The differences between the MBTI and Jung

[madhatter]

Let's take this concept of separating the systems a step farther.

The MBTI commonly practiced on this forum is not the original MBTI. It is a fusion of JCF and MBTI. As such, P and J, which didn't exist for Jung, have become simple placeholders. They have no meaning in themselves, they are ciphers. This is how ISTP is differentiated from ISTJ.

If P and J are just placeholders in this fusion of JCF/MBTI, then they can be eliminated and replaced with a different nomenclature system. ISTP would not then be differentiated from ISTJ, so it will necessary to find another way to place the emphasis on the dominant function: let's say, isT (because Ti is dominant) and iSt (because Si is dominant).

But according to the original MBTI, P and J have real meanings, they are not merely used to show which is the dominant function. For example, among other things, they can be used to denote structured (J) and unstructured (P), with regard to a person's lifestyle. (There are other ways to denote these distinctions, such as "planned" versus "spontaneous.")

Therefore, there is no reason not to believe that there can be an iSt (Si dominant) who is either an iStj or an iStp, depending on whether the Si-dominant personality is structured or unstructured, lives according to a strict plan, or is more spontaneous on the whole.

Now according to JCF the Si is either an ISTJ or an ISFJ, according to how the basics of the system are postulated. However, this is a mere postulate, an assumption. I'm not therefore saying that my own postulate is correct, I'm just offering an alternate assumption, one that is just as valid as the JCF assumption because they are both just assumptions.

However, as a result of the second assumption, 32 types, not just 16, are made possible.

I agree with you. The J/P distinction is important to MBTI, so important to Myers that she felt compelled to add it to Jung's work. She thought that balance between extraversion and introversion were paramount to a healthy type, and that's why she thought the auxiliary was so important. I don't see J/P as just placeholders; they do have more purpose than just being a cipher for the dominant function. I interpret P as "this type uses extraverted perception" which gives the "unstructured" and "spontaneous" traits to these types, and I see J as "this type uses extraverted judgment" and these types are structured, outwardly organized, planners, etc. I think it's the combination of the J/P dichotomy with the I/E dichotomy together that shows what is the dominant function, i.e. IPs are all introverted Judgers, different from EPs, the extraverted Perceivers. P describes me in many ways, on the MBTI, I will choose P over J any day. I clearly use extraverted perception and not extraverted judgment. But, to use Myers' words, this extraverted perception is only "my aide" that I task with dealing with the world for me while my "general" or introverted judgment is hidden away, dealing with more introverted important matters. You are right that J/P makes a big difference between ISTJ and ISTP, because ISTx means something vague and unspecific to me.

I think that just proves that the underlying structure of functions exists even within the Myers-Briggs theory. Myers does not ignore the functions in Gifts Differing, but in fact, organizes the types by them, i.e. the introverted thinkers (INTP, ISTP), the introverted feelers (INFP, ISFP), etc. I think you would agree that IxFPs are very different from ExFJs.

So when I say Fi in place of IxFP, or vice versa, they are synonymous, at least in my mind.

 

[Mal12345]

I agree with you. The J/P distinction is important to MBTI, so important to Myers that she felt compelled to add it to Jung's work. She thought that balance between extraversion and introversion were paramount to a healthy type, and that's why she thought the auxiliary was so important. I don't see J/P as just placeholders; they do have more purpose than just being a cipher for the dominant function. I interpret P as "this type uses extraverted perception" which gives the "unstructured" and "spontaneous" traits to these types, and I see J as "this type uses extraverted judgment" and these types are structured, outwardly organized, planners, etc. I think it's the combination of the J/P dichotomy with the I/E dichotomy together that shows what is the dominant function, i.e. IPs are all introverted Judgers, different from EPs, the extraverted Perceivers. P describes me in many ways, on the MBTI, I will choose P over J any day. I clearly use extraverted perception and not extraverted judgment. But, to use Myers' words, this extraverted perception is only "my aide" that I task with dealing with the world for me while my "general" or introverted judgment is hidden away, dealing with more introverted important matters. You are right that J/P makes a big difference between ISTJ and ISTP, because ISTx means something vague and unspecific to me.

I think that just proves that the underlying structure of functions exists even within the Myers-Briggs theory. Myers does not ignore the functions in Gifts Differing, but in fact, organizes the types by them, i.e. the introverted thinkers (INTP, ISTP), the introverted feelers (INFP, ISFP), etc. I think you would agree that IxFPs are very different from ExFJs.

So when I say Fi in place of IxFP, or vice versa, they are synonymous, at least in my mind.

"However, as a result of the second assumption, 32 types, not just 16, are made possible."

 

[Mole]

In 1913 Carl Jung had failed his psychoanalysis with Sigmund Freud and so failed to become a psychoanalyst. As a result Carl Jung retreated into psychosis and began his Red Book.

The Red Book revealed Carl Jung's psychosis, so the Red book was locked in a safe for seventy nine years to hide his psychosis from his devotees.

 

[Kalach]

^ ad hominem

 

[Mole]

^ ad hominem

Yes, you are right, it is ad hominem.

And as I advocate criticising ideas and not persons, I am open to the charge of hypocrisy.

In my defence all I can say is that Carl Jung is a guru of the psyche and so the nature of his own psyche is relevant.

And Carl Jung leaves us the evidence of his own psyche with his Red Book, written between 1914 and 1930.

But his Red Book was so damaging to his reputation as a psychologist that the Red Book was hidden in a safe and bank vault until 2009.

So we were deceived about the psyche of Carl Jung for seventy nine years.

 

[Kalach]

So, ad hominem's okay when your target is crazy?

 

[Mole]

So, ad hominem's okay when your target is crazy?

Well, it is a choice between two evils - the evil of ad hominem and the evil of long term deception of trusting devotees.

My call is that the ad hominem in this case is the lesser of the two evils.

What's your call?

 

[StephMC]

When typing people we should thus ask ourselves, what is it that we're actually typing? Is it MBTI type based on stereotypes but if that's true, then why even bother with function terminology and instead not just type people based on the four letter code? If it's an attempt to type Jungian type, then why get stuck on whether people derive energy from social interaction or doing things as opposed to where their cognitive focus bias seems to lie? Is it towards objectivity or subjectivity? Most importantly, we should ask ourselves, how do we type people? Why do we type people the way we type them? Does self-growth comes from knowing your MBTI type more or does it come from knowing your Jungian type?

This is something I struggle with too. The cognitive dissonance experienced from trying to fit MBTI and Jungian type together is exhausting and frustrating. Sometimes I wonder if it has reached a point where it may be better to divorce Jungian typology completely from MBTI, and make something new. To what? Who knows. MBTI just seems past saving sometimes. There are too many stigmas and misconceptions attached to it to make it worth anything effective.

 

[Kalach]

Well, it is a choice between two evils - the evil of ad hominem and the evil of long term deception of trusting devotees.

My call is that the ad hominem in this case is the lesser of the two evils.

What's your call?

We can't talk if you're going to prefer evil.

 

[Entropic]

[MENTION=3325]Victor[/MENTION] So if Carl Jung's theory of the psyche is simply an exposition of his own psyche and merely presents its own subjective view of the psyche and reality, how do we know your understanding of Jung is objective and not subjective too, filtered through your own personal biases?

 

[PeaceBaby]

My point is, that people who are actually IxFP rarely test that way on the "MBTI".

Evidence, please?

[MENTION=3325]Victor[/MENTION] So if Carl Jung's theory of the psyche is simply an exposition of his own psyche and merely presents its own subjective view of the psyche and reality, how do we know your understanding of Jung is objective and not subjective too, filtered through your own personal biases?

Subjectivity is a given. Victor already knows this.

 

[madhatter]

Evidence, please?

As I stated earlier in my novel to LeaT, it's my personal theory based on observation and experience of giving the test to people IRL, who after discussion and research settle on IxFP as their type. I didn't get that idea from any one source or article or study. The first time I noticed it is when I was trying to type my brother, and I have noticed it several times since then. It's a working theory at best.

 

[Entropic]

Subjectivity is a given. Victor already knows this.

Considering how he phrased his argument, no, I am not so sure he actually knows this or fully understands what subjectivity truly means.

 

[PeaceBaby]

Considering how he phrased his argument, no, I am not so sure he actually knows this or fully understands what subjectivity truly means.

The point being, everything is subjective.

 

[Entropic]

The point being, everything is subjective.

That was my point exactly meaning that him clamoring that he is right because his understanding of Jung is objective (if he didn't think this way, he wouldn't assert that opinion to begin with) is just a logical contradiction and hypocritical.

 

[Mole]

Play, Science, the Suspension of Disbelief, and Inter-Subjectivity

Considering how he phrased his argument, no, I am not so sure he actually knows this or fully understands what subjectivity truly means.

I think the meaning of subjectivity is very interesting.

It starts with play, for the purpose of play in children is to learn the difference between imagination and reality, or we might say, the difference between subjectivity and objectivity.

It starts with play and moves onto the scientific method which is a way of determining what is fact and what is speculation, or we might say, what is subjective and what is objective.

It starts with play, moves into the scientific method, and onto the suspension of disbelief which makes art, religion, poetry and movies possible.

It starts with play, and moves onto the scientific method, the onto the suspension of disbelief, but doesn't stop there. From there we move into inter-subjectivity.

Inter-subjectivity allows us to share our minds and makes us the most powerful animal on the planet.

 

[Mole]

Psychometrics

This is something I struggle with too. The cognitive dissonance experienced from trying to fit MBTI and Jungian type together is exhausting and frustrating. Sometimes I wonder if it has reached a point where it may be better to divorce Jungian typology completely from MBTI, and make something new. To what? Who knows.

Well, we do know. And if you are prepared to pay Amazon.com $10 for "Psychometric Tests For Dummies", by Liam Healy, you will know too.

Or perhaps you might prefer to download, "Psychometric Tests for Dummies", by clicking on http://vinylvinter.net/psychometric-tests-for-dummies-pdf.html

 

[highlander]

I see a lot of confusion on this site about the differences between the MBTI and Jung. The reason I'm making this thread is because I think we need to discuss the differences between what an MBTI type is and what a Jungian type is which is not the same thing.

This is wrong. They should not be thought of as separate things. Please do read more books. I think it will help to build out your perspectives

Thus, a lot of confusion arises from the fact that the MBTI system does not attempt to fully utilize the cognitive function theory Jung laid out, but instead tries to peg people into types based on perceived function output. Therefore, a person who appears unemotional must be a thinker because their ego is oriented more towards thinking and rejects feeling as an evaluative process. This might sound good in theory but utterly fails in actuality, since being emotional or not has little to do with whether we are thinkers or feelers. It shows a great misunderstanding of Jung's concept of type and how the functions operate within the psyche.

It's a method to evaluate someone's type - specifically Jungian type. They attempted to operationalize a solution that would allow you to assess your type and it works pretty well. Given the rigor the Step II assessment has along with the assistance of a professional for evaluation, I'd say it's more than a bit better than any of the free tests that I am aware of. Nardi's isn't really very good either. Some of the stuff behind the system (i.e. the functions you so dearly are interested in) are clearly described in the MBTI Step II manual and serve as the foundation for the system. They were always there behind the scenes but people didn't know they were there. Functions got re-popularized when this came out

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/188727801X/ref=oh_details_o03_s00_i00?ie=UTF8&psc=1

It clarifies and enriches. It doesn't create a new system because the MBTI was completely based on it already. An assessment methodology does not aways tie so directly to the underlying theory. All it needs to do is work. Who cares if they use facets. MBTI Step II should give you your "jungian" type if you want to call it that.

To be blunt, I think that the MBTI tests are complete rubbish when it comes to measuring Fi. Usually the "F" on the tests is more indicative of Fe than Fi.

I have noticed that. Not all though

Try this - it's got the best stuff I've seen on Fi vs Fe

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/088214104X/ref=oh_details_o00_s00_i00?ie=UTF8&psc=1

MBTI attempts to measure jungian type, so if your jungian type is FiNe, that makes you MBTI INFP regardless of what results you get from some crappy tests on internets or from official MBTI test(even the official test is just a way to suggest a type for you, not to determine your type and type profiles are just stereotypical crap you need to take with a grain of salt).

Yes

 

[INTP]

In 1913 Carl Jung had failed his psychoanalysis with Sigmund Freud and so failed to become a psychoanalyst. As a result Carl Jung retreated into psychosis and began his Red Book.

The Red Book revealed Carl Jung's psychosis, so the Red book was locked in a safe for seventy nine years to hide his psychosis from his devotees.

he didnt fail his psychoanalysis with freud. what happened was that jung saw that there were other archetypal complexes than just oedipus and electra complexes and thus thought that freuds sexual theory was limited(as we have found out the sexual theory was highly limited and retarded). because of this freud got mad and cut all ties to jung and tried to sabotage his career, because freud saw jung as an enemy to his ideas.

jung didnt fail to become a psychoanalyst, he actually held the highest position of a chairman in psychoanalytical society before their breakup.

whether or not what jung experienced was a psychosis or not is debatable, confrontation with the unconscious is more suitable way of saying what happened, because jung wasnt delusional in a way characteristic to a psychosis. also freud wasnt the only influence to this. it was the beginning of the first world war, which jung had anticipated and which happens to fall in the jungs idea of the collective shadow awakening(you can probably imagine a bit what jung must had felt when something of a pure evil he had anticipated coming to alive in a way that he theorized), this also played a big part. also there were aspects in it which could had been characterized as a midlife crisis. not to mention that jung wasnt all that happy with the persona which the society forced upon him etc etc.

redbook was in a bank vault from 1984 to 2007, according to my math thats less than 79 years. also it was read by many before that, its just that it wasnt published since jungs family didnt know what to do with it because jung didnt leave any instructions on what to do with it.

ps. nice biased simplification you got going on there lol

 

[Mole]

ps. nice biased simplification you got going on there lol

During the reign of the Third Reich, Carl Gustav Jung assumed the Presidency of the General Society for Psychotherapy in Germany.

Jung's support of the Nazis could not be clearer, and explains why the crypto-fascists find him so fascinating, even to the point of quoting him in their signature.