Thread: The differences between the MBTI and Jung

1. Originally Posted by Mal+
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.

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."

3. 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.

5. Originally Posted by Kalach
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.

7. Originally Posted by 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.

8. Originally Posted by LeaT
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.

9. Originally Posted by Victor
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.