‘Fluidity’ on Jung types (aka fluidity of “cognitive” functions)

I had saw on the internet a few (ok, some…) websites that did talk about the fluidity of one cognitive function (that is rigorously rather a type in Jung typology) at the expense of the other – the last one that I did remember explained how ‘Fe is fluid’ and compared how Te is more constrained than Fe and ignored Ni entirely – saying that a INFJ has fluidity and chameleon capabilities because Fe is ‘fluid’ and then build an argument over that.

I had saw similar arguments for some few other “cognitive functions” (Jung types) around. I had put some thought of that and I had “found” out that basically all functions and types are fluid except a little bit for Ti and Fi. However, we must pay attention to dichotomy: For Fe and Te, and partially Ni and Si, are related to J, however there is no ‘fluidity’ on the dichotomy definitions for J. In this aspect, the fluidity of pure MBTI dichotomy is linked with Perceiving and Intuition, and actually both the fluidity of these two dichotomies and the fluidity of cognitive functions (or, rather, types, I am migrating towards the rigorous name) can actually create holes on the theories – I won’t really be protective or making them sound poetical and perfect, the ‘fluidity’ of Jung types does generate problems to the whole typology, but they also affect even more the tests and some few people does use that as an argument that tests doesn’t work so they can say whatever they want to say, it will be true anyway (since no test or evidence will prove otherwise, since it is on the person’s core definition that they don’t work). So, time to get started.

Fluidity of Te

Te looks so rigid, right? Things like procedures, ‘objectivity’, plans, scheduling, organization etc… They don’t look fluid at all. A good portion of this, however, is just Thinking+Judgment (TJ), sometimes alternated into T or J, and they come from stuff that are post-Jung – they do not belong to Jung Te per se, even though some of them are good additions.

Jung Te is about the intellectual formula – I like to repeat this over and over again to try to compensate the fact that basically none of the sources I had read about Te (that are not Jung) had ever mentioned this expression while this is the fundamental core of Te – and from the intellectual formula is where the plans, scheduling, organization (note that organization is almost pure Jish, applying to FJ, NJ, SJ, etc…), and it is the intellectual formula which decides what is objective and what is not in most of the times, except when the Te-dom is still picking an ‘intellectual’ formula.

Te depends a lot on the intellectual formula; However, not all formulas are static, some of them can be a dynamic, and on there relies the fluidity of Te. Since the formula shapes the Te-dom, the weakness for the system here is that there is lots of possibilities into what the formula can be. TJ construct from MBTI is partially based on statistics and these statistics mostly comes from western people from 20^th century. However, people from different times or from Asia imminently will start to deviate from the most common formulas from the western, and that changes a little bit of Te is and it is something that reduces the connections from Te and what we understand as TJ. And there are one or two tricky things: First, and this one is slowly happening already, some intellectual formulas fights each other and there is one of them on the administration sector that is actually anti-bureaucracy: It is an intellectual formula that is against too tight procedures, more in favour of more dynamic plans and may not give a big value of organization. Subscribers to that will have a tendency to migrate from ESTJ to ENTJ just because of a different formula – a subscription to a formula can actually change what Te-doms answer on the questionnaire. The second flaw is – what if the formula has Fi-components? I never ever saw that before ever, but there is this possibility: An intellectual formula with some primordial values, that gives some value to feeling and emotions and moral sentimentalism, and etc… Might look exceptionally awkward on tests, but I haven’t seem such formula like that.

Fluidity of Fe

There is indeed some similarities between Te and Fe. Fe is about finding the suitable man and being the suitable woman, or finding the suitable woman and being the suitable man, and that resembles an intellectual formula. The manners of Fe, the things that the ‘shared feelings and social values’ does have some shape on the Fe-dom, and the Fe-dom is likely to adjust her/himself for it. The fluidity of Fe is about meeting others expectations in general to ‘honour’ the shared feelings – the feelings of the person are all somewhat ‘serving a purpose’, regardless if this purpose is to keep something to the past on the present or has something to do with something latter on the future. In the attempt to be a suitable person, the Fe-dom adjusts her/himself to the environment and the expectations of feelings of others, making the person more fluid on that way.

