So I've been having some thoughts about MBTI as an abstract system.
I think the truth of the system depends upon whether the dichotomies fall into place as they should.
Wikipedia defines a dichotomy as:
This means that the two parts of the same whole are fundamentally differentiated in a way that they cannot mingle with each other. Many of the things we often consider to be dichotomous in nature are not true dichotomies. For instance, sun-up and sun-down is not true because there are times during dawn and dusk that the sun is half-way, thus breaking the "mutually exclusive" rule. Black and white is not a true dichotomy as long as we are referring to the entire chromatics system. However, A.M. and P.M. is a true dichotomy as long as we are within the 24 hour time scale. Just like MBTI, A.M. P.M. is more of an abstract system of thought and orientation, based on numbers which do not coincide with their concrete counterparts (sun up and sun down).A dichotomy is any splitting of a whole into exactly two non-overlapping parts, meaning it is a procedure in which a whole is divided into two parts, or in half.
It is a partition of a whole (or a set) into two parts (subsets) that are:
jointly exhaustive: everything must belong to one part or the other, and
mutually exclusive: nothing can belong simultaneously to both parts.
The two parts thus formed are complements. In logic, the partitions are opposites if there exists a proposition such that it holds over one and not the other.
So let's make this simple:
The system begins with the entirety of, what I will call a "type"; as this word more closely aligns with what the system itself should be describing. "World-view" colloquially represents something more like a body of ideas, and "personality" psychologically refers to the sum of what makes a person; which is not what MBTI does.
The first dichotomy to be drawn in this "type" is introversion and extraversion. In order to fulfill the "dichotomy", all extraverted functions must strictly be involved with the "outer" world, while all introverted functions must be involved with the "inner" world in kind. This distinction rolls out the carpet for all the other digits.
The second dichotomy is "intuitive" and "sensing". These make up the body if perception. The only separation I can make is "concrete" vs. "abstract", but perceptions vary in terms of abstraction and concreteness. It is quite possible for information to be ambiguously in the middle of abstract and concrete. For instance, the phrase "A man" is more vague, heightening the level of abstraction, while the phrases "The man", and "7 men", is more precise and appeals more to the concrete. So perceptions themselves are more scalar in nature, but this dichotomy only means to draw the line between Perception as a whole.
The third dichotomy involves the body of decision making as either "thinking" or "feeling". I must admit, I'm rather baffled by people pitting "values" and "logic" against each other as if they are not jointly exhaustive or mutually exclusive. Both of these modes of thought can be had simultaneously. One can sequence and moralize simultaneously as well - they are not fundamentally distinct. However, 2 things that are fundamentally distinct are impersonal and personal. One cannot logically be both at the same time. So Thinking is an impersonal decision making faculty and Feeling is a personal one. I would like to expound off of that, but if I did then I would probably fracture the dichotomy.
The J/P dichotomy is only correct if it refers to the extraversion/introversion preference of particular functions in relation to the types themselves.
The most interesting thing that I found was that one cannot use an introverted function and an extraverted function simultaneously; nor can one use a thinking function and a feeling function simultaneously or a sensing and an intuitive function simultaneously. For instance, if an ENFJ is to be using two functions, those functions must be either Fe/Se simultaneously or Ni/Ti simultaneously, or else the dichotomy is broken. I was about to consider if one can switch to a shadow function en tandem with the more preferred function; for instance, if an INFP could delve into Se while using Ne, but this would exhaust the perceiving dichotomy and it would be wrecked.
I would like to know why Jungians are opposed to that above sentiment ^. The only way they would be is if they do not think that sensing and intuition are fundamentally differentiated, in which case none of this is cogent.
Of course, this is all according to MBTI, which is just as abstract as A.M./P.M..