Shadow Play
New member
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2018
- Messages
- 236
For my comparison, I am primarily concerned with evaluating type accuracy from a Jungian lens, meaning many of the views expressed are not my own viewpoints. Although I believe the modifications Myers and Briggs had made to Jung's type theory were necessary modifications - particularly shifting abstraction from Introversion to Intuition - Myer's biggest mistake was assigning inconsistent function stacks to her sixteen dichotomy types. In particular, she made the mistake of assigning introverted auxiliary functions to extraverts and extraverted auxiliary functions to introverts, when Jung believed the auxiliary shared the orientation of the dominant when sufficiently differentiated. From a Jungian standpoint, it makes no sense for an INTJ and an ENTJ to share the same functions and for an INTJ and an INTP to have completely different functions.
More importantly, Jung did not even believe in eight functions. He instead believed there were the same four functions in every individual with varying preferences, and each function possessed both an objective and a subjective orientation. He believed the majority of people were close enough to the middle on extraversion and introversion where they're effectively ambiverts, and the types he described tended to only manifest in individuals with a distinct preference for either temperament. Jung conceived of eight types grouped between the extraverts and introverts, with each of the extraverted and introverted types having one of the four functions in a dominant position.
To what extent Myers believed functions were genuine or not is a matter of debate, but in practise, MBTI function theory is a category mistake. The dichotomies are the main event of MBTI. People test for their dichotomies, and through obtaining data from test results, MBTI professionals correlate type preferences with various personality traits to produce statistical trends. The functions do not have a separate existence beyond those descriptions jerry-rigged to their equivalent two-dichotomy combinations, such as Ti to TP and Ni to NJ. As a consequence of jerry-rigging functions, the functions themselves had been modified to fit with their respective types, leading to MBTI types which often share little in common with their Jungian counterparts.
The following post is an attempt to compare Jung's types from Psychological Types with their closest corresponding MBTI types.
Extraverted Thinking: ETJs
Extraverted Feeling: EFJs
Extraverted Sensing: ESPs
Extraverted Intuition: ENPs (arguably any of the EPs)
Introverted Thinking: INTs
Introverted Feeling: Introvert
Introverted Sensing: IPs (arguably more so for INPs)
Introverted Intuition: INPs
I have a number of reservations.
More importantly, Jung did not even believe in eight functions. He instead believed there were the same four functions in every individual with varying preferences, and each function possessed both an objective and a subjective orientation. He believed the majority of people were close enough to the middle on extraversion and introversion where they're effectively ambiverts, and the types he described tended to only manifest in individuals with a distinct preference for either temperament. Jung conceived of eight types grouped between the extraverts and introverts, with each of the extraverted and introverted types having one of the four functions in a dominant position.
To what extent Myers believed functions were genuine or not is a matter of debate, but in practise, MBTI function theory is a category mistake. The dichotomies are the main event of MBTI. People test for their dichotomies, and through obtaining data from test results, MBTI professionals correlate type preferences with various personality traits to produce statistical trends. The functions do not have a separate existence beyond those descriptions jerry-rigged to their equivalent two-dichotomy combinations, such as Ti to TP and Ni to NJ. As a consequence of jerry-rigging functions, the functions themselves had been modified to fit with their respective types, leading to MBTI types which often share little in common with their Jungian counterparts.
The following post is an attempt to compare Jung's types from Psychological Types with their closest corresponding MBTI types.
Extraverted Thinking: ETJs
Extraverted Feeling: EFJs
Extraverted Sensing: ESPs
Extraverted Intuition: ENPs (arguably any of the EPs)
Introverted Thinking: INTs
Introverted Feeling: Introvert
Introverted Sensing: IPs (arguably more so for INPs)
Introverted Intuition: INPs
I have a number of reservations.
- ESJs are a closer approximation of Extraverted Rationals than ENJs. Jung believed extraverts tended to conform to and enforce the values of the society they live in, and while this is true for SJs as described by Myers and Keirsey, ENJs are just as likely to be agents of change and reform in the world, be they as leaders, activists, or revolutionaries.
- Out of Jung's eight types, Extraverted Sensing is the most recognisably similar to its MBTI equivalent of ESPs, although it's still a caricature of an average ESP's hedonistic tendencies.
- I think Jung's description of Extraverted Intuitive type is a better fit for ESPs than it is for INPs. A fair amount of INPs mistype as ENPs because they describe themselves as having this sort of intuition which explores possibilities in their own heads, and claim that looking like an introvert is somehow consistent with being "the most introverted extraverted type." Jung did not believe in behavioural or cognitive extraversion and introversion, since he believed one's behaviour was a reflection of one's cognition on a temperamental level. Basically, if someone looks like an introvert, they are an introvert. In addition, Jung's Extraverted Intuitive type is more concerned with exploring possibilities in the external world, rather than exploring ideas in their own head as an Introverted Intuitive would do. They're described as the "merchants, contractors, speculators, agents, politicians" of the world. In order to find potential, they act towards things in the hopes their ventures bear fruit, and once all potential is exhausted, they move onto the next venture. This sort of opportunism is something which could easily describe ESP entrepreneurs, for example, but it doesn't describe INPs who lie in bed daydreaming.
- Out of Jung's four "temperaments," the Introverted Rationals are the ones with the most ambiguous MBTI correspondent, whereas Extraverted Rationals, Extraverted Irrationals, and Introverted Irrationals correspond well with EJs, EPs, and IPs, respectively. While EJs like structure and control over others and the world around them, and while both EPs and IPs chaff under structure and prefer exploring their perceptions externally or internally, Introverted Rationals - as described by Jung - prefer to structure their thoughts and feelings internally based on subjective data, meaning they could fit both IJs and IPs equally well.
- Introverted Thinking is an equally valid fit for both INTs, not just INTPs, and I'd go as far as to say it fits INFs better than it does ISTs. The emphasis of Jung's Introverted Thinking is on abstract trains of logic which de-emphasise facts in lieu of underlying ideas and patterns, sometimes favouring a slow, belaboured approach at the expense of efficiency, