Learning what makes me and others unique individuals has always interested me. My local public high school did not offer a class in psychology. As a result, I participated in National Science Foundation summer program in psychology at Western Michigan University between my junior and senior years. Aside from determining that behavioral psychology and operant conditioning were not for me, I did not settle on a particular field of interest until I had completed my undergraduate education and embarked on a doctoral program. At that time I was introduced to Carl Jung (not personally, of course) and his Psychological Types.

Focusing My Fascination

In the early 1970s Dr. Morrel Clute, one of my professors in the College of Education at Wayne State University, introduced us to the Jungian model of perception-judgment styles and speculated on how each might respond to various teaching styles. At that time, I took the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and learned that I was an ENFP. I was so intrigued with the idea of matching teaching methods to students’ perception-judgment styles that I designed the experiment for my doctoral dissertation on this foundation.

Initial Application

When I began my teaching career, I administered the MBTI to my high school students and did my best to develop instructional activities that I believed would best suit their personality types. I had only limited success with this method and eventually abandoned it. It was only after many years that I would discover the reason for the failure of both my doctoral experiment and my efforts to apply typology to teaching to yield the results I expected.

The post In the Beginning appeared first on Just My Typology.

I am not exactly sure what prompted the intense revival of my interest in Jung’s personality styles earlier this year. I began to search for online tests and found a number of websites which offered them. The first was the infamous 16Personalities. I was surprised to learn that nearly all of the ones I took typed me as an INFJ (although the preference strengths varied from test to test).

Seeking further information about myself, I also looked for online cognitive function tests on the web. One that I found was the “Jungian Functions Test” at SimilarMinds.com. The results of the test are presented below. Apparently they were so strange that my “type” could not be determined from them. I was not sure what to make of this!

I found a number of other tests on the SimilarMinds site. One was called a “Jung Word Test,” and its results were consistent with those I got on other sites.

INFJ – “Author.” Strong drive and enjoyment to help others. Complex personality. 1.5% of total population.

~ Jung Word Test

I found a site called Personality Max, which offered testing that provided information not only on my personality type and cognitive functions, but also on my temperament, types of intelligence, learning style, and brain hemisphere preference. The results were quite detailed, as one can see by clicking on the image below.

Retest

I finally decided to invest in a retake of the (updated since the 70s) Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, which indicated that I am an INFJ; and then the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, Level II, which labeled me an “Emergent INFJ.” The Level II was interesting because it broke down the dichotomies into components, revealing both typical-of-type and atypical traits. Result summaries are shown below:

I began to find MBTI aficionados on Twitter and Facebook, and followed many of them. One of them even designed a 29-question personality test that I found interesting…and accurate. Take the “Find Your Personality Type” quiz at psychologyjunkie.com.

My search for self-understanding continues.

The post Haunted by Carl Jung appeared first on Just My Typology.

In my search for greater understanding of myself, I discovered that the Myers-Briggs understanding of typology was not the only-–or even necessarily the best–-approach. “Type Twitter” introduced me to Socionics, a Russian take on Jung’s psychological types. I learned that there is not a one-to-one correspondence of MBTI type to Socionics type, because the cognitive functions, or information metabolism (IM) elements as they are called in Socionics, are not defined the same way in both.

I began to read about Socionics on several websites and found some online quizzes. Unfortunately, the results were inconsistent: am I an IEI or an EII? Or maybe something else entirely?

Potential Solution: A Live Interview

One of the helpful “type” people on Twitter recommended that I arrange an interview with Jack Oliver Aaron of the World Socionics Society and ask him to identify my type. I watched several public interviews Jack did and was impressed, so I decided to follow that advice. My interview was last night, and the time sped quickly by. At the close of the interview, I anticipated the results of Jack’s analysis with bated breath…only to learn that I will have to wait a week or so for his findings. I feel like a child waiting for Santa Claus to come.

The post The Suspense Is Killing appeared first on Just My Typology.

Near the end of December I received the follow-up report on my live interview with socionist Jack Oliver Aaron, and it was not at all what I expected. According to the report, I came across in the interview as an SLI (Sensory Logical Integrator), a type nicknamed “The Craftsman.” Since my MBTI type is INFJ and I always test strongly on cognitive functions related to intuition (Ni and Ne) and feeling (Fi and Fe), this result was a surprise. Granted, socionics defines its “information metabolism elements” differently than the MBTI community describes its cognitive functions; nevertheless, I was not expecting such a difference.

