I'm in a series of blogs about the relationship between the MTR-i team role mandala and Jung's stone mandala (go to the first article in the series).  Yesterday I described the relationship between MTR-i team role theory, Myers Briggs and Jung theory.   Today, I'm going to focus on the different ways dichotomies are treated.

J/P
A key difference between Myers Briggs and MTR-i theory is in the treatment of Judgment and Perception (J/P).  The focus of Myers Briggs theory is E/I, S/N, T/F and, by inference, J/P.  As I have written before, in an article about Myers Briggs and Jung contradictions, Isabel Briggs Myers defined J/P slightly differently to Carl Jung.  In the MTR-i I chose to take the same approach to J/P as Carl Jung, because of its simplicity.  This can be seen in the mandala (as illustrated on the page I just referred to) because Jung's J/P types take obvious positions that are simple to explain, whereas the positions of the Myers Briggs types seem less intuitive.

Fixed Types vs Flexible Function-Attitudes
Myers Briggs theory focuses on looking at one type, eg: ESTJ.  The type is derived by combining the individual preferences, eg: for E, for S, for T and for J, or by assessing the whole type and then identifying the four letter combination as an overall pattern. 

However, through a complex formula, the preference for "J" also implies a fixed hierarchy of the function-attitudes: that is, in an ESTJ, extraverted Thinking comes top and introverted Sensing second.  (For further discussion of function-attitudes see either the type dynamics article or the Myers Briggs introduction slide presentation).  In Myers Briggs theory, if extraverted Thinking comes top then there can only be one other possibility for the second function-attitude: introverted iNtuition (ie ENTJ).  All other possibilities are disallowed.  In the MTR-i system, there is no fixed hiearchy and the eight function-attitudes can be used in any order and to any extent.  The only limitation is that there are only so many conscious hours in a day, so if you use one team role a lot then that automatically means that the time left for use of the other team roles is reduced.

Consciousness and the unconscious
This is probably the most important of Jung's dichotomies.  In the MTR-i system the focus is on what is conscious.  In other words, the MTR-i tries to establish which function-attitudes are being used consciously at any one time. The MBTI tries to identify preferences that, initially at least, are unconscious.

Active and Passive
Jung distinguished between active and passive use of function-attitudes: active referring to intentional, creative and productive use of a function-attitude, passive being more responsive and just a matter of 'becoming aware' rather than being intentionally creative.  The MTR-i team roles focus on active use of function-attitudes only, whereas there is no such distinction in the Myers Briggs system.

Abstract and Concrete
This is related to the dichotomy of differentiation vs fused.  However, there is an oft-used and gross misunderstanding of this abstract/concrete dichotomy of Jung's that was introduced, as far as I can see, by Keirsey in Please Understand Me.  He and Marilyn Bates used abstract/concrete to define the difference between Sensing and Intuition.  However, Jung clearly separates the two, eg: saying that there is "abstract sensing", "concrete sensing", "abstract intuition" as well as "concrete intuition".

The mistake is in some ways understandable, because Jung's theory is complex and there is an involvement of sensing in concrete function-attitudes.  But modern interpretations of Myers Briggs theory now include Keirsey's conflation of abstract/concrete with sensing/intuition.  In the MTR-i system the two are kept separate and the MTR-i questionnaire and descriptions are designed to represent a similar degree of differentation.  That is, the aim is that each of the function-attitudes are represented as at the same point in the abstract/concrete scale.

Tomorrow, I'll come on to another key aspect of MTR-i constructs, which may seem a strange term:  product orientation.