me is not yet defined. Why? Because me contains emotional Mercy experiences, and the definition of me is provided by Perceiver facts, and these both take time to develop. However, if there is a T/F split, then me will remain separate from the definition of me. This is because facts and feelings do not get together when T/F is divided. Thus, the big battle in combining Thinking and Feeling is the struggle to define me and to accept an accurate definition of me.

The result of this struggle for self-definition is not just one me but two. This is because two conflicting forces are at work, each trying to shape my identity. One of these forces is natural cause and effect from the external world, the other is my Mercy desire for pleasant experiences. This leads to the two me’s described in the previous volume: the meof the physical body, and the me of Mercy identification.

But why are there two me’s? Because of the other fundamental MBTI® split—the S/N division between Sensing and iNtuition. Sensing involves my physical body. Perceiver thought looks at experiences that result from the demands of Sensing and decides that they belong together. This ends up defining the me of the physical body. In contrast, iNtuition is continually being attracted to new ideas and exciting situations. It jumps from here to the desired goal. Perceiver strategy observes the mental flow of Mercy experiences and notices repeated patterns. The resulting Perceiver facts describe the me of Mercy identification.

Notice exactly what is happening. Me resides within Mercy thought. Self-image emerges as Perceiver thought observes the Mercy experiences of me and learns facts about them. The left hemisphere split of S/N causes identity to operate along two different channels. This left hemisphere separation is only revealed when the T/F right hemisphere split is tackled and Perceiver strategy has sufficient confidence to analyze emotional Mercy experiences and to define me. Let me restate this. The right hemisphere defines me, whereas the left hemisphere is responsible for the operation of me. If T/F is integrated before S/N, then as me becomes defined, it will become obvious that the operation of me is split.

Integrating T/F causes personal identity to be defined.

·    The S/N division causes identity to operate in two different ways.

·    The result of personal transformation is two me’s: the emotional me and the physical me.

Integrating T/F defines the two me’s. It then becomes possible to deal with the P/J split. Integrating Perceiving and Judging, I suggest, will make these two me’s compatible with one another. Let me explain. I have mentioned that the conflict between P and J is a struggle between rules and excitement. The me of the physical body has an excess of rules, imposed upon identity by natural feedback from the external environment. In contrast, the me of Mercy identification is characterized by uncontrolled excitement. It constantly jumps internally to the latest enthusiasm, regardless of the rules. These two me’s cannot be reconciled until they become compatible. And that means relating rules with excitement, or in other words, defining J in terms of P, and using J to guide P.

Linking P with J makes the two me’s compatible, but it still does not tie them together. Let me give you an illustration of what this is like. I live in Canada close to the United States border. Just outside of my home town is a road called Avenue Zero that runs along the Canadian side of the Canadian-American border. For several miles, this Canadian road travels beside another road that lies just inside the United States. These two roads are divided by only a small ditch, across which a person could easily jump. Despite this, they remain totally separate. Why are they not connected? Because they belong to different domains—one is not supposed to go directly between the United States and Canada without passing through a checkpoint.

This describes the situation with the two me’s after T/F and P/J have been integrated. Sensing and iNtuition are now compatible, but they are not yet connected. Instead, the mind is filled with unrelated parallel paths, each belonging to different mental domains.[III] The right hemisphere, observing the resulting experiences, concludes that there are still two me’s. These two me’s were initially defined when T/F became integrated, and they continue to function separately as long as S/N remains split.

Integrating P/J makes the emotional me compatible with the physical me.

·    They may be compatible but they still remain separate.

How then does one integrate S/N? We can answer this by examining our border road analogy. Suppose that one of the two parallel roads were destroyed. Vehicles would then be forced to reach their destination by crossing the ditch and using the road on the other side. Would this be difficult? Physically, no. Filling in the ditch to allow vehicular traffic would be quite simple. This trivial action, though, would have major international repercussions, and would in fact threaten the whole concept of national integrity. Similarly, integrating S/N is not that difficult—once the T/F and P/J homework has been done.[JJJ] But, this simple change will cause major shock waves in a person’s worldview. What type of repercussions? We will give a partial answer to this question when we look at science and technology. For now, let me just say that truly integrating S/N means redefining the relationship between the individual and the corporate, between the doable and the impossible.[KKK]

Once the S/N battle has been won, then the I/E split between internal and external can be tackled. Rather than analyzing this split, let me describe what it feels like when the split is present and when it is absent. When there is a division between I and E, progressing through personal transformation produces increasing feelings of culture shock. My mental concept of life appears alienated from external reality. This struggle intensifies as the other divisions are integrated and reaches a peak when I tackle the I/E separation.

What does it feel like when I and E come together? The alienation vanishes. In fact, I cannot conceive of anything other than my present way of doing things. How can alienation be transformed into inevitability? Through one of two ways. First, I may become so swept up in the external world that my mind loses the ability to conceive of any other possible existence. Second, I may become so convinced about internal principles of societal cause and effect that my mind rejects all other possible worlds as wishful thinking. In the first case, I become a slavish creature of my environment. In the second, I become its master, and I direct all of my efforts towards changing its character. In both situations, the split between internal and external vanishes.

In contrast, if S/N is tackled before T/F, then me will function in an integrated manner, but there will actually be two different me’s, one associated with Thinking and the other with Feeling. Will people notice this discrepancy? No. This is because me only becomes defined as T/F is integrated.[LLL]

Before we go on, I would like to look briefly at the mirror-image of personal transformation. Suppose that one begins by integrating S/N as a society. What emerges then is not two me’s, but rather two areas of personal operation—one associated with Thinking and the other with Feeling. The operation of me becomes unified, but personalexperiences remain separated into two different groups. This is because S/N is being integrated by individuals who suffer from a T/F split. This experiential separation is illustrated by Western society. On the one hand, our personal world is split by divisions such as objective and subjective, Thinking and Feeling, work and home, colleagues and family, labor and entertainment. On the other hand, our society has worked out smooth ways of travelling between these two realms, tying them together, and operating in an integrated way.

In social transformation, S/N is integrated while T/F remains distinct.

·    The operation of me becomes integrated.

·    Personal experiences remain split into objective and subjective, and self-image is undefined.

Will people notice this experiential inconsistency? Of course not. The mind cannot form an accurate self-image when Thinking and Feeling are split. However, people will function in a way that assumes that presenceof these two me’s. In addition, individuals who are pursuing personal transformation will notice the personal split and be affected by it. On the one hand, they have the mental equipment to analyze personal behavior. On the other hand, their attempts to live within a single unified world of personal experiences will be labeled as inappropriate by others, because they add too much feeling to the objective, and too much analysis to the subjective.

In conclusion, we see that there are two kinds of transformation. Personal transformation is applied by the individual and begins by tackling the T/Fsplit. Social transformation involves the group and starts by integrating the S/Ndivision.[MMM] Thus, when this book talks about personal transformation, it will be referring to one of two related concepts. First, personal transformation may describe an individual tackling the specific task of integrating the T/F division. Second, personal transformation may also refer to a path in which an individual integrates T/F, followed by P/J, then S/N, and finally I/E. Similarly, we will use the term social transformation either to describe how a society bridges S/N, or else to refer to a path which a society can follow, in which S/N is tackled first, followed by I/E, then T/F and finally P/J.

For an example of social transformation, one only needs to look around. Through science (an iNtuitive approach to Nature) and technology (a Sensing application), our modern civilization has integrated S/N.[NNN] The result, as described at the end of the first volume, is a world of idiot savants. For instance, we make ‘smart bombs,’ applying incredible technology (in the realm of objective thinking) to carry out brutal destruction (in the realm of subjective feeling). We build communications satellites to beam soap operas into every home. Wherever we go, we bring our schizophrenic approach that combines scintillating brilliance with pigheaded stupidity. But then, didn’t I suggest earlier that technology amplifies the personal suffering of emotional 'truth'?

So what about I/E? If our society has integrated S/N, then it should also be possible to bridge the gap between I and E? Right? Of course. The industrial revolution of the nineteenth century brought Sensing and iNtuition together. Today’s computer revolution is bridging I and E. For the first time, we have external objects that can mimic the operation of internal thought.

During the industrial revolution, society began to integrate S/N.

In today’s computer revolution, society is starting to bridge I/E.

Now, let us apply one more dose of mental symmetry. I have suggested that integrating T/F and P/J makes it possible to tie S and N together, because it builds two parallel domains. To go further, one only has to make a short jump ‘across the ditch’ to the other ‘road.’ If symmetry holds, then the S/N and I/E integration which we have achieved as a society should make it possible for us to tackle T/F. In fact, there should be a whole parallel world out there only a short hop away. So why aren’t we jumping across? Because of the implications. For the individual, crossing the border to travel a road on the other side is a simple Server step, but it has major general Teacher ramifications. Similarly, we would predict that the Perceiver facts needed for our society to tackle T/F are quite straightforward, but hidden within these simple facts would be a major personal Mercy crisis…

Oh, by the way. At the end of the first volume, we talked about moving the ‘right foot forward’ versus moving the ‘wrong foot forward.’ I suggest that we have now expanded upon this topic. If a person wants to develop as an individual, he must integrate T/F. This involves reprogramming his me of Mercy identification. Because this leads to personal improvement I call it ‘moving the right foot forward.’ Why is there personal change? Because the me of Mercy identification is a hidden me which cannot be seen by others. In contrast, if people cooperate to improve the me of their physical bodies, then they will also make progress. But, this progress will be limited to external growth, because people are using their physical bodies to cooperate in the physical world. Why is this moving the wrong foot forward? Because civilization improves while people stay the same. The end result is a world like ours, full of clever fools who use modern technology to satisfy primitive desires.

This ends our first look at MBTI®. We will be returning to the topic, and we will see the MBTI® splits turning up wherever we look. Also, we will be analyzing the four Introverted iNtuitive types at appropriate locations in this book.


We have looked in some detail at revealed 'truth.' Using our knowledge of MBTI®, we can work out fairly easily which MBTI® type is associated with revelation. As usual, we will start our analysis by figuring out which MBTI® mode forms the auxiliary. How is 'truth' normally revealed? Through the written pages of a physical book. This book takes precedence over all other source of learning. The student of revealed 'truth' knows that his special Book is more reliable than anything that he perceives directly through his five senses.

In other words, revealed 'truth' epitomizes the MBTI® S/N division. It exalts words—the realm of iNtuition, and downplays Sensing. Distinctions between now and then, and between here and there, play a major role in revealed 'truth.' Successful revelation always comes from then and there, it never arrives in the here-and-now of Sensing. As the saying goes, a prophet is not honored in his home town; experts, be they religious, political, financial, or social, always come from out-of-town. We conclude, therefore, that revelation is associated with an auxiliary of Extraverted iNtuition.[OOO]

But, why does the revelation have to arrive in the form of a book? Why couldn’t it come through television or some other visual medium? Because, seeing the source of 'truth' creates emotional Mercy experiences. This type of ‘learning’ leads naturally to an auxiliary of Extraverted Feeling. In order to create an auxiliary of Extraverted iNtuition, words have to be emphasized instead of people, and this can only occur if words are separated from the person who spoke those words. Thus, the learning will usually occur in book form.[PPP]

I suggest that any group or individual based in Extraverted iNtuition that attempts to take past revelation and make it up-to-date using words delivered here-and-now by living persons will end up changing their auxiliary mode. This is because of the strong influence which the physical body has upon mental programming. If I can hear revelation delivered ‘in the flesh’ by real people in real situations, then the tendency will be for me to choose Extraverted Sensing for my mental foundation rather than Extraverted iNtuition. One can see this transition illustrated by religious denominations. Whenever ‘words of prophecy’ and ‘words from the Lord’ are emphasized, then practical action and physical structures soon take priority over abstract doctrine and esoteric ‘belief.’ Is this good or bad? That is not the issue. The point is that an auxiliary of Extraverted iNtuition is hard to maintain in the presence of competition from either external Feeling or external Sensing.[QQQ]

Notice that we are looking here at two related issues. On the one hand, there is the survival of revealed 'truth.' As I suggested before, 'truth' works best when delivered in written form by a distant expert. When other modes of delivery are used, the system of revealed 'truth' may not survive. On the other hand, there is the MBTI® label assigned to those who operate according to a system of revealed 'truth.' They will develop an auxiliary mode of Extraverted iNtuition.

How does the mind interpret the words of revealed 'truth'? That is determined by the dominant mode of thought. According to MBTI®, Extraverted iNtuition can be associated with either Introverted Feeling or Introverted Thinking. The first choice produces the INFP, the second leads to the INTP. We will examine the INTP later on when we discuss science. Right now, let us focus upon the INFP, who combines an auxiliary of Extraverted iNtuition with a dominant of Introverted Feeling.

What is Introverted Feeling? It is my Mercy internal world, which contains my identity, my heroes, my hopes, my fears, and my idols. If I read books and apply these words to the world of internal feeling, then I am using words to build my personal emotional identity. But how does Mercy strategy interpret words? In personal terms. In other words, Mercy strategy will believe that the external books actually describe the character of some person. What type of person? Obviously ‘someone’ who is non-physical, because an auxiliary of Extraverted iNtuition suppresses the Sensing world and its physical components. And, because the auxiliary is Extraverted, Mercy mode will believe that this ‘person’ inhabits the external world. Likewise, because books use verbal terms to describe general concepts, Mercy thought will believe that this ‘person’ lives in generality and that ‘he’ interacts with humanity through verbal communication.

The INFP uses the mental circuit of religious revealed 'truth.'

·    His auxiliary is Extraverted iNtuition—provided by written words.

·    His dominant is Introverted Feeling—which applies these words internally to me.

The name we normally give to such an individual is ‘God.’ Does God exist? As far as our current discussion is concerned, we do not have to struggle with that question. The point is that the mode of INFP thought leads inexorably to the concept of a Deity—whether or not one really exists.

But how can Mercy thought be so stupid as to confuse a book with a living, breathing person? Through a juxtaposition of three factors. First, the T/F split divides the world of experiences into objective and subjective. Experiences with feelings belong to the subjective and thus are assumed to be produced by subjects. Within this realm, all 'facts' are dependent upon people and their opinions. Thus, the personal rules supreme, and everything is interpreted in terms of people. Second, emotion can be generated by either Teacher or Mercy thought. The INFP combines these two. Extraverted iNtuition develops Teacher emotions, and Introverted Feeling works with Mercy emotions. Thus, Mercy strategy feels justified in approaching a book in personal terms, because this book creates Teacher feelings and Mercy thought ‘knows’ that anything that feels is a person. But why can’t Mercy strategy distinguish between Mercy and Teacher feelings? Because of the third factor. Mercy mode cannot see the rest of the mind. It can only view its own world of Mercy experiences. This limited vision causes Mercy strategy to interpret everything in terms of its own personal limited world.