There is one flaw here: If a Fe-dom is on a room of thinkers, then appearing like a thinker might be the solution to be a suitable person. I wouldn’t go far enough to say that on an environment full of Ti-doms, Fe will emulate or go fluid to Ti, I find that still unlikely due to the “Ti nature”.

Fluidity of Ni

Fluidity of Ni perhaps is the most interesting one and a little bit hard to explain, and it could not look less mystical than what I am going to tell. This one need you to be informed not only about Jung Ni, but to know what Collective Unconscious means (and archetypes on the alternative explanation).

The fluidity of Ni relates to the “become who you foresee you need to be” phrase that relates to Ni. Let me explain, or re-explain, what that is. Basically, Ni has access to the Collective Unconscious in a way that it can access the life of ancestors – yup, something like that (if you want to make it look a little bit less mythical always think genetically) – and has the ‘ability’ to somewhat incorporate some of the personality, characteristics and abilities of former ancestors – the unconscious of the person just picks which former ancestor is. Or, in a different way, we can also say that Ni has a strong access to many archetypes and can pick which of them the person needs to be in order to fill or pursue something. How the access of these ancestors and archetypes can be explained in both ways; First, and the best to explain, is the mystical route where the person has access to the souls of ancestors and can be partially be possessed by them, giving them some of the abilities of the souls; Another still mystical one is that the archetypes can work as special spiritual figures (oh, I love this idea) that gives the person some abilities; Or, the more boring and yet more ‘rational’ explanation, Ni access the genes in a different way that is able to activate or deactivate and to ‘wake’ different genes of the person that can express different characteristics for a desirable task (this still deviates a lot from science).

Major problem, and I think this one is very real: What if the fluidity of Ni happen to come up with an ancient Se-dom, including the incorporation of Se-dom preferences, abilities, mindset, etc…?? Well, that glitches the system hardly – because we now have a person with a strong Se and also strong Ni, incorporating an ancestor that actually pay attention to the present moment instead of being a Se-tard. This happens in fiction with some Ni-doms that are actually engaged into some Se activity and need to incorporate the spirit of a hero – or to simply ‘become that guy who saves the day’ (think about an action hero). Crazy, isn’t it?

Fluidity of Ne

Ne is perhaps the most fluid of all functions, and which the fluidity can be explained in many ways. The basic thing here is that Ne can pursue many possibilities, including the possibility of becoming and act like a ISXJ, what if we do try to access and let our past orient ourselves some day? Ne can simply pursue the possibility of Si stuff – which is a flaw, but not a long term flaw. The Ne fluidity can be resumed into pursuing different possibilities in simple terms.

However, the wave that Ne causes into other systems makes this flexibility be a little bit wider. Ne relates to cognitive flexibility, and it is actual a real thing that Ne can simply pursue the possibilities related to other cognitive functions, and Ne is able to actually ‘abandon’ its auxiliary function and try another one just for the sake of possibility, which is sort of a flaw.

The second system that hits Ne hard is the Big 5. Ne hits Openness to Experience, both has some good overlap between. The Openness to Experience relates to flexibility as well – it is quite covered on the Wikipedia article.

Fluidity of Se

This is easy. Se is about the present moment, so the fluidity and flexibility of Se are the demands of the present moment that can partially evoke other cognitive functions as well. Im sorry for the short explanation but there is not much I can say except this about it.

Fluidity of Si

Si relates to past experiences (ok, ok, the definitions more common over the web does, Jung Si is a beast! But at least connects to this). The past of an individual and the experiences does have some strength into how the individual personality shapes himself here, in a stronger way than other types. Some ‘types’ of past can indeed relate to some types of MBTI, Enneagram, etc… So, the Si-user past can make the Si-user go towards other types or point to some cognitive functions – and a past of full of varied adventures can even point to Ne, but that is very unlikely – a Si-user will only have a past like that if pushed, and a lot.

Si also has the relations with traditions (actually, that is sort of a stolen Te-component and the tradition thing is more about SJ than Si per si), and the traditions can be biased towards another function (actually, I do sometimes make a case that we shouldn’t link sensing to tradition due to flaws like this), but here they cannot really point much to Ne because Ne is not supposed to build any sort of tradition. But can points to other functions, so, for example, a society where there are lots of rituals and things related to other lives, ancient lives, etc… can point towards N function instead.

In general, Si is not considerable really flexible because the fluidity that I talk about here is more closer to the fluidity of ice than to the fluidity of the wind or water: It takes a lot of time to change, either the general story of the past of the person and the traditions. That is why Si fluidity is not actually much fluid, but it does exist.

Personality and Intelligence: Beyond IQ

I had featured here, on this post, about IQ and Big 5/MBTI.

However, some months later I had decided to look for things that are more abroad definitions of intelligence – which includes Critical Thinking, for example.

Here I will show some studies using broader definitions of intelligence and ability. In general, when broader definitions comes abroad, personality and intelligence & cognitive abilities have very modest correlations. What this tells, in a good bunch, is that the views of “strengths vs weakness” of each type doesn’t really apply: Personality tests and systems are more about things people do and like rather than what they are rather than things they are good or bad at (I had wrote about that in the beginning of the blog, here).

I will revise them per study and then a final evaluation of each cognition I could found – I did not find all of the cognitive abilities (anyway, there isn’t an official list of them). Notice that we are starting to hit the field of actual cognition here (this is not the cognition in the context of the “’Jungian’ cognitive functions”), and this post is also a good observation that a lot of the actual cognition that I did connect with the “cognitive functions” did not end up proceeding really that much.

Study 1: Furnham, A., Moutafi, J., & Paltiel, L. (2005). Intelligence in Relation to Jung’s Personality Types. Individual Differences Research, 3(1).

Link:

Click to access 0c9605302085f47d05000000.pdf

Table:

In this table, it is the latter letter that matters, so for example on EI +0.04 correlation with G, its Introversion that is +0.04 with g. Also notice: This article uses Jungian Type Indicator, which is sort of a MBTI alternative that is very alike the MBTI (16Personalities is one example, it is a MBTI alternative as well; The official MBTI calls them and all internet tests out there ‘pirate’), G here is a general intelligence measure, while Numerical Reasoning (NR) is a measure that partially relates to math (although it is more stats related – numbers per se rather than mathematical formulas), Verbal Reasoning (VR) measures vocabulary and language stuff, and Abstract Reasoning (AR) measure capacity to solve abstract problems.

First we need to notice how the personality is factor is a dwarf: A good ability in Numerical Reasoning is more predictive of the other 3 factors than any personality factors and very likely them combined (when you properly combine, the correlations tends to increase, but not as a sum, its more complex). As I said on IQ article, there are a bunch of stronger factors that partially dwarfs this factor, such as level of scholarship. The second thing to notice is that in this study N/S did not had much to do with intelligence (that is different than many other ones).

The correlations are so dwarfed that the only things that we can reach here is:

– P is super modestly related with g and VR. The other correlations in general are quite low, so the differences in results in each type should be quite modest.

– Type with highest g is xxTP, INTP if we consider even negligible correlations very near to zero.

– Numerical reasoning is xxTP, with ISTP and INTP very likely being the types best at it.

– Verbal reasoning is xNxP, with INTP being the best at it.

– Abstract reasoning is xNTP, with ENTP and INTP very likely being the types best at it.

– If we translate to Big 5 (without Agreeableness and Neuroticism), most g and NR are predicted as negative correlations with Conscientiousness, while Verbal Reasoning and Abstract Reasoning are predicted to be highest in High Openness to Experience and Low Conscientiousness.

2. Furnham, A., Dissou, G., Sloan, P. et al. Personality and Intelligence in Business People: A Study of Two Personality and Two Intelligence Measures. J Bus Psychol 22, 99–109 (2007).

Link

This study only has the abstract publicly available, so lets read it!

“This study examined the overlap and correlations among two well-known personality measures (NEO-PI–R; Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, MBTI) and two widely used intelligence tests (the Graduate Management Assessment (GMA), Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal (WGCTA)). The GMA measures both fluid intelligence (Gf) and crystallized intelligence (Gc), whereas WGCTA mainly assess Gc. A total of over 3,500 participants completed the four measures in a middle management assessment event. Correlational analysis showed that Extraversion on the MBTI tended to be associated with Openness and Stability on the NEO. Intuition was associated with Openness and Introversion. Feeling types tended to be both Agreeable and Neurotic while perceiving types were high on Openness but low on Agreeableness. The NEO Big Five factor of Openness was most consistently and significantly associated with both measures of intelligence (r = .09 to r =.12). Results from the MBTI showed that Intuition and Perceiving scores were positively and significantly associated with both intelligence test scores which were intercorrelated (r = .38). Regressional analysis showed that personality traits are logically and coherently related to intelligence test scores. Implications for selection and assessment are considered.”

