I agree that MBTI/Jung got some things right:
- Human consciousness works in a hierarchical fashion - it has become quite clear to me through observation that this is correct. People will always put certain functions ahead of others. I will only pursue an idea if it's supported by my Ti, while my ENFP friend will take any idea his Ne brings him - even if it's stupid and bound to end in disaster - because his logic function (Te) is third while his Ne is dominant.
- Functions work on a continuum - the more you pay attention to logic, the less emphasis you place on feelings; the more you look at the specifics, the less you see the big picture. The more developed one function is, the less developed the opposite of that function will be. This is evident to me through the the terrible Fe of myself, and my ISTP brother and friend - I also have to laugh when my ISTJ dad makes some horrible Ne guess about what might happen in the future or why someone did something.
This article provides some great insight as to why we see the patterns that we do, and perhaps some soft evidence that there's something to all of this.
This map does not imply that the functions are literally located in the brain, occupying their separate quadrants in splendid isolation from one another. Rather, it suggests that certain areas of the brain are crucial to the tasks we associate with standard functional terms.
For example, the cognitive processes that enter into an Extraverted Judging preference can’t be located in one area of the brain. Discrimination and decision-making, whether personal orimpersonal, depend on working memory, emotional investment, and the sort of abstract representation permitted by the hippocampus.
But the fact remains that if the left frontal lobe of the brain is anesthetized, discrimination and executive judgment are rendered impossible. The frontal cortex is crucial to the tasks we associate with the terms Te and Fe.
As research with split-brain patients has made clear, the two halves of the brain share their different "takes" on data by sending signals across the corpus callosum,which both divides and connects them. The left hemisphere interprets these signals in terms of a constructed world view, the right in terms of changes in expected patterns. Without the latter input, the left brain ignores change relevant to its interests, but without left-brain input, the right brain responds to every pattern change as though it were a crisis.
On the other hand, communication between the two hemispheres doesn’t always occur directly. The front and back hemispheres cannot send information diagonally to each other across the corpus callosum.
This neurological template supports a good deal of what Jung said about the functions. For example, it’s clear from the little brain map that the inferior function always implicates the brain quadrant diagonally opposed to the dominant. Activity in diagonally opposed quadrants can, of
course, occur in tandem; however, conscious awareness of the inferior function’s contribution to a project is likely to occur, initially, by way of projection in the outside world.
From this information it seems quite obvious to me that Jung got a few things right. It makes sense that there's a dominant and inferior function, as your dominant function (or brain quadrant, if you like) is located diagonally from your inferior function and therefore has the least amount of communication with your dominant function. The roles of your secondary and tertiary functions also make perfect sense, as the quadrant that represents your secondary function is located in next to your dominant function and in the same brain hemisphere. Your tertiary function or quadrant is also located next to your dominant function, just in the other hemisphere.
Now, I don't believe the theory to be entirely accurate, as it would be pretty hard to do that merely from observation, but I believe the general ideas/model of it to be fairly accurate. But, in the end, there's still a lot of work to be done because all this really shows is that people have higher functioning in certain areas of their brain. Individual differences can most likely be defined much more in-depth than this.
EDIT: Alright, so I've read the whole thing now, and there's mainly three things it's taking issue with: The construction of the test, people being mistyped, and people being discriminant based on types. All are valid points, but he does nothing to disprove the theory. I really have no clue why no one is giving this theory any credit. They all want to measure personality in how it manifests itself in reality, but there's much more to it. Who cares if we know that you scored 45% on extraverted, 30% Neuroticism, 56% openness to new experiences, etc on a test? It really doesn't tell you much at all. The only reason it's not stereotyping is because each person has their own unique test score based on how they subjectively answered questions. There's obvious underlying principles behind how consciousness and therefore personality operates, but they pay no attention to it. /rant
NINJA
Those were the days
