I would like to explain first in philosophical “terms”. The idea here is that each person has a “deep” personality, and that, although the individual may have his type, there is more beyond that. And it is possible to tackle this beyond (partially, I recognize) through cognitive functions analysis, in a way that translate more information about the personality, and also, it is possible to translate a cognitive function stack into a 4-letter MBTI type. This brings more uniqueness when compared to MBTI.
The Free Function Stacking is not exactly stacking since there is no specific position for cognitive functions, but rather that there are some specific logical relations to be followed by a cognitive function stack in order to correspond to a specific type (this sounds complicated but it wont be when I explain further).
The Hypothesis: The cognitive functions are free to move without any specific order but they have to obey some restrictions in order to match the personality dimensions preferences (dichotomy).
Each person has their own cognitive function stacking, that the individual stack does describe the individuality even deeper than the 4-letter code, and that the function stack dont need a very specific arrangement like a specific dominant function, a specific tertiary function, etc… Because of that, there are 8!=40320 different arrangements on personality, and that results as hundreds of possibilities for different stacking at each personality type, or, in other words, a specific personality type can have hundreds of different cognitive functions order.
1st position: 8 possibilities (Se,Si,Ne,Ni,Te,Ti,Fe,Fi)
2nd position: 7 possibilities
3rd position:6 possibilities
4th: 5
5th:4
6th:3
7th:2
8th:1
Total of 8*7*6*5*4*3*2*1=8!=40320 different orders
But in order to be a specific type, there are things to be met. These are the restrictions.
So, explaining by examples, in order to someone to be an intuitive type, this is needed:
Ne+Ni>Se+Si
Or, in other words, if the person has preference for intuition, then the sum of their Ne and Ni in the test must be significantly higher than the sum of their Se and Si. If a non-cognitive functions (dichotomy) MBTI test says that the person has preference for intuition, that should mean that the sum of the persons Ni and Ne is significantly higher than the sum of persons Se and Si.
So, these are relations/restrictions related to N/S and T/F axis:
N vs S (relation NS)
Degree of preference for iNtuition: Ne+Ni
Degree of preference for Sensation/Sensing: Se+Si
Ne+Ni>Se+Si translate as preference for intuition
Ne+Ni<Se+Si translate as preference for sensing
Ne+Ni=Se+Si translate as ambivalence/no preference
T vs F (relation TF)
Degree of preference for Thinking: Te+Ti
Degree of preference for Feeling: Fe+Fi
Te+Ti>Fe+Fi translate as preference for thinking
Te+Ti<Fe+Fi translate as preference for feeling
Te+Ti=Fe+Fi translate as no preference/ambivalence
Once thinking and feeling has been decided (or not, in case where no preference was found), we proceed to I/E and J/P axis. In case where there is no preference between thinking/feeling and intuition/sensing (and for simplification in case of statistic analysis), we proceed to the complete versions of I/E and J/P relations/equations:
I vs E (relation IE)
Degree of preference for Introversion: Si+Ni+Fi+Ti
Degree of preference for Extroversion: Ne+Fe+Se+Te
Si+Ni+Fi+Ti>Ne+Fe+Se+Te translate as preference for introversion
Si+Ni+Fi+Ti<Ne+Fe+Se+Te translate as preference for extroversion
Si+Ni+Fi+Ti=Ne+Fe+Se+Te translate as ambiversion/ambivalence/no preference
J vs P (relation JP)
Provided by @Legion
Degree of preference for Perceiving: Ti+Fi+Se+Ne
Degree of preference for Judgment: Te+Fe+Si+Ni
Ti+Fi+Se+Ne>Te+Fe+Si+Ni translate as preference for perceiving
Ti+Fi+Se+Ne<Te+Fe+Si+Ni translate as preference for judgment
Ti+Fi+Se+Ne=Te+Fe+Si+Ni translate as no preference/ambivalence
In case there is a clear decision in one or two of N/S and T/F axis, there are two possibilities approach. In one of them, we use only cognitive functions related to the preferences and remove the cognitive functions that are not related to the in-case preference (or, instead, do the analysis without that – “complete relations version”). The principle here is that there is no reason into using a cognitive function that is related to a non-preferred trait and this fixed two issues on the experiment topic. For example, if a person has a preference for intuition and feeling, we remove the cognitive functions related to sensing and thinking to evaluate J/P and I/E (the principle for this case transform as “there is no reason into using sensing and thinking cognitive functions for an intuitive-feeler type”), and the relations goes as follow:
I vs E
Degree of preference for Introversion (specific case: NF): Ni+Fi
Degree of preference for Extroversion (specific case: NF): Ne+Fe
Ni+Fi>Ne+Fe translate as preference for introversion
Ni+Fi<Ne+Fe translate as preference for extroversion
Ni+Fi=Ne+Fe translate as ambiversion/ambivalence/no preference
J vs P
Degree of preference for Perceveing(specific case: NF): Fi+Ne
Degree of preference for Judgement(specific case: NF): Fe+Ni
Fi+Ne>Fe+Ni translate as preference for perceveing
Fi+Ne<Fe+Ni translate as preference for judgement
Fi+Ne=Fe+Ni translate as no preference/ambivalence
For clarification: This system do admit types with an X (like, for example, INTX). There are additional analysis that can be done (and sub-typing, lots of sub-typing) by having the persons cognitive function stack. Although not mandatory, I recommend analyze these preferences:
Te vs Ti – Which person prefers the most, Te or Ti and how it impacts on personality.
