The MBTI is an arrangement of preferences, right? You prefer introversion over extraversion, prefer sensation over intuition, etc.
But then there's Types. There's extroverts and introverts, there's thinking types and intuitive types, etc.
So when Jung writes about his functions, he really only writes about four.
The idea of "eight" functions is a misinterpretation of the meaning of his text.
He primarily writes about introverts and extraverts, the "general attitude of consciousness" as he calls it.
The "types" such as they are express a consciousness which is fundamentally oriented toward one of the four functions.
An intuitive type can either be introverted or extraverted which produces eight types with all of the combinations...sixteen when you allow for a relatively differentiated auxiliary, I.e. A conscious perceiving function in a judging type or vice versa.
Here's where there is a crossroads. Most internet theorists think the auxiliary has an opposite attitude of orientation. But why?? That contradicts what Jung wrote, for sure. When he talks about the conscious attitude, then he immediately follows up to write that the opposing attitude will be unconscious,
But, when he writes about the auxiliary, he implies that it is a relatively conscious function.
So actually, the "dominant and auxiliary" should both be oriented toward the same attitude of general consciousness (introversion in introverts), and the inferior functions will have a more "primitive, archaic, infantile, unconscious" attitude (extraversion in introverts).
Like 99.9% of you are going to try and tell me it's Ti-Ne-Si-Fe because that's what you've been taught, that's what your indoctrination preaches, and that's all your feeble minds will accept. It isn't true though.
If you actually want to assign a functional stack, the dominant and auxiliary will express the same attitude. For an INTP that might be Ni-Ti-Fe-Se because they are a perceiving type thus primarily oriented irrationally (P), meaning the dominant Intuition will also repress Sensation foremost as they are in direct opposition. An INTJ would have a stack resembling Ti-Ni-Se-Fe because they are primarily oriented rationally (J) therefore Feeling will be repressed foremost by the dominant function of Thinking.
I don't care to be lectured that this isn't what he says or she says. This is the most sound interpretation of Types as it applies to the MBTI.
Furthermore, the four preferences of the MBTI all have general correlations to four of the main Big Five traits. So a preference for Judging can be reasonably verified by examining the personality and observing "high conscientiousness".
Refrain from name calling, examine this theory, look for "holes" based on what "makes sense".... NOT based on what the commonly accepted theory is. Just ponder it, will ya? Let's see if you can erase your prejudice and "fixed, inflexible belief system" for 2 seconds and examine this objectively for logical consistency. You might surprise yourself.
First off, you need to read the whole book, not just chapter 10, and you didn't read carefully enough.
Second, Jung emphasizes opposites. Here is what he actually says: If the the dominant is introverted thinking, (a rational function) extraverted feeling (a different rational function/different preference with an opposite attitude) must be the least conscious. The next function (aux) must be an irrational function with an opposite attitude, namely Ne, and the next least conscious function must be a different irrational function with an opposite attitude, namely Si. It's all about the dichotomies. He was primarily concerned with the dom and inferior...the aux/tert were never really emphasized much in his book. For INTJs, since Ni is the dom, Se must be inf, and Te must be the aux, with Fi tert. You can deduce the entire functional stack as long as you know what the dominant or inferior function is.
You don't fully understand what the functions are yet...that's why I would advise doing some more reading and recognizing that there is a lot of literature on this topic. You can spend your whole life studying it. The P and J in MBTI are just meant to help clarify a certain designation. Jung never mentions them. There is no independent judging or perceiving. What he does say is that Thinking and Feeling are "rational" and Intuition and Sensation "irrational." Actually there is a big misunderstanding that P types are irrational and J types rational. Ti is a judging function, while Te is a perceiving function. Inwardly, many P types are actually quite serious even though externally they might appear differently. Conversely, J types often appear externally very serious, probably because they tend to extravert judgment more readily, but internally they are not necessarily so. I know many very playful INTJs for instance who at first blush seem rather dweebish/assholeish, but once you talk with them really enjoy making dweeby conversation and have a dweeby sense of humor. Plus they are my go-to people when I need someone to consult with. Their Ni is amazing when it comes to finding a convergent solution.
Personality theories/psychology tries to employ the use of objective concepts to refer to subjective experiences but concepts belong only to the domain of the external world. When one tries to represent internal/subjective experiences with words whose domain is the external world (as is the case with all words) there emerges a great schism between the individuals trying to relate those same words to their own experiences.
So, ultimately, I don't think the time has come for psychology to be considered a science. Perhaps never.
So...in summary, if you think your conception is correct and that of mbti ia wrong, you'd be right (within your own context) but so would be the people who say that you're wrong and mbti is right. (within their own contexts)
I could say more but I don't wish to be burned at the stake just yet.
here is what he actually says: The next function (aux) must be an irrational function with an opposite attitude, namely Ne, and the next least conscious function must be a different irrational function with an opposite attitude, namely Si. It's all about the dichotomies.
For INTJs, since Ni is the dom, Se must be inf, and Te must be the aux, with Fi tert. You can deduce the entire functional stack as long as you know what the dominant or inferior function is.
The P and J in MBTI are just meant to help clarify a certain designation. Jung never mentions them. There is no independent judging or perceiving. What he does say is that Thinking and Feeling are "rational" and Intuition and Sensation "irrational." Actually there is a big misunderstanding that P types are irrational and J types rational.
Yeah I get that this is the standard theory but it doesn't have to be true. It's an incorrect interpretation. It's a mistake, a rather embarrassing one. That's the whole point of the OP.
Inwardly, many P types are actually quite serious even though externally they might appear differently. Conversely, J types often appear externally very serious, probably because they tend to extravert judgment more readily, but internally they are not necessarily so. I know many very playful INTJs for instance who at first blush seem rather dweebish/assholeish, but once you talk with them really enjoy making dweeby conversation and have a dweeby sense of humor. Plus they are my go-to people when I need someone to consult with. Their Ni is amazing when it comes to finding a convergent solution.
Rambling, also disputable. This is what I'm arguing against here. The premise of this thread is to abandon preexisting inflexible beliefs related to internet dogma.
Personality theories/psychology tries to employ the use of objective concepts to refer to subjective experiences but concepts belong only to the domain of the external world. When one tries to represent internal/subjective experiences with words whose domain is the external world (as is the case with all words) there emerges a great schism between the individuals trying to relate those same words to their own experiences.
So, ultimately, I don't think the time has come for psychology to be considered a science. Perhaps never.
So...in summary, if you think your conception is correct and that of mbti ia wrong, you'd be right (within your own context) but so would be the people who say that you're wrong and mbti is right. (within their own contexts)
I could say more but I don't wish to be burned at the stake just yet.
Valid criticism of the purpose of this thread.
My request is for open minded individuals to assess the logical consistency of the OP. Thank you for doing so.
Logical consistency does not equate to strict adherence to pre existing interpretations.
Anybody read the op? There are a few good paragraphs in there, which bring up some valid arguments as to why the standard interpretation could be wrong.
All theories including type, are tentative in some form but have certain validity based on it's predictive or descriptive power. I use MBTI/Socionics/Keirsey as models(tools) to try to understand other personalities and myself. The foundation goes back to Hippocrates during antiquity and the four temperaments. They have later been expanded by others especially Carl Jung who introduced the concept of cognitive functions.
I think for people who've gotten deeper into typology, they've have already noticed that the functions and types are malleable. As for differing function orders, I think it depends on how you understand and define them. Ni and Fi are misunderstood often, for example. J is certainly not just 'rationality' like you state in the OP too, it's more of a 'drive into a presumed conclusion'.
But, when he writes about the auxiliary, he implies that it is a relatively conscious function.
As for this, can you source your text? Interpretations can differ.
