"An either/or fallacy occurs when a speaker makes a claim (usually a premise in an otherwise valid deductive argument) that presents an artificial range of choices. For instance, he may suggest that there are only two choices possible, when three or more really exist. Those who use an either/or fallacy try to force their audience to accept a conclusion by presenting only two possible options, one of which is clearly more desirable."
I was reading an interesting old article on PersonalityNation about problems with the MBTI. If anybody wants to check it out, it's at:
This article does an excellent job of taking the MBTI to task. But it is insufficient in questioning Jungian typology. I realize that this was not the author's task there. The article knocks down the MBTI for its either/or policy of typing personalities, but then commits its own either/or fallacy by concluding that the JCF (Jungian Cognitive Functions) is the only alternative to the MBTI.
I agree with the author's criticisms of the MBTI in that article. And it's obvious that most of the posters here have put on their big boy/girl pants and realized that dichotomies are the wrong way to go. Since I have been on this forum I have, however, seen instances where some posters declared, for example, that someone was a J simply because she had a neat desk. And once upon a time I had a problem typing my boss simply because he, representing the TeSi type, could be a "big picture" thinker at times, and often I think his greatest success comes from acting "out of type," so to speak. Both of these examples were mentioned, and rightly condemned, in the PersonalityNation article.
On the other hand, I don't see why I should believe in the JCF. Declaring only 2 rational functions, it does not explain why there are not 4 or 8 rational functions, or sufficiently explain why S and N cannot be rational functions. It does not explain how a person can move through life with a dominant Irrational function without, literally, being irrational. Since it does not delve sufficiently into the Irrational mode, people who study these systems come to the conclusion that they are merely experiencing as Se and not judging with Se during the same process.
I'm just going by what I've read since I started reading these threads. For example, an Se will declare that she enjoys the experiencing process, but she does not describe the experiencing in subjective terms for what it is: something resulting in a kind of feeling which serves as a judgment to the cognitive faculty that is neither Fe nor Fi, Te nor Ti. An experience such as the so-called "natural high" during a trip to the countryside is not explained by Carl Jung using functional analysis.
I believe this is because Jung did not believe in the existence of a subjective judgment. As a "soft mystic," so to speak, he believed in the use of archetypes in judgments involving the analysis of poetry and such. But that is merely an intellectual exercise designed to produce the desired result. Using JFC terms is self-supporting. He does not explain the effect of certain art forms on the human psyche precluding and not requiring any use of the traditional intellectual formulas. Carl Jung was merely the inventor of new intellectual formulas. Yes they are a great advance over the old ones, but they still only go in circles.