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. In the MBTI system, what is mostly measured are what we could call at best function output. This is why the MBTI tests ask questions whether you're a thinker or a feeler, an outgoing type or an introverted type and so on.
In Jungian theory, what the MBTI truly measures is thus what Jung called the persona:
What we get is thus that people often end up being one MBTI type but a different Jungian type. For instance, many sensors mistype themselves as intuitives because they see themselves as imaginative and so on, and many intelligent feelers mistype themselves as thinkers and many intuitives who are more hands-on mistype themselves as sensors, and many extroverts mistype themselves as introverts because they fail to understand the differences between how the MBTI defines introversion-extroversion as opposed to Jung, and many thinkers mistype themselves as feelers if they are more on the emotional spectrum.
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.
Aside thinking and feeling that I think are arguably one of the most misunderstood functions in type communities, there's an equally big problem with the introversion-extroversion axis where many fail to realize that your social energy is not necessarily related to your ego-conscious function attitude. By ego-conscious function attitude I am referring to that Jung postitulated that the ego will always accept one function as the dominant perspective in the psyche, and this function will furthermore be oriented in an introverted or extroverted manner, suggesting a bias where our cognitive focus lies. The best way to exemplify the differences between cognitive introversion-extroversion is to compare to the differences between subjectivity-objectivity in philosophy:
Objectivity is a central philosophical concept, related to reality and truth, which has been variously defined by sources. Generally, objectivity means the state or quality of being true even outside of a subject's individual feelings, imaginings, or interpretations. A proposition is generally considered to be objectively true (to have objective truth) when its truth conditions are met and are "mind-independent"—that is, existing freely or independently from a mind (from the thoughts, feelings, ideas, etc. of a sentient subject). In a simpler meaning of the term, objectivity refers to the ability to judge fairly, without bias or external influence.When the ego is oriented towards extroversion, we could thus say that the ego also favors an objective view of the world whereas if the ego is orientated towards introversion, we could say it favors a subjective worldview. Where we derive our energy thus doesn't say much when it comes to our actual cognitive function preferences.Subjectivity is a term used in philosophy to refer to the condition of being a subject and the subject's perspective, feelings, beliefs, and desires. The term is usually contrasted with objectivity, which is used to describe humans as "seeing" the universe exactly for what it is from a standpoint free from human perception and its influences, human cultural interventions, past experience and expectation of the result.
Therefore, what is important to understand is that the MBTI type must be separated from actual Jungian cognitive type. This is why I type as an MBTI INTP because my personality or persona is oriented towards thinking. I'm what you could say, unemotional in the sense of not being particularly people-oriented. Similarly, I'm extremely messy and not very organized and structured and I'm idea-oriented over hands-on concrete thinking and I'm introverted because I can't stand being around people for long without suffering a mental breakdown resulting in panic attacks because it drains so much energy.
Despite of this, I'm a Jungian F-N-S-T type with a preference towards my ego being introverted meaning Fi-N-S-Te. My thinking is expressed through the inferior because my thinking is extroverted, not introverted which is completely opposite of the INTP type that prefers the functions Ti-N-S-Fe. It would be possible to argue Te-N-S-Fi for me, so in a way it is right just that my ego orientation would thus be extroverted instead of cognitively introverted, but I do not possess any ego complexes surrounding my feeling function as I do when it comes to thinking. My auxiliary and tertiary functions are not fully differentiated towards any specific orientation which is expressed in that I can find myself switching between Ni-Se and Si-Ne.
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?