Like 99.9% of you are going to try and tell me it's Ti-Ne-Si-Fe because that's what you've been taught, that's what your indoctrination preaches, and that's all your feeble minds will accept. It isn't true though.
For people who've really gotten MBTI down, it's not exactly the tests that allow you to pinpoint what your type is, it's the ordering of the cognitive functions. We conclude that the functions match with our cognitive behaviors, thus we surmise that we are INTP, we don't think we're INTP because a test says that we are. The tests just allow you to give you a starting point.
Furthermore, the four preferences of the MBTI all have general correlations to four of the main Big Five traits. So a preference for Judging can be reasonably verified by examining the personality and observing "high conscientiousness".
Not really sure what the point of this was, but a lot of the personality assessments build off of the former, trying to fill in what the others could not. For example the test on 16personalities have a Assertive/Turbulent aspect to somewhat mimic what the Big Five provides.
Yeah I wasn't referencing the test I'm referencing the popular belief about function ordering.
The op was drafted with the specific request to abandon pre-existing beliefs about function stacks and reconstruct a new functional stack based on a different interpretation.
I mention the big five here to allude to the original premise of the MBTI- that it is a set of preferences which are actually consistent and valid.
So a J type will most likely exhibit high conscientiousness and as such will probably fall into the categories of "rational" whereas P types are lower in conscientiousness and may be more likely to fall into the category of "irrational"; as such an INTP could theoretically have the ordering of Ni-Ti-Fe-Se.
Still, that linked article appears interesting and is not just another iteration of the same old story. I'm interested to read it so I will leave it open and get to it in the morning.
Indeed there are 4 functions, each of them pointing at different directions so if you are an intuitive type you "are good" at both i and e aspects of it, it is only that you prefer one while the other is like some guy that you appreciate for its wisdom but pay less attention to, like screw him, immo this is the deal, like your parents advices or something but within you.
You should check out the dimentionality of functions in socionics.
Indeed there are 4 functions, each of them pointing at different directions so if you are an intuitive type you "are good" at both i and e aspects of it, it is only that you prefer one while the other is like some guy that you appreciate for its wisdom but pay less attention to, like screw him, immo this is the deal, like your parents advices or something but within you.
You should check out the dimentionality of functions in socionics.
No, if are a dominant intuitive type this does not mean you are "good at" both Ni and Ne. Libido is directed either towards the objective (Ne) or towards the subjective (Ni). Each preference has it's corresponding introverted and extraverted versions likely located at a diagonal to one another in the brain, so only one of them is well-developed, not both. The nature of Ni is much, much different from that of Ne. The former is convergent and even Jung has trouble defining it clearly, while the latter is diffuse and concerned exclusively with objective possibilities. Objective here means generally accepted ideas, theories, or anything external.
Yeah I wasn't referencing the test I'm referencing the popular belief about function ordering.
The op was drafted with the specific request to abandon pre-existing beliefs about function stacks and reconstruct a new functional stack based on a different interpretation.
I mention the big five here to allude to the original premise of the MBTI- that it is a set of preferences which are actually consistent and valid.
So a J type will most likely exhibit high conscientiousness and as such will probably fall into the categories of "rational" whereas P types are lower in conscientiousness and may be more likely to fall into the category of "irrational"; as such an INTP could theoretically have the ordering of Ni-Ti-Fe-Se.
You can't just reinvent MBTI and analytical psychology and tell people to abandon their pre-existing beliefs when you haven't even fully understood either of these fields or bothered to read the relevant literature. The MBTI has proven itself to be a fairly reliable instrument. Read this article: MBTI for Skeptics
I didn't actually mean to do that which is why I went back and filled in the blanks immediately afterward. Life's easier with a keyboard and mouse, when it's all touch screen sometimes these things happen. I don't know what else to tell you but to are the third person to conveniently fail to recognize that I did indeed put in the effort.
You don't need to justify yourself, I just found it funny
And yeah I read the response.
Perhaps you should try another approach. You can't expect people just agree or either fight with you. What inquisitor said wasn't wrong,*It simply had no place no your premise.
I don't take this classification so seriously. I'm finishing psychology and I can tell you this kind of tests are purely orientative. We use it to feedback beliefs that may help us to move the client from his/her comfort zone.
The so-called "cognitive functions" are what James Reynierse has rightly characterized as a "category mistake," and it sounds like Miss spelt is about ready to take the final step and leave them behind in favor of the respectable (dichotomy-centric) districts of the MBTI. Until then, though, she's correct that the only interpretation that's really consistent with Psychological Types as a whole is that Jung's function model for a Ti-dom with an N-aux was Ti-Ni-Se-Fe, rather than the goofy Ti-Ne-Si-Fe stack championed by shining lights like Linda Berens and Dario Nardi.
According to Myers, Jung's function model called for the auxiliary function to have the opposite attitude to the dominant (e.g., Ni-Te for INTJs). But Myers acknowledged that the great majority of Jung scholars — all but one, she said — disagreed with that interpretation. I think she was mistaken (assuming she wasn't being disingenuous), but it wasn't a very significant "mistake" from Myers' perspective since, although she gave the functions quite a lot of lip service in the first half of Gifts Differing, she then essentially left them behind in favor of the dichotomies (to her credit, IMHO) — and for anyone who's interested, I discuss that issue at greater length in the INTJforum post I link to at the end of this one.
Jung said more people were essentially in the middle on E/I than were significantly extraverted or introverted, and because he viewed his eight function-types as four varieties of extravert and four varieties of introvert, that may mean Jung thought that a plurality of people really didn't have a well-differentiated dominant function. But setting the typeless folks aside, Jung thought that what you might call the default state of affairs for someone who did have a dominant function was that their dominant (substantially differentiated) function would have what Jung called their "conscious attitude" (i.e., introverted for an introvert), and all three of the other functions would have the opposite attitude and would basically be "fused" with the other undifferentiated functions in the unconscious.
Describing the F, S and N functions of a Ti-dom, Jung explained:
The counterbalancing functions of feeling, intuition, and sensation are comparatively unconscious and inferior, and therefore have a primitive extraverted character that accounts for all the troublesome influences from outside to which the introverted thinker is prone.
But... notwithstanding that I just referred to that as the "default" state of affairs, Jung also said that, in the typical case, a person would also have an auxiliary function that, although it was less differentiated than the dominant, would be sufficiently differentiated to "exert a co-determining influence" in their "consciousness."
Jung's view was that, although the default attitude of the second function was in the opposite direction from the dominant function, that corresponded with the default place for the second function being the unconscious — in an "archaic" state and fused with the other unconscious functions. If and to the extent that the second function was brought up into consciousness and developed ("differentiated") as the auxiliary function (serving the dominant), it's pretty clear Jung envisioned that it would also, to that extent, take on the same conscious attitude (e.g., introversion for an introvert) as the dominant function.
In the brief section of Psychological Types devoted to the auxiliary function, Jung specifically refers to the tertiary and inferior functions as the "unconscious functions" and the dominant and auxiliary functions as the "conscious ones"; and he notes that "the unconscious functions ... group themselves in patterns correlated with the conscious ones. Thus, the correlative of conscious, practical thinking [— i.e., a T-dom with an S-aux—] may be an unconscious, intuitive-feeling attitude, with feeling under a stronger inhibition than intuition." Thirty years later, in Individual Dream Symbolism in Relation to Alchemy, Jung's model hadn't changed. As he explained:
If we think of the psychological function [sic] as arranged in a circle, then the most differentiated function is usually the carrier of the ego and, equally regularly, has an auxiliary function attached to it. The "inferior" function, on the other hand, is unconscious and for that reason is projected into a non-ego. It too has an auxiliary function. ...
In the psychology of the functions there are two conscious and therefore masculine functions, the differentiated function and its auxiliary, which are represented in dreams by, say, father and son, whereas the unconscious functions appear as mother and daughter. Since the conflict between the two auxiliary functions is not nearly as great as that between the differentiated and the inferior function, it is possible for the third function — that is, the unconscious auxiliary one — to be raised to consciousness and thus made masculine. It will, however, bring with it traces of its contamination with the inferior function, thus acting as a kind of link with the darkness of the unconscious.
As already noted, the majority of Jung scholars believe that Jung viewed the auxiliary function as providing balance between judging and perceiving, but not between introversion and extraversion. Myers largely rested her contrary case on the sentence where Jung says the auxiliary function is "in every respect different" from the dominant function. And I'd agree that her interpretation would appear to be the best one if all you do is look at that one sentence in isolation. But the trouble is, that interpretation seems inconsistent with way too much else in Psychological Types. When Jung wrote about how an introvert's introversion gets balanced (or "compensated," as he more often put it) by extraversion (and vice versa) — and he actually devoted a great deal of Psychological Types to that issue — he consistently envisioned the I/E balance happening by way of the unconscious, and never by way of a differentiated conscious function oriented in the opposite direction.
Jung spent substantially more of Psychological Types talking about extraversion and introversion than he spent talking about all eight of the functions put together. In the Foreword to a 1934 edition of the book, Jung explained that he'd put the eight specific "function-type" descriptions at the end of the book for a reason, and he said, "I would therefore recommend the reader who really wants to understand my book to immerse himself first of all in chapters II and V."
Chapter II is Jung's detailed discussion of Schiller's Letters on the Aesthetic Education of Man, and centers around Schiller's insight, as a Ti-dom, into the specific kinds of "barbarism" found in the dominant Christian culture as the result of its one-sidedly extraverted orientation. Jung, as a fellow Ti-dom, concurred with much of Schiller's analysis, and noted that the extraverted one-sidedness of the culture (and its consequential barbarism) had only gotten worse since 1795 (when Schiller wrote).
At 110 pages, Chapter V is the longest chapter in the book, and it centers around a detailed analysis of Spitteler's Prometheus and Epimetheus — which, as Jung notes, very much parallels his interpretation of Schiller. Jung calls Prometheus & Epimetheus "a poetic work based almost entirely on the type problem," and explains that the conflict at the heart of it "is essentially a struggle between the introverted and extraverted lines of development in one and the same individual, though the poet has embodied it in two independent figures and their typical destinies." Epimetheus (embodying the extraverted attitude) represents the established, traditional Church and the (by Spitteler's time, as both he and Jung saw it) barbaric influence of its one-sidedly extraverted attitude on Western culture, while Prometheus tries to bring about a religious reformation/renewal as a result of the introverted orientation that causes him to represent the view that God is to be found within each man rather than outside him.
And the central focus on extraversion/introversion, and the things Jung thought all extraverts and all introverts tend to have in common, runs through every chapter of Psychological Typesother than Chapter X — the only part of the book with any substantial description of the eight functions.
As Jung saw it, the dynamics of the human psyche revolved first and foremost around a single great divide, and that divide involved two all-important components — namely, introversion/extraversion and conscious/unconscious.
And for Jung, to a much greater degree than Myers, a person's unconscious played a large role in motivating and influencing their ordinary thoughts, feelings and behavior. Jung thought that, for a typical person on a typical day, something like half of their speech and behavior might well be the product of their unconscious functions, and Jung said it was sometimes hard to tell the consciously-sourced stuff from the unconsciously-sourced stuff. He said one way to figure out which was which was to be on the lookout for the "archaic" (or "primitive") aspects that tended to be characteristic of unconscious-based stuff.
So, under ordinary circumstances, the one-sidedness of an introvert's conscious side would be "compensated" on a daily basis by extraversion from the unconscious. But Jung noted that, as time passed, there could be a tendency for the introverted one-sidedness to increase — possibly by greater development of the dominant function (potentially a positive thing for some purposes) — which in turn would mean that the unconscious extraverted stuff got repressed to a greater degree and failed to provide adequate "compensation," resulting in a build-up of dammed libido in the unconscious. (Jung's break with Freud was, alas, far from total.) This could lead to neurotic symptoms, and maybe things would end up being resolved in a relatively undramatic way or maybe the person would end up needing Jung's professional services.
Jung viewed the conflicting aspects of extraversion and introversion as so fundamentally opposed that it was ultimately impossible to truly reconcile them in terms of anything in the nature of conscious reasoning. Instead, Jung said extraversion and introversion could only be reconciled in a kind of inchoate and fragile way, by a process he referred to as the "transcendent function," through which a "symbol" would arise from the unconscious that would allow the repressed unconscious libido to surface in a constructive way and unite with the conscious attitude — but only temporarily, because "after a while the opposites recover their strength." Jung explains that "the creation of a symbol is not a rational process, for a rational process could never produce an image that represents a content which is at bottom incomprehensible."
Contrast all that with Myers' notion that everyone's conscious side includes both an introverted and an extraverted function that, in a reasonably well developed person, work together to keep the person balanced both in terms of judgment/perception and extraversion/introversion.
Again, the psychodynamics of the conflict between extraversion and introversion was really Jung's great theme in Psychological Types — as he emphasized in that 1934 foreword. If you asked someone trying to defend Myers' interpretation how an opposite-attitude auxiliary function could have been missing in action through all those chapters where the E/I battles raged, they might point to the fact that the section of Chapter X devoted to the auxiliary function was extremely brief — an afterthought, really — and so the E-vs.-I aspect of the auxiliary's role was just something Jung didn't happen to mention. But I'd argue that, if Jung thought the auxiliary function played any substantial role in terms of a person's E/I psychodynamics, (1) there's no way the auxiliary function would have ended up being a brief afterthought at the end of Chapter X, and (2) there's no way all the many passages in the first nine chapters where extraversion and introversion repress each other and fight each other and compensate each other would have been written in the way they were — i.e., with the E/I psychodyamics consistently and exclusively framed as parallelling the conscious/unconscious divide.
Want more? In 1923 — two years after Psychological Types was published — Jung gave a lecture (separately published in 1925) that's included in the Collected Works edition of Psychological Types. After some opening remarks on the shortcomings of past approaches to typology, here's how he began his discussion of extraverts and introverts:
f we wish to define the psychological peculiarity of a man in terms that will satisfy not only our own subjective judgment but also the object judged, we must take as our criterion that state or attitude which is felt by the object to be the conscious, normal condition. Accordingly, we shall make his conscious motives our first concern, while eliminating as far as possible our own arbitrary interpretations.
Proceeding thus we shall discover, after a time, that in spite of the great variety of conscious motives and tendencies, certain groups of individuals can be distinguished who are characterized by a striking conformity of motivation. For example, we shall come upon individuals who in all their judgments, perceptions, feelings, affects, and actions feel external factors to be the predominant motivating force, or who at least give weight to them no matter whether causal or final motives are in question. I will give some examples of what I mean. St. Augustine: "I would not believe the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not compel it." ... One man finds a piece of modern music beautiful because everybody else pretends it is beautiful. Another marries in order to please his parents but very much against his own interests. ... There are not a few who in everything they do or don't do have but one motive in mind: what will others think of them? "One need not be ashamed of a thing if nobody knows about it."
[The previous examples] point to a psychological peculiarity that can be sharply distinguished from another attitude which, by contrast, is motivated chiefly by internal or subjective factors. A person of this type might say: "I know I could give my father the greatest pleasure if I did so and so, but I don't happen to think that way." Or: "I see that the weather has turned out bad, but in spite of it I shall carry out my plan." This type does not travel for pleasure but to execute a preconceived idea. ... There are some who feel happy only when they are quite sure nobody knows about it, and to them a thing is disagreeable just because it is pleasing to everyone else. They seek the good where no one would think of finding it. ... Such a person would have replied to St. Augustine: "I would believe the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not compel it." Always he has to prove that everything he does rests on his own decisions and convictions, and never because he is influenced by anyone, or desires to please or conciliate some person or opinion.
This attitude characterizes a group of individuals whose motivations are derived chiefly from the subject, from inner necessity.
The first thing to note here is that, in the second sentence of that second paragraph, Jung characterizes extraverts as people "who in all their judgments, perceptions, feelings, affects, and actions feel external factors to be the predominant motivating force." Judgments and perceptions both. This is clearly inconsistent with the idea that a typical extravert would either be extraverted in their judgments and introverted in their perceptions or vice versa.
And in case you think, well, maybe Jung just slipped up in terms of how he worded that one sentence — although I'd say that would have been a pretty huge slip-up — the second thing to focus on here is the substance of the second and third paragraphs as a whole. They're pretty much all about judgments, right? The second paragraph describes a series of extraverted judgments and the third paragraph describes a series of introverted judgments. And Jung doesn't say those extraverted judgments are characteristic of Je-doms and Pi-doms; he says they're characteristic of all extraverts (Je-doms and Pe-doms alike). And likewise he says the introverted judgments in the third paragraph are characteristic of all introverts (Ji-doms and Pi-doms alike). And again, there is no way that is how he would have described things if his model said that half of extraverted judgers were introverts (the Pi-doms) and half of introverted judgers were extraverts (the Pe-doms).
Carl Alfred Meier was Jung's longtime assistant and the first president of the Jung Institute in Zürich and, as James Reynierse notes in the article linked to in the last spoiler, Meier's interpretation of Jung (as reflected in his book, Personality: The individation process in light of C.G. Jung's typology) was that the auxiliary function would have the same attitude as the dominant — as a result of which, as Meier wrote, "cooperation with the main function is made easier."
And that's hopefully more than enough for most readers but, for hardcore Jung/MBTI dweebs, I've put a little more ponder-fodder (involving a BBC-TV interview) in the spoiler.
Here's a link to Part 3 of a BBC interview done with John Freeman when Jung (born in 1875) was 84. Forward to around 8:40 and you can watch this exchange:
JF: Have you concluded what psychological type you are yourself?
Jung: (chuckling) Naturally I have devoted a great deal of attention to that painful question, you know.
JF: And reached a conclusion?
Jung: Well, you see, the type is nothing static. It changes in the course of life. But I most certainly was characterized by thinking. I overthought from early childhood on. And I had a great deal of intuition, too. And I had definite difficulty with feeling. And my relation to reality was not particularly brilliant. I was often at variance with the reality of things. Now that gives you all the necessary data for the diagnosis.
Note that Jung both indicates that his thinking and intuition preferences have long been reasonably clear, and that typing himself has been a "painful" process. If you assume that he also considered his introversion reasonably clear — and anyone who's read his autobiography isn't likely to doubt that — then the only issue that seems to be a likely candidate for any kind of "painful" uncertainty is the issue of whether he was a Ti-dom with an N-aux or an Ni-dom with a T-aux. And that conclusion is also consistent with the fact that (1) as described in this Vicky Jo "news flash," Jung reportedly told Stephen Abrams (a Jung scholar) in 1959 that he was an "introverted intuitive"; and (2) as described in this follow-up report, Marie-Louise von Franz (one of Jung's most famous pupils) declared that Jung was an N-dom.
Speaking of von Franz, she also said (citing Jung) that people have the most difficulty understanding not the opposite of their dominant function (i.e., Se for an Ni-dom), but rather their dominant function turned in the opposite direction (i.e., Ne for an Ni-dom). As she put it:
Jung has said that the hardest thing to understand is not your opposite type — if you have introverted feeling it is very difficult to understand an extraverted thinking type — but the same functional type with the other attitude! It would be most difficult for an introverted feeling type to understand an extraverted feeling type. There one feels that one does not know how the wheels go round in that person's head.
With that as background, and if you assume that the "painful" part of Jung's typing decision was the choice between Ti-dom with an N-aux and Ni-dom with a T-aux, I think it's worth noting that, if you assume Jung viewed the auxiliary function as having the opposite attitude to the dominant, Jung's "painful" dilemma would have involved figuring out whether he was Ti-Ne or Ni-Te, which readers of Psychological Types know Jung viewed as substantially different function pairs. By contrast, if you assume Jung viewed the auxiliary as having the same attitude as the dominant, Jung's "painful" dilemma would have involved figuring out whether he was Ti-Ni or Ni-Ti — the same two functions, and therefore a considerably more understandable source of uncertainty.
And I put my final note in the next spoiler.
Because I'm a pretty big believer in the MBTI, and because a lot of what ended up in the Myers-Briggs typology had its roots in Jung, and maybe especially because the function-centric MBTI theorists and their internet forum followers are inclined to give Jung's perspective — or at least what they think Jung's perspective was — a lot of weight, I often find myself talking about what Jung's views were on X, Y or Z issue, and often in cases where my own views are substantially different.
So... as a final note, and to avoid any misunderstanding, Ti-Ni-Se-Fe is not the functions model I subscribe to, because I don't subscribe to any functions model. As I noted at the start of this post, I think Myers was correct to essentially abandon the functions in favor of the dichotomies — and I think the disingenuousness of some of her Jungian lip service was understandable, given her circumstances. As further discussed in the INTJforum post linked below, Myers was a nobody who didn't even have a psychology degree — not to mention a woman in mid-20th-century America — and I assume that background had at least something to do with the fact that her writings tend to downplay the extent to which her typology differs from Jung.
One of the most fundamental ways the Myers-Briggs typology differs from Psychological Types is that, when it came to the thoughts and feelings and speech and behavior of a normal person on a typical day, Myers' perspective involved situating a much larger share of the relevant temperament-related causes in the conscious part of the person's psyche. Accordingly, an interpretation of Jung that said that essentially all of an introvert's extraversion was unconscious, and that something like half of that introvert's speech and behavior was the result of unconscious causes, was majorly inconsistent with Myers' perspective. So it's not hard to see how convenient Myers' minority interpretation of Jung's auxiliary function was, since it effectively meant that the lion's share of someone's introverted and extraverted attitudes and activity could be viewed as consciously-sourced.
In any case, regardless of the extent to which Myers really believed her model was true to Jung, my position is (1) that it wasn't true to Jung, but also (2) that its infidelity to Jung was ultimately irrelevant, given that, as I've noted, the Myers-Briggs typology — once you strip away the Jungian lip service — essentially (and rightly, IMHO) represented an abandonment of the functions in favor of the dichotomies.
And anyone who's made it this far and is interested can read more from me about the place of the functions (or lack thereof) in the MBTI's history — and the tremendous gap between the dichotomies and the functions in terms of scientific respectability — in this long INTJforum post.
Links in INTJforum posts don't work if you're not a member, so here are replacements for the two links in that post:
^I'll have to read that post in its entirety later.
For the question in the OP I'd have to say that I've moved past the concept of using typology to "type" people. The nature of MBTI as a statistically categorical model inherently invalidates its applicability to any individual person.
From Jung's book, "The Undiscovered Self"
"Since self-knowledge is a matter of getting to know the individual facts, theories help very little in this respect. For the more a theory lays claim to universal validity, the less capable it is of doing justice to the individual facts. Any theory based on experience is necessarily statistical; that is to say, it formulates an ideal average which abolishes all exceptions at either end of the scale and replaces them by an abstract mean. This mean is quite valid, though it need not necessarily occur in reality.
Despite this it figures in the theory as an unassailable fundamental fact. The exceptions at either extreme, though equally factual, do not appear in the final result at all, since they cancel each other out. If, for instance, I determine the weight of each stone in a bed of pebbles and get an average weight of 145 grams, this tells me very little about the real nature of the pebbles. Anyone who thought, on the basis of these findings, that he could pick up a pebble of 145 grams at the first try would be in for a serious disappointment. Indeed, it might well happen that however long he searched he would not find a single pebble weighing exactly 145 grams.
The statistical method shows the facts in the light of the ideal average but does not give us a picture of their empirical reality. While reflecting an indisputable aspect of reality, it can falsify the actual truth in a most misleading way. This is particularly true of theoories which are based on statistics. The distinctive thing about real facts, however, is their individuality. Not to put too fine a point on it, one could say the real picture consists of nothing but exceptions to the rule, and that, in consequence, absolute reality has predominantly the character of irregularity.
These considerations must be borne in mind whenever there is talk of a theory serving as a guide to self-knowledge. There is and can be no self-knowledge based on theoretical assumptions, for the object of self-klnowledge is an individual - a relative exceptions and an irregular phenomenon. Hence it is not the universal and the regular that characterize the individual, but rather the unique. He is not something to be understand as a recurrent unit but as something unique and singular which in the last analysis can neither be known nor compared with anything else."
I get the impression that the nature of the psychic phenomena Jung sought out to describe in his previous works, were never intended to be turned into a tool of statistical categorization and that to do such a thing defeats the essential purpose of typology in the first place. So my, "theory of type" is much more to do with understanding people in a holistic context incorporating the impact of culture, social conditioning, education, inner motivations and specific gene expression - among many other things.
As such, in order to understand anyone adequately is for me a process by which I formulate a far more nuanced perception of each specific individual I encounter as opposed to if I were to try and apply a statistical blanket either before or after initial exposure to them.
I find this infinitely preferable to the habit of applying a statistical template either prior to or post interaction with another being. The appeal of such templates lie in their ability to structure and order parts of the world that to our human brain, are otherwise chaotic and difficult to comprehend.
However I believe that it is a betrayal of ultimate truth to attempt to order, for the sake of simplicity, that which is far better understood in its original state of chaos. Irrespective of how difficult it may be to fully formulate one's understanding into a tangible linguistic or logical body of knowledge without resorting to a statistical template, I maintain that it is far more authentic and true to the nature of the object to refrain from doing as such, and that it allows a far deeper level of understanding.
The act of reducing an ultimately chaotic entity to an ordered preconception inherently limits one's ability to understand said entity. Once understanding has been reached (insofar as can be done) there is certainly nothing wrong with using a statistical template as a means of comparative analysis, however it must be noted that such comparative analysis must always be understood as correlative at best, not causative.
Only in the individual can we ascertain causative analysis, irrespective of how powerful a correlative analysis may be.
Carl Alfred Meier was Jung's longtime assistant and the first president of the Jung Institute in Zürich and, as James Reynierse notes in the article linked to in the last spoiler, Meier's interpretation of Jung (as reflected in his book, Personality: The individation process in light of C.G. Jung's typology) was that the auxiliary function would have the same attitude as the dominant — as a result of which, as Meier wrote, "cooperation with the main function is made easier."
This doesn't mean Ti-Ni nor equate it in any sense.
The Ti-Ni-Se-Fe model is reflective of the introvert's subjectiveness rather than how they express themselves objectively. If you separate the first two functions and the last two into conscious/unconscious groups, then of course you're going to give weight to some Ti-Ni Se-Fe theory.
Saying that if you're an introvert, then all your unconsciousness would express themselves extrovertedly, and conversely, saying that if you're an extrovert, all your unconsciousness would express themselves introvertedly is just, just simply naïve. I don't think I should even provide a reason why this would be.
But the reality is that Ni as an INTP's aux doesn't make sense at all given their P, and moreso when considering that an INTP pans out in their thinking, i.e. trying to look for possibilities themselves (rather than trying to look for possibilities to argument their thinking, or conclusion etc).
I guess you can say that a Ti-dom with an Ne-aux is somewhat "Ni"-like, that is;
'Ti-Ne' ≈ Ni,
but that would simply put away with the whole dom/aux/tert/inf theory.
This doesn't mean Ti-Ni nor equate it in any sense.
...
But the reality is that Ni as an INTP's aux doesn't make sense at all given their P, and moreso when considering that an INTP pans out in their thinking, i.e. trying to look for possibilities themselves (rather than trying to look for possibilities to argument their thinking, or conclusion etc).
I guess you can say that a Ti-dom with an Ne-aux is somewhat "Ni"-like, that is;
'Ti-Ne' ≈ Ni,
but that would simply put away with the whole dom/aux/tert/inf theory.
I'm not prepared to reference the entirety of 20th century psychological history to back this up,
But the model presented in the OP actually suggests an INTP would be ordered Ni-Ti given they are a P type which for the purpose of simplicity I have listed as irrational.
The Ti-Ni ordering in my mind is more appropriate for an INTJ.
Redbaron are you saying that models of typology can only be used to type populations not individuals?
That's really a powerful point which I think is supremely important to recognize. I find it consistent with this other idea that I toy with from time to time that an individual may be a superposition of all recognizable types until they are interacted with/measured whereupon their function arrangements exist as a momentary glimpse in time, almost as an illusion of reality, but never as a consistent ordering.
Like the double-slit experiment of light or other similar principles of duality or even QM interpretations.
If you actually want to assign a functional stack, the dominant and auxiliary will express the same attitude. For an INTP that might be Ni-Ti-Fe-Se because they are a perceiving type thus primarily oriented irrationally (P), meaning the dominant Intuition will also repress Sensation foremost as they are in direct opposition. An INTJ would have a stack resembling Ti-Ni-Se-Fe because they are primarily oriented rationally (J) therefore Feeling will be repressed foremost by the dominant function of Thinking.
If so, you're working the MBTI from a completely different understanding of what the functions are. The functions are given their definitions before they are placed into the orderings.
We don't say, "because INTP has P in it therefore (don't understand this jump either) and because P, it must somehow mean the dom must be some type of N-dom" (and Ni-dom specifically)."
Ni as a primary function is entirely in the domain of the J's, if you take a look into MBTI as it is now.
It's also nonsensical because, if we're going to follow Jung completely, then one would also have to agree to his idea that the conscious functions, i.e. the first two, are either both I, or both E, while the latter two are either both I or E, in opposition of the first two.
My understanding is that yes, the first two functions tend to combine with each other to orient themselves (i.e. their 'attitude') but that does not mean that they both are introverted functions, as in, both Ni or Ti, or Si or Fi. From how I understand personality problems, the problems are due to the cognitive functions not in their natural state of being, that is, in a state which reflects naturally in one of the MBTI types (which reverts from an extroverted function to an introverted function or vice versa). This is why INTP's usage of 'Fi' usually drains them completely, and is often called their 'demon' function.
That is my exact criticism of the MBTI as it is now.
Why does an INTJ need to be an Ni type, exactly? It doesn't. I say it shouldn't.
Intuition is an irrational/perceiving function. It just allows perceptions to occur.
So I'm connecting this with P types in general, aka "low conscientiousness".
So it really does make sense that an INTJ would be more like a Ti type and an INTP a Ni type. As Js, INTJs will be more likely to exhibit high conscientiousness which might be represented in classical typology as a rational type.
Basically the core connection I'm making here if you strip it to the bone is that conscientiousness as a personality trait is the same underlying dimension that was initially described as rational/irrational. Now whether it is a spectrum (yes) or a dichotomy (yes) depends on the severity to which an individual exhibits a preference, either sometimes (moderate C, thus most of the population, thus X) or nearly all the time (definite preference).
That is my exact criticism of the MBTI as it is now.
