If your Pro favorite functions are both introverted or both extraverted:
Consider the possibility that one of them might be your third function. The third function is a function we often play with because it is in the same attitude as the first. Consult the one-page chart in Table 4, Sequence of functions and archetypes for all types, to find types that have your two favorite functions in the first and third positions, e.g., INFJs have Ni-first and Ti-third, and ENTJs have Те-first and Se-third.
If your Pro favorite functions are both judging functions or perceiving functions:
Consult Table 3, Functions in depth, and look for the differences between the two. Such functions are oppositional, representing one of the most significant polarities in Jung's system, and so if one is a preference, the other will be in shadow. It can be the case that a function has been suppressed by our culture or family of origin; if the introverted and extraverted forms of a function have not yet been differentiated, the two functions remain fused in the psyche and hard to identify.
If the type profile in Table 9 does not seem to fit you:
Your selected first function may actually be your second, and vice versa. Go to Table 7, Function-archetypes for all sixteen types, and read how your two favorite functions tend to express in both the first and second positions. Fox- instance, if you have chosen introverted feeling (Fi) and extraverted intuition (Ne), you could be either an INFP or an ENFP. To determine which, read the type profiles of each (Table 9) and/or read about Fi-first and Fi-second and Ne-first and Ne-second in Table 7.
If you are not sure of your dominant function:
Try to identify your inferior function. Read about all of the functions in the fourth position in Table 7, Function-archetypes for all sixteen types, i.e., Si-fourth, Se-fourth, Ni-fourth, etc. The fourth function, called the inferior function, carries both shame and embarrassment and also idealization. We tend to experience problems in the arena of the fourth function, and we also tend to project it onto partners and colleagues to let them carry it for us. The fouxth function is the lowest function of ego-consciousness and therefore is more available to us than the lower ones and a little easier to use for assessment purposes.
If you brow the dominant function but not the auxiliary:
Consult the one-page chart in Table 4 to find the two possible type codes with that dominant function. Using the two type codes you’ve identified, refer to Table 9, Profiles of the sixteen types, and read the descriptions of the two types.
If you are still confused:
Read through all of the type profiles in Table 9 in order to rule some out. For the remaining possible types, consult the one-page chart in Table 4 to find then- dominant and auxiliary functions, and read about these functions in Table 3, The functions in depth. Then, consult Table 7, Function-archetypes for all types, and read about how each of these functions manifests in the top two positions.
How to identify another’s type code
In some ways, it is easier to identify another’s type than one’s own, thanks to visual
and verbal cues to type. A frequently overlooked aspect of assessment is the physical demeanor of the subject: gestures, facial animation, speech patterns. Although we all use all of the functions, we cannot easily change these physical habits, which tend to form in childhood. Therefore, an essential step in assessment is an analysis of the subject’s physical presentation. Follow the steps listed above for self- assessment, beginning with Table 1, Visual and verbal clues to type and the eight functions. For example, one of the classic clues to dominant introversion is a pause before speaking, especially apparent when answering a question, whereas a clue to dominant extraversion is an immediate response with no intervening pause, and sometimes an interruption before the questioner finishes speaking. Knowing these physical “tells” can help compensate for the subjectivity of a self-report instrument.
Genesis of the data in the tables
The material in the tables has many sources. While John Beebe’s writings and lectures are a major source, many others contributed their insights, including analysts, therapists, Jungian scholars, type practitioners, and participants in the workshops led by Beebe. The majority of these workshops originated with Robert McAlpine (ISTJ), president of the training company Type Resources, Inc. McAlpine attended the 1993 conference in Long Beach, CA, where John Beebe gave the keynote address challenging type practitioners to educate themselves about Jung’s system (see Chapter 5). McAlpine experienced the consternation that many practitioners must have felt when hearing from Beebe that their understanding of Jung’s typology was incomplete (McAlpine, 2011). Nevertheless, determined to fill the gaps in his type education, McAlpine invited Beebe to present a workshop about his model at break-even cost. This began a long collaboration between Beebe and McAlpine, whereby Type Resources sponsored workshops on the eight-fimction/eight-archetype model for almost two decades.
McAlpine and his original team of trainers spent the years from 1993 to 1998 trying to understand only the function aspect of Beebe’s model. In 1998, McAlpine sponsored the first workshop with Beebe in Emeryville, CA, a workshop that was exclusively about the functions and had nothing to do with the archetypes. McAlpine invited experienced type trainers to the workshop to discuss the eight Jungian functions and how they understood them. At that workshop, a number of conflicts broke out about how to define the eight functions, including an argument between the ENTPs and the ENTJs over the meaning of extraverted thinking. Although the workshop failed to achieve a consensus on the definitions, the workshop made it clear that different types have different ideas about the functions, corroborating Beebe’s insight (which was an elaboration of von Franz’s insight) that a function operates differently for different types depending on its position in each type’s hierarchy of functions. A number of books came out around this time on the meaning of the eight functions, notably, Dick Thompson’s Jung’s Function-Altitudes Explained (1996) and Linda Berens’ Dynamics of Personality Type (1999) but the Beebe archetypes were not yet well understood.