This study is interesting because it also features a Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking test. Generally, IQ and Critical Thinking tests are good complement to each other (they don’t correlate that much, just weakly as far as I heard and saw on an article many months ago). I don’t know if the r they mention is the correlations we are used to, but I will simply use a combo of the judgment of the article and the judgment of mine (that 0.09 and 0.12 are low instead of negligible and 0.38 is somewhat relevant). So this is the point resumed:

– Critical Thinking and GMA is related to Openness to Experience and xNxP types.

3: Career Assessment: Holland’s Vocational Interests, Personality Characteristics, and Abilities

Sally A. Carless

Link

Another one that is paid, but the abstract gives a hand:

“A two-study design was used to examine the relationship between Holland’s vocational interest types, personality characteristics, and abilities. Study 1 consisted of 139 individuals (48 men and 91 women) who participated in a vocational assessment exercise. They completed the Self-Directed Search, the revised NEO Personality Inventory, and the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale—Revised. Study 2 consisted of 669 men and 206 women employed in the finance industry who completed the SDS, the Myers-Briggs Type Inventory, and a measure of general abilities, the PL-PQ. In both studies conceptually similar vocational interests and personality were found to be empirically related. A weak to moderate relationship was observed between general abilities and Investigative interests and between general abilities and the personality characteristics of Openness to Experience and Intuition. It was concluded that assessment of all three domains of interests, abilities, and personality has several advantages for assisting clients seeking vocational counselling.”

Summarizing it:

– In multiple abilities test, the positive relationship was with Openness to Experience, Intuition and Investigative Interest. I already had connected Investigative relationship with MBTI and Big Five, the Investigative Interest usually points towards INTP 5, Low E, High O, so we have here is a xNxx relationship and Openness to Experience, where the highest type is very likely INTP.

4: What facets of openness and conscientiousness predict fluid intelligence score?

JoannaMoutafi, AdrianFurnham

Link

Another one abstract only but it does tell something interesting: Which O and which C facets are related with intelligence: “Correlational analysis showed that only the Ideas and Actions sub-facets of Openness were positively correlated with gf. Order, Self-Discipline and Deliberation sub-facets of Conscientiousness were negatively correlated with gf”.

“The major replicated findings on the relationship between intelligence and the Big 5 factors of personality are that intelligence is positively correlated with Openness to Experience (Ackerman & Heggestad, 1997, Austin et al., 2002, Brand, 1994, Furnham et al., 2005, McCrae, 1994, Moutafi et al., 2003, Moutafi et al., 2005, Zeidner & Matthews, 2000), negatively correlated with Neuroticism (Ackerman & Heggestad, 1997, Furnham et al., 1998, Kyllonen, 1997, Zeidner & Matthews, 2000) and Conscientiousness.”

I am supposed these are significant correlations. High O, Low C, High S got correlation with intelligence (that translates as xNxP on MBTI)

5: Exploration of the Relationship between Measures of Critical Thinking and Personality (Leitsch;Van Hove)

Abstract: “The purpose of this study was to identify a profile of critical thinkers. Two hundred seventy-two university students completed the Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal-Form S and the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator-Form G. Statistical analysis revealed the following: Intuitive introverts with a thinking preference scored higher in the total measure of critical thinking skill.”

– INTX scored higher on WGCTA.

6: Analysis of MBTI type patterns in college scholars

Wendy A. Folger, Hugo E. Kanitz, Ann E. Knudsen and Sherene McHenry

Link

Abstract: “In this study, the MBTI was administered to recipients of competitive scholarships (full tuition, room, board, and stipend) awarded to the brightest incoming freshmen at Central Michigan University (based on GPA, essay and interviews). The purpose was to assess where Thinking is expressed in the personalities of gifted and talented college students. A five year population of Centralis Scholars, N=93, was examined to see if and how it might differ from the CAPT Reference group, N= 28356. Fifty seven percent of the scholars had results with Thinking evenly split between being in the Inferior and Tertiary. The remaining scholars (43%) had thinking in their Dominate or Auxiliary. The results suggest that logic may be in the unconscious of gifted and talented individuals, which tends to defy conventional wisdom.”