The report I received (slightly edited for the sake of privacy) can be accessed here.

My first step was to read up on the information metabolism elements given by various online sources. Next I read a number of descriptions of the SLI at these websites. I was certainly willing to consider that my self-analysis was faulty, so I shared these descriptions I found with my youngest sister and my mother, asking if the characteristics sounded like me. My family agreed that they did not. I was still of the opinion that I am an EII (Ethical Intuitive Integrator) or, as a second but less likely option, an IEI (Intuitive Ethical Integrator).

I watched the video recording of the interview to see if I could discover anything there that might account for this seeming discrepancy. I did notice that Jack had not asked me a few questions that he typically asks in these interviews, such as “where do you see yourself in X years?” Of course, at my age I very well may not be here in ten or twenty years; that is up to the Lord and His perfect timing. I also realized that much of the information I provided was retrospective summaries in which I did not focus much on actual decisions or turning points. It also occurred to me that at my advanced age, I have had a lot of time to develop some of my weaker functions. I found no fault with Jack’s reasoning based on what I had shown him in my interview; I realized that I did not really take him into my life at various stages. He did the best he could with what I provided.

I was not really sure what to do with my typing dilemma. Then Jack reached out to me via Twitter DM on New Year’s Day and asked what I thought. I told him I “was almost hoping [he] would not ask for my feedback” and then shared at length some of the thoughts I expressed above. Jack told me he expected this would be the situation, which is why he asked me for my reaction.

Solution

Jack suggested a follow-up interview, and one was scheduled for January 7. I felt that this second interview allowed me to cover some ground that we had not covered in the first interview, and I was able to express a number of things I wished I had in the first interview.

This time I believe was I able to demonstrate that I am–in reality–an EII. Jack produced a revised report, which I am sharing (with a few minor edits for privacy’s sake) here.

The post Socionics: Surprise & Solution appeared first on Just My Typology.

Structure in typology began to interest me back in January when I was reading the book Personality Type: An Owner’s Manual by Lenore Thomson. Of particular interest to me was the chapter “Personality Types Are Also Brain Types.” In it Ms. Thomson stated that PET scans placed each cognitive function in a specific area of the brain:

• Front of Left Brain: Extraverted Thinking, Extraverted Feeling
• Back of Left Brain: Introverted Sensation, Introverted Intuition
• Front of Right Brain: Extraverted Intuition, Extraverted Sensation
• Back of Right Brain: Introverted Feeling, Introverted Thinking

Also surprising to me was that Ms. Thomson identified the Tertiary and Inferior functions as the weakest of all eight cognitive functions. After the Dominant and Secondary functions, she places two “alternatives” that reside on the same side of the brain. Following those are two “double agents” located on the other side of the brain, where the Tertiary and Inferior functions are located. For me, as an INFJ in the MBTI system, Thomson identified the following as my “type lasagna”:

• Dominant: Introverted Intuition (Left Brain)
• Secondary: Extraverted Feeling (Left Brain)
• Left-Brain Alternatives: Introverted Sensation, Extraverted Thinking
• Right-Brain Double Agents: Introverted Feeling, Extraverted Intuition
• Tertiary: Introverted Thinking (Right Brain)
• Inferior: Extraverted Sensation (Right Brain)

Contrasting C. S. Joseph’s Typology Structure

In contrast to Thomson’s model was one with which I was somewhat more familiar at that time. This was C. S. Joseph’s “four sides of the mind.” Although I am not an expert in his typology, I have viewed a number of his YouTube videos. He assigns a different personality type to each side of the mind. For an INFJ like me, these sides of the mind are:

• Ego: INFJ = Ni Fe Ti Se (see Dominant + Secondary above)
• Unconscious: ENFP = Ne Fi Te Si (see Right-Brain Double Agents above)
• Subconscious: ESTP = Se Ti Fe Ni (see Inferior + Tertiary above)
• Superego: ISTJ = Si Te Fi Ne (see Left-Brain Alternatives above)

Remembering Something about MBTI Typology Structure

While pondering these discrepancies, I was struck by a sudden memory of something I had noticed when skimming through a portion of the MBTI Manual (3rd ed.). In that system, the Secondary, Tertiary, and Inferior functions all have the opposite orientation to the Dominant. Therefore, an INFJ would have:

• Dominant: Introverted Intuition
• Auxiliary (Secondary): Extraverted Feeling
• Tertiary: Extraverted Thinking
• Inferior: Extraverted Sensation

Because this differed from other MBTI-related systems I had encountered, I started to wonder: how are different typologies structured? I should note that my focus was solely on typology structure. As a result, I did not consider the various ways in which cognitive functions or information metabolism elements are defined.