But why do I use the word ‘person’ in the singular. Why not ‘persons’? Because Teacher strategy does not like competing theories. It prefers to hold on to one single general understanding, which is then used to explain the others. Therefore, the tendency will be for one image of ‘God’ to take precedence over its competition.

By now I have opened a huge can of worms, full of thick, juicy, theological questions. Who, what, why, when, where, huh? Patience, we will deal with some of these issues later in the book. Here, we will make a few basic statements and focus upon the traits of the INFP.

An image of ‘God’ forms whenever a general Teacher theory impinges upon subjective Mercy identity.

·    Because this is a mental image, we put the word ‘God’ in quotes.

·    The theory of mental symmetry can be used to analyze an image of ‘God.’

If a real God exists, He may or may not be the same as my image of ‘God.’

By the way, you can see now why revealed 'truth' has such religious overtones. Anything which produces a mental image of ‘God’ turns naturally into a religion. And, because revealed 'truth' is rooted in defining experiences with strong Mercy feelings, it is natural to use MBTI® Feeling to analyze this 'truth,' and this analysis generates a mental image of ‘God.’

What kind of image? Book learning, by its very nature, introduces two critical elements. First, a book is written with symbols. It uses squiggles of ink to represents sounds of speech. These strings are then organized into words and sentences. As we shall see in a later volume, this structure is handled by Server thought. Second, words in a book all have meanings, which, as we know, are interpreted by Perceiver strategy.

Let me tie this down with an illustration. Imagine the following text appearing in a book: Het jig enty xes trimer en toh jupppec! Would anyone understand this book, buy it, believe it, or exalt it as a source of absolute 'truth'? Of course not. Words must have meanings, and these are provided by Perceiver strategy.

Thus, we can make two conclusions about any image of ‘God’ produced by the words of a book. First, Mercy strategy will believe that this Deity represents ‘Himself’[RRR] through the use of religious symbols. Second, Mercy thought will also believe that this ‘God’ can be known and comprehended. Why? Because it is possible to understand a book by knowing which meanings to assign to the words.

But why will Mercy thought do all of this believing? Because belief occurs whenever Perceiver facts build solid connections between Mercy experiences, and that is precisely what occurs when one reads a book. Teacher words trigger Perceiver meanings which relink Mercy memories. Thus, external words build internal images. And this precisely describes the INFP—external iNtuition leading to internal Feeling.

Can an image of ‘God’ be formed only through book learning? No, we will see later that other methods will also work. But, I suggest that written revealed 'truth' does create an image of ‘God,’ and that this image naturally possesses specific attributes.

Let us turn briefly now to some of the other traits of the INFP. And, just to show you that I am not making things up, I will quote from the book Please Understand Me by Keirsey. Remember, the explanation is mine, but the quotes are not.

I have mentioned that the auxiliary of the INFP is strongly attracted to books and symbols. According to Keirsey, “INFPs have a gift for interpreting symbols, as well as creating them, and thus often write in lyric fashion.”

Symbols and words form the first stage of reading, which is interpreted by the auxiliary of the INFP. The second stage of reading uses Perceiver meanings to create internal Mercy images. Mercy strategy interprets these images in personal terms. Because the INFP’s dominant mode is Introverted Feeling, he lives in these emotional, personal, imaginary Mercy images. In the words of Keirsey, INFPs “care deeply—indeed, passionately—about a few special persons or a cause. One word that captures this type is idealistic.

As I have mentioned before, the INFP views Perceiver logic as an intermediate step. Perceiver meanings must be used to interpret books, and Perceiver facts are required to build internal Mercy images, but once these emotional images have been constructed, the INFP goes ‘beyond’ Perceiver facts to Mercy feelings. It is these feelings that then determine how he responds to facts and situations. The result is an emotional decision involving internal, imaginary experiences, tinged with Perceiver facts and Teacher feelings. Therefore, the INFP thinks in terms of Mercy-oriented good and bad, rather than Perceiver-based right and wrong. Similarly, true and false are expanded into moral and immoral. Correct and incorrect become beautiful and ugly. As Keirsey states, “INFPs prefer the valuing process over the purely logical. They respond to the beautiful versus the ugly, the good versus the bad, and the moral versus the immoral…They may demonstrate a tendency to take deliberate liberties with logic. Unlike the NT, they see logic as something optional.”

A few paragraphs earlier, I suggested that revealed 'truth' is vulnerable to both Extraverted Sensing and Extraverted Feeling, because these have the power to overturn an auxiliary of Extraverted iNtuition. Both of these limitations show up in the character of the INFP. In the words of Keirsey, “As mates, the INFPs have a deep commitment to their pledges…They are sensitive to the feelings of others and enjoy pleasing those they care for. They may find it difficult to reconcile a romantic, idealized concept of conjugal life with the realities of everyday living with another person. At times, in fact, INFPs may seem fearful of exuberant attainment, afraid that current advances may have to be paid for with later sacrifices. The devil is sure to get his due if the INFP experiences too freely of success, or beauty, or health, or wealth or knowledge. And thus, INFPs guard against giving way to relaxing in the happiness of mating.”

Let us analyze this statement. On the one hand, the INFP is emotionally attached to his idealistic internal Mercy images of personal interaction, because he lives in Introverted Feeling. But, if these internal emotions are ever expressed with too much external Sensation or external Feeling, then he pulls back. Why? Because his auxiliary mode of Extraverted iNtuition is being threatened. And, like all aspects of Extraverted iNtuition, the INFP will also interpret this threat in personal moral terms.

How can this mental foundation of Extraverted iNtuition be restored? By downplaying external sensation and external feelings. In other words, by denying the physical body and by turning one’s back on physical pleasure. Thus, the INFP often chooses a career associated with self-denial: “Often they hear a calling to go forth into the world to help others; they seem willing to make the necessary personal sacrifices involved in responding to that call, even if it means asking others to do likewise.” Why are others pulled in to their lifestyle? Because the Mercy memories of the INFP are being manipulated by Perceiver 'truth,' and 'truth,' by definition, applies to everyone.

But, we all live in physical bodies with physical feelings which cannot be totally denied. Thus, in the words of Keirsey, “INFPs may live a paradox, drawn toward purity and unity but looking over the shoulder toward the sullied and desecrated.”

Let us leave the INFP now and build a foundation that will allow us to look at other modes of learning. As we continue, we will encounter forms of Extraverted iNtuition that go beyond revealed 'truth,' and we will discover non-religious ways to form a mental image of ‘God.’ We will discuss these various types of thinking, and look also at the relationship between them.

Science and Philosophy

So far, our look at education and learning has focused upon various aspects of culture and revealed 'truth.' I would now like to turn our attention to two other types of thinking: science and philosophy. As we shall see, the material that we have covered so far, including the MBTI® categories, will play a major role in this discussion.


Let us begin by looking at science. Most of us take science for granted. When we do think about it, we probably picture technicians in white labcoats scurrying about from beaker to test tube in a room pulsating with mysterious energy and alien sounds, or perhaps we envision miniaturized electronic marvels streaming from myriads of robot-controlled assembly lines. However, this is not science, but rather technology. Science is neither a lab nor a factory, but rather a way of thinking.

What exactly is science? I suggest that it is a method of thought that contains the four essential elements of observationconclusionorder and prediction.[SSS] In addition, I suggest that science makes four fundamental assumptions about our natural environment.

The first ingredient of science is observation. Suppose that I pick up a rock, throw it over the edge of a cliff, and watch what happens. This is observation. It programs automatic Perceiver thought with facts. Each time that I watch another rock fall down, this incident is remembered as another fact within the storage shed of automatic Perceiver thought. Observation is most effective when my Perceiver storage shed receives many different types of examples.

Science contains the four essential elements of observation, conclusion, order and prediction.

Observation can be either passive or active. I may be the one doing the throwing, someone else may carry out the actions, or the stones may tumble down of their own accord. The important thing is not who does what, but rather how carefully I observe what is happening. This feeds Perceiver thought with accurate information that helps to build solid mental connections.

Observation leads naturally to conclusion. For instance, after dropping the 34th stone over the edge, I will probably come to the conclusion that any object that tries to ‘float in the air’ will end up ‘dropping like a stone.’ This brings us to the first assumption of science: It assumes that it is possible to make conclusions about the world based upon repeated observation. In other words, if the Perceiver storage shed decides that some fact is reasonable, then science feels justified in pulling this fact into the internal world of Perceiver thought as a belief. If I see enough rocks fall, then I will believethat all rocks that are thrown over the edge will fall. This means that the scientist is actually using observation to come up with a system of belief.

What does science observe? I suggest that science concentrates upon cause and effect. Normally, the scientist will not sit and stare at something that does nothing. It is the eastern mystic who practices navel gazing. Rather, science observes change, movement, process, and relationship. If anything does something, then science will probably observe it. If nothing happens, then science will likely move on to something more interesting. This leads us to the second assumption of science: It assumes that what is worth observing is change. In other words, science goes beyond the static and moves to the dynamic.[TTT]

I suggest that it is this focus upon process that distinguishes science from classification. Like science, classification also constructs a system of belief based upon careful observation. But, classification satisfies itself with cataloguing and filing. It operates libraries and museums.

As one examines the thinking of the ancient Greeks, one finds that they practiced classification, but never moved fully into science. Aristotle and his followers gathered plants and animals from all over the known world. The Greek city of Alexandria had an incredible library of manuscripts. However, with the exception of a few unusual figures such as Archimedes of Syracuse, Greek thinking was content to classify and to organize. Why did the Greeks discover classification and not science? I suggest that this happened because they did not accept the second assumption of science—namely, that what is worth observing is change. They thought that a man of learning first had to be a man of leisure. In their minds, manual labor was performed by slaves, women and other ‘inferior races.’ People who are physically static will also tend to think in terms that are static.

By the way, I suggest that we have just discovered the primary distinction between MBTI® and the theory of mental symmetry. MBTI®, on its part, is a method of classification. Like the Greek thinkers, it sorts humanity into static bins and declares that personal change is not possible. In contrast, the theory of mental symmetry deals primarily with process. It looks at the path of personal growth and describes personal transformation. Why does MBTI® get stuck in classification? Because of the MBTI® S/N split. The Greeks separated action from thinking—that is, they emphasized the distinction between Sensing and iNtuition. Thus, they never discovered science. MBTI® does the same. Strangely enough, MBTI® can even be used to analyze its own inadequacies. However, it cannot claim to be a scientific theory, for if it is true, then science is impossible. But, read on…

Classification observes and categorizes static objects and experiences.

Science observes and categorizes dynamic change and process.

Let us return to our discussion about science. The conclusion that comes from observation leads to order. Science does not content itself with a system of belief. It also assumes that it is possible to summarize individual facts with a few general statements. In other words, it postulates that a general Teacher theory can be constructed which ties together Perceiver beliefs about the external world. For some reason, the scientist thinks that if he fills his internal Perceiver world with truth based in observation, then his Teacher strategy will be able to build order from the resulting mental complexity.

It was the triumph of this assumption that made Isaac Newton’s work so earthshaking. He was able to take observations made by astronomers and information gleaned from falling balls and swinging pendulums and summarize them with a few simple mathematical statements.[UUU]

This brings us to the final phase of science, which is prediction. So far in our discussion, science has used observation of dynamic change to construct a system of beliefs about the natural world and then it has organized these various beliefs into a general theory. In other words, it has gone from Mercy experience to Teacher theory. The scientist likes to confirm this research by making predictions about the world based upon his new-found understanding, thus completing the mental loop from Teacher thought back to Mercy experience. The atomic bomb, for instance, began its existence as a prediction. It verified Einstein’s famous equation that E=mc2, which states that matter (m) contains a stupendous amount of energy (E) locked within it, equal to its mass times the speed of light squared.

Scientists looked at this equation and deduced that a small amount of matter contained sufficient energy to generate a colossal explosion. Then they went further and actually believed that this prediction was accurate. So firm was their conviction that they convinced the American government to spend millions of dollars during the Second World War on the Manhattan project—guided only by the theorizing of a Teacher person with a poor sense of fashion and an even worse haircut. The end of this was an earthshattering kaboom, and the dawn of the nuclear age.

By the way, notice the contrast between the Mercy experiences that are created by science, on the one hand, and those generated by politics, on the other. Science starts with a ‘whimper’ and ends with a ‘bang.’ Einstein did not have personal charisma or political presence. However, his theory resulted in an experience that changed the course of history. In contrast, the ‘politician’ enters with a tailored suit, impeccable haircut, and polished multimedia presentation. Then he begins to curb the radicals and water down the proposals. Unlike science, the political process that he initiates begins with a ‘bang’ and ends with a ‘whimper.’

Four major assumptions of Science:

1.  Observation can lead to belief.

2.  Beliefs can be formed about relationships between cause and effect.

3.  Those beliefs can be formed into general theories.

4.  Those theories can be applied through Server actions.

Let us conclude. Science appears to make four huge assumptions about the external world. First, it assumes that it is possible to go beyond observation to Perceiver belief. Second, it assumes that there are solid Perceiver connections between natural cause and effect. Third, it assumes that these beliefs about the natural world can be described by a general Teacher theory. Finally, it assumes that this general Teacher theory can be applied with Server actions. If we didn’t know better, we might accuse the scientist of being a religious fanatic—a raving fundamentalist. Imagine making little ‘chicken scratches’ on pieces of paper and then expecting the world to conform to those calculations. Any other age would describe this sort of manipulation as the highest form of magic.[VVV]

Why do I belabor such seemingly trivial points? First, because science works! We are so accustomed to the technological benefits of scientific research that the major assumptions of science have become almost trivial to us. Isn’t it obvious that the natural world must operate in this way? To us it is obvious, but it certainly wasn’t evident to those who lived before the age of science. Just look at the story of Galileo, for instance, and you will see the struggle that was involved in getting from there to here.

Second, I emphasize these points because the theory of mental symmetry that we have developed makes exactly the same assumptions about the human mind that the scientist makes about the natural world. Like science, it also assumes that it is possible to come up with a set of rational beliefs based upon reasonable observations of human nature. It too believes that one should study mental change and reprogramming and disregard static elements such as culture and idolatry. It assumes that the resulting system of beliefs about human nature can be summarized by a general theory. Finally, it believes that applying this general understanding will change the world. If these assumptions operate so successfully within the realm of the objective, then why should they not also work when applied to the subjective?[WWW]

Third, I bring out these points because the scientific method, which we use to transform our world, corresponds perfectly with the process of personal transformation, which I have suggested can transform our minds.[XXX] Both begin by using Perceiver reasonableness to construct an internal world of Perceiver beliefs. Both study cause and effect—Perceiver connections which occur over time. Both go beyond Perceiver facts to general Teacher understanding. Both use this understanding to change Mercy identity. Finally, both integrate various modes of thought, and thus pursue mental wholeness.

This means that science is really a search for moral goodness.[YYY] Remember that we have defined that which leads to mental integration as morally ‘good,’ and that which causes mental conflict or disintegration as morally ‘evil.’ According to this definition, science is morally ‘good,’ because it builds an integrated, internal world of thought. Of course, science which remains purely objective will cloud this inherent goodness. That is because it emphasizes the mental split between objective and subjective—between T and F—and whatever causes internal division is, by definition, morally ‘evil.’ In addition, objectivescience causes people to question the traditional 'morality' of revealed 'truth' without providing an alternative—which is also bad. Does such an alternative exist? Yes. We have seen that scientific thought can be applied to the mind, and that the result is a system of morality.

But what about religion, culture, ‘God,’ and other supposedly non-scientific areas? Where would they fit within a scientific morality? By the end of the next book we will have addressed all of these issues.

Previously, we examined the personal pain and suffering that comes from building me upon a foundation of emotional 'facts.' The technology that surrounds us demonstrates some of the positive benefits of building me upon a foundation of rational truth. If our natural world has been improved so incredibly by general understanding based upon a belief in natural cause and effect that is rooted in observation of natural reality, maybe similar benefits could arise from building me upon a general understanding which is based upon a belief in mental cause and effect that is rooted in careful observation of mental reality. In other words, maybe it is possible to expand science into a search for totalmoral ‘goodness.’

Is this the best ‘picture’ that I can give of my ‘new and improved’ world? Yes, it is. Remember that vision uses Perceiver strategy to relink existing Mercy memories. Since Perceiver thought looks for similarities and connections, all I can say is that the future could be like this, similar to that, or connected in this way. That is one reason why the visionary person is so driven to realize his dreams. He knows that reality will be better than what he can imagine, and so he wants to realize his vision and live within it.

Science and MBTI®

We have examined the mental assumptions involved in science. Let us look now at how science relates to the four MBTI® divisions.[ZZZ] First, I suggest that the strength of modern science results from its integration of Sensing with iNtuition. In other words, science is successful because it bridges the S/N split.

Let us expand upon this thought. I have mentioned that science is rooted in observation. This means that it uses MBTI® Sensing to gain information about the external world. What does it observe? Change and process. This tells us that Serverthought, which carries out action and produces change, is involved in scientific analysis.

But, we also know that science is based heavily in mathematics. In other words, it reaches its conclusions by using a verbal form of mental processing that completely ignores sensation and the physical world. This tells us that science is also firmly entrenched within iNtuitive thought.

Science observes the Sensing world in order to prime iNtuition.

Science uses iNtuitive mathematics to explain the world of Sensing.

Finally, I have stated that science builds intellectual order. This again tells us that it goes beyond the world of Sensing and enters the iNtuitive realm of ideas and theories. And what does it do with these theories? It makes predictions. In the language of MBTI®, it uses iNtuition to go beyond the here-and-now to the realm of the possible. In other words, it applies iNtuitive possibility to the physical realm of Sensing. Thus, in science, Sensing leads to iNtuition and iNtuition returns to Sensing.

Notice the effect of integrating Sensing with iNtuition. Both are still very much active and alive. Science includes both the experimenter who focuses upon the world of Sensing and the theoretician who limits himself to the realm of iNtuition. But, there is a continual flow of information between the two. Science orders the realm of iNtuition while technology transforms the world of Sensing.

Now that we have described the strength of modern science, let us turn to its weakness. As I have mentioned before, today’s research is limited to the objective. Scientists do not allow their research to become tainted with personal feelings.[AAAA] In MBTI® terms, science ignores Feeling and sticks with Thinking. Thus, while it may integrate S/N, it definitely keeps T and F widely apart.

This means that objective science and technology are the result of pursuing societal transformation to the exclusion of personal transformation. Societal transformation integrates S/N, while the absence of personal transformation keeps T/F apart. Thus, society as a wholebecomes integrated, while individuals remain internally split. In practice, this means that most interaction between Sensing and iNtuition occurs externally. Most individual scientific workers continue to specialize in either research or development. Corporately, though, there are mechanisms in place to ensure that science and technology continue to interact with one another.[BBBB]

I suggest that the limitations of objective science are all the result of its weakness and not due to its strength. When technology produces societal problems, the temptation is to subscribe to the Luddite mentality and to blame everything upon science. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Science promises to bring us better gadgets—only that—and it delivers upon this promise.

Objective science pursues social transformation while avoiding personal transformation.

The problem lies not in integrating S/N but rather in keeping T/F apart. If science expanded its thinking to include the subjective, then it would not deliver goods that destroyed humans. And, if we learned to apply a little rational thought to the subjective, then we wouldn’t be so foolish as to demand destructive applications from science.

So, what about P/J and I/E? Well, we know that these are secondary splits. Therefore, if ‘modern’ science ignores T/F, then obviously it cannot integrate MBTI® Perceiving and Judging. But, by integrating S/N, science and technology do make it possible for I and E to get together. As I mentioned earlier, the industrial revolution has joined S and N, whereas the computer revolution has bridged I and E. So why do I emphasize the need to integrate I with E when science and technology are already doing this? Read on…


Based upon the previous information, we can work out which particular one of the sixteen MBTI® types is most attracted to scientific thought. Notice that posing this question is somewhat of a contradiction. On the one hand, we have just seen that science as a system integrates Sensing and iNtuition. On the other hand, MBTI® asserts that it is impossible to integrate S and N. How can this paradox be resolved? By making a distinction between the person and the system. As I mentioned a few paragraphs back, science, as a whole, pulls Sensing and iNtuition together. However, individuals who work within science follow a division of labor in which some people emphasize Sensing whereas others exploit iNtuition. What keeps the structure together when the bricks are disjointed? The external benefits. A flow of information between science and technology allows us to continue producing new and improved tools and gadgets.

Let us expand upon this dichotomy between society and the individual. Earlier on, I suggested that, as individuals, we humans are only capable of tackling the T/F split. If we want to integrate S and N, then we have to get together and cooperate.[CCCC] Therefore, dealing with only one of the two divisions of T/F and S/N will lead to an imbalance between corporate and individual. In fact, tackling S/N but not T/F will create two opposing forces. At the societal level, there will be a drive for integration. In contrast, the personal realm will continue to fly apart. Come to think of it, doesn’t this describe precisely the situation in our present world? Our corporate existence is coalescing into a single global economy through free market agreements and merger-mania. Simultaneously, our personal lives are fragmenting into special interest groups, ethnic independence movements and personal alienation.

Having said this, let us return to the scientist. What is his fundamental assumption? External dynamics and processes. He assumes that the external world contains sequences that are worth observing. Thus we conclude that his auxiliary must be either Extraverted iNtuition or Extraverted Sensing, for both iNtuition and Sensing deal with sequencing and process. Which of these two is it? Well, in order to discover the laws of nature, one must look for the order that lies behind the physical world. In other words, one must go beyond Sensing to iNtuition. Therefore, we conclude that the auxiliary of the scientist must be Extraverted iNtuition or EN.

That brings us to the dominant mode of thought. What does the scientist do with his iNtuitive data? He uses Perceiver logic to look internally for connections between sequences. When he sees similar processes at work in different situations, then he knows that he can form a mental hypothesis. For instance, suppose that I drop an apple and it falls to the ground. That is a sequence. Now suppose that I take your orange and drop it over the cliff. That also is a sequence. The scientist will observe both of these situations, notice the connection, stab his theoretical finger into the air, yell ‘Aha’ and pronounce: “Whenever you let go of an object, it heads in a downward direction.” Why does he come to this conclusion? Because his mind has a ‘living’ INTP network.[DDDD]

The INTP emphasizes the mental circuit used in science.

·    The auxiliary of Extraverted iNtuition ‘reads the book’ of natural process.

·    The dominant of Introverted Thinking uses Perceiver logic to find similarities between processes.

We will look at the development of science, including the relationship between the scientific INTP and the INFP, whom you recall is the religious individual, more deeply later on. However, since we are discussing the INTP, let us see if we can work out a few more of his character traits—beginning with his mental foundation or auxiliary of Extraverted iNtuition. How does a person become an INTP? I have suggested that mental ‘life’ begins by assuming the auxiliary. The INTP has an auxiliary of Extraverted iNtuition. Thus, he assumes that he can suppress external Sensing and approach the external world with iNtuition.[EEEE] But the INTP, like any normal human, lives in a sensory world. His five senses are continually filling his mind with data. How can he suppress this information? By focusing his mind upon words. How is this done? It happens naturally when a person, and especially a child, spends much of his time sitting and reading. On the one hand, he is physically passive. This limits external Sensing. On the other hand, a stream of words floods his mind, providing the raw material for iNtuition. Each story that the child reads opens his mind to new possibilities and soon he is mentally adept at performing the internal ‘leaps’ of iNtuition.[FFFF] The INTP, however, still lives in a physical body. If he is ignoring it, then others must be taking care of it. Therefore, he is the intellectual, dependent upon others for his daily bread.

Based upon this foundation of Extraverted iNtuition, the INTP pursues his dominant mode of Introverted Thinking. Thinking emphasizes the Perceiver aspect of Perceiver/Mercy interaction. A dominant of Introverted Thinking therefore uses Perceiver logic to interpret words. But, logical analysis can only be used on words that make sense and that have specific meanings. Thus, the INTP abhors incoherence, for it fills auxiliary mode with verbal information that cannot be interpreted by dominant thought.

The INTP is skilled also at detecting verbal contradictions, for Perceiver thought that generates the dominant of Introverted Thinking is continually evaluating the words of others. Suppose that he hears or reads about some grand new theory. The Teacher words and ideas will easily enter his auxiliary mode of Extraverted iNtuition. The dominant mode of Introverted Thinking will then subject this new theory to an internal inquisition. If Perceiver strategy finds a contradiction, then the theory will collapse, producing Teacher pain that threatens the auxiliary mode of Extraverted iNtuition. Thus, when the INTP discovers verbal contradictions, he will feel driven to remove them from his environment.

Perceiver thought, however, is more than just a discrepancy detector. It also excels at discovering connections and similarities. This is both good and bad. On the one hand, this allows the INTP to discover the laws of nature. On the other hand, it makes the INTP prone to intellectual boredom. Whenever Perceiver strategy links a new idea to one already residing within the mind, subconscious Exhorter thought is reminded that the concept has been encountered before and it turns away in boredom.[GGGG] The INTP then looks at the speaker and interjects, “You already said that. Don’t repeat yourself.”

Earlier on, we saw that Thinking creates its own imaginary Mercy experiences, and we looked at the example of money. The INTP lives in an internal world of Perceiver logic. Because he continually uses Perceiver logic, an imaginary, objective, personal identity will form within Mercy thought. It is an abstract form of me. This Mercy image will be supported by a logical Perceiver self-image. But, when the INTP uses logic, he pulls facts, including this self-image, into his internal Perceiver world—and this is a world of belief and of universal truth. Thus, the self-image of the INTP will become a standard by which all people are judged. Fellow researchers will be accepted as normal, while those who do not meet up to his own personal standard of logic will be dismissed as non-persons. Others will perceive this implicit rejection as intellectual snobbery. Meanwhile, the INTP assumes that his surrounding ‘sub-humans’ will continue to provide for his physical needs.

The INTP may be a snob, but he is usually also a successful one. It is his thinking pattern that discovers science. And science has transformed our entire world. When we, as products of this age, look back at the living conditions of our ancestors, we too regard them as almost subhuman. Thus, the judgments of the INTP’s self-image are accepted by us as accurate.[HHHH] The only problem is that by suppressing feeling, the INTP as a person does not, and cannot, live up to his own self-image. Increasingly, he becomes locked in a world of objectivity, unable to apply his own truth to his own me, for the light that it generates is too bright for his subjective person to handle.

So, which cognitive styles tend to become INTPs? Well, one can conclude that Mercy and Exhorter people usually do not turn into INTPs, because they seldom pursue objective logic as a dominant mode of thought. In addition, we can rule out the Server person, because he is usually locked into Sensing. That leaves the Perceiver, Contributor, Teacher and Facilitator. All can develop INTP ‘life’ if they are fed with a diet of constant reading. The two styles most prone to turn into an INTP, however, are the Perceiver and Contributor, for both are conscious in Perceiver thought, the dominant mode of the INTP.


I have suggested that applying the scientific method to the subjective will lead to personal transformation. There is a branch of thinking, called philosophy, which does attempt to approach the subjective in a rational way. Does philosophyproduce personal transformation? Is it a productive mode of thought?

I suggest that the ultimate destination of philosophy is complete and utter intellectual failure. Why? Because it is hopelessly enmeshed in emotional 'truth.' But does all of philosophy have this emotional foundation? Doesn’t some philosophy use logic? After all, isn’t philosophy responsible for working out the rules of logic? We will address these questions in a moment. But first, let us look at the record of philosophy and see if it is consistent with a Perceiver foundation of emotionally based 'truth.'

Philosophy fails intellectually because it builds general understanding upon emotional 'truth.'

First, philosophy is generally recognized as a product of its age. In the Middle Ages, philosophy was considered to be the ‘handmaiden of religion.’ During the enlightenment, philosophy prided itself on its rational analysis, whereas during our age of info-glut, philosophy has become largely a technical analysis and a cataloguing of past philosophies.[IIII] If a way of thinking depends upon its social environment for its ‘universal’ theories, then its 'facts' are obviously determined by the defining experiences of its culture. Science, in contrast, is relatively timeless. It stands on its own, apart from society.

Second, philosophy is a product of its philosophers. When we study philosophy, we also study the lives and personal experiences of the thinkers who came up with this understanding. If a general theory is so heavily influenced by the defining experiences of personal life, then this tells us that it uses 'facts' that are rooted in the Mercy emotions ofme. Science, on the other hand, can be studied without any reference to the scientists who came up with these discoveries. It is a structure that exists apart from the opinions of people.

Third, philosophy is divided into various schools of thought. This demonstrates that its 'truth' is emotionally rooted in the opinions of important people: If Perceiver logic were followed, then divisions of thought would be eliminated as Perceiver thinking built connections between individual facts. However, if 'truth' is based upon the opinions of experts, then divisions stay, because Perceiver thought remains mesmerized and lacks sufficient confidence to build connections.

