Analytic extraverted Thinking (Te-A) aka The Manager in Relationships
Extraverted Thinking is the dominant function for ENTJ and ESTJ types. According to recent research by Dr. Dario Nardi, it can show up in two flavors. This post outlines the analytic extraverted Thinking version.
In addition to my own experiences and interpretations, these are the resources I quote and/or reference:
Berens, L. V. and Nardi, D. (2004) Understanding Yourself and Others, An Introduction to the Personality Type Code, p.11 https://amzn.to/3Glt53J
Jones, J. H. and Sherman, R. G. (2011) Intimacy and Type, p. 32 https://amzn.to/47NHe5k
Jung, C. G. (1976 edition) Psychological Types (The Collected Works), p.368ff https://amzn.to/46CJGuy
Nardi, D. (2023) Decode Your Personality - Go Beyond Myers-Briggs With 64 Brain-Based Subtypes, p. 345ff https://amzn.to/3GoU6mL
Thomson, L. (1998) Personality Type, An Owners Manual, p. 39ff https://amzn.to/4a3mxEy
This is the ninth post in a series where I’ll share what the Jungian functions look like in their 2 Nardian flavors, adding specifically how they might show up in romantic relationships. If you’re following the series, you will note there’s some repetition, but in case this is the one and only post you follow, I want you to have all the information. So feel free to jump ahead.
My main references for this post are Carl Gustav Jung and Dr. Dario Nardi. Jung was a Swiss Psychiatrist who published his theory of psychological types in 1921, and Dario is a university professor, prolific researcher and author. He found evidence of psychological types in the neuroscience data captured by EEG assessments he’s been doing with people from all walks of life since 2006.
And in case we haven’t met, I’m Doris Füllgrabe, a certified coach with a Masters in Applied Psychology, and I help people create happier, healthier relationships.
A few caveats before we begin, just to manage expectations and again in case this is the only post you follow:
1, these posts describe the functions in their purest state. Functions rarely show up in their purest state, as they interact with other functions and your brain is really active doing multiple things at any given time, like it’s regulating your body temperature and heart rate right now. So, you may not resonate with 100% of the description of this function 100% of the time, and that is normal.
2, these posts describe the function for this function type. You may not be this particular function type, which means this function may not be at the top or dominant in your consciousness. That’s ok, too, because it’s still in your system, you still have access to it, and paying attention to this function may help you recognize when it pops up out of your subconscious, so you can practice integrating it consciously. That will give you better control over it and you can reap its benefits.
With that, let’s move from the broad to the specific, starting with the function, Thinking, and then the function attitude extraverted Thinking, then the flavor, analytic extraverted Thinking, and finally how it shows up in relationships.
The Thinking function is one of the two rational judging functions.
Rational, because it involves reasoning i.e. a process of reflection, and judging because it’s about making decisions.
The Thinking function helps us be logical, analytical, effective, and efficient.
It gives us the ability to plan ahead, and a curiosity about how things work.
It is committed to justice and equality, fairness and intellectual freedom, but also step-by-step rules that lead to a result.
Dr. Linda Berens describes it this way:
“Thinking is a process of evaluating and making judgments based on objective criteria and principles or logic. Using this process, we detach ourselves from our values and seek to make decisions based on principles alone. Activities like discrimination according to a set of criteria or objectively defined standards, analysis according to a set of principles, logic, and cause-effect reasoning are all examples of making Thinking judgments.”
Moving on to the function attitude, extraverted Thinking, which is the dominant function for ENTJ and ESTJ
What follows are Jung’s words, and his language from 100 years ago is a little different from how we speak today. He’s quite male-centric, so uses he/him when describing all functions that aren’t Feeling types. He also uses the word “object” to describe anything and anyone outside of you, and “subject” to describe yourself, you, the person.
According to Jung, a dominant extraverted Thinking Type will be someone
“whose constant endeavor is to make all his activities dependent on intellectual conclusions, which are always oriented by objective data, whether those be facts or ideas.”
This reality-based, objective, intellectual formula is then applied as a ruling principle to themselves and their environment.
“Everything that agrees with the formula is right, everything that contradicts it is wrong, and anything that passes by it indifferently, is merely incidental.”
Those who refuse to obey this law are “wrong, unreasonable, immoral, and without conscience.” More than that,
“his moral code forbids him to tolerate exceptions; his ideal must under all circumstances be realized, for in his eyes it is the purest conceivable formulation of objective reality, and therefore must also be a universally valid truth, quite indispensable for the salvation of mankind.”
The general motive is justice and truth, and if the formula is broad enough to also include some feeling, “special provisions will be made for humane societies, hospitals, prisons, missions, etc.” The more rigid the formula, or the more one-sided the extraverted Thinking type, the less agreeable they become. Although Jung does add:
“Usually it is the nearest relatives who have to taste the unpleasant consequences of the extraverted formula, since they are the first to receive its relentless benefits. But in the end it is the subject himself who suffers most.”
This is of course because there can be no all-encompassing intellectual formula that could embrace the manifold possibilities of life.
The more feeling content is repressed, like friendships, aesthetics, or creativity, the more they are pushed into the unconscious, the more likely they are to come out in unethical ways. He gives the example of
“guardians of public morals who suddenly find themselves in compromising situations, or rescue workers who are themselves in dire need of rescue, or idealists so consumed by their desire for the salvation of mankind that they will not shrink from any lie or trickery.”
Jung also says that rigidity of extraverted Thinking leads to prejudices and “a readiness to misconstrue any opposition to his formula as personal ill-will.” So these are Types whose thinking has become dogmatic, and it’s made them a bit tyrannical and bigoted.
Luckily, most individuals instinctively allow themselves to modify their formulas “with a suitably rationalistic guise” and it doesn’t get that far. And on the plus side, extraverted Thinking is productive, it leads to factual discoveries based on empirical data, and “even when it analyses, it constructs”, so it is neither stagnant nor regressive, but has a progressive and creative quality.
Analytic/Holistic Flavor overview
So much for the function and the function attitude, now we’re moving into the flavor.
Dr. Nardi analyzed EEG data from his participants and found two distinct brain wirings. The one we’re looking at here is the analytic style, or flavor.
For reference, this flavor is focused on a goal, it filters out distractions, and it looks like clarity and confidence.
That’s not to say it’s simplistic, it considers the complexities of a situation and includes relevant variables.
Its approach is top-down, so it’s driving the situation with a point in mind.
People with this style like to solve problems quickly using familiar tools, and can be unaware of their own biases.
It’s often more visual.
It pays attention to what is being said, like facts, figures, rules, methods, and labels.
Thinking is often literal to the specific context, and they often describe using analogies.
In business, it’s more comfortable with hierarchy, defined roles and leadership.
Likely careers for those with an analytical style include business, engineering, finance, law, the military, hard sciences and tech.
Dario calls the analytic extraverted thinking type the “Manager”.
Managers are committed to succeed at a few ambitious goals. These can be business or money or any other specific goal that can be achieved and measured following a step-by-step approach.
Managers speak logically and confidently, they’re basically most likely to succeed on the debate team, and Dario says there’s “an order in which they marshal evidence and ideas.”
They apply a business mindset to all things, or as Dario puts it to “the business of living”, so calculating risks and rewards, allocating resources, and making contingency plans.
They manage and drive others as resources to get things done, which can be inspiring, but they may put speed and profit above usefulness or accuracy. So when analytic extraverted thinking is overdone, Dario describes it as the person going bankrupt in a moral, emotional, social or physical sense. It’s the most effective and efficient function in this here achievement-oriented, capitalist society, but it’s also the potentially least humane and most bulldozer-y one.
Caveats for the relationship information:
I want to preface this and the following posts by saying that all types can and do have relationships with all other types. Just like you wouldn’t hire an employee based on their type, you shouldn’t choose a partner solely based on their type either, because yes, it explains a lot, but people are much more complex than that. Still, type is the best framework I know to understand, and then bridge our differences, no matter who you’re with.
Also, to my knowledge, there is no reliable statistical research into people’s types and sexual preferences as yet, so what I suggest may or may not resonate. However, if you’d like to take part in such research, please email me.
in dating
So you’re probably attracted to manager types because of their confidence. They’re likely to be quite financially successful and unbothered by sentimental entanglements. They tend to enjoy being in charge of picking the time, location, activity, restaurant, and letting you sit back, relax, and show appreciation. And by relax, I mean be punctual, dress the part, and don’t dawdle. If they’re unselfaware or one-sided, dating them might have a transactional feel to it.
in mating
These types are likely to be sexually confident, and happy to have friends with benefits or otherwise no strings sex. In fact, sex might be their cardio workout for tension release, and they might also have no problem going to bed angry. I can imagine they’re active on the apps and have very clear expectations spelled out on their profiles, because clarity is kind, and upfront communication saves time. In a plot-twist, if they’re kinky, they might be into being dominated to get a break from a life where they feel like they have to be in charge and on top all the time. But that’s just a hunch.
in relating
when the time comes to settle down - ideally with a just slightly less ambitious partner, they are most likely the alpha of the relationship, clear about what they want, and they’ll run a tight ship at home as well. I would not expect this person to be overly romantic or surprise you with sweet gestures or whisper sweet nothings in your ear. They’re more likely the person to get you a present you can show off, but they’re going to be loyal or at least discrete, and you and your children will be taken care of. Their communication style will be direct and impersonal, at times instructing and demanding, though again don’t take it personally, they’re probably not trying to hurt you on purpose. As Dario puts it, this Type calculates percentages and costs “even when they’re talking about ‘soft’ things like marriage,” so conflict is probably geared towards solving one concrete problem at a time.
Again, this information is meant as an overview of the function and its analytic flavor, it cannot describe all the nuances and individual idiosyncrasies - but I hope you now have a better idea.
If you think you have a analytic flavor of extraverted Thinking, or a partner of that type, I’d love to hear from you!