Developing My Structural Analysis

Recently I became quite interested in Socionics. Consequently, I decided to start my analysis with Model A. In that system, my type is EII (Ethical Intuitive Integrator). In addition to the systems I have already mentioned, I also looked at Beebe‘s and Socionics Model J. After working on my diagram for a couple of weeks, I ended up with this:

To download this chart, click here.

The post Structure in Typology appeared first on Just My Typology.

Someone on Twitter mentioned taking an online test designed to measure one’s Neuro-PQ, or Neurological Personality Quotient. It was designed by Dario Nardi. According to the test site,

This questionnaire helps determine how you use 23 different regions of your brain! It is based on neuroscience research and the author’s actual brain imaging results of hundreds of people. Each region of your brain helps you do various concrete and abstract tasks. By completing the NeuroPQ, you will get a profile of which tasks you tend to excel at or that engage you. The result is a unique visual portrait of your brain.

~Dario Nardi

Who could resist such an interesting test? Not me! I actually took the Neuro-PQ twice. The first time, I did not follow the proper instructions for specifying email address and payment information, so I did not think I would get my results. The next time, I followed directions. Both times I got the results, which differed slightly from one another.

What Were My Neuro-PQ Scores?

Test results are emailed and come in the form of a 12-page PDF document, which explains the primary functions of various areas of the brain and analyzes the respondent’s answers to determine her strengths (and weaknesses). Two of these were particularly interesting to me:

My strengths seem to be compatible with my MBTI and Socionics typing. For that matter, my weaknesses also seem to make sense. What does not make as much sense is the placement of specific skills in particular areas of the brain, if Lenore Thomson’s placement of the eight cognitive functions is correct (see “Structure in Typology“). I definitely will have to give this more thought.

The post My Neuro-PQ appeared first on Just My Typology.

Trying Typing with Online Tests

Over a few months’ time I took a number of online assessments of my type. There was never a problem identifying my main enneagram type. Without a doubt I am a One. I was almost positive that I was a 1w2. Figuring out the tritype and instinctual variant was a bit more problematic. I wavered between 2w1 and 4w5 for my heart center; and was all over the map on the third element, the head center. In no particular temporal order, tests I took yielded the following results (with correct typing highlighted):

As can clearly be seen, trying to type oneself with online tests produces results which are neither accurate nor consistent. What to do? I discovered that there are people who do enneagram typing via personal interview.

Trying Typing with Personal Interview

It just so happened that I was already familiar (on Twitter and Facebook) with someone who does enneagram typing. Indeed, I had watched on YouTube as Kat Passionate typed Jack Oliver Aaron of the World Socionics Society. What did I have to lose? My head center preference (5, 6, or 7) was testing all over the place, aside from being consistently among my lowest scores. So, I arranged with Kat for an interview at True Generations.

Early in April 2020 we did the interview through a Facebook Messenger audio call. I really enjoyed speaking with Kat, who is warm and enthusiastic. As an interesting side note, she suffers from fibromyalgia–as I do–and we were able to share some thoughts on that as well as my enneagram tritype. After a lengthy discussion of my attitudes and behavior, we reached a viable conclusion as to my enneagram type: 1w2 2w1 6w5 sx/so.

As a follow-up to the interview, Kat shared a number of resources that helped me understand my type, tritype, and instinctual variant better. I am very glad to have settled on a typing that I feel is accurate for me.

The post Enneagram Typing: My Next Stop appeared first on Just My Typology.

A recent post by Ana Sitnina of Encyclopedia Socionika to the World Socionics Society FaceBook group to which I belong offered to type me (or others) at no charge. I quickly responded with questions about the procedure, which involved:

• Downloading a questionnaire
• Videotaping myself as I answered the 41 (actually 42) questions
• Uploading my video to YouTube with relevant links to the group making the offer
• Posting the link to my video back on FaceBook
• Waiting for the results

Never one to refuse an offer which could result in greater self-understanding, I taped the video that evening and provided the appropriate links. Then I waited with bated breath for the analysis.

A(nother) Result I did Not Expect

Report

After several days I received the report on my results on FaceBook. Click here to read the report. Here is a link to my video on YouTube, which provided the basis for the analysis.

Since I type myself (and have elsewhere been typed) as EII (Ethical Intuitive Integrator), I was surprised to see myself typed as SEI (Sensory Ethical Integrator).

Reaction

I can make sense of some of the aspects of the interview which created the impression of high Fe. For instance, I found the process of answering questions from a list–with no interaction–both awkward and amusing, so I laughed a lot while making the video. Nevertheless, I remain unconvinced that I am a sensory type (although Si would be slightly more likely than Se). I also apparently displayed alpha quadra values in the video, whereas in “real life” I consistently identify with delta quadra values.

Ms. Sitnina inquired about my previous typing, so I told her I believe I am an EII. In addition, I shared a link to my blog post detailing my experience with previous typing interviews. She responded:

Thank you for your time and answers =) I have looked at the link – I find it interesting that first Jack’s typing was Si-lead.

I understand how easy it can be to see lead Fi – in the beginning we were thinking ESI, as you do produce a lot of Fi and it’s clearly very strong. There is also, for us, a very noticeable Se, so EII was ruled out. As we proceeded with the video, it became clearer that Fe is still preferred ethics, despite a major Fi input, and also that Se is something you don’t value, despite being good and confident at it. The preference of Si over Se was also very clear, even with two sensorics present. Also instances of NeTi ruled out ESI completely. But because of both ethics and both sensorics present, it wasn’t a very straightforward one = )

~Ana Sitnina

My response to Ms. Sitnina’s first point is that Si lead was the element about which Jack was least certain in my first interview with him. I agree that Fi is strong for me, but I also value it. That would not be the case for an SEI. Fe is pretty strong for me as well, but I do not value it. Ms. Sitnina is correct that I do not value Se.  In addition, I also do not enjoy using it.

Rationale

I am not certain whether I should attribute these typing discrepancies to different analytical systems (schools of socionics), typing procedure (interview vs. questionnaire), or socionists. Perhaps my own “performance inconsistencies” are the cause. In any case, I conclude that the “best fit” socionics type for me still is Ethical Intuitive Integrator…at least for now.

The post Type Me: Inconsistent appeared first on Just My Typology.

Exploring My Type in Cognitive Personality Theory

Read All About It

As I continued to explore the field of typology, I discovered Cognitive Personality Theory. CPT is an approach to Jungian psychology developed by Harry Murrell, and it differs from both MBTI and Socionics.

First, I watched a number of the videos on Harry’s YouTube channel to familiarize myself with the basic concepts of CPT. Next I purchased and read his eBook. Some aspects of the theory made a lot of sense to me. For example, Harry postulates that the auxiliary to the dominant function has the same orientation—extraverted or introverted—as the dominant. On the other hand, CPT defines ‘extraversion’ and ‘introversion’ differently than MBTI-related typologies, which created some confusion.

Finally, I tried to determine my CPT type. Because CPT is so different from other Jungian typologies, I was struggling to discover where I fit. So what was the solution? Set up an interview with Harry Murrell himself and see what he says.

Let the Expert Decide

Harry interviewed me on June 28. After that, I left the following recommendation on his website:

Talking with Harry is like talking with a really good friend…except the conversation is all about you! I am not usually very comfortable talking to a complete stranger about my inner workings, but Harry made the experience easy. Two hours sped by, and I eagerly awaited the results, which came—exactly as promised—ten days later. The analysis I received was thorough and enlightening, and started me on a process of self-examination…which is ongoing. Getting typed by Harry is well worth the cost! If you are wondering about your type, I highly recommend Harry’s type service.

Harry concluded—initially and finally—that I am an ENT-Fs, also known as the ENFP.

Your Intuition seems both convergent and extraverted in nature, as you seek to encapsulate a broad range of Te responsibilities and simultaneously innovate upon them. Your forward-moving perspective is in keeping with an Intuitive-dominant and the auxiliary to your dominant seems highly objective and rationalistic (Te).