Fourth, philosophy ends up by destroying itself. It is fascinating to look at how Western philosophy has ‘progressed’ from Descartes to Sartre, or should I rather say regressed. Each philosopher started his theorizing with certain 'facts' which he 'knew' to be 'true.' The next philosopher then came along and wondered how his predecessor could be so stupid as to make an assumption which obviously was not 'true.' The result was that each philosopher 'knew' less and less, until finally we come to Jean-Paul Sartre of the twentieth century, who stated that nothing could be 'known.' When thinking is based upon a foundation of emotional 'facts,' then the more one thinks, the less one 'knows,' because thinking increases the emotional significance of me relative to the importance of my experts. If I become enough of an expert, then I will begin to question the 'facts' of my experts one after the other, as their 'truth' falls within the threshold of uncertainty, until finally, nothing is left.

Fifth, philosophy can never really be proven to be right or wrong. Scientific theories, in contrast, can be proved or disproved. This is a sign that Perceiver thought in science is capable of deciding what to believe and what not to believe. Philosophy, on the other hand, is never disproved, but rather goes out of fashion. Competing philosophical viewpoints are always contending with one another. Never are there any clear winners. This combination of strong 'belief' combined with an inability to determine belief suggests that Perceiver thought is being manipulated by some other source and is incapable of making its own decisions.[JJJJ]

Sixth, philosophers cannot even agree upon a proper definition of philosophy. Read a book about philosophy and it will generally start with the statement that the science of philosophy is hard to define. Whenever people have problems with definitions, this suggests that Perceiver strategy is in trouble, because it is Perceiver thought that is responsible for determining the meanings of words. Also, when each individual thinker comes up with his own set of definitions, this tells us that Perceiver thought is under the control of personal emotions. The terms of science, in contrast, are well defined, and everyone agrees upon these definitions. For instance, ask any scientist what is meant by work, energy, or entropy and he will give you essentially the same definition.

Seventh, philosophy is and appears to remain parasitic upon its culture. If you read the history of philosophy, you find that one philosopher after another concludes his grand theories with the statement: “All of my ideas are true, but we still live in a world of people who make emotional demands upon us. Therefore, the best approach is for us to ignore our ideas and to continue to obey the rules of society.” In other words, all of philosophy, and all of its high thought, is just so much hot air. Science gave birth to technology and technology has transformed our world. Philosophy, in contrast, gives birth to resignation; it remains at most an alternate reality within the mind of the philosopher.

Even when philosophy does get beyond approval, it seems to rebel from society, rather than set up a positive alternative. If philosophy responds to its society by ‘spitting it out whole’ instead of mentally breaking it up, ‘chewing’ on these various aspects and ‘digesting’ them, then this shows that it is primarily a system of understanding based—indirectly—upon its society and thus rooted in idolatry. It is not what it claims to be—a search for truth, and a hunger for universal answers.

Eighth, philosophy loses its brightest students. Back in the Middle Ages, all thinking was regarded as philosophy. Science did not exist in a separate form but was regarded as natural philosophy. However, since then, one discipline after another has left the realm of philosophy and struck out on its own. After each split, it seemed that philosophy was left with questions and doubts. If philosophy were based in Perceiver logic, then it could remain connected with its mental ‘children.’ However, if philosophy is rooted in emotional 'facts,' then we know that 'facts' cannot coexist with facts. Therefore, we would predict that whenever philosophy generated some form of rational thought, this thinking would have to leave the ‘cradle’ of philosophy in order to continue thinking rationally. When we look at the history of philosophy, we find that its ‘children’ have always rebelled and ‘left home.’

If you look back at these eight points, they can be summarized by the word failure. However, the story does not end there. The thinking of philosophy may be so much ‘hot air,’ but its harmful effects, in contrast, are very real and tangible.

The Personal Effect of Philosophy

The previous book described how a general Teacher theory can help me learn how to ‘fly’: It lifts me up, separates me from the ground, and propels me forward. A general theory of philosophy will also influence me, but I suggest that its effect will be exactly the opposite. Instead of lifting me up, it will hold me down. Rather than separating me from the ground, it will form an unbreakable bond between me and the earth. Finally, it also will generate an emotional force. But rather than propelling me forwards, this thrust will act like a giant rubber bandwhich does its best to bring me back to my original location.

Why does philosophy have these three effects? Let me describe the underlying reasons using the life of Sigmund Freud as an illustration. But wasn’t Freud a psychologist and not a philosopher? Yes and no. When psychology focuses upon self-analysis as in the case of Freud, then I suggest that it is easy to step over the line from psychology into philosophy.[KKKK]

The first problem with philosophy is that it makes me feel good about my current state. As we saw in the first volume, whenever I come up with a general understanding, the result is positive Teacheremotion. Therefore, if I work out some overall explanation based upon a certain set of emotional 'facts,' then Teacherstrategy will end up feeling good about those 'facts.' This positive Teacher emotion will make me want to stick with these 'facts.'[LLLL] However, remember that emotional 'truth' is defined by isolated emotional experiences. Therefore, positive Teacher emotion will end up feeling good about the particular and very personal set of unique defining experiences that have happened to barge their way into my inner world of Mercy strategy. It is these incidental traumas and ecstasies that will determine the essence of my Teacher understanding, and its resulting emotion.

If we look at Freud, we find that much of his research was based upon a few critical childhood events, which always stood out in his memory. First, Freud remembered that he had felt evil thoughts against his younger brother when this brother was born and his mother no longer gave him exclusive attention. Second, he remembered feeling sexual arousal when he saw his mother naked. Third, he remembered deliberately urinating in his father’s bedroom, and his father responding by stating that Freud would never amount to anything. This incident, in particular, reverberated repeatedly within the dreams of Freud. Fourth, Freud remembered despising his father when he related how a gentile had knocked his fur cap into the gutter because he was a Jew and he had reacted by meekly picking up the cap.[MMMM] This is not what we would call the most dignified—or general—foundation for a universal theory of human thought.

The second reason why philosophy ‘grounds’ us is that it makes Teacher theory dependent upon Mercy experiences and emotions. Philosophy tries to come up with Teacher understanding based upon the 'facts' which it 'knows' to be 'true.' But why are these 'facts' 'true'? Because a few defining experiences fooled Perceiver thought into 'believing' them to be 'true.' However, remember that Teacher strategy also thinks emotionally. Teacher thought itself uses Teacher feelings to decide which theories are more general than others. In philosophy, though, the 'facts' that are being used to build Teacher theories are inextricably linked to strong Mercy feelings. This means that the Teacher understanding of philosophy will inevitably be warped by Mercy emotions.

Let me give you an analogy. Suppose that Perceiver facts are like stones and that forming a Teacher theory is like building a wall out of stones. When 'facts' are determined by strong Mercy emotions, this plays visual tricks upon the ‘sight’ of Teacher thought, making it appear that the Perceiver stones are either bigger or smaller than their actual size. Therefore, if Teacher processing picks up a Perceiver stone that is associated with strong Mercy feelings, then Teacher thought will ‘feel’ that this stone is much larger than it actually is. In contrast, a large ‘stone’ with no accompanying Mercy emotions will end up ‘feeling’ rather small, in comparison to the other stones. You can imagine what the resulting Teacher wall would look like. The person doing the building will feel that his mental structure is perfectly straight and wonderfully constructed. However, a rational thinker who looks at the wall, or even someone with different defining experiences, will see a crazy quilt of gaps, crooked lines, and jutting rocks.

When we look at the research of Freud, we find that his emotional background did warp his theories. He was preoccupied with parent-child conflicts and with infantile sexuality. He tried to uncover hidden childhood traumas by using hypnosis, free association, and dream analysis. Finally, his professional relationship with others always seemed to involve either submission or domination. In other words, the strong Mercy emotion of his childhood traumas caused these mental ‘stones’ to be magnified far beyond their actual size. Most of Freud’s fellow ‘researchers,’ such as Adler and Jung, looked at the supposedly straight wall of understanding that Freud had constructed, and concluded that it was crooked and bent out of shape. In their analysis, the theory of Freud was warped.

Third, philosophy acts as a ‘rubber band’ that always brings me back to my original state. This is because my entire mind ends up being integrated around my defining experiences. First, my Mercy emotions are guided by the strong feelings of these events. Second, my Perceiver 'beliefs' are determined by these experiences. Third, my Teacher theories are also rooted in these same Mercy experiences. Teacher emotion now reinforces Mercy feelings. Therefore, any attempt to pull away from my foundation of idols will bring my entire mental structure crashing down around me. A person may be able to survive Mercy devastation if some compensating Teacher feeling can lift him up, but no one can handle simultaneous Mercy and Teacher trauma. That combination of bad emotion can only be described as a pit of black depression.[NNNN]

Philosophy fails personally because its builds general understanding upon emotional 'truth.'

·    It makes a person feel good about his inadequacies.

·    It makes Teacher understanding dependent upon personal trauma.

·    It makes it impossible for a person to be transformed out of his present state.

A person who is that dependent upon his defining experiences for mental existence will obviously react strongly when these are questioned. This turns the mature[OOOO] philosopher into a rabid defender of the status quo. Again, when we look at Freud, we find that he was incapable of changing his fundamental concepts. When members of his ‘Psychological Wednesday Circle,’ Freud’s research team, threatened to leave, Freud decided that in order for a person to remain a member, he had to accept “the existence of unconscious psychical processes, the theory of resistance and repression, and the appreciation of the part played by sexuality and the Oedipus complex.” In other words, in order to be a member of Freud’s inner circle, one had to accept as axiomatic the defining experiences of Freud’s childhood.

The response of Greek philosophy to the ‘success’ of Christianity during the third century AD provides a similar illustration. Until then, the Greek philosophers were basically religious skeptics who gave nodding approval to the pantheon of gods worshipped by the average Roman citizen. While as individuals they did not really accept these gods, as philosophers their general Teacher theories were based upon the prevailing 'beliefs' of the day.

Then along came Christianity, and suddenly society officially abandoned the old gods and began to worship the new Christian God. Did the Greek philosophers in Athens also forsake the old pagan gods? No, because unwittingly these philosophers had built their Teacher understanding upon the assumption of a 'belief' in these gods. Therefore, these ancient relics of Mercy emotion became stumbling stones that prevented the poor philosophers from conforming to the new standards of society. Now, the philosophers began to defend the existence of the old gods. However, they were no longer described as gods,but rather asdemons who were trying to prevent philosophy from reaching its desired state of internal Teacher order based upon Mercy cultural absolutes. Why ‘demons’? Because the old 'beliefs' lived on as suppressed multiples within the minds of the Greek philosophers, and these mental ‘lifeforms’ now opposed the altered status quo of society, to which the philosopher as a creature of his age desired to adjust.

Philosophy versus Science

Whyis philosophy such a dismal failure? I suggest that it violates the four assumptions of science. First, science begins with a careful observation of the external world. This stops Mercy feelings from mesmerizing Perceiver strategy because it avoids the strong emotions of the subjective. It also helps Perceiver thought to develop because it goes beyond the specific to the general: It studies many people, and many situations. It is this broad-based repetition that forms the basis for rational Perceiver thought.

Philosophy, in contrast, starts with the question: “What do I knowfor certain? What facts are true beyond a shadow of a doubt?” Not only does this cause the philosopher to search within himself for truth, rather than to examine the world around him, but it also brings the thinker directly to the very subjective biases that are so carefully avoided by the scientist. For instance, we are all familiar with the famous statement of René Descartes, “I think, therefore I am.” Descartes spoke these words because he was searching for something solid upon which to base his identity. Ultimately, he decided that the only thing that he could be certain of was his own subjective existence. Thus, he went to the very core of Mercy feelings, and chose to base his 'truth' upon the specific person of me.[PPPP]

Let us look now at the second assumption of science. Why does science observe change? Because the external world is constantly in movement. The childish mind, in contrast, abhors disruption. It is held together by Mercy processing—which deals with static objects and experiences, and it preserves mental integration by surrounding itself with frozen, immovable idols. By focusing in a childish way upon the internal world, philosophy automatically violates the second assumption of science. Does it choose to do this? No. Rather, this is a byproduct of philosophy’s focus of study.

Third, there is the search for Teacherunderstanding. Because science avoids Mercy feelings, it is possible for Teacher emotion to step into the breach and to integrate isolated Perceiver facts of science. In contrast, the 'facts' of philosophy are already held together—by Mercy feelings. Thus, whenever Teacher strategy attempts to bring order to philosophy, the childish me steps in and demands that preservation of the status quo be given top priority.

Finally, science assumes that Teacher understanding can be applied. This is a natural conclusion, given the source of scientific truth. The facts of science came from an observation of the external world, therefore it makes sense that theories which come from these facts could be used to alter this same world. In contrast, the theories of philosophy are solidly rooted in Mercy feelings. This is why the philosopher inevitably concludes his pondering by a decision to follow the dictates of his society. He must, because these emotional absolutes provide the foundation for his thought.

The four assumptions of science are byproducts of its field of study.

·    The externalworld contains solid objects, therefore observing it develops Perceiver belief.

·    The external world moves and changes, therefore studying it teaches about process.

·    Objectivethought avoids Mercy feelings, therefore Teacher emotions fill the gap.

·    Science comes from the external world, therefore it is applied to the external world.

But what type of person could build such rigorous thought upon a basis of such erroneous assumptions? A person with the right cognitive style. Our study suggests that over 95% of philosophers throughout history have shared the cognitive style of Facilitator. The Facilitator ‘room’ acts as the observer of the mind, therefore the analysis of the Facilitator person will always be based upon assumptions, because he uses conscious thought to adjust and balance information that is provided by his subconscious mind. If it—his subconscious—knows, then he—the Facilitator—assumes.

But why have Facilitator persons done most of the thinking? Aren’t the other styles capable of rational thought? No, not when the mind is immersed in childishness. The Facilitator person may be incapable of questioning his assumptions, but he is alwaysable to describe them, regardless of his mental maturity. And, not only is the immature Facilitator person able to perform self-analysis, but he is also driven to do so. When the Facilitator lives in a time of societal upheaval, his subconscious mind becomes confused and this motivates him to search for answers. Meanwhile, the other cognitive styles hobble along in the semi-darkness, with just enough sanity to keep going, and just enough insanity to prevent them from accurately analyzing their predicament.

But doesn’t philosophy begin by questioning all assumptions? Yes, all axioms except the assumption of being a Facilitator person. The Facilitator philosopher assumes that he can remain in control of his mind—that conscious Facilitator thought by itself is sufficient to come up with an answer. But, Facilitator strategy is only one of seven mental modes; it operates in conjunction with the other six. Subconscious Perceiver strategy gives the Facilitator person his sense of knowing. Mercy mode contains the personal identity. Theories are developed by Teacher thought, and actions are guided by Server mode. If the Facilitator philosopher insists upon pretending that Facilitator strategy is the only valid form of thought, then, as we have seen, he will violate the four assumptions of science. On the other hand, if the Facilitator person recognizes that he has an autonomous cortex and that his subconscious mind has a right to exist, then the four assumptions fall into place: An operating Perceiver mode looks for solid facts; a reprogrammed Mercy identity accepts change; a functioning Teacher strategy develops general theories, and a developed Server mode applies these theories.[QQQQ]

Historically, almost all philosophers have had the cognitive style of Facilitator

·    Whatever subconscious Perceiver and Server thought know, Facilitator strategy assumes.

·    The Facilitator assumes that, because he can see memories, he can understand thought.

Today, philosophy and science are treated as alternate paths to the goal of a general understanding. Go to the typical university, and you will find a department of science alongside a department of philosophy. Why? Not because science and philosophy share similar views. As we have seen, they are radically opposed to one another. Rather, I suggest that present day science, philosophy, and university are all expressions of Facilitatorthought. As I have mentioned, almost all philosophers have the cognitive style of Facilitator.[RRRR] As it turns out, the majority of famous scientists are also Facilitator persons. Therefore, the similarities between Facilitator thought and the university system, where these people do their work, turn out to be quite striking: The Facilitator stands apart from the mind and observes its activity; the typical university separates itself from normal society and studies it from a distance. The Facilitator analyzes but finds change difficult; universities study for the sake of learning,  while holding on to tenure.[SSSS] The Facilitator makes small, incremental changes and shies away from major shifts; the university system can digest gradual changes in knowledge but chokes when faced with a major breakthrough. The Facilitator is very aware of his senses; the university uses experiments to investigate the physical world. Finally, both the Facilitator and the university love statistics; they measure everything, and they keep written records of all their thoughts.[TTTT]

Let us close this section by looking at the big picture. History indicates, as we have shown, that science leads to measurable progress but philosophy does not. Science succeeds because it accepts four assumptions related to mental development. Philosophy fails because it rejects these same axioms. I suggest that the success of scientific thought is an indirect result of focusing upon the externalobjective world. Similarly, I suggest that the failure of philosophy is a byproduct of concentrating upon the internalsubjective world.

Many people have looked at this contrast and have instinctively concluded that sanity can only be discovered by turning away from the internal world and focusing upon external reality—exalting E over I. This is a correct conclusion, if one is comparing science with philosophy. The problem is that this solution itselftakes the form of a mental split—between I and E.[UUUU]

Thus, it is essential to realize that the struggle between philosophy and science is not a conflict between internal and external but rather a struggle between irrational and rational. What really matters is how one treats the four simple styles. If Perceiver mode is taught solid facts and Mercy strategy is given meaningful experiences, if general theories are developed for Teacher thought and consistent sequences placed within Server memory, then thinking will be rational and successful, whether it is considered to be ‘scientific’ or not.[VVVV]

Looking at things even more broadly, I suggested in the previous book that a system of morality would only be successful if it included the two characteristics of time and generality. This statement, I suggest, summarizes the first three assumptions of science. Morality, which by definition is a search for mental integration, examines individual experiences to discover solid Perceiver connections—this is the first assumption of observation. A search for time adds the second aspect of making conclusions, and generality adds the third, which is discerning order. Applying all this—the fourth assumption—leads to life, the ultimate expression of personal success.

Speaking of internal life, I distinctly remember making a certain decision early on in my study of mental symmetry. I knew what it was like to exist in an environment in which my mode of thought—Perceiver strategy—was continually being attacked and suppressed. Therefore, when I discovered that my mind contained seven mental rooms, and that I was only conscious in one of them, I vowed that I would not treat subconscious thought in the same way that others had treated me. Instead, I decided that the seven mental strategies which existed in my mind all had a right to live. I would respect each one, and provide for its mental needs. In a sense, I mentally ‘signed’ an internal ‘bill of rights.’ This decision marked a turning point in my quest for mental maturity.

At first glance, an ‘internal pledge of respect’ may sound like the type of childish ‘secret oath’ that a group of boys meeting in a ‘treehouse club’ might concoct. However, I suggest that mental wholeness—the ultimate goal of personal transformation—will never be reached unless one takes precisely this step. This is because the basic desire of every mental ‘lifeform’ is to stay alive. If this fundamental need for mental survival is not met, how can internal harmony be achieved?

Objective science is successful because it makes the right assumptions.

·    In order to study the internal subjective, these assumptions must be made explicit.

·    This occurs only when subconscious modes are given the right to live and be free.

This vow, I suggest, describes the essence of what separates science from philosophy. The scientist respects his external world. He accepts the existence of the physical world with its objects, natural processes, and laws of nature, and devotes himself to a study of this structure. In contrast, the Facilitator philosopher does not respect his subconscious inner world.[WWWW] He remains firmly in charge of his mind and forces conscious will upon subconscious thought. Thus, I suggest that if philosophy is ever to succeed in comprehending the mind, then it must—irrevocably—give subconscious thought the right to exist.[XXXX]

But why can’t a person can’t a person simply decide to apply the four assumptions of science to his internal world? Why is it necessary to go through the formal—and seemingly childish—step of ‘signing an internal bill of rights’ with subconscious thought? Because only subconscious processing is capable of adequately analyzing subconsciousinformation. Suppose that I am a Perceiver person and that I choose to respect internal sequence. The problem is that I am using Perceiver thought to decide what is or is not a valid sequence. But, Perceiver strategy is designedto analyze objects, not sequences. When it comes to sequences, Server thought is the natural expert. In addition, only subconscious Server strategy has access to the ‘toolbox’ of sequential information stored within automatic Server thought. Therefore, if I as a Perceiver person use conscious thought to respect Server sequences, then I will continually be forcing conclusions upon subconscious Server thought that are based in inferior processing and inadequate data. And no one likes to be controlled by a know-it-all boss who is dumb and ignorant.

But why must this internal ‘bill of rights’ be couched in personal terms? Because subconscious thought will only operate if it is mentally alive, and once it lives it expects to be treated as something that is alive.

But surely giving freedom to subconscious strategies means being flooded by irrational thoughts and losing control of my mind, doesn’t it? Not necessarily. If I feed my subconscious a diet of insanity, then obviously it can only produce insanity. Garbage in, garbage out. But, if I fill my subconscious with healthy thoughts and images,[YYYY]then subconscious strategy will operate sanely. After all, if a Server person, for instance,can appear to be a ‘normal human being,’ then it makes sense that subconscious Server thought can also act ‘normal’—if it is developed properly.

Finally, I suggest that the way that I treat my subconscious modes establishes a set of internal Perceiver and Server guidelines that determine how subconscious thought will treats me—the person who has conscious control of my mind. If I give respect to subconscious thought, then it will respond by respecting conscious thought. If I destroy my subconscious, then it will in turn attempt to destroy conscious control. choose the type of government that will rule my mind. My decisions ultimately determine whether my mind becomes a democracy, theocracy, or dictatorship. And, my mind is the one world that I cannot escape. It follows me wherever I go and whatever I do.

Philosophy and MBTI®

We have taken a brief look at the mindset behind philosophy. Let us see now if we can work out which of the sixteen specific MBTI® types practices philosophy. This means deciphering the dominant mode of thought along with the auxiliary. That should not be too difficult, because we already know that a philosopher passes through two different stages. First, he works out what he knows. Then, he uses these mental ‘bricks’ to build his philosophy. Thus, we would expect his auxiliary to be associated with knowing and his dominant with philosophizing.

Let us begin with the dominant mode of thought. What does the philosopher do? He thinks; he meditates; he finds emotional satisfaction in contemplating internal worlds of grandeur. In other words, he uses Introverted iNtuition. Why Introverted? Because philosophy is a mental pursuit. The philosopher is not trying to change his world. He seeks only to understand it. Why iNtuition? Because he ignores the here-and-now of Sensing and addresses big questions such as “What is the meaning of Life?” or “How did it all begin?” or “Who or what is God?” He leaps from one grand statement to another and then expounds upon each in esoteric tomes that flow endlessly from his fluid pen.[ZZZZ]

If the dominant mode is Introverted iNtuition, then MBTI® theory tells us that the auxiliary or assumption must be either Extraverted Thinking or Extraverted Feeling. We can figure out which one of these two applies by examining the bottom line of the philosopher. If he is forced to pick between Perceiver logic and Mercy feelings, which one does he choose? As we saw above, the history of philosophy indicates that Mercy emotions provide his final source of 'knowing.' Ultimately, the philosopher is a product of his age who follows Mercy-based culture rather than Perceiver mediated logic. And, philosophy splits into competing schools of thought; it does not look for Perceiver connections between rival theories. Thus we conclude that philosophy is built upon an assumption of Extraverted Feeling. A combination of dominant Introverted iNtuition and auxiliary Extraverted Feeling means that the philosopher uses INFJ processing.

The philosopher uses INFJ processing.

·    His auxiliary is Extraverted Feeling—the source of his emotional 'truth.'

·    His dominant is Introverted iNtuition. He builds an internal understanding.

But, didn’t I say previously that the philosopher looks inside of himself for 'knowing'? Here I am suggesting that he is rooted in an external world of Feeling. Exactly. What is the mechanism for emotional 'knowing'? Some external, emotional Mercy situation comes along and mesmerizes Perceiver thought into 'knowing' what is 'true.'[AAAAA]Therefore, the philosopher thinks that he is searching for internal 'knowing' but he is really cataloguing his emotional defining experiences—all of which were imposed upon his mind by external situations and by other people. We see this illustrated in the life of Sigmund Freud. His childhood traumas provided the ultimate basis for his psychological research. We should not be surprised that philosophers confuse external with internal, because most are Facilitatorpersons. As the ‘secretary of the mind,’ this cognitive style is mentally blind to the source of his 'knowing.'

Wait. If philosophy is rooted in Mercy feelings, then how can it be the historical source of logical thought? I suggest that philosophy leads, temporarily, to Perceiver logic. We can see this by examining history. Rules of logic were developed by Greek philosophers such as Socrates and Plato. However, this rational thinking lasted only two or three generations before it was submerged again by the surrounding culture. Similarly, modern philosophers, such as Descartes, were masters of logical thought. But, a few centuries later, Kant rejected logic in favor of thesis-antithesis-synthesis. In fact, if a field of thought ever does become permanently rooted in logic, it is forced to leave philosophy and become another branch of science.

Let me illustrate this by outlining the typical history of philosophy—both for an individual and for society as a whole. First, philosophical thought is triggered by a breakdown in societal values. When this occurs, people and institutions which used to command respect crumble and lose their status. This leads to a major shift in the external world ofMercy feelings. As we will see later, the Facilitator person always tries to make the best of the existing situation. Thus, if his moral authorities are failing, he will search for better and more stable emotional pillars. The mental result of this soul-searching is a pile of solid, internal Perceiver bricks. They may be formed largely from the ‘ice’ of frozen experience, but they are nevertheless solid—for the time being. This Mercy success presents the Facilitator philosopher with a Teacher crisis. He may have stable building material, but it is disconnected, and that makes Teacher thought feel bad. The Facilitator thinker then turns from his auxiliary mode of MBTI® Extraverted Feeling to his dominant mode of Introverted iNtuition, in order to do something about his muddled and melancholic state. It is this transition that produces the philosopher.

Philosophy begins with an external Mercy crisis.

·    The Facilitator determines which facts he either 'knows' or knows to be true.

Building solid facts creates an internal Teacher crisis.

·    The Facilitator integrates his facts to build a general Teacher understanding.

We can now understand why Perceiver logic is a temporary product of philosophy. When the philosopher is in his searching phase, he is testing many different Perceiver memories for stability. This provides both the opportunity and the possibility for Perceiver thought to develop. Opportunity comes because subconscious Perceiver thought in the Facilitator philosopher learns how to compare one situation with another. Possibility arises because the Facilitator is searching through memories that have inadequate Mercy feelings, and subconscious Perceiver strategy is therefore able to wake up from its mesmerized state and begin to think.

Why doesn’t this logical thinking last? Because, by thinking, the Facilitator philosopher becomes the source of his own 'truth.' Ultimately, as he builds the results of his self-examination into a universal theory of understanding, he becomes his own ‘god’ who 'knows' that he is infallible. A high and lofty person such as this is no longer subject to the restrictions of logic.


Our look at the connection between philosophy and the INFJ has probably raised more questions then it has answered. Unfortunately, that is the problem when one pursues a topic using two different schemes. Each time more detail is added to one theory, it introduces questions about the other. Thus one is forced continually to introduce topics that will only be discussed in detail later on.

Since we are currently talking about MBTI®, let us push forward by looking at more traits of the INFJ, starting with the obvious and ending with the controversial.[BBBBB]

First, the INFJ makes an excellent personal therapist. This is because there is a natural connection between philosophy and psychology. The philosopher analyzes himself. The psychologist analyzes others. Both are motivated by emotional trauma. Both mine the swamps of emotional memories for solid ground. Both work out theories to explain what they find, and both are better at labeling and categorizing than they are at solving or changing. Finally, our research suggests that many psychologists, like most philosophers, have the cognitive style of Facilitator.[CCCCC]

The personal therapist begins by focusing upon the emotional hurts of his patient. This uses the INFJ’s auxiliary mode of Extraverted Feeling. He then uses his dominant mode of Introverted iNtuition to come up with a theoretical explanation for these problems. This is exactly the same process that the philosopher uses to study himself.[DDDDD]

There is, however, a critical distinction between philosophy and psychology. The philosopher who examines his own person has a clientele of one. Whenever Perceiver facts are based upon isolated Mercy examples, as they are in his case, Mercy thought tends to win out over Perceiver logic.[EEEEE] In contrast, the psychologist diagnoses many individuals; he does not restrict his analysis to one person. Therefore, Perceiver thought and logic is much more prone to develop in the psychologist than it is in the philosopher. In addition, the psychologist is studying the feelings of someone else, whereas the philosopher is digging into his own emotional mire. This puts the logical thinking of the psychologist under less emotional pressure. The end result is that psychology usually contains more and longer-lasting logic than does philosophy, even though both use the same mode of thought.

Our analysis implies that the thinking of the philosopher and the psychologist is determined completely by their respective environments. To a certain extent this is true.[FFFFF] The Facilitator person literally watches and mediates from the sidelines as his subconscious mind is programmed by his environment. While he is aware of most memories, he simply cannot see the detailed mental processing that builds up the structure of his subconscious thought.[GGGGG] Thus, mental processing in him really does operate autonomously.

The Facilitator person sees subconscious memories but is blind to subconscious processing.

One may wonder how the Facilitator can mix rational facts with emotional 'truth' when MBTI® states that Thinking and Feeling cannot be combined. The answer is again found within the mental structure of the Facilitator person. As the ‘secretary’ of the mind, he notices the present situation and adjusts the mental flow of information in order to solve the immediate problem. Thus, if the current context contains rational thinking, he will use conscious thought to facilitate the use of Perceiver logic. Similarly, if Perceiver thought is mesmerized within the present context, he will adjust mental flow in order to ensure that Perceiver strategy remains 'frozen.' If facts and 'facts' do come into contact with one another, Facilitator mode will notice the impending crisis of knowing and respond by toning down the ‘offending’ information and separating the potential mental combatants.[HHHHH] Thus, the Facilitator person, more than anyone else, is a master at compartmentalization.[IIIII] It is normal for Perceiver logic to develop in some parts of his mind while at the same time Perceiver strategy remains completely mesmerized in other areas.

Once subconscious Teacher strategy within the Facilitator philosopher develops a general theory to explain his particular mental combination of rock and 'ice,' the Facilitator person becomes driven to preserve Teacher emotion by keeping this mixture intact. If a shift in knowledge attacks this Teacher understanding, the Facilitator person instinctively responds by adjusting the flow of information in order to remove this threat.[JJJJJ] As usual, he uses mixing and compartmentalization to make the best of the existing situation.[KKKKK]

Let us turn to the next point. The INFJ is naturally talented at creative writing. Again we notice the Mercy to Teacher connection. Fictional writing uses emotional Mercy experiences to inspire an iNtuitive flood of Teacher words. What is the source of these experiences? Emotional encounters with the external world of personal pain and pleasure. Once more, we see the auxiliary of Extraverted Feeling. What is the product of the iNtuitive thought? An internal realm, peopled with imaginary citizens and concepts, described through words. This is consistent with a dominant of Introverted iNtuition.

But what does creative writing have to do with philosophy? Everything. I suggest that fiction is the poor man’s philosophy. Why do we read fiction? Because it touches our emotions; it appeals to our fears, our hurts, our hopes, our dreams, and our loves. It uses words, then, to cloak these Mercy experiences with some sort of rationale that can give integrated meaning to our fragmented existence.[LLLLL]

Fiction is the poor man’s philosophy.

Moving on, the INFJ often has a vivid imagination and can appear ‘mystical’ to others. Now we are beginning to tread on shaky ground, for mysticism does not sit well with the modern, objective, scientific mindset. But didn’t I just suggest that philosophy leads to temporary logic? Right now, most philosophy is logical, because we live in atechnological world. Logic forms the basis for our Western society, and philosophy is always a product of its age. Thus, philosophy currently looks down its collective nose at mystical thought. This, however, is beginning to change. Our culture is becoming less logical and more mystical. And, as our society adjusts, so do the philosophers. We will examine this process in a few pages.

So what is mysticism and how does it relate to the INFJ? In essence, mysticism says that something lies behind the physical world and that the relationship between the sensory world and this ‘something’ is irrational and emotional. These beliefs are a natural byproduct of INFJ processing. It begins with Extraverted Feeling that inhales emotional experiences directly from the external world. This emotional identification allows the mind to ignore the external structure from which these experiences came. The INFJ then jumps to Introverted iNtuition, which ties emotional memories together to form an internal structure. That is, the INFJ goes directly from emotional Mercy experience to general Teacher theory, skipping any intervening steps. This, I suggest, is the mental basis for mysticism. It lives in a world of blended Mercy and Teacher feelings. It identifies with the Mercy emotions of human existence and superimposes upon this a grid of confabulated Teacher order. It is this direct jump from Mercy to Teacher that produces the irrationalism. Rational thinking uses Perceiver facts and Server sequences to build a comprehensive Teacher understanding of Mercy situations. It goes from Mercy to Teacher, but not directly. Summarizing in one statement, it is the elimination of Perceiver and Server confidence that distinguishes mysticism from rational understanding.

So, why does the INFJ follow mysticism? Because of the S/N and T/F splits. T/F says that living in subjective feelings means throwing logic out of the window. Similarly S/N states that Teacher-guided iNtuition ignores Sensing and its associated Server sequences.

It is the limited ‘life’ of the MBTI® categories that leads to mysticism. Remember that MBTI® describes the minimal requirements for mental existence. It connects one external mode of thought with one internal aspect. But, we know that mental life requires the cooperation of four mental modes. Thus, if one wants to achieve true ‘life’—the substance of which mysticism is a shadow—one must integrate four strategies: Mercy, Perceiver, Server and Teacher. How does one get beyond the limited ‘life’ described by MBTI®? Through personal transformation. And, if each stage of transformation adds one extra element of ‘life,’ then we can conclude that true ‘life’ will only be found if one is willing to go through personal transformation twice.[MMMMM] Ouch! Double Ouch!!

Let me explain further by referring to the diagram of mental symmetry. ‘Life’ needs T + S + P + M. Notice how these are connected. M connects to P which goes through C to S which connects to T. These links are all precise ones that build solid content. Put these four together and you get true ‘life.’ How is ‘life’ expressed? Through the fuzzyconnection that links Mercy and Teacher via the Exhorter.[NNNNN] This link has all of the characteristics of ‘life’: it is unpredictable, it involves emotion, it connects experiential memory with intelligence, and it generates imagination, energy, and motivation.

The INFJ takes a shortcut to mental ‘life’ by going directly from Mercy to Teacher, ignoring the two intervening steps. In other words, he overlooks the precise connections of T + S + P + M and focuses upon the fuzzy bridge of T + M. How can he do this? By building upon an assumed structure of Server and Perceiver content. First, he learns Server sequences by living within a physical body. He may attempt to ignore this body, but moving it around does program Server strategy. Second, he learns Perceiver logic through comparing emotional Mercy experiences.


Notice how this shortcut to ‘life’ relates to the two stages of philosophy. The goal of the first stage is to achieve mental clarity. Anyone who finds himself immersed in a ‘soup’ of undigested emotional experiences will want to make sense of his surroundings. This desire is especially true of the Facilitator person, because, as we shall see later, Facilitator strategy cannot operate when the mind is confused. Therefore, the budding philosopher will be driven to sort through his emotional memories in order to organize them and classify them. As a mental byproduct, this mental sorting will develop Perceiver thought. In addition, as I have just mentioned, living as a normal human in the natural world will program Server strategy. Thus, the Perceiver and Server content that is needed to support truncated INFJ mental ‘life’ develops as a byproduct of Extraverted Feeling.

The jump from Extraverted Feeling to Introverted iNtuition occurs when the emerging philosopher discovers Teacher thought and Teacher emotion. In the Facilitator person, this transition occurs automatically as subconscious Teacher strategy finds a way of tying together the Perceiver facts that were discovered during the first stage. The mental goal now changes from clarity to illumination. The philosopher no longer feels driven to organize his Mercy experiences into separate Perceiver ‘piles.’ Instead, Teacher emotion now motivates him to integrate these ‘piles’ into a general structure. Unfortunately, his mental ‘piles’ will often refuse to fit together. Why? Because his initial goal was not to follow sequence or discover logic but rather to achieve clarity. Thus, his emotional experiences may be neatly sorted, but they are not analyzed or digested. And how will the philosopher respond when he cannot achieve mental integration? He will twist his facts and warp his sequences in order to make them fit together. Why? Because his goal is not understanding but illumination. This twisting occurs naturally as the philosopher becomes his own expert—gaining the emotional importance needed to redefine 'truth'—and as he begins writing—allowing him to use Teacher words to adjust the Server structure that his mind gained from physical action.

The budding philosopher searches for clarity, not Perceiver truth.

The growing philosopher looks for illumination, not Teacher understanding.

Eventually, the INFJ will be able to achieve his desired goal of mysticism—namely, to luxuriate in the emotional currents of a direct Mercy-Teacher connection. While he is searching and building, Perceiver facts and rational thinking prevent him from tying together Mercy and Teacher feelings. But, as the scaffolding of Perceiver logic and Server skill fades, the INFJ is finally able to break through the barriers of Perceiver and Server content and emerge into the emotional illumination of true mysticism. Even though Perceiver and Server processing are now suppressed, Perceiver and Server memories remain to provide a mental structure that can tie Mercy and Teacher thought together. Thus, the ‘mature’ mystic claims that his discoveries are beyond logic and reach past the physical body. In a sense, he is right, because he had to pass through logic and action in order to reach his mystical epiphany. But, by mentally suppressing the structure needed to support his mysticism, he also guarantees that he will never achieve more than a passing glimpse of true ‘life.’

This direct connection from emotional Mercy experiences to Teacher words can be verbally encouraged. Whenever a person speaks, he is expressing internal Teacher thought—the dominant of the INFJ. If the INFJ adds a non-verbal component to his speech, this will trigger his auxiliary of Feeling. If the speech is meaningless, then Perceiver strategy will not become involved. Similarly, Server thought can be suppressed by saying syllables that lack structure and grammar. Thus, the ‘oooooommm’ of the Eastern mystic or the ‘tongues’ of the religious charismatic are excellent tools for encouraging a mystical mindset.

Let us move on to the next INFJ trait, which I will allow Keirsey to describe. He says that “INFJs can intuit good and evil in others, although they seldom can tell how they came to know. Subsequent events tend to bear them out, however.” This trait definitely goes ‘beyond logic and past the physical body.’ But, it can nevertheless be analyzed and understood. Earlier on, I suggested that emotional 'truth' divides the world into ‘us versus them’ or ‘good and evil.’ This is because Perceiver 'facts' are being defined by strong Mercy feelings. If these feelings are positive, then the corresponding 'facts' are accepted as ‘good.’ In contrast, negative emotions will create 'facts' which are labeled ‘evil.’ Thus, for the individual who 'believes' in emotional 'truth,' the struggle is not to determine truth, but rather to replace evil 'truth' with good 'truth.' This becomes a fundamental aspect of INFJ thought.

The INFJ’s dominant mode of Introverted iNtuition takes this three steps further, all the way to mental ‘life’—which again turns out to be a shadow of the real thing. Skipping over Perceiver and Server thought, iNtuition looks for a general Teacher understanding that can explain the Mercy experiences of Extraverted Feeling. Thus, evil 'facts' will grow to become an imaginary ‘living’ person who is responsible for this ‘heresy.’ Likewise, good 'facts' will be viewed as part of a good person.[OOOOO]

Notice that the INFJ combines two unrelated concepts. First, he goes beyond individual experiences and words to a mystical kind of mental ‘life.’ This idea is consistent with mental wholeness, for ‘life’ does emerge whenever Teacher, Server, Perceiver and Mercy memories are connected. Second, the INFJ divides this life into good and evil. This concept is not consistent with mental wholeness. Instead, it is rooted in emotional 'truth.' When true mental life emerges—after complete personal transformation—then the concept of good and evil is no longer present. Instead, it is replaced by completeness and incompleteness, wholeness and fragmentation.[PPPPP]

This brings us to our final and most controversial point. Keirsey states, “If a person demonstrates an ability to understand psychic phenomenon better than most others, this person is apt to be an INFJ.” Is there such a thing as a ‘psychic phenomenon’? I would rather not answer that point. However, if we look at the mental behavior of those who claim to have psychic or spiritual powers, I would suggest that we can make three major statements.

First, whenever people or groups utilize the direct emotional connection between Teacher and Mercy thought, then they will claim to exhibit psychic traits. Four MBTI® types happen to fall into this category: the INFJ, INFP, ENFJ and ENFP. The last two types describe most Exhorter persons, who are conscious in the mode which bridges Teacher and Mercy thought.

Second, the specific MBTI® type will determine the form of ‘psychic’ power being claimed. The INFJ assumes that a hidden Teacher world lies behind visible Mercy experiences. Thus, he will usually claim to ‘receive messages’ from beyond. The Exhorter person, in contrast, goes from the internal to the external. Therefore, his ‘psychic’ ability usually manifests itself as a form of special influence or healing ‘power.’[QQQQQ]

Third, the stability or duration of any ‘psychic’ event or ability depends upon the durability of the Perceiver and Server memories that relate Teacher and Mercy thought. If their content is unreliable, then the ‘spiritual’ connection quickly fades. On the other hand, content that is solid can support a much longer and greater ‘psychic’ episode.

‘Spiritual’ activity requires direct interaction between Mercy and Teacher modes.

·    If this interaction ignores Perceiver and Server content, the activity will be irrational.

·    A ‘spiritual’ connection only lasts as long as it has underlying Perceiver and Server content.

Obviously, a lot more can be said about the subject. However, I suggest that these principles are sufficiently general to cover every psychic event, all spiritual activity, and every religion.[RRRRR]

But is philosophy religious? Yes, very much so. In the intermediate stages, when it uses logic and accepts the physical body, it may attempt to deny religion, spirituality, and psychic ability. However, if you examine the history of philosophy, you will find that eventually it turns its back upon logic, denies the physical body and the physical world, and fully embraces Eastern Buddhist-like religion, along with the various overt spiritual and psychic overtones. And, because philosophy struggles so hard in its earlier stages to pursue logic and to comprehend the natural world, the mysticism it achieves in its final stages is sometimes sufficient to launch a full-fledged religion—which usually turns out to be some variation on the Buddhist theme.

The INFJ and the INFP

I suggested previously that the INFP’s combination of mental modes naturally produced a 'belief' in a rational, external, comprehensible Deity. Now we see that the INFJ also has religious aspirations, but the image of ‘God’ which forms is quite different.

Why are these two modes ‘religious’? Because they both use Feeling and iNtuition. This combination produces general Teacher understanding and causes these theories to be interpreted in a personal way.

If we compare the ‘God’ of philosophy and Buddhism to the ‘God’ of revealed 'truth,' though, we notice that they are very different ‘creatures.’ I suggest that these contrasts are natural consequences of the mode of thought that is being used.

First, revealed 'truth' teaches that ‘God’ rules over the external universe. Why? Because it is based in Extraverted iNtuition. Since Teacher theories have their source in external words, ‘God’ is also 'believed' to reside in the external world. In contrast, Buddhism teaches that ‘God is within.’ This is because the INFJ lives in a dominant of Introverted iNtuition.

Second, revealed 'truth' generally begins by asserting that there is a ‘God.’ It then states that this  ‘God’ can be known personally. Finally, it adds doctrine and understanding to this internal subjective experience. I suggest that this process reflects the growth of the MBTI® modes. Development of thought begins with the auxiliary of Extraverted iNtuition. Because this is Teacher-based, there is an immediate emphasis upon ‘God.’ This external foundation leads to the dominant of Introverted Feeling. In other words, the external ‘God,’ who is pre-existing, wants to have a personal connection with the internal subjective and wants to live with me. Finally, a stage occurs that goes beyond the two steps of MBTI®: Teacher strategy notices what is happening in Mercy strategy and develops theories to explain this internal effect.[SSSSS] Because the Mercy feelings are associated to some degree with Perceiver logic—which develops from reading the Holy Book—the Teacher theories also include some rational thinking. The result is religious doctrine.

In Buddhism, the discovery of ‘God’ comes later. The INFJ has an auxiliary of Extraverted Feeling. Therefore, his philosophy begins with a self-analysis of the childish me—defined by emotional experiences that came in from the environment. Only when the dominant mode of Introverted iNtuition emerges does the philosopher begin to talk about ‘God.’ And who is the source of this ‘God’? Me. Why? Because the INFJ builds Introverted iNtuition upon Extraverted Feeling. Thus, the INFJ asserts that ‘God’ comes from me. What type of me? A me which identifies with emotional experiences in the external world. Therefore, he believes that the ‘God’ who is in me is also ‘a part of everything.’ As with the INFP, there is often a third stage. In this case, Mercy strategy notices the emotional impact of the general Teacher theory of the ‘all is one God’ and interprets it in personal terms. The result is an ecstasy, in which Mercy strategy luxuriates in being ‘friends’ with the ‘God’ whose source was me.

In a third contrast, the ‘Gods’ of INFP and INFJ react quite differently to the application of Perceiver logic. On the one hand, the INFP with his external book must use Perceiver logic to build his original Teacher understanding, for he must comprehend the words of his book. Therefore, his ‘God’ is inherently a rational one, with irrational overtones. On the other hand, the INFJ philosopher has produced his universal Teacher theory of ‘Oneness’ by denying all logic. Therefore, his ‘God’ is basically irrational.

Finally, both of these ‘Gods’ have a paradoxical view of conscience, though in different ways. On the one hand, the INFP ‘God’ preaches conscience. This is because reading uses Perceiver meaning to impose images upon Mercy strategy, and conscience develops whenever solid Perceiver 'facts'[TTTTT] touch emotional Mercy experiences. The application of this conscience, though, is less consistent. Why? Because the dominant aspect of INFP thought goes ‘beyond’ Perceiver meaning to Introverted Feeling, and this mode of thought treats logic as an option, and not as a necessity. Thus, INFP religion begins by stating that ‘God’ has solid rules which apply to everyone, and then it turns around and suggests that these harsh restrictions can be bypassed through a personal connection with ‘God.’ Notice the logic. Extraverted iNtuition uses Perceiver meaning to build images in Mercy strategy. This creates the strong rules. Then, Introverted Feeling uses emotion to interact with the image of ‘God’ that is formed. This produces the personal exception.

The approach of the Buddhist INFJ ‘God,’ in contrast, is exactly the opposite. Initially, the whole concept of ‘God’ is called into question. This is because the Facilitator will only enter into the path of philosophy when his society is falling apart. Obviously, a path that is triggered by shaky ‘gods’ will not have strong faith in any one ‘God.’ In addition, the endless self-analyzing of the philosopher tends to exalt his opinion of his own self, and this confirms him as a skeptic of all established forms of 'knowing.'

The resulting hodge-podge of facts and 'facts' fragments the mind of the philosopher, driving him to search for Teacher integration. This he achieves by denying logic.[UUUUU] This denial expresses itself as an antipathy towards any form of rules or conscience.

INFP processing 'believes' in an external God of truth.

·    It feels that this ‘God’ wants to know me personally.

INFJ thought begins with personal 'knowing.'

·    It then feels that me is the source of an internally based ‘God.’

This free-thinking agnosticism lasts until the third stage when the general Teacher theory of ‘Oneness’ begins to touch Mercy strategy. The philosopher then changes his tune and declares that there really is a ‘God,’ that ‘God’ lives within and that ‘God’ comes from me.

Finally, the now ‘religious’ agnostic realizes that his Teacher theory of ‘Oneness’ requires underlying complexity in order to retain its appearance of generality. He finds this complexity in the interlocking interactions of his culture. Thus, the ex-free-thinker concludes by stating that everyone should submit to the dictates of culture, and this is a form of conscience.

I have suggested that the ‘God’ of revealed 'truth' differs from the ‘God’ of philosophy. Despite this, it is possible for one of these ‘God’s to turn into the other. This occurs, for both INFP and INFJ, because thought can stretch beyond their own particular MBTI® category.[VVVVV]

Let us look first at the case of revealed 'truth.' Suppose that the internal Mercy experiences produced by comprehending a Holy Book become externalized. Those who encounter these religious experiences will then approach religion from a new perspective—that of Extraverted Feeling. If they are then taught a lot of religious doctrine, this will create in them a dominant of Introverted iNtuition. What do you get when you combine an auxiliary of Extraverted Feeling with Introverted iNtuition? The INFJ—the philosopher. The end result will be a shift in peoples’ perception of ‘God.’ Those who 'believed' in a ‘God’ of revealed 'truth' will now turn to a ‘God’ of Buddhism.

Can such a transition occur? Observation indicates that it is common. I have already described how revealed 'truth' surrounds itself naturally with a church system of holy places, holy rituals, holy times, and holy men.[WWWWW] We have also seen that religious 'belief' leads to religious doctrine, and we shall see later that church systems emphasize study and teaching. Therefore, it is common for the revealed 'truth' of one generation to seed the philosophy of the next.

A similar sort of transition can occur within philosophy. Suppose that philosophers write many books. Suppose also that they turn their focus from general Teacher understanding to the internal feelings that Mercy thought within them senses as they build a general Teacher theory of philosophy.[XXXXX]

The end result will be a system of revealed 'truth.' Those who follow the philosophers will study their books in order to achieve the Mercy ecstasies described by these philosophers. This succeeding generation will develop INFP processing, because they start with Extraverted iNtuition in order to discover Introverted Feeling. As before, this too leads to a shift in peoples’ perception of ‘God.’ ‘He’ now turns into an external Being teaching moral rules revealed through a Holy Book.

This process may continue. Succeeding generations may respond to the new revealed 'truth' by building shrines, following rituals and appointing clergy, prompting a shift back to philosophy.

Can philosophy really turn into a religion with its own revealed 'truth'? Yes. Library shelves groan under the weight of volumes written by philosophers. Navel-gazers who achieve moments of emotional ecstasy are seldom able to keep their feelings to themselves, but lure others on with visions of personal bliss. And, if we look at Asian society, we see that Buddhist philosophy has created its own religion of Buddhism, with revealed 'truth' and personal encounters with ‘God.’ We also notice that this second-generation spirituality has all of the hallmarks of a religious 'faith.' The emphases may differ, but the elements are there.

Thus, as one generation follows another, the tendency is for philosophy and revealed 'truth' to become increasingly similar. Philosophy acquires religious overtones, and religion has its philosophers.

[A] Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, Myers-Briggs, and MBTI are trademarks or registered trademarks of the MBTI Trust, Inc., in the United States and other countries. As you can conclude from my analysis of MBTI, I am not associated in any way with them officially. If you find all of the ® signs annoying, then please remember that back in the time of the guilds, all knowledge was privately owned, and that the first encyclopedia was partially written in order to make knowledge free.

[B] I will use the term ‘mental symmetry’ to refer to the system described in this book.

[C] The Enneagram system does not map directly on to MBTI®. This is because it takes a different approach to human thought. Preliminary analysis suggests, though, that mental symmetry can be used to explain the Enneagram. That relationship, however, will have to be discussed in another book. As you will see later, the MBTI® categories turn out to be very useful for handling the material discussed in this volume.

[D] Her family name is Briggs Myers. However, the system itself is called the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator.

[E] Both Introverted and Intuitive begin with the letter I. Therefore, MBTI® capitalizes the second letter of iNtuitive, and represents it with an N.

[F] The italics are in the original.

[G] Here is a case where the letters actually coincide. Thus, S is related to ‘S.’

[H] MBTI® is based upon mental splits. Yet, it uses these divisions to build a theory of mental operation. This inherent contradiction between separation and integration means that neither side of MBTI® can be fully developed without running into problems. If one understands the mind more thoroughly, though, it is possible to put both of these aspects upon a solid footing.

[I] I should mention that we developed our theory independently of MBTI®. We did not ‘steal’ from them or adjust our theory to fit their information. Rather, it was only after we fully developed our theory that we studied MBTI® and discovered that we had sufficient tools to analyze it effectively. As we shall see later, whenever one theory can ‘swallow up’ another without modifying either of them, this is a sign that soft science is turning into hard science.

[J] Mentally speaking, he is only consciously aware of Contributor confidence. In contrast, he assumes the presence of Perceiver and Contributor confidence. If it ever ‘cracks,’ then, like a person skating on thin ice, he ‘falls through’ into the ‘cold water’ of raw experience.

[K] The few who are not Facilitators by style still make heavy use of subconscious Facilitator thought and probably spend most of their time interacting with Facilitator persons.

[L] This little fact is extremely significant and has major implications upon mental processing. We will use it extensively in the next book when we talk about ‘flipping modes.’

[M] Another major point over which we are just skimming.

[N] Could the P/J split involve abstract thought? Yes, under certain conditions. We will examine this issue in a few more pages.

[O] Here is an example of what happens when you build a theory of mental operation upon a system of splits. In order to describe how the mind functions, you have to weaken the splits into mere preferences.

[P] Under the heading of objective versus subjective.

[Q] Of course, if one holds on to the general Teacher theory that change is impossible, then change truly becomes impossible, for the only possible avenue of change has been blocked.

[R] So far, we have only looked in depth at the T/F split between objective and subjective. Later in this book we will examine the S/N split. These are the two fundamental categories of MBTI®. We will also discuss the other two splits in lesser detail.

[S] As far as I can tell, the splits described by MBTI® really do appear to be almost universally accepted—with the one major exception of S/N in the realm of technology and science. Everywhere I look, similar assumptions are being made. Thus, I view MBTI® as a paradigm of the typical worldview.

[T] This dichotomy of operation is reflected in the MBTI® four letter labeling system, which we will analyze in a few pages.

[U] Thus, the two Exhorter modes do not reflect a mental ‘split’ but rather a different flow of thought.

[V] Right now I am just giving an overview of thought. This circuit contains many subtleties that we will be examining in a later volume. Among other things, we will look at how mental development alters Exhorter mode’s view of excitement and boredom.

[W] But what about those who ignore maps and just follow road signs? Ah, road signs are a concrete example of intellectual thought, in which Teacher words hold sway. Here we are examining practical thought. As we shall see in a few pages, it is possible for humans to create artificial environments that operate differently than the natural world.

[X] This is how a catalog of internal splits can turn into a theory of mental operation.

[Y] It is also possible for buying to be driven by feeling. The person who follows this type of approach usually spends his money fairly quickly, which explains why advertising tries to promote it.

[Z] How can something non-emotional acquire emotion? First, through repetition, in the same way that an old shoe feels comfortable. Second, by triggering Teacher thought, which notices the order-within-complexity and feels good. Third, by tying together many Mercy experiences of beneficial interaction. We will look at this factor in the next book when analyzing the source of Mercy feelings.

[AA] Neurological literature about the basal ganglia (the brain location for Exhorter and Contributor strategies) talks about a ‘direct’ and an ‘indirect’ path, in which the flow of information through the direct path is controlled by the indirect path.

[BB] Just to remind you: the MBTI® split of Perceiving is associated with Exhorter thought whereas the cognitive style of Perceiver is behind the MBTI® category of Judging.

[CC] The ESTP is the practical businessman, whereas the ENTP works more with the world of ‘high finance.’

[DD] In the book Gifts Differing, Myers-Briggs gives no reason for her basic premises but simply states them without explanation. However, it appears that her principles are accurate and can be analyzed.

[EE] OK. Maybe there is a non-physical part that goes somewhere. But, the physical body sure is stuck in a rut—about six feet under.

[FF] The visitor finds it exciting because, for him, it is novel and exotic. But, try living in it and then see how long the excitement lasts.

[GG] Feelings are primary and are provided by Mercy and Teacher thought. Exhorter excitement is secondary and derives from feelings. In essence, excitement is strength of feeling modified by novelty. Anything sufficiently new will be exciting, even if its inherent feeling is shallow. In contrast, even the deepest feelings will lose their excitement if they contain no novelty.

[HH] I suggest that this is an accurate analogy, because Perceiver facts, like roads, are not independent entities. Instead, all facts connect Mercy experiences, just as all roads connect places.

[II] In all of my research, I have never yet found a situation in which there is not a symmetry between analytical and associative thought—between ‘left brain and right brain’ thinking. For those who have problems with double negatives, I just suggested that symmetry always works.

[JJ] This is the primary symmetry. Other symmetries exist as well.

[KK] In terms of neurology, S/N is a left hemisphere split involving cortical thought, whereas I/E is a left hemisphere split that affects subcortical operation.

[LL] Remember my previous footnote about traffic signs being a concrete example of artificially created intellectual thought?

[MM] We saw in the first book that Teacher strategy interprets words, visual outlines, rhythm and movement path.

[NN] I put the word ‘Judging’ in quotes, because we are looking here at left-hemisphere thought, whereas Judging describes a right-hemisphere split. We will expand on this relationship in a few pages.

[OO] This use of Extraversion and Introversion describes something different than the I/E split we have examined so far. We will be comparing these two usages in the next section.

[PP] In the book Gifts Differing, she states this without explanation. We will provide a possible reason for her conclusions in just a moment.

[QQ] By the way, if you understand this symbolic manipulation, you have grasped the most complicated aspect of MBTI® theory.

[RR] Notice that MBTI® assigns two different meanings to P/J and I/E. On the one hand, both are primary splits. On the other hand, P/J is used to classify T/F and S/N, and I/E describes dominant and auxiliary. We will discuss this in the next section.

[SS] Teacher and Server interact extensively, as do Perceiver and Mercy. Thus it makes most sense to use these styles in pairs. It is also quite easy for Mercy and Perceiver thought to cooperatively ‘face’ in one mental ‘direction,’ and for the Teacher/Server pair to ‘face’ the other. As an external illustration of this mental compatibility, it is common for a Teacher person to marry a Server person, or for a Perceiver person to marry a Mercy person. 

[TT] Sensing uses Server content to build general Teacher theories, whereas iNtuition uses Teacher thought to fill Server strategy with content.

[UU] Thinking uses Perceiver facts to create artificial Mercy experiences, whereas Feeling uses Mercy emotions to mesmerize Perceiver thought into 'believing' what is 'true.'

[VV] This ‘flipping of modes’ is an extremely important concept, which we will be using extensively in a later book.

