Archetypeture: Beebe's model : Part One

 [Don't know what a term means in this blog post?  
Chances are you can find the definition at TypeInDepth.com
An excellent team blog that I highly recommend]

Isabel Myers, with cues from Jung, created a set of rules that outline how the mental function-attitudes "rank" from most preferred to least preferred in our consciousness.  Each of the 16 Types have a different order of the FAs (function-attitude) that all follow this rule (which I will not describe here but may post someday).

One could easily stop there; it's pretty complex.  But Isabel's model doesn't describe how the position of the FA affects its expression.  How does the FA of Ni (introverted iNtuition) look different when in the 1st position (classically called the "Dominant") as opposed to the 3rd (simply "Tertiary") or the 7th (a horse with no name)?  There were few descriptions; and those that did exist concentrated on the top four:  the only ones we supposedly had any conscious ability to access.

And then along comes Beebe...

John Beebe created a "role model" of the hierarchy of archetypes - an architecture of these 8 ranked FAs with rules for their behavior based on 8 classic archetypal roles.  Those roles are described at TypeInDepth.

The table below shows how Isabel's rankings of FAs (the "Actors") meet Beebe's archetypal "Roles" resulting in what I call 64 "Characters."  Each MBTI type has 8 Actors (the FAs) and 8 Roles (the archetypes) = 64 possible Characters.

The "Equity Union rules" of placement (the 16 MBTI Types) of the FAs restrict and result in 16 possible ensemble "Casts" as detailed in the Table below (again, thanks to TypeInDepth).  This is like the ultimate acting troupe - any Actor can play any Role and they're Cast according to the Equity approved Script that is your MBTI Type.

Image links directly to (c) TypeInDepth.com

The cast "Character Descriptions" are available by subscription to the Type Decoder @ Type Resources

So now what we have defined our terms and outlined the background, we come to the real point of the post.

When I first encountered Beebe's model, I immediately grokked it as correct.  Something about it clicked, made sense, felt right and was elegant in its simplicity - essentially my iNtuition had a field day with it, and my Feeling judged it Good; but - my brain never stops there.  I was left with "why does it feel right?" and "how did he come up with this?"

I personally don't need empirical logic and science and statistical analysis to go with my iNtuition in the heated flush of discovery, but ultimately I like to know "why I believe in what I do" - and I like to have my ducks in order when I ultimately I have to present to those who may like logical support. At the time, I (and most of the world) lacked any source material of Beebe's development model.  So I had to figure out the "math" myself.  What follows is my "math." 

Click "read more..."