As we explored in our call, it is not unusual for us to identity with the opposite orientation of our cognitive stack as we grow and develop (INFJ in this instance), but any interactions with that particular cognition seem to stem from an Ne centre.

I would say you have a fair amount of axial fluidity between dominant and oppositional functions, and as such there was some difficulty determining whether you were an introspective ENT-Fs or energetic ISF-Tn – on the whole, however, your primary dialogue does seem to be one of abstract interaction with external reality.

~Harry Murrell

Comparing ENFP to Previous Typings

Although somewhat surprised by this analysis, I remembered that I tested as ENFP when I initially took the MBTI decades ago. In addition, I do identify now with the INFJ, as Harry noted. The MBTI Level II that I took last year typed me as an “Emergent INFJ.”

Also, it is interesting that these components of my CPT type are the same as my valued IMEs in Socionics:

• Dominant: Ne
• Convergent Auxiliary: Te
• Divergent Auxiliary: Fi
• Oppositional: Si

However, they are arranged differently for the EII (my Socionics type):

• Leading: Fi (R) = 4D, Public, Valued, Strong, Bold, Consistent, Demanding, Stubborn
• Creative: Ne (I) = 3D, Public, Valued, Strong, Cautious, Variable, Supplying, Flexible
• Mobilizing: Si (S) = 2D, Private, Valued, Weak, Bold, Variable, Supplying, Stubborn
• Suggestive: Te (P) = 1D, Private, Valued, Weak, Cautious, Consistent, Demanding, Flexible

For the ENT-Fs in CPT, the Fi divergent auxiliary “performs a much more authoritative role within the stack—the Ne-Te act often at the behest of the Fi….” The characteristics of the leading function in Socionics suggest that it, too, could be described as “authoritative” for me in that system.

Does ENT-Fs (ENFP) Fit Me?

A Lot Like Me

• Big-picture orientation
• Future-oriented
• Natural curiosity
• Actively creates external organizational structures
• Often assumes an administrative role within a group
• Organizes external objects into predictable locations
• One of the least likely types to read a work of non-fiction and quickly assimilate the information within its pages
• Possesses an in-depth knowledge across a variety of subjects…and a rich vocabulary
• Finds conversation an active listening experience to the self
• Comfortable achieving mastery over otherwise superficial skill sets
• Highly attuned to my own needs, values, and sense of identity
• Needs and values [are] in anticipation of a future self
• Follows emotions that have a more abstract significance
• Takes a big-picture view of one’s overall emotions to reach an equation for one’s own happiness
• Idealistic, particularly regarding love and a deeper, more long-term sense of happiness
• Highly empathetic
• Not always consciously aware of the emotional order of one’s external world
• Convergent Te activated when organizing and planning of behalf of a[n]…Fi-related attachment
• Organizes the external world to promote an internal sense of harmony and mitigate [offensive] human conflict

Somewhat Like Me

• Preoccupied with new experiences and the observation of patterns in real time
• Struggles with day-to-day details (details are not my strong point)
• Remarkably adaptable
• May often taken an active role in experimenting with different perspectives through spiritual…means
• Quickly understands a general mechanical infrastructure
• Extremely theoretical
• Prone to manipulation by people selling linear and too-good-to-be-true life elixirs
• Often finds greatest individual happiness placing the needs of others above the self
• High degree of nostalgia

Iffy

• Intense desire for new experiences as opposed to what it already known
• Restlessness of character
• Highly interested in different cultures and subcultures
• Natural affinity for time-sensitive action plans
• Well-suited for management positions
• More given than other types to forget where I placed an object

Not Like Me at All

• Struggles with prolonged concentration
• Turns natural curiosity less toward insight and revelation…, but rather toward the unexplored in the external world (just the opposite)
• May often taken an active role in experimenting with different perspectives through…psychedelic means
• ‘Hyperactivity’ (quest to perceive as many things at one time as possible)
• Constantly seeking new experiences and life philosophies (instead, developing and deepening certain consistent life themes, such as my spiritual life, understanding of self, education, etc.)
• Various fetishes

The post Could I Be an Introspective ENFP? appeared first on Just My Typology.