Fe vs Fi – The same
Ne vs Ni – The same
Se vs Si – The same
I also recommend look for the opposing role function and its strength (fourth point in the next post). This is the basic idea explained. Some observations:
- First, and most important, I am not going to hide any of this model possible weakness.
There is some or almost complete mismatch between what the i-e inside cognitive functions means (example: The i in Fi) and what the I-E on dichotomy means. The original concept of I-E as draw by Jung is highly different between the MBTI concepts we have today. In a very basic matter, there are at least 3 definitions of extroversion/introversion over MBTI unofficial internet community, and in short they are these:
1) How sociable and outgoing the people is.
2) If gather “energy” from the “inside” or the “outside”.
3) Preference towards the object – if attention is towards the object (external) then its extroversion, if attention is towards self (inside) then its introversion.
Just a quick example, if you are watching the sunset you are doing an introvert activity in 1 and extroverted activity in 2 and 3. So, its possible to be introverted in one and extroverted in another definition, making the person being a quiet extroverted or sociable introvert.
Jung original is related with 3 (3 is a raw simplification of Jung original concept. The original concept has dozens of pages on a book). Number 3 is E-I concepts in cognitive functions. However, I-E dichotomy is done towards 1 and 2 mostly, they correspond to MBTI I-E concepts in a simple description. So, while summing the extroverted cognitive functions and then subtracting the introverted cognitive functions, a I-E in Jung sense is measured, while the I-E in dichotomy tests corresponds to MBTI I-E that has a different meaning. - Second, the relations does provide some tendencies – I repeat, these are tendencies, not laws. If we analyze either the complete equations version or the specific type equations for JP and IE for any specific type (relation NS, relation TF, relation IE, relation JP) we will find that any given specific cognitive function appears in 3 of the 4 equations/relations. And from all 8 functions, one of them will always appear before the > sign, which indicates that this function is the highest of all considering the average of all possible solutions. In the case of the complete relations version, one of them will always appear after the > sign, which indicates that this function is the lowest of all considering the average of all possible solutions (but this tendency is weaker than the former because it only happens while using the complete version of relations/equations that is less reliable). For example, consider the ISFP case:
NS relation: Se+Si>Ne+Ni
TF relation: Fi+Fe>Te+Ti
IE relation: Fi+Si>Fe+Se
JP relation: Fi+Se>Fe+Si
We observe that function Fi is always on the higher side of the equation, which indicates a tendency for higher Fi in the average in all solutions for ISFP. This indicates a tendency, not law, for ISFPs to be what we usually call “Fi-dom”.
In the other hand, using the complete version in the IE and JP relation for ISFP, we have:
NS relation: Se+Si>Ne+Ni
TF relation: Fi+Fe>Te+Ti
IE relation: Fi+Si+Ni+Ti>Te+Fe+Se+Ne
JP relation: Fi+Se+Ne+Ti>Te+Fe+Si+Ni
We observe that Te is always after the > operator, which indicates a tendency for lower Te in average on all solutions for ISFP. This indicates a tendency, not law, for ISFPs to be have what we usually call “low Te” or achile heels Te. Notice that that the Fi-dom tendency appears both in complete and specific version of the relations, while Te-weakness tendency only appears in the complete version of the relations. The complete version of the relations applies in most of the cases, but there are specific cases which is complete inappropriate (it fails), and, therefore, the tendency for Fi-dom is stronger and more reliable than the low Te one. Still, there is a trick here. This approach consider that, from all >40 thousand possibilities, all of them happens equally. We know that some cognitive function orders are consider unstable in psychology, for example, a fully introverted function stack (like INFX Fi>Ni>Ti>Si>Fe>Ne>Te>Se) indicates an “unrealistic” amount of introversion. Some solutions appears more frequently than others. Since this dynamic is unknown (and should be quite complex), there is a possibility that we may not find these patterns after analyzing several personal cases. - Third, I would like to use the INFX to point how subtypes happens (because its one of the simplest cases). If we use the specific relations, for INFX, we have:
NS relation: Ne+Ni>Se+Si
TF relation: Fe+Fi>Te+Ti
IE relation: Fi+Ni>Fe+Ne
JP relation: Fi+Ne=Fe+Ni
From the JP relation we can generate two different subtypes. First, INFX can happen if Ni=Ne (no preference for Ne or Ni) AND Fi=Fe (no preference for Fi or Fe). The second solution to this case is Fi>Fe AND Ni>Fe. The first case is more like a neutral INFX, whereas the second case is an INFX that is like an INFJ in terms of intuition and is like an INFP in terms of feeling (we could call the second case Fi-Ni INFX). These are two different INFX types. Notice that Fe>Fi with Ne>Ni would be another solution except that it disrupts the IE relation, because it pulls extraversion levels too high for an introverted. Fe>Fi with Ne>Ni actually belongs to an ENFX case. We can extend this example to an X on the JP axis. For other cases, the key thing is to analyze the relations/equations to draw conclusions (and use the complete version or the specific version depending on circumstances). Some of these cases can be quite a headache to analyze (or not be much conclusive). - Fourth, this point maybe is more useful for clarifying than to actually draw a conclusion, I would like to anticipate a point I would do on a search. Some Grant Cognitive Function Stacks do an inversion with a change on the J/P axis. For example, INTJ and INTP has complete different Grant stacking. What actually happens is that the average stack for INTJ and INTP are a lot more alike each other instead of being completely different. For example, a more realistic INTP function stack example could be, Ti>Ne>Ni>Te>Fi>Si>Se>Fe. The 3rd Ni and 4th Te gives an impression that there is some kind of a “sub-INTJ” in this INTP case, like this example INTP has an INTJ wing. This is fake, its just a impression that we have from Grant Stacking (which is where the Ni+Te resembles INTJ comes from). These 3rd and 4th functions appears there not because there is a sub-INTJ, but because they come from a high preference for intuition and a high preference for thinking. The high preference for intuition translate as Ne+Ni>>Se+Si, which means that Ni passes both Se and Si. The high preference for thinking translate as Te+Ti>>Fe+Fi, which means that Te passes both Fe and Fi, which, combined, lead to Te and Ni in 3rd and 4th position. This happens because the INTJ and INTP realistic stacking should not be that different. One random example of INTJ and INTP with clear preference for intuition and clear preference for thinking could look like this:
INTJ: Ni>Te>Ti>Ne>Fi>Si>Fe>Se
INTP: Ti>Ne>Ni>Te>Fi>Si>Se>Fe
There is a fake impression of INTJ having a sub-INTP, but that pattern actually becomes because of INT dichotomy letters. In realistic terms, the cognitive function stacks are a lot more alike each other (because both are INT), specially in the analysis of the average function stack. - Fifth, an useful concept is the opposing-role function. We are familiar as “tertiary function”. The concept of opposing-role function (in Free Function Stacking) is this: “The opposing-role cognitive function is the strongest function that belongs to a non-preferred side of N/S and T/F dimensions.” For example, for ENFP, the non-preferred functions, regarding the N/S and T/F dimensions, are Se, Si, Te and Ti (because Ne/Ni and Fe/Fi are functions related to intuition and feeling, which are in the ENFPs preferences). The strongest of all these four (from the first point we know that there is always one function that is the least likely to be the opposing-role because it tends to be low, which is function Si for the case) is the opposing-role function. We know that the opposing-role function will be ahead from at least 3 other functions in the any given function stack. Looking at the whole cognitive function stack and all its solution, which is too complicated to explain, we can observe that the opposing-role function, in almost all possibilities, can assume the 3rd, 4th and 5th position of the function stack. When it is in the 3rd position, it means a strong opposing-role function, and in this case the opposing-role function will weaken one of the preferences in the N/S or T/F dimensions. In the ENFP example, an ENFP with strong tertiary Se (yes, I really mean Se and not Te for the example, it could be Te or even Ti although) will not have a strong preference for intuition, because in the SN relation, (Ne+Ni>Se+Si) the Se would be too high to build a strong preference for intuition. Going a little off a bit, the ENFP with strong tertiary Se will be more alike an ESFP with strong tertiary Ne than an average ENFP in comparison (and it will be very likely Enneagram 7), and this shows how much a MBTI map is quite complicated (but looking at dichotomy makes this clear… an ENFP with 60% of intuition is closer to an ESFP with 60% sensing than from an ENFP with 90% of intuition). Going back, when it is in the 4th position, it means middle opposing-role function. In the case of 5th position, it is the weak opposing-role function, which will automatically means that at least one of the N/S and T/F dimensions holds a strong preference. In the ENFP example, an ENFP with 5th opposing-role Se wil have, necessarily, a strong preference for Feeling (Fe+Fi>>Te+Ti, because Te and Ti are in the 6th-7th-8th position). Notice that the concept of opposing-role requires that there is no X in the SN (or NS) and FT (or TF) dimensions. In these cases, this concept is no longer useful.
- Sixth, This whole theory works towards converting any cognitive function stack into a type result (dichotomy result), however there is the back/reverse operation, which is converting a type result into a cognitive function stack (thanks to @noname3788 to making me spot that and to point its development). As I said before, all possible cognitive function stacks count as 40320, when all possible type results, including the possibility to have Xs (XNFP, INXP, IXXX, etc..), are 81, so there is a loss of information while converting a type result to cognitive function stack (and that leads to some innaccuracys). The equations used for that are:
- Ni=I+N+J
- Ne=E+N+P
- Si=I+S+J
- Se=E+S+P
- Fi=I+F+P
- Fe=E+F+J
- Te=E+T+J
- Ti=I+T+P
Typology Triad 