This article doesn’t help this much, but I re-find this abstract and remember that this is the only article that I ever saw using typology the way I explain it on Jung Typology Explained. What is meant here is that the T function is mostly tertiary, sometimes secondary or inferior, in gifted college students, or:

– Remembering Jung “Stack” with an example: T>N>S>F is a T-n type “stack”.

– 43% of gifted students were T>x>x>x or x>T>x>x.

– 57% of gifted students were x>x>T>x or x>x>x>T.

– I can’t read the article but hopefully the Grant Stack won’t show up! Even if it does, the abstract presents it on an interpretative way in Jung typology (without signing E/I and using 4-letter codes).

– We do know by that that their sample had 57% feelers and 43% thinkers, which is sort of unusual for gifted students (taking in account the other studies, in general it is expected to be half-half or slightly towards thinking).

7: Working memory note

Working Memory does not have any significant relationship with personality on Big Five (source).

8: Angelina R. Sutin, Yannick Stephan, Martina Luchetti, Jason E. Strickhouser, Damaris Aschwanden & Antonio Terracciano (2021) The Association Between Five Factor Model Personality Traits and Verbal and Numeric Reasoning, Aging, Neuropsychology, and Cognition

Link

Abstract: “Five-factor model (FFM) personality traits are related to basic cognitive functions and risk of cognitive impairment in late life. The present study addresses whether FFM traits are also associated with a more complex cognitive function, reasoning, across adulthood. We used seven samples to examine the relation between personality and verbal (total N= 39,177) and numeric (total N= 76,388) reasoning. A meta-analysis indicated higher Neuroticism was associated modestly with worse performance on verbal and numeric reasoning tasks. Openness was associated with better verbal reasoning and was unrelated to numeric reasoning. Surprisingly, Extraversion was associated modestly with worse performance in both domains, and Conscientiousness was essentially unrelated to reasoning. Agreeableness was unrelated to reasoning. There was significant heterogeneity across the samples but only limited evidence for moderation by age or sex. Consistent with other cognitive domains, the results suggested that Neuroticism is related to worse performance globally, whereas Openness tends to be associated with better verbal abilities. Among the unexpected findings was the better reasoning of introverts. The pattern also suggests that the common positive association between Conscientiousness and cognition does not extend to reasoning and suggests that Conscientiousness may support healthier cognitive aging through basic cognitive functions rather than through complex functions like reasoning.”

So, resuming:

– Verbal reasoning: High S, High O, Low E.

– Numerical reasoning: High S, Low E.

Conclusion and Summary

Well, outside IQ there are not thaatt much public studies, but we got some. Sadly, I could not find any study talking about deductive reasoning and inductive reasoning and personality. As far as I remember, the IQ studies last year did suggested more relationships with type and IQ than these other measures of intelligence. However, multiple measures of intelligence does consistently points out to INTP, even though the importance of dichotomies changes depending on the skill, and in general N and P are the most important, where T can be sometimes important and E/I is the least relevant. Even if the correlations are sort of low, if you unite them all in general terms the correlations gets higher, although not that higher because of the factors I mentioned on the IQ article. There is one thing, though; These cognitive abilities and intelligence are mostly related with Thinking capabilities with some N stuff as well. They don’t really account for some other skills (senso-motor-coordination skills, social skills, etc…), but these cover Thinking quite well.

So here is a general summary of multiple kinds of intelligence and typology:

– General abilities (multiple and wide abilities): xNxp; High O, Low C, High S.

– g: xntP; N/A

– IQ: iNtP; High O, Low C, High S.

– Critical Thinking (Watson-Glaser): iNtP; High O.

– Numerical Reasoning: ixtp; High S, Low E.

– Verbal Reasoning: inxP; High O, High S, Low E.

– Abstract Reasoning: xntp; N/A.

Personality & P. typology and COVID

In this post I am going to talk about two things: First, an external article about personality (big 5 factors) and sheltering at home (‘quarantining’), second, about me correlating COVID deaths with Big 5 dimensions, MBTI types, MBTI dimensions and Big 5 facets (facets from IPIP Neo). Im mostly going to show rather than explain.

1

“The study found that personality did predict sheltering-in-place compliance. All traits [Openness to Experience, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Neuroticism] were positively related to sheltering in place except extraversion, which was negatively related.

“These [extraverted] people need attention and will seek it,” Crossley said. “They will seek others and may take unnecessary risks to do it. They fear the depression they may encounter if they are away from others. If they have family or friends on lockdown with them it is a bit easier, but they need new experiences so it will be hard for them to keep a distance and not go hit up activities where they are close to others.”

There was also a positive relationship between policy stringency and sheltering in place. While there was little effect of conscientiousness, extraversion, and agreeableness, researchers found that openness and neuroticism had stronger effects on sheltering-in-place when the government had imposed less strict conditions and weaker effects when there were stricter guidelines in place.

“The defining characteristics of openness and neuroticism may suggest that individuals scoring higher on these traits may have started sheltering-in-place before it was mandated by governmental policy.

Put differently, there appear to be good reasons to assume that openness and neuroticism may have been relevant in the very beginning of the pandemic but decreased in importance once governmental intervention transformed the adoption of such behaviors from largely individual decisions to all-encompassing social norms,” as written in the study.

(…)

Overall, policy stringency and personality had similar or greater effects on compliance than age, gender, income, education, personal health, and perceived/anticipated COVID-19 severity. While the differences were particularly small, when added up they can really matter.”

Link: How the Big Five Personality Traits Predicted COVID Shelter-in-Place Compliance

2

I had made the correlations between Big 5 [5 factors model] & Big 5 facets & MBTI types per country and deaths/million and tests/million on countries. Involved 30 and a few countries in total… I actually had ignored China data, I can’t believe they had just 3 deaths/million.

Correlated significantly with more deaths per million… (0.45/1 or up) (higher, more COVID deaths)
– Number of sensors on the country (+0.62)
– Big 5 facet Gregariousness (+0.55)
– MBTI type ESTP (+0.47)
– Big 5 facet Achievement-striving (+0.47)

Correlated significantly with less deaths per million… (0.45 or up) (higher, less COVID deaths)
– MBTI type ENFJ (-0.68)
– Number of intuitives on the country (-0.62)
– Big 5 facet Vulnerability (-0.53)
– MBTI type INTJ (-0.52)
– Big 5 facet Trust (-0.50)
– MBTI type INFJ (-0.46)
Worth mentioning:
– MBTI type INTP (-0.43)


Correlated significantly with more tests per million… (0.43/1 or up) (higher, more COVID tests)
– MBTI type ISFJ (+0.58)
– Big 5 factor Extraversion (+0.46)
– MBTI type ESFJ (+0.45)
– Big 5 facet Depression (+0.43)

Correlated significantly with less tests per million… (0.45/1 or up) (lesser, more COVID tests)
– Big 5 facet Cheerfulness (-0.53)
– MBTI type ESTJ (-0.50)
– MBTI type ENTJ (-0.48)
– MBTI type INTJ (-0.47)
– Big 5 facet Discipline (-0.45)

—

This time I got stronger correlations than last year. I really do not understand why this N/S correlation with deaths, it wasn’t relevant last year (I remember it did existed but it was too mild at that time).
As I said last year may I repeat: Gregariousness relates how much people crowd with each other, which means strength of quarantine. I am surprised that there is no correlation between Extraverts and COVID deaths, but Gregariousness was the most relevant correlation while now its the 2nd one for COVID deaths. Achievement-striving relates to ambition and to how quickly people wants to open stuff to go back to work being motivated by achievements and goals (only to work in general relates to Conscientiousness, which had no correlation). On the other side, Vulnerability has “I panic easily” (something like that), so the ‘media panic’ did actually save some lives, since the more easier people on a country panics, in general less deaths it had so far. These existed on last year as well.

Facet trust and INs (except INFP, which is -0.33 but it is too mild to mention) making it to less COVID deaths is sort of a new one, maybe INs can resist more the quarantine than ISs? I don’t really know. Facet trust is funny, it looks like in places where people trust less, less COVID deaths happened, even though I am not quite sure how mistrust did help to prevent the deaths.

I think ESTPs being the most Extraverts of all Extraverts, by cognitive functions tests (here), has a lot to do with the positive correlation (ESTP is really a stay-out-of home type in general).

I am again disappointed with Cautiousness not getting a relevant correlation with both deaths and testing.

PS: I haven’t posted last year about this on INFJ forum.