It seems that I can’t stop reevaluating and reassessing my CPT type. After rereading several of the type descriptions in the CPT eBook that I had considered for myself before being typed by Harry Murrell, I returned to one in particular. This was the IFS-Nt, otherwise known as the INFP. I employed the same process for grouping this type’s characteristics and potentials as I did with the ENT-Fs.

A Lot Like Me

• Prioritizes sanctity of mind above all things
• Directly in touch with both identity and desires as one seeks the most effective way to balance these components together in the most organized way possible
• Emotional landscape in a constant state of analysis…in order to remain in a state of internal harmony
• Identity itself tends to change slowly over time as an idealized self draws closer to realization
• Potential to vary widely between selflessness and selfishness
• Deeply in touch with and deeply secure within who one is
• Has a strong desire to express oneself (and seek affirmation for) one’s individuality
• Natural aptitude for expressing oneself in an authentic and genuine manner
• Equipped for self-expression through arts/humanities (for me, music, photography, and—a long time ago—poetry)
• Forms deep attachments to people with whom one has shared experiences
• Prioritizes existing attachments so as to continue to unify the past with the present, giving an extremely long-term orientation (which is easily confused with Introverted Intuition)
• Builds to render those things meaningful to the dominant Fi concrete and everlasting
• Forms Fi-attachments to a select few and keeps to a tightly knit social circle
• The external world will often lack detail unless/until Se is activated
• Attracted to various philosophical and theoretical substrates
• Highly concerned with the big picture as it relates to external application
• Tends to benefit more from note-taking processes than any other type
• A natural critic and analyst
• Perfectionist nature
• Rather organized in one’s external world
• Operates outwardly with a set of clearly defined rules
• Tends to dislike imposing rules on others
• Excellent organizational and deductive skills well suited to mathematical and computer sciences (with Fi and Te in balance), especially when operating under the instructions of an authority figure (I once was a statistics tutor, and one of my careers was computer programming)
• Prefers to act on the behest of an institution one believes in than in a more autonomous and mechanistically overwhelming manner.
• Can apply Te-Ne ingenuity to one’s world in a non-stressful manner while remaining deeply in touch with one’s own needs and the needs of others
• With Te activated, can achieve personal happiness and create a positive impact on the world [because] one has the awareness of one’s own values and the means to realize those values in reality
• Fi acts at the behest of Te, seeking to harmonize the external  mechanical world with the self; the self will be developed to be of use to others and life as a whole, and identity will align itself with skill sets as well as the needs of the situation
• With Te activated, the individual will work hard and to a high standard on behalf of another, while relying on an external body to provide a framework of rules and make decisions on the Fi-dominant’s behalf.

Somewhat Like Me

• Black-and-white view of external order: approximate perfection or complete disarray (in my youth)
• Potentially stubborn in nature
• Enabled by highly developed relational empathy to excel in psychiatry and soft sciences
• Sees the self as an extension of the other (or vice versa)
• Quiet charisma
• Fairly nostalgic; desires the comfort already experienced (for example, I hate travel and love being home among my feline family and possessions)
• Highly imaginative
• Tends to benefit more from brainstorming processes than any other type
• Tends to dislike making decisions that would affect another person
• Very uncomfortable and overwhelmed in a leadership position (not something I desire, but can do to some extent)

Iffy

• Can take longer for this type to settle on a career path than for other types (I chose teaching early on, but made several career changes along the way)

Not Like Me at All

• Can take longer for this type to settle on an identity than for other types

Thoughts

First, I should note that both the ENT-Fs and IFS-Nt have the same extraverted and introverted elements: Ne-Te and Fi-Si. In my opinion, these pairings do seem to fit me. But there is a major difference between these types. For the ENT-Fs, the extraverted pair is convergent and the introverted pair is divergent. The reverse is true for the IFS-Nt.

So it seems I have a bit of a dilemma. Harry was pretty confident that I am ENT-Fs; his second choice was ISF-Tn (not IFS-Nt). However, as I examine the breakdown of characteristics in each category for each type, I believe that more of the characteristics of the IFS-Nt seem to “fit” me.

In conclusion, I find that I am unable to reach a conclusion. I can say only that I have narrowed down the possibilities to two. I need to answer two important questions:

1. Am I lens-dominant, as Harry believes, or codec-dominant?
2. Am I more reactive (extraverted) or proactive (introverted)?

The post My CPT Type Reconsidered appeared first on Just My Typology.