User Tag List

123 Last

Results 1 to 10 of 37

  1. #1
    Administrator highlander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/sp
    Socionics
    ILI Ni
    Posts
    17,885

    Default MBTI and Cognitive Functions - Incompatible??

    It has been suggested that JCF and MBTI are wholly different systems and incompatible with each other (see below post). I see the two as being so integrally linked that I can hardly separate them from each other. Thoughts on this?

    Quote Originally Posted by Savage Idealist View Post
    Uh, no. MBTI may be based off of Jung, but it is twisted into something so wholly different that the two can't really be compatible with each other; they are two very different systems. MBTI is based off of Jung's 4 dichotomies but it doesn't incorporate all of them into one state of mind (unlike any Jung type which uses Sx, Nx, Tx, and Fx), rather it splits them apart as necessary opposites. Furthermore it reinterprets the deeper meaning of those functions; Extravert and Introvert isn't merely a means of attention to the outer world vs. attention to the inner world in MBTI, but rather it's whether one is more people and social oriented or more private and solitary oriented. Feeling isn't about values and Thinking isn't about standards, rather it's literally feeling and thinking as an opposite. So when some thinks I'm such a type because I seem to be 'IN', then we're talking about a totally different system here, because in Jung, 'IN' is either INTJ, INFJ, INFP, and INTP. None of those types fit into the same function bracket.

    Please provide feedback on my Nohari and Johari Window by clicking here: Nohari/Johari

    Tri-type 639

  2. #2
    Wake, See, Sing, Dance Cellmold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    5,806

    Default

    MBTI is an intepretation of Jung by Isabel Briggs-Myers and Katharine Mary Briggs.

    I dont know if they are wholly incompatible, but I do know that interpretations of Jung are often fairly varied and conflicting. On the other hand upon reading "Psychological Types" I can see how they came to their conclusions, although many have wondered why they put so much emphasis on the auxiliary and lesser functions given that Jung spent barely two pages on it. It being mentioned almost in passing.

    Which isn't to say that lack of length means that it isn't an important bit of information, but they did stretch it a bit.
    'One of (Lucas) Cranach's masterpieces, discussed by (Joseph) Koerner, is in it's self-referentiality the perfect expression of left-hemisphere emptiness and a precursor of post-modernism. There is no longer anything to point to beyond, nothing Other, so it points pointlessly to itself.' - Iain McGilChrist

    Suppose a tree fell down, Pooh, when we were underneath it?"
    "Suppose it didn't," said Pooh, after careful thought.
    Piglet was comforted by this.
    - A.A. Milne.

  3. #3
    Probably Most Brilliant Craft's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w7 sx/so
    Socionics
    N/A
    Posts
    1,200

    Default

    I see all JCF, MBTI and ennagram attempting to describe one single thing, which i think is more relevant than questioning whether they are separate systems. Anyways, MBTI does have its own ideas so, strictly speaking, it is its own system. There are definitely many differences, but that doesn't include treating "intuition" or "thinking" as separate. I remember reading Psychological types and Jung describing each function separately without necessarily indicating the "orientation"(E or I) of the function. In MBTI, a function is necessarily something with an orientation, this isn't the case with Jung. T, N, S, and F are, by themselves, functions. The main differences would have to be the J/P dichotomy, which has no reference to Jungian ideas at all, and the four function theory. Dominant-Inferior function is Jungian though.

  4. #4
    garbage
    Guest

    Default

    Good job @Savage Idealist.

    Yeah, MBTI is enough of a 'chewed up and spit out' offshoot of Jung that it may as well be considered a separate system. I personally tend to regard the MBTI system as "the test administered by CPP (or possibly online sources)" and JCF as.. well, the more theoretical stuff, functional ordering, etc. One's a psychometric assessment based on a theory, the other isn't. The four-letter abbreviation on MBTI pretty much represents analog results for a trait-based theory, where the four-letter abbreviation on JCF is a shortcut for representing a theoretical function order.

    I honestly wish that more people would separate the two, because both perspectives are useful for different purposes and can actually yield different results. I'd love to have a lil' "MBTI:" and a lil' "JCF:" hanging out underneath the avatar

    Food for thought: If MBTI and Jung are identical, then what's Socionics? Is it a bastardization of Jung, or is it also equivalent to Jung (and therefore also equivalent to MBTI)?

    But also, in a very real way,
    Quote Originally Posted by Craft View Post
    I see all JCF, MBTI and ennagram attempting to describe one single thing,
    this. They merely approach it from different angles. The angle between JCF and MBTI is just larger than we tend to treat it on these forums.

  5. #5
    Administrator highlander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/sp
    Socionics
    ILI Ni
    Posts
    17,885

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bologna View Post
    Good job @Savage Idealist.

    Yeah, MBTI is enough of a 'chewed up and spit out' offshoot of Jung that it may as well be considered a separate system. I personally tend to regard the MBTI system as "the test administered by CPP (or possibly online sources)" and JCF as.. well, the more theoretical stuff, functional ordering, etc. One's a psychometric assessment based on a theory, the other isn't. The four-letter abbreviation on MBTI pretty much represents analog results for a trait-based theory, where the four-letter abbreviation on JCF is a shortcut for representing a theoretical function order.

    I honestly wish that more people would separate the two, because both perspectives are useful for different purposes and can actually yield different results. I'd love to have a lil' "MBTI:" and a lil' "JCF:" hanging out underneath the avatar

    Food for thought: If MBTI and Jung are identical, then what's Socionics? Is it a bastardization of Jung, or is it also equivalent to Jung (and therefore also equivalent to MBTI)?

    But also, in a very real way,

    this. They merely approach it from different angles. The angle between JCF and MBTI is just larger than we tend to treat it on these forums.
    So you think that a person's JCF type has no relationship to their MBTI type? How would the end result be different? How are they "incompatible"? Don't get it.

    Please provide feedback on my Nohari and Johari Window by clicking here: Nohari/Johari

    Tri-type 639

  6. #6
    4x9 cascadeco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Enneagram
    4 so/sp
    Posts
    6,931

    Default

    I think they're supposed to be compatible and everyone talks as if they're compatible, but I admit I run into inconsistencies and think you can type differently based on which approach you take - especially given how tests determine type.

    I am thinking of someone I know fairly well, and based on how MBTI/dichotomy tests are administered (the tests themselves, and basis from which the questions determine type), and how one types using dichotomies, he'd be very much INT. Very big-picture/theoretical and such, very logical.

    However when he talks about things, and what I know of him, I honestly can't make heads or tails of what cog. functions he truly uses. I tend to think he's Si-dom, sometimes. Perhaps even ISFJ, even though I think he'd be typed by most as INT, going by dichotomies, tests, and the 16 types' stereotypical caricatures. So while he very well may be Si-dom, he doesn't fit any of the dichotomy questions that would lead to an ISJ typing.

    I also think part of the incompatibilities are due to the fact that when we're all discussing typology on here, and typing people, we're assuming each and every person can and will fit neatly into a single type, according to how theory states one is supposed to fit into it. I think there IS a subset of the population who does easily fit into the caricatures/categories; however, I think there's a large subset that isn't clearly typeable in any black-and-white sense. Especially given lack of consensus and clearcut, definitive method of determining type and disproving all other 15 types.

    And I think one could argue there's incompatibility due to the fact that no one on THIS forum can definitively type anyone... everyone uses different methods/ways of determining someones' type, and I think one CAN type differently based on whether one is going by dichotomy methods of typing vs. cog. functions.
    "...On and on and on and on he strode, far out over the sands, singing wildly to the sea, crying to greet the advent of the life that had cried to him." - James Joyce

    My Photography and Watercolor Fine Art Prints!!! Cascade Colors Fine Art Prints
    https://docs.google.com/uc?export=do...Gd5N3NZZE52QjQ

  7. #7

    Default

    I have thought of them as different systems. When I read Jung I relate most strongly to extroverted sensation, then when I read mbti I relate to isfp descriptions and to a degree esfp and istp. Personally I would like to have the same type across all systems, including socionics. Easier to remember and carry around.

  8. #8
    Administrator highlander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/sp
    Socionics
    ILI Ni
    Posts
    17,885

    Default

    MBTI, Lenore Thompson, John Beebe, etc - each one of their "systems" is based on cognitive functions and a specific ordering of those functions. So to separate JCF from MBTI as a different "system" seems nonsensical to me.

    EDIT:

    I copied in the wrong link before. This is the right one.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jungian...tive_functions
    Last edited by highlander; 09-09-2012 at 04:57 PM.

    Please provide feedback on my Nohari and Johari Window by clicking here: Nohari/Johari

    Tri-type 639

  9. #9
    4x9 cascadeco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Enneagram
    4 so/sp
    Posts
    6,931

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by highlander View Post
    MBTI, Lenore Thompson, John Beebe, etc - each one of their "systems" is based on cognitive functions and a specific ordering of those functions. So to separate JCF from MBTI as a different "system" seems nonsensical to me.

    Forum Statistics - % of Enneagram Types
    Why do you think dichotomy-tests are based on cog functions? I'm genuinely confused and would like to know.

    Dichotomy tests (what I thought was being referred to as 'mbti', as opposed to cog. functions) go by E=gets energized by people, S=detail-oriented, J=isn't late for meetings, etc. Nothing to do with cog. functions.
    "...On and on and on and on he strode, far out over the sands, singing wildly to the sea, crying to greet the advent of the life that had cried to him." - James Joyce

    My Photography and Watercolor Fine Art Prints!!! Cascade Colors Fine Art Prints
    https://docs.google.com/uc?export=do...Gd5N3NZZE52QjQ

  10. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by highlander View Post
    MBTI, Lenore Thompson, John Beebe, etc - each one of their "systems" is based on cognitive functions and a specific ordering of those functions. So to separate JCF from MBTI as a different "system" seems nonsensical to me.

    Forum Statistics - % of Enneagram Types
    Each one is an interpretation of Jung's work. So I don't think it is nonsensical, Jung's work can be seen as a system within itself.

Similar Threads

  1. MBTI and Cognitive Functions
    By paradox fox in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 03-16-2010, 05:45 PM
  2. MBTI and Jungian functions
    By hommefatal in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 06-25-2009, 09:52 AM
  3. Alcohol and Cognitive Functions
    By locke in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 10-13-2008, 07:07 PM
  4. Eye Direction and Cognitive Function
    By heart in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: 04-27-2008, 08:02 PM
  5. MBTI and Cognitive Functions
    By RansomedbyFire in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 09-10-2007, 06:52 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO