I'm new to this forum but particularly interested in getting a handle on Jung's personality types and how they have been interpreted, both from the strict word of Jung and also through subsequent interpretations and developments, especially Myers Briggs.
I have a few niggling issues which I would much appreciate if people could help me work through.
1. Inferior function: It seems that this is different in every way from the superior function. ie if superior function is extravert, then inferior function is introvert. Is that strictly what Jung said? What about the auxiliary functions? Are they also opposed to the superior function or can they be either introvert or extravert? Or does it even matter?
According to Isabel Briggs in 'Gifts Differing', the whole reason she departed from Jung and developed her own theory was that Jung's model did not provide any balance to the extravert/ introvert nature of the superior function... so, as I understand it, she attributes this balance to the auxiliary functions and stresses their importance instead. (Correct me if I'm wrong, Myers Briggs exponents, please...)
Jung's main emphasis, as I read it, is on the relationship of a person's superior/inferior functions...which seems full enough a framework to me - if you know your main orientation via your superior function, and you are know your fundamental weak spot via your opposing inferior function, you're most of the way to getting a full picture of someone. The auxiliary functions then serve to flesh out the rest of an individual's psychological makeup/ way of being and seeing, providing character and more balance.
When I try to apply these types to myself or someone I know well, the most interesting aspect often seems to be the inferior function, the more hidden, quirkier, contrary side of a person - it's the kind of 'aha' moment... 'so that's wh!....' So as far as I can see, there's no need for any further complicated number of categories beyond Jung's eight types. Jung's model is complete. Or am I missing something?
2. Feeling and intuition: I have a real problem trying to get a handle on these two terms. People glibly talk about sixth sense and gut feeling for intuition especially, and although I think I use intuition a lot in my own life, especially as I get older and have learnt to trust it more, I'm not satisfied with most descriptions I read of it. They just don't seem to get to the meat of what they really are.
So often, especially in Myers Briggs books, the writers quickly gloss over the terms by way of introduction, before rushing headlong into the systems, and I'm left thinking, hang on, I'm not even sure you pinned the terms down yet. Surely that's the most important bit. When I examine the language used, it seems that writers often seem to be muddying their explanations with talk about what really constitutes thinking and feeling.
Am I right in thinking, also, that someone whose dominant function is 'sensing' simply trusts their five senses in the present moment, whereas an 'intuition' dominant person perceives the world initially with five senses but then kind of simultaneously jumps to a bank of past memories of sensory experiences and forwards to imagined future scenarios to and rolls it all up into a perception that goes beyond pure sensory perception? Is that how it works? In which case, it's almost as if intuition as a way of perceiving is like a filter through which a person's senses pass, catching bits that are important and letting other details flush through with out paying them any attention?
3. Sensing: When a person is supposedly sensory-led, it's said they rely on their five senses to perceive the world. OK, that means touch, taste, smell, sight and hearing. That seems to fit for someone who is a typical tactile, earthy type. But isn't there a really strong argument for saying sight is more to do with thinking, and hearing is more to do with feeling?? Why are all five senses lumped in with sensing?
Hope these rambling questions make sense and that some of you will be minded to help me to a better understanding of these points.