User Tag List

1. Originally Posted by Blackwater
Well, it repeats many of the criticisms we know already and the author goes a bit overboard at times but at the end of the day, MBTI is still not scientifically validated and still bears more than a little resemblance to astrology...

http://www.hha.dk/man/cmsdocs/WP/2006/2006-05.pdf
Scientifically validated eh?

And who gives the order?

2. Originally Posted by Mycroft
Jung did address the J/P divide in so much as he presented the idea of the "dominant function". J/P is not a trait in and of itself - it simply indicates which function is extraverted. For a J, the judging function will be extraverted. For a P, the perceiving function. If the person in question is an extravert, the extraverted function will be the dominant, if introverted the reverse case is true.

Jung also mentioned that everyone has a "supporting function" to go along with their dominant. If a person's dominant function is one of what he referred to as the "irrational functions", i.e. iNtuition or Sensing, their supporting function would be one of the "rational functions", i.e. T or F.

MBTI simply uses 4 letters to indicate what a person's dominant function and supporting function is. So, up until here, no divergence from Jung's thinking. To be entirely honest, I'm not exactly sure where and how MBTI diverges from Jung's thinking.
Yes, this is my impression as well.

Ptgatsby, could you please show me *in detail* how and where and to what degree MBTI diverges from Jung.

Jung did address the J/P divide in so much as he presented the idea of the "dominant function". J/P is not a trait in and of itself - it simply indicates which function is extraverted. For a J, the judging function will be extraverted. For a P, the perceiving function. If the person in question is an extravert, the extraverted function will be the dominant, if introverted the reverse case is true.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Jung use those two simply as differentiation between the dominant function instead? As in, J means the rational function was dominant and P the irrational was dominant? Come to think of it, didn't he refer to J and P as rationality or judging and irrationality or perceiving?

From some of the posts I've seen on this board, it seems that Jung also touched upon tertiary and inferior functions as well, but I haven't seen this in any of his works I've read. I've read pretty much everything readily available by Jung, so I'd be curious to know where these posters came across these mentions. (No, that's not sarcasm.)
Didn't Jung speak something about the shadow? How under stress or something people adopts a "reverse polarity" in terms of the functions? Or is that a MBTT construct?

3. Let me just clarify here.

When I was talking about Jung vs MBTI, I was referring to the paper and how it attacked the functions and traits as unsupported, etc. The reason why I say it is 70 years out of date is because MBTI does not use the same methodology as Jung - going as far as Jung not being willing to comment on MB's works because of it.

The instrument of MBTI is not Jungian, the analysis of MBTI traits is not jungian, the factor analysis and changes are not jungian... The theory prompted all of these things and so there is still a lot of Jungian theory left - the gap here is with methodology, meaning that the attack on 'Jungian' functions is skipping 70 years of validation and support, making the attack unfair and unwarranted.

(I am, however, very curious where Jung used the terms J/P, even in different words. It is one thing to state that we have a dominant function, but entirely seperate to come up with a measure to say that this is a dominant function... I don't think he ever came up with any way of describing what made a function dominant other than observation of what trait/attitude it was.)

4. I don't think he ever came up with any way of describing what made a function dominant other than observation of what trait/attitude it was
ok, but how is mbti different from this?

well, jung used rational (J) and irrational (P) to desribe the difference. the j/p addition is good, but it follows logically from a differentiation of what is in psychological types. thats not to say that jung could have thought it up himself though. but jung wasnt interested in using his typologi as a complete desribtion of a human being. mere to use it as a diagnostical compass, a via regia into individual therapy.

comparing jung to capt/mbti is like comparing a single jet with an airforce

5. Originally Posted by Blackwater
ok, but how is mbti different from this?

its like comparing a prototype jet with a fully armed fighter jet.
It's more like two brothers watching a bird and building something in their garage vs two engineers in a lab drawing upon hundreds of mechanics to build their flying machine.

Again, the point isn't that MBTI doesn't use Jungian views, even if they are mutated a fair bit - it's close enough... the point is that the attack on MBTI via Jungian views was errant because it attacked Jung's methodology (ie: astrology) rather than MBTI methodology (ie: "not scientifically validated")... those differences are night and day. MBTI does not operate upon Jungian views or methodology anymore - it is merely the cognitive explanation of a validated test.

6. Originally Posted by ptgatsby
(I am, however, very curious where Jung used the terms J/P, even in different words. It is one thing to state that we have a dominant function, but entirely seperate to come up with a measure to say that this is a dominant function... I don't think he ever came up with any way of describing what made a function dominant other than observation of what trait/attitude it was.)
As far as I'm aware, Jung didn't have a particular theory on why we have the dominant functions we do, but given that to this day nobody knows how we develop our personalities and psychological machinery, you can't really hold it against him.

Again, to address J and P, these two letters in and of themselves have no meaning. They are not a dimension of personality. A specific example:

INTP means that the Perceiving (irrational) function is extraverted. Since the INTP is an introvert, as indicated by the "I", the dominant function will be the introverted function. Since iNtuition is the extraverted function, this means that introverted Thinking will be the dominant function.

On the other hand, take an ENTJ: as indicated by the "J", the Judging (rational) function will be extraverted. Since the ENTJ is an extravert, the extraverted function will be the dominant function, leaving introverted iNtuition as the support function.

The J/P, by itself, has no meaning other than to indicate the orientation of functions which do have meaning. It's not an extra function that was added in MBTI theory.

7. Originally Posted by Mycroft
The J/P, by itself, has no meaning other than to indicate the orientation of functions which do have meaning. It's not an extra function that was added in MBTI theory.
Right, function = Jungian, so I can see that. Correct me if I'm wrong, but there is no E/I function either, it's only about the attitude of the function (E = primary extroverted).

Yet E/I and J/P is unquestionably a trait - factor analysis proved that. So, the argument I make is that MBTI is no longer a theory but an instrument, complete with the studies to support it (as much as they do, of course).

MBTI is more than jungian theory at an extremely basic level. At this point, it is more the afterthought than the core of MBTI - it is a way to unify traits... but MBTI itself is not the theory, it is the instrument. It even have trait descriptions, including E and J, which are not covered in a Jungian view.

Hence, the concept that they have "no meaning" seems incorrect, at least as far as the factor analysis and everything else goes.

But yes, I know... I'm going to hear about how traits and behaviour aren't cognitive, and that really, there are only 2 functions with I/E attitudes.

MBTI may play both fields, but as it currently stands, their methodology and their instrument says there are four. The theory takes a back seat.

8. Originally Posted by ptgatsby
Right, function = Jungian, so I can see that. Correct me if I'm wrong, but there is no E/I function either, it's only about the attitude of the function (E = primary extroverted).
Correct.

Yet E/I and J/P is unquestionably a trait - factor analysis proved that. So, the argument I make is that MBTI is no longer a theory but an instrument, complete with the studies to support it (as much as they do, of course).
Modern MBTI considers J/P an independent trait? Odd. From the perspective of Jung's theories, it makes no sense to say, "Yes, my dominant function is extraverted sensing, but I'm more of a J than a P."

MBTI may play both fields, but as it currently stands, their methodology and their instrument says there are four. The theory takes a back seat.
This being the case, I would have to say that I adhere to Jungian theory rather than MBTI.

Edit: Jung did touch upon the subject of some people being more or less introverted/extraverted than others, though... He devoted a good amount of writing to the problems of being too introverted or too extraverted, which does, to an extent, imply introversion/extraversion is an independent trait.

9. The J/P dimension in MBTI is not exactly correspondent with rationality/irrationality in Jungian terms. MBTI considers the Extraverted function to decide J/P, based on what they show in their outward behavior. However, in Jungian terms, Ti and Fi are rational, and Ni and Si are irrational. So Jung's focus is mostly on the individual's actual primary focus, E or I, and MBTI's is mostly on how the individuals are seen by others in the outer world.

10. Originally Posted by Mycroft
Modern MBTI considers J/P an independent trait? Odd. From the perspective of Jung's theories, it makes no sense to say, "Yes, my dominant function is extraverted sensing, but I'm more of a J than a P."
I'm not part of the MBTI sub culture, but if they performed factor analysis to come up with independent traits and subtraits, I'd love to hear their reasoning for it not being an individual trait (but not function, so the argument goes that J/P is expression of functions, not a function itself).

But then again, I didn't hear anything about being extraverted intuitor when I had my MBTI done. Theory just doesn't play the same role in MBTI anymore... but that's not to say it doesn't exist.

Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•