Why does an INTJ need to be an Ni type, exactly? It doesn't. I say it shouldn't.
Intuition is an irrational/perceiving function. It just allows perceptions to occur.
So I'm connecting this with P types in general, aka "low conscientiousness".
So it really does make sense that an INTJ would be more like a Ti type and an INTP a Ni type. As Js, INTJs will be more likely to exhibit high conscientiousness which might be represented in classical typology as a rational type.
Basically the core connection I'm making here if you strip it to the bone is that conscientiousness as a personality trait is the same underlying dimension that was initially described as rational/irrational. Now whether it is a spectrum (yes) or a dichotomy (yes) depends on the severity to which an individual exhibits a preference, either sometimes (moderate C, thus most of the population, thus X) or nearly all the time (definite preference).
It's no big deal to reject definitions when they don't make sense. That's a bit more what Ti is about anyway.
Look again at conscientiousness as a trait. It makes sense that from high to low we see similarities that start with rigid J preferences (as defined) on one end and rigid P preferences (as defined) on the other.
Now look at the rational/irrational spectrum. On the rational end we see types whose consciousness is primarily ordained toward discernment and on the irrational end we see types whose consciousness is primarily ordained towards acceptance.
When we compare the two traits, it's reasonable to claim that they're defining the same psychological disposition.
Call it P, low C, or IR....makes no qualitative difference.
Most people will be in the middle anyway.
So if an INTP type is defined by the MBTI as an introverted perceiving type (which they are) then we also have an introverted irrational type, I.e. Someone with low extraversion and low conscientiousness.
If we also define them in the MBTI as an intuitive type then we should expect to see high openness. Therefore we've all but narrowed it down to an introverted intuitive type. Read through the definition of a Ni type and tell me that they don't meet all of these criteria.
Thanks for that post reckful. Very interesting. The problem I see with "Type Dynamics" is that it is much more difficult to design a quantifiable test around each of the functions Jung outlined (Ti, Fe, etc.). OTOH, dichotomies, by their very nature, are much easier to quantify and survey. This does not necessarily mean that approaching typology from a functions perspective is any less valid. However, we live in an age where quantitative data is considered superior to the qualitative kind. This has been an ongoing trend for a while, and even Jung talked about this. I believe Myers recognized this fact and designed the MBTI with that in mind.
I guess there comes a point where each of us has to recognize how much we value/need scientific/quantitative data in order to believe in a psychological theory. Jung obviously felt quite comfortable doing without numerical data in writing Psychological Types. He went on his gut/intuition/literary and cultural knowledge more than anything else. However, for many others, a lack of scientific/experimental data can rest very uneasy. I get the impression from reading your post that you fall into this latter camp, and it seems you have gone out of your way to really pore over the studies on this. I think it's great that you did this and have worked hard to share your insights with others. I certainly learned a lot from reading your post. That said, I think using a survey instrument is only one way to verify the validity of a theory, and there is a non-verbal, purely psychic method that comes from simply interacting with many people and investigating this for oneself. I don't know if what I'm saying makes sense, but I would actually type Jung as an INFJ on this basis rather than an INTP or INTJ. The latter(INTJ) seem much more interested in data/numbers.
What is your take on Lenore Thomson's brain map in her book Personality Type?
Front of Left Brain
Te
Fe
Si
Ni
Back of Left Brain
Front of Right Brain
Ne
Se
Fi
Ti
Back of Right Brain
Have you come across any studies (Besides Dario Nardi's EEG) that map the functions onto different regions of the brain? I found this interesting article on hemispheric asymmetries that might lend support to the functions being localized to different regions of the brain.
When the hemispheres are connected, don't they just share all the information and operate in a unified fashion?
The answer is, no, they don't.
They don't, in part, because they can't. Processing within each hemisphere relies on a rich, dense network of connections. The corpus callosum that connects the hemispheres is big for a fiber tract, but it is tiny compared to the network of connections within each hemisphere. Physically, then, it doesn't seem feasible for the hemispheres to fully share information or to operate in a fully unified fashion. Moreover, in a lot of cases, keeping things separate is (literally!) the smarter way for the hemispheres to function. Dividing up tasks and allowing the hemispheres to work semi-independently and take different approaches to the same problem seems to be a good strategy for the brain ... just as it often is in a partnerships between people.
...
the field has also uncovered a lot of hemispheric asymmetries – cases in which, for example, a left hemisphere brain area becomes active and its right hemisphere homologue (with the SAME basic inputs, outputs, etc.) is much less active (or vice versa). This should really surprise us: here are two brain areas that are essentially the same on all the dimensions the field is used to thinking about, yet they behave strikingly differently. There must be physical differences between them, of course – but then, this means that those "subtle" differences are much more critical for function than the field has appreciated.
...
I believe that cognitive functions arise from dynamically configured neural networks. On this view, the role played by any given brain area is different depending on the state of the network of which it is currently a part, and how activity unfolds over time often matters more than where it is in the brain.
...
For language comprehension in particular, my work has shown that left hemisphere processing is more influenced by what are sometimes called "top-down" connections, which means that the left hemisphere is more likely to predict what word might be coming up next and to have its processing affected by that prediction. (Sounds like Ne) The right hemisphere, instead, shows more "feedforward" processing: it is less influenced by predictions (which can make its processing less efficient) but then more able to later remember details about the words it encountered. (Sounds like Si) Because of what is likely a difference (possibly small) in the efficacy of particular connections within each hemisphere, the same brain areas in the two interact differently, and this leads to measurable and important asymmetries in how words are perceived, linked to meaning, remembered, and responded to.
If we also define them in the MBTI as an intuitive type then we should expect to see high openness. Therefore we've all but narrowed it down to an introverted intuitive type. Read through the definition of a Ni type and tell me that they don't meet all of these criteria.
^I'll have to read that post in its entirety later.
For the question in the OP I'd have to say that I've moved past the concept of using typology to "type" people. The nature of MBTI as a statistically categorical model inherently invalidates its applicability to any individual person.
From Jung's book, "The Undiscovered Self"
"Since self-knowledge is a matter of getting to know the individual facts, theories help very little in this respect. For the more a theory lays claim to universal validity, the less capable it is of doing justice to the individual facts. Any theory based on experience is necessarily statistical; that is to say, it formulates an ideal average which abolishes all exceptions at either end of the scale and replaces them by an abstract mean. This mean is quite valid, though it need not necessarily occur in reality.
Despite this it figures in the theory as an unassailable fundamental fact. The exceptions at either extreme, though equally factual, do not appear in the final result at all, since they cancel each other out. If, for instance, I determine the weight of each stone in a bed of pebbles and get an average weight of 145 grams, this tells me very little about the real nature of the pebbles. Anyone who thought, on the basis of these findings, that he could pick up a pebble of 145 grams at the first try would be in for a serious disappointment. Indeed, it might well happen that however long he searched he would not find a single pebble weighing exactly 145 grams.
The statistical method shows the facts in the light of the ideal average but does not give us a picture of their empirical reality. While reflecting an indisputable aspect of reality, it can falsify the actual truth in a most misleading way. This is particularly true of theoories which are based on statistics. The distinctive thing about real facts, however, is their individuality. Not to put too fine a point on it, one could say the real picture consists of nothing but exceptions to the rule, and that, in consequence, absolute reality has predominantly the character of irregularity.
These considerations must be borne in mind whenever there is talk of a theory serving as a guide to self-knowledge. There is and can be no self-knowledge based on theoretical assumptions, for the object of self-klnowledge is an individual - a relative exceptions and an irregular phenomenon. Hence it is not the universal and the regular that characterize the individual, but rather the unique. He is not something to be understand as a recurrent unit but as something unique and singular which in the last analysis can neither be known nor compared with anything else."
I get the impression that the nature of the psychic phenomena Jung sought out to describe in his previous works, were never intended to be turned into a tool of statistical categorization and that to do such a thing defeats the essential purpose of typology in the first place. So my, "theory of type" is much more to do with understanding people in a holistic context incorporating the impact of culture, social conditioning, education, inner motivations and specific gene expression - among many other things.
As such, in order to understand anyone adequately is for me a process by which I formulate a far more nuanced perception of each specific individual I encounter as opposed to if I were to try and apply a statistical blanket either before or after initial exposure to them.
I find this infinitely preferable to the habit of applying a statistical template either prior to or post interaction with another being. The appeal of such templates lie in their ability to structure and order parts of the world that to our human brain, are otherwise chaotic and difficult to comprehend.
However I believe that it is a betrayal of ultimate truth to attempt to order, for the sake of simplicity, that which is far better understood in its original state of chaos. Irrespective of how difficult it may be to fully formulate one's understanding into a tangible linguistic or logical body of knowledge without resorting to a statistical template, I maintain that it is far more authentic and true to the nature of the object to refrain from doing as such, and that it allows a far deeper level of understanding.
The act of reducing an ultimately chaotic entity to an ordered preconception inherently limits one's ability to understand said entity. Once understanding has been reached (insofar as can be done) there is certainly nothing wrong with using a statistical template as a means of comparative analysis, however it must be noted that such comparative analysis must always be understood as correlative at best, not causative.
Only in the individual can we ascertain causative analysis, irrespective of how powerful a correlative analysis may be.
redbaron I read the above quote from Jung as a criticism of using statistical data in understanding an individual. That said, Jung would never have gone to the trouble to writing Psychological Types if he didn't believe people could be categorized. I find MBTI type descriptions only somewhat useful. But the functions help identify an individual's most fundamental motivations, and that's a blind spot for me. It has predictive value and makes interacting with and understanding the individual much easier. Layered on top of that, one can then add the other factors you mentioned like culture, upbringing, and so forth.
But I do believe that the functions correspond to the efficacy of certain neural networks in the brain. All organisms seeks to conserve energy to the greatest possible extent, and so if the mind is faced with a problem, the most efficient neural network will be used to conserve energy. This in turn determines the motivation of the individual.
If we get as far as I--P types in the MBTI as being categorized as the introverted irrational types, as I believe they are (or should be)
Then the only remaining distinction is to separate the sensation types from the intuitive types.
This is where I think openness comes into play.
It may be a far stretch to make this connection and I'm not currently examining the text for clues, but by my general recollection I'll surmise that the chief distinction between the introverted sensation type and the introverted intuitive type is primarily the level of openness that the personality exhibits.
Openness can also be loosely defined as imagination. By my best recollection, I think that when Jung attempts to describe the qualitative difference between the two, he points to a kind of psychic looseness or imaginative quality as being characteristic of his Ni type whereas the Si type kind of "stops" his activity at the apprehension of the object itself rather than reaching deeper.
I might be pushing too many buttons here, but may I ask another question? When you mean Si types and Ni types, do you mean Si-doms/Ni-doms or just their definitions in the general sense(?)
Openness can also be loosely defined as imagination. By my best recollection, I think that when Jung attempts to describe the qualitative difference between the two, he points to a kind of psychic looseness or imaginative quality as being characteristic of his Ni type whereas the Si type kind of "stops" his activity at the apprehension of the object itself rather than reaching deeper.
While it may come down to definitions I am not seeing any evidence that my conception of types is incorrect; it's inconsistent with the basic premise that INTPs are Ti doms etc sure, but that's the fault of the original connection that was made.
And with this in mind, there is no difference in a Ni "type" per se and an Ni dominant. It's referring to the same thing.
Which is why I've clearly outlined that the perspective of the op is to cast away fixed and inflexible definitions (namely INTPs are Ti types and INTJs are Ni types) and instead rebuild a framework that is logically consistent with Jung's observations, contemporary knowledge (Big Five), and MBTI categorization of types (specifically P and J).
Like you can bark all day that "I don't understand" but I just bark back that "I don't agree" and without some kind of persuasion I don't really see how you can suggest I don't understand.
As it stands I think I've made a rather compelling case for INTPs to be Ni types. If you see fault in this basic premise aside from the obvious fact that it's incongruent with fixed and inflexible beliefs then by all means make it known.
If you have some proof that my (albeit elementary) depiction of the differences between the two introverted irrational types being primarily based on the level of openness they exhibit is invalid, then make it known because I otherwise don't see this going anywhere further.
You can tell me I don't understand all day or you can make your case.
Is it not openness that primarily defines the differences between Si and Ni as they are defined classically? It is.
Well the problem I'm seeing currently is that I think we're working with different definitions in the first place, and second, that the theory you're working with tries to deduce functions by comparing it with the Big Five, which quantitates qualities which the MBTI types don't outline in the first place. For example there are correlations between Openness and Conscientiousness to J and P, but they do not suddenly equate J or P, or suddenly equate Ni or Si, and so on. Again there are correlations, but they are not equals. There's a lofty connection being made which is crude and rough. To simply put, it's illogical and inconsistent. Then the theory also seems to rest on deductive reasoning to come to a conclusion, which is not what the MBTI is about. Typology in MBTI is about talking about what is, then defining them, then ordering them into a system, rather than cross referencing to another behavioral categorization combined with a weak understanding of MBTI's predecessors, i.e. Jung's.
So the problem really is threefold when you boil them down to their axioms:
1) Differing definitions
2) Correlation, not direct definitions
3) Deductive reasoning
There's also another problem that we'd run up against if we were to rework the entire functioning order, that is simply, then 'what are the orders of the other types'? What about the SJs, the SPs, and the NFs? I don't think it's possible to reflect symmetry in function order for these other types. It's easy to foresee contradictions or bending of the definitions to fit the new theory.
Moving on, our definitions for Ti and Ni seem to differ, as well as the understanding of the 'dom'. 'Ti types' or Ti-doms are not wholly categorized by 'introverted thinking', nor do 'Ni' types or Ni-doms completely 'lack' Ti. The orderings which are in place, i.e. Ti-Ne-Si-Fe (for the INTP), or the INTJ's Ni-Te-Fi-Se, does not mean that they lack the other four functions which are not listed in their orders.
So in short there seems to be a conceptual misunderstanding of the MBTI as well.
In conclusion, it is not the definition of an Ni-dom that allows an INTP to be Ni-dom, but a progresses of fallacies, of which I listed above.
I'm also not sure whether you can define Ni and Ti, or maybe more importantly, explain how an Ni-dom thinks and how a Ti-dom operates. Note here that defining and explaining are different methods of elaboration.
Miss spelt is correct to associate MBTI J's and P's with Jung's rational and irrational types (respectively), and that issue really goes hand in hand with the issue of the auxiliary's attitude. As noted in my first post, Myers said — and I'm not sure to what extent she really believed it or whether, as discussed in that post, it was somewhat of a disingenuous way to position the MBTI as more Jungian than it really was — that whether you were J or P depended on whether, as between your top two functions, it was the judging function or the perceiving function that was extraverted. But needless to say, that model depends on the premise that your top two functions consist of one extraverted function and one introverted function.
It's not uncommon to hear MBTI forumites declare that the J/P dimension was a Myers concoction that wasn't part of Jung's original typology, but I'd say that's only partly true. For Jung the first great divide between the types was the E/I divide, but the second one was the divide between the "rational types" (the J-doms) and the "irrational types" (the P-doms), and Chapter X of Psychological Types is organized accordingly. And if you read through Psychological Types looking for two-kinds-of-people-in-the-world descriptions that seem to line up reasonably well with the MBTI J/P dimension, you'll mostly find them in Jung's descriptions of the J-doms and P-doms. Jung said P-doms "find fulfilment in ... the flux of events" and are "attuned to the absolutely contingent," while J-doms seek to "coerce the untidiness and fortuitousness of life into a definite pattern." He said a J-dom tends to view a P-dom as "a hodge-podge of accidentals," while a P-dom "ripostes with an equally contemptuous opinion of his opposite number: he sees him as something only half alive, whose sole aim is to fasten the fetters of reason on everything living and strangle it with judgments."
Faced with, say, an introverted woman who seemed to have N and T preferences, I think one of the ways (perhaps the main way) Jung would have decided if she was Ni-Ti or Ti-Ni would have been to determine if she seemed more like one of his rational types (i.e., J-ish in MBTI terms, seeking to "fasten the fetters of reason on everything" and "coerce the untidiness and fortuitousness of life in a definite pattern") or like one of his irrational types ("finding fulfilment in the flux of events").
So... whereas the most popular modern functions model says that an INTP's functions are Ti-Ne-Si-Fe — while using, it must be added, substantially different conceptions of those functions than Jung's original descriptions — I believe that Jung, face to face with someone who would have tested INTP on the MBTI, would have said that he was dealing with an introverted irrational type with N and T preferences, and hence someone whose functions were Ni-Ti-Fe-Se.
Consistent with the idea that Jung's "irrational types" really line up better with all MBTI P's (rather than the EPs and IJs), the items that the official MBTI uses to tap into the J/P dimension include "When you go somewhere for the day, would you rather (J) plan what you will do and when, or (P) just go?" and "Do you prefer to (J) arrange dates, parties, etc., well in advance, or (P) be free to do whatever looks like fun when the time comes?" and "Which word appeals to you most? (P) impulse or (J) decision." So it's the MBTI P's (generally), and not the MBTI EPs and IJs whose test responses indicate that they're the ones most likely to "find fulfilment in ... the flux of events" (as Jung put it).
Put all that together and I think it's fair to say that, if the MBTI had been around in 1921 and Jung had been face to face with people whose types were clear from the standpoint of the MBTI dichotomies, Jung would have assigned the following function stacks to the 16 MBTI types:
The "extraverted rational types" (extraverted J-doms)
As a final wonkish note, and as discussed at some length in this PerC post, Jung assigned what's arguably the lion's share of the modern conception of S/N (the concrete/abstract duality) to E/I, with the result that, when Jung looked out at the world and spotted what he thought was a definite "introvert," he was almost assuredly looking at someone who'd be typed IN under the MBTI (and ditto for Jungian "extraverts" and ES). So... a final caveat with respect to those Jungian function stacks is that it's fair to say that, to a significant degree, Jung's typology didn't really have neat slots for MBTI ENs and ISs — but the function-stack assignments in the list above basically ignore that complication and match Jung's types to MBTI types as if Jung's S/N and MBTI S/N were the same.
^ I somewhat disagree on the function ordering you outlined (though maybe you discussed this and I missed it in my skimming). Reason being, someone that is self-aware is capable of understanding the affect/effect their subconscious has on them. In the Jungian sense this means making the unconscious conscious, which typically implies maturity through experience of the self over time and leads a person to develop an opposing conscious attitude to the one they primarily hold.
Basically since introversion and extroversion are different attitudes, to make the subconscious conscious requires different conscious attitudes. An introvert needs a conscious attitude of extroversion in order to control and utilize their extroverted subconscious. In this sense, a mature person develops a conscious attitude opposite to their natural one. So while I agree with your function ordering, I think it's only relevant for people that are not very experienced with their instincts or who have poor self-awareness.
Miss spelt is correct to associate MBTI J's and P's with Jung's rational and irrational types (respectively), and that issue really goes hand in hand with the issue of the auxiliary's attitude. As noted in my first post, Myers said — and I'm not sure to what extent she really believed it or whether, as discussed in that post, it was somewhat of a disingenuous way to position the MBTI as more Jungian than it really was — that whether you were J or P depended on whether, as between your top two functions, it was the judging function or the perceiving function that was extraverted. But needless to say, that model depends on the premise that your top two functions consist of one extraverted function and one introverted function.
It's not uncommon to hear MBTI forumites declare that the J/P dimension was a Myers concoction that wasn't part of Jung's original typology, but I'd say that's only partly true. For Jung the first great divide between the types was the E/I divide, but the second one was the divide between the "rational types" (the J-doms) and the "irrational types" (the P-doms), and Chapter X of Psychological Types is organized accordingly. And if you read through Psychological Types looking for two-kinds-of-people-in-the-world descriptions that seem to line up reasonably well with the MBTI J/P dimension, you'll mostly find them in Jung's descriptions of the J-doms and P-doms. Jung said P-doms "find fulfilment in ... the flux of events" and are "attuned to the absolutely contingent," while J-doms seek to "coerce the untidiness and fortuitousness of life into a definite pattern." He said a J-dom tends to view a P-dom as "a hodge-podge of accidentals," while a P-dom "ripostes with an equally contemptuous opinion of his opposite number: he sees him as something only half alive, whose sole aim is to fasten the fetters of reason on everything living and strangle it with judgments."
Faced with, say, an introverted woman who seemed to have N and T preferences, I think one of the ways (perhaps the main way) Jung would have decided if she was Ni-Ti or Ti-Ni would have been to determine if she seemed more like one of his rational types (i.e., J-ish in MBTI terms, seeking to "fasten the fetters of reason on everything" and "coerce the untidiness and fortuitousness of life in a definite pattern") or like one of his irrational types ("finding fulfilment in the flux of events").
So... whereas the most popular modern functions model says that an INTP's functions are Ti-Ne-Si-Fe — while using, it must be added, substantially different conceptions of those functions than Jung's original descriptions — I believe that Jung, face to face with someone who would have tested INTP on the MBTI, would have said that he was dealing with an introverted irrational type with N and T preferences, and hence someone whose functions were Ni-Ti-Fe-Se.
Consistent with the idea that Jung's "irrational types" really line up better with all MBTI P's (rather than the EPs and IJs), the items that the official MBTI uses to tap into the J/P dimension include "When you go somewhere for the day, would you rather (J) plan what you will do and when, or (P) just go?" and "Do you prefer to (J) arrange dates, parties, etc., well in advance, or (P) be free to do whatever looks like fun when the time comes?" and "Which word appeals to you most? (P) impulse or (J) decision." So it's the MBTI P's (generally), and not the MBTI EPs and IJs whose test responses indicate that they're the ones most likely to "find fulfilment in ... the flux of events" (as Jung put it).
Put all that together and I think it's fair to say that, if the MBTI had been around in 1921 and Jung had been face to face with people whose types were clear from the standpoint of the MBTI dichotomies, Jung would have assigned the following function stacks to the 16 MBTI types:
The "extraverted rational types" (extraverted J-doms)
As a final wonkish note, and as discussed at some length in this PerC post, Jung assigned what's arguably the lion's share of the modern conception of S/N (the concrete/abstract duality) to E/I, with the result that, when Jung looked out at the world and spotted what he thought was a definite "introvert," he was almost assuredly looking at someone who'd be typed IN under the MBTI (and ditto for Jungian "extraverts" and ES). So... a final caveat with respect to those Jungian function stacks is that it's fair to say that, to a significant degree, Jung's typology didn't really have neat slots for MBTI ENs and ISs — but the function-stack assignments in the list above basically ignore that complication and match Jung's types to MBTI types as if Jung's S/N and MBTI S/N were the same.
This site uses cookies to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies. We have no personalisation nor analytics --- especially no Google.
Plus they are my go-to people when I need someone to consult with. Their Ni is amazing when it comes to finding a convergent solution.
*laughs*