[WW] Remember that Exhorter mode moves through one hemisphere in the light of a fixed anchor in the other hemisphere. The undisciplined Exhorter finds his excitement in the external world. In an almost Pavlovian manner, he moves his body to where experiences are most exciting, therefore his dominant is Sensing. However, because he is an Exhorter by style, his mind links Mercy and Teacher thought. Thus he is also usually talking—this talk, however, is generally emotionally manipulative and lacking in content. He ‘works with his mouth,’ as an aid to Sensing. In the visionary Exhorter, the mental focus switches to the other hemisphere, in particular to iNtuition. His talk now presents steps of action to the ‘maturity’ he has discovered.

[XX] In Canada, a politician can have a ‘private life’ full of strange experiences, and argue that this has ‘nothing to do with his public office.’ But, he can be forced to resign if he makes a disparaging comment about some ethnic group or lifestyle.

[YY] Just reminding you that the word ‘Perceiving’ here refers to the MBTI® split of Perceiving, not the mental strategy of Perceiver.

[ZZ] I am not saying that it is wrong to call T/F Judging and S/N Perceiving. For the average person in a natural environment, this description is valid. However, we are attempting to go beyond average in an environment which is becoming increasingly unnatural.

[AAA] The last rehearsal before a performance is usually a dress rehearsal, in which the entire presentation is done in the order and manner in which it will be performed, making as few stops as possible. In essence, a dress rehearsal signifies the transition from Judging to Perceiving.

[BBB] But if the external world is composed of Perceiver objects, doesn’t this also limit the Extraverted mindset? This, I suggest, is a secondary limitation. As war, violence, and bad habits demonstrate, any action that can be done, will be done, regardless of the effect that this has upon Perceiver objects.

[CCC] Remember that Server sequences shape Teacher theories in the same way that Perceiver facts organize Mercy experiences.

[DDD] If we look at how people lived at the beginning of the twentieth century, we can see how prevalent technology has become since that time.

[EEE] Our physical bodies have limited awareness and occupy a specific location, restricting our range of Mercy experiences. And, our limited strength and partial skills restrict the Server actions that we can perform.

[FFF] In other words, his thinking would be free of both Mercy and Teacher idolatry. In addition, his thinking would go beyond the 16 types described by MBTI®.

[GGG] When I wrote the first book, we had not yet made an analysis of MBTI®. Therefore, if the two theories can be integrated retroactively, as we appear to be doing now, this indicates that both sides are doing accurate and careful research.

[HHH] But couldn’t a single individual create feelings of Teacher generality by combining his actions into a general plan? Theoretically, yes. However, because of the S/N split, a person tends to focus either on his present actions or on the general plan. Seldom does he combine the two. It is working together with other individuals that forces the mind to consider simultaneously both order and complexity.

[III] In other words, the two me’s may be functioning in similar ways, but their operationhas not yet been integrated.

[JJJ] In other words, I suggest that it is possible for an individual to tackle the S/N split after he has integratedT/F and P/J. In contrast, a society can approach S/N directly, without dealing first with the other splits.

[KKK] After all, if a society can tackle S/N directly, then an individual who works his way through to this level will have to reconcile his personal path with the corporate road taken by others. Similarly, if people co-operate in social transformation to produce results that are impossible for any one person to achieve, then an individual integrating S/N would also have to experience something similar.

[LLL] Many people find my first book incomprehensible, even though others tell me that it is really very simple to understand. This is because the previous volume deals with the topic of integrating T/F and defining me. Such material only makes sense to those who have already had some practice with tying together facts and feelings.

[MMM] This book uses social transformation and societal transformation as synonyms.

[NNN] By the way, this is one of the strongest argument against the primacy of the MBTI® categories. The emergence of science and technology shows that one of the MBTI® splits (in this case S/N) can be integrated. Why hasn’t MBTI® picked up on this? Because social transformation works with the objective and MBTI® studies the subjective. And, we just saw that when T/F remains divided, then behavior in the objective (which integrates S/N) will not be related to subjective behavior (in which S/N remains distinct).

[OOO] We will look later on at the connection between revealed 'truth' and the T/F split. Initially, that connection may appear to contradict what is written here. However, the key is to realize that revealed 'truth' is a transitional form that leads from an S/N split to a T/F division. In other words, it begins with an S/N auxiliary and lead to a T/F dominant. We shall also see this transition appearing when we look at history and holiness.

[PPP] There may be other ways of stimulating Extraverted iNtuition, but this one is the most obvious in today’s world.

[QQQ] Science also teaches with books. But, it maintains its emphasis upon Extraverted iNtuition by placing a heavy emphasis upon mathematics—an external world of iNtuition. It is therefore not generally as troubled by heresy as is religion.

[RRR] But why will this image of ‘God’ be labeled ‘He’? That is such a loaded question that I will not even attempt to answer it. However, if we know the mental differences between male and female thought, and if we know the method by which an image of ‘God’ is formed, then I suggest that a logical answer can be worked out.

[SSS] Science also includes one additional step of testing the general Teacher theory that has been developed. This is done by Server thought, which we have not yet examined in detail.

[TTT] Even when science works with static events, it seems to approach the situation in an active way. The goal is not just to file and to classify, but rather to study the relationship between the various elements.

[UUU] He was a Teacher person, and therefore driven mentally to bring order into complexity. His initial success jump-started scientific thought and paved the way for other researchers.

[VVV] See, there is a type of ‘religious belief’ that goes so far beyond traditional religion that it isn’t even recognized as religious.

[WWW] Notice that we are talking here about resolving the MBTI® T/F split. Hold that thought for a few pages.

[XXX] Oooh. Now we referring to the MBTI® I/E split.

[YYY] Morality means living within the rules. That sounds awfully much like integrating the MBTI® P/J division.

[ZZZ] A few paragraphs earlier we used science as a pattern for understanding the shortcomings of MBTI®. Now we will use MBTI® to analyze the limitations of science.

[AAAA] Unless they are applying for a research grant, trying to get tenure, or attempting to work their way up the university ladder.

[BBBB] This schizophrenic process is implemented through a division of labor, which, by definition, requires a group. Hence the term societal transformation.

[CCCC] Unless the individual integrates both T/F and P/J and then tackles S/N. However, that type of individual will be hard to find in a world such as ours which accepts the split between subjective and objective as universal 'truth.'

[DDDD] INTP = dominant Introverted Thinking or IT built upon an auxiliary Extraverted iNtution or EN.

[EEEE] Remember that the MBTI® categories define mental splits. A person emphasizes one side of the division and suppresses the other. He does this because it is the easiest and shortest way to develop and maintain mental life.

[FFFF] Why books? Why not talking or television? Because talking involves people which trigger Mercy feelings. Similarly, television contains pictures which program Mercy thought. The INTP, however, emphasizes Teacher emotion and not Mercy feelings.

[GGGG] By forming and breaking connections, Perceiver strategy indirectly controls the path that Exhorter thought takes on its journey in search of emotional excitement.

[HHHH] Those who follow New Age thinking sometimes assert that we are no better than previous cultures. However, I suggest that one day of living in the filthy, putrid, crude, superstitious, and brutal conditions of the past would convince them otherwise.

[IIII] The emerging mindset of political correctness is producing a new philosophy of historical revisionism.

[JJJJ] Combine this with the previous point, and you end up with philosophers 'knowing' that they cannot 'know' anything—adamantly defending their right not to be adamant. If faced with this contradiction, the philosopher may stop asserting that 'knowing' is impossible, but he will continue to censor and reject any beliefs that touch the philosopher’s region of un-'knowing.'

[KKKK] The next section will explain the connection between philosophy, psychology, and self-analysis.

[LLLL] That is why the beginning of this book developed a general Teacher theory that made me feel bad about its current condition.

[MMMM] I am not making this up. These are almost direct quotes from the Encyclopaedia Britannica.

[NNNN] Remember the five ‘whammies.’

[OOOO] Mature in the sense of ‘fully developed.’

[PPPP] Remember that me rises in relative importance whenever I think about a topic. Therefore, thinking too much about emotional 'truth' will eventually cause me to doubt these 'facts.' Ultimately, all that is left is me thinking—the starting point for Descartes.

[QQQQ] This is why I have chosen to discuss Facilitator strategy last. Unless the other modes of thought are in place, there is no point in examining Facilitator thinking. Note that we are looking here at the relationship between Facilitator thought and mental content—mediated by Perceiver, Mercy, Server and Teacher thought. There can also be struggles between Facilitator mode and the two other composite styles (Exhorter and Contributor).

[RRRR] This is a major idea, and I am stating it in only one sentence. Lane examines this topic in much more detail in his book, ‘The Mark of a Beast.’

[SSSS] This separation is breaking down. Many universities now have associated research parks. This bottom-line thinking indicates the emergence of Contributor thought.

[TTTT] Not all Facilitator persons value statistics in this way, but those who follow abstract thought inevitably generate reams of written data.

[UUUU] In addition, a society such as ours that pursues external growth while ignoring internal development will achieve social transformation at the expense of personal transformation.

[VVVV] If the three composite styles are to be included, then there must also be excitement for the Exhorter, plans for the Contributor, and fine-tuning for the Facilitator.

[WWWW] The Facilitator person can see subconscious memories but he is unaware of subconscious processing. Therefore, he accepts individual memories while running roughshod over modes of thought. In other words, he accepts mental software while rejecting mental hardware.

[XXXX] By the way, I suggest that this section provides an explanation for the ‘Dedication’ in my first book, which I dedicated “To Life, whose Form gave me hope when all else failed.” Apparently, people who read this find it jarring and presumptuous. In the very section where I am supposed to acknowledge others, I lift up a creation of my ownimagination. If subjective 'truth' can only be discovered through the methods of philosophy, then this is a valid conclusion—it is arrogant for me to dedicate my work to a pure figment of my imagination. But, if it is possible for Perceiver thought to discover universal truth about mental ‘life’—the assertion of this book—then I am not the creator of such 'truth'but rather its discoverer. By acknowledging the ‘form of life’ as my final inspiration, I, as a Perceiver person, am submitting conscious thought to the principle that Perceiver absolutes are not independent entities, but rather determined by mental ‘life’—an integrated set of requirements involving the cooperation of all seven cognitive styles.

[YYYY] This means giving solid facts to Perceiver thought, pleasant experiences to Mercy strategy, and so on.

[ZZZZ] We know that Sensing is not involved because the typical philosopher concludes his analysis by stating that his understanding cannot be applied.

[AAAAA] In technical terms, Perceiver thought accepts the specific arrangement of single situations to be universal 'truth.' Thus, if I am bitten by a dog, then Perceiver strategy 'knows' that all dogs always bite people.

[BBBBB] Don’t blame me for this list. Most of the material comes from Please Understand Me by David Keirsey and Marilyn Bates.

[CCCCC] It is also fairly common to find Mercy psychologists. One thinks, for example, of Dr. Spock, the famous child care expert. Mercy psychologists are often well-versed in the various Facilitator philosophies.

[DDDDD] The Facilitator is able to observe himself as if he is another person. This is because he is conscious in the ‘secretary’ of the mind, a mode which monitors and adjusts mental operation.

[EEEEE] I refer to this type of logic as ‘proof by example.’ It is also prevalent in the Exhorter person.

[FFFFF] To the extent that the Facilitator person makes the best of the existing situation, to that extent his overall direction will be determined by his internal and external environment.

[GGGGG] The Mercy person also has a very limited form of mental awareness. He is naturally gifted at deciphering a person’s emotional state but finds it much more difficult to work out methods of changing this condition.

[HHHHH] This is one of the main motivations behind political correctness.

[IIIII] As I suggested earlier, the Facilitator philosopher respects subconscious memories while suppressing subconscious processing.

[JJJJJ] He is therefore skilled at listening to someone, and yet at the same time not hearing a single word that is being said. For him it comes easily, because Perceiver strategy within his mind, which is responsible for comprehension, is often highly fragmented.

[KKKKK] Facilitator thought plays an essential role—if the rest of the mind is programmed. When mental development is incomplete, though, Facilitator strategy has a habit of winning the battle while losing the war.

[LLLLL] Our research suggests that essentially all philosophers are Facilitator persons. In contrast, INFJ traits other than philosophy can be found in Mercy and Contributor persons as well as in Facilitators.

[MMMMM] 4 = 2 + 1 + 1. The math is simple. The process is not.

[NNNNN] Wait. Didn’t I say that ‘life’ requires the four simple styles? Now I bring in Contributor and Exhorter thought. Huh? This book is examining the content required for ‘life.’ Once the mental ‘computer’ is programmed, then the composite styles do the actual running of the program. Contributor and Exhorter strategies do play a critical role in integrating the mind, mainly in the realm of choice and motivation. Whenever one chooses to follow one option instead of another, Contributor thought is responsible for this choice. Whenever motivation changes, it is because Exhorter mode is following a different mental path. Generally speaking, if the content is in place, then drive and decision follow. Thus, as a first approximation, we can ignore the role played by Exhorter and Contributor strategies. It will be covered in the next book.

[OOOOO] This mechanism is the mirror image of the way in which general understanding grows into an image of ‘God’ in the INFP.

[PPPPP] Whoa! Heavy concept. If this statement is accurate, then it has major implications. You work them out.

[QQQQQ] History indicates that the Exhorter person often has what those around him refer to as a ‘magnetic’ personality, and that it can affect the health of others.

[RRRRR] This itself is a ‘psychic’ statement because it uses a general Teacher theory to integrate a host of emotional Mercy experiences.

[SSSSS] This third stage leads to two possibilities. First, mental development may extend beyond the limited ‘life’ of the MBTI® categories. This will occur if a person continues to respect his original assumptions. Second, he may change MBTI® modes by basing his thought in a new set of assumptions.

[TTTTT] Or facts—without the straight quotes. The key feature is Perceiver stability.

[UUUUU] Perceiver logic creates solid Perceiver facts. But, forming solid facts into a general Teacher understanding is like assembling a jigsaw puzzle—the pieces only go together in a specific way. The mind that goes ‘beyond logic’ forces the pieces to fit into a grand theory by ‘rubbing the sharp edges off the Perceiver facts.’ In the extreme, the Buddhist theory of ‘Oneness’ fits everything together instantly by denying all Perceiver ‘shape’ as illusion.

[VVVVV] I mentioned before that the MBTI® modes describe the minimum that is required for mental ‘life.’ We now see some of the ways in which ‘life’ can stretch beyond this minimum.

[WWWWW] Remember that so-called secular education has its own revealed 'truth,' along with ancillary holy places, institutions, and clergy.

[XXXXX] I use this convoluted language because Mercy strategy really senses a combination of Teacher and Mercy feelings. Mercy thought may not be able to ‘see’ Teacher memories, but it can definitely feel Teacher emotions.