Because I'm a pretty big believer in the MBTI, and because a lot of what ended up in the Myers-Briggs typology had its roots in Jung, and maybe especially
because the function-centric MBTI theorists and their internet forum followers are inclined to give Jung's perspective — or at least what they think Jung's perspective was — a lot of weight, I often find myself talking about what Jung's views were on X, Y or Z issue, and often in cases where my own views are substantially different.
So... as a final note, and to avoid any misunderstanding, Ti-Ni-Se-Fe is not the functions model I subscribe to
, because I don't subscribe to any functions model. As I noted at the start of this post, I think Myers was correct to essentially abandon the functions in favor of the dichotomies — and I think the disingenuousness of some of her Jungian lip service was understandable, given her circumstances. As further discussed in the INTJforum post linked below, Myers was a nobody who didn't even have a psychology degree — not to mention a woman in mid-20th-century America — and I assume that background had at least something to do with the fact that her writings tend to downplay the extent to which her typology differs from Jung.
One of the most fundamental ways the Myers-Briggs typology differs from Psychological Types
is that, when it came to the thoughts and feelings and speech and behavior of a normal person on a typical day, Myers' perspective involved situating a much larger share of the relevant temperament-related causes in the conscious
part of the person's psyche. Accordingly, an interpretation of Jung that said that essentially all
of an introvert's extraversion was unconscious
, and that something like half of that introvert's speech and behavior was the result of unconscious causes, was majorly inconsistent with Myers' perspective. So it's not hard to see how convenient
Myers' minority interpretation of Jung's auxiliary function was, since it effectively meant that the lion's share of someone's introverted and
extraverted attitudes and activity could be viewed as consciously-sourced.
In any case, regardless of the extent to which Myers really believed her model was true to Jung, my position is (1) that it wasn't true to Jung, but also (2) that its infidelity to Jung was ultimately irrelevant, given that, as I've noted, the Myers-Briggs typology — once you strip away the Jungian lip service — essentially (and rightly, IMHO) represented an abandonment of the functions in favor of the dichotomies.
And anyone who's made it this far and is interested can read more from me about the place of the functions (or lack thereof) in the MBTI's history — and the tremendous gap between the dichotomies and the functions in terms of scientific respectability — in this long INTJforum post.
Links in INTJforum posts don't work if you're not a member, so here are replacements for the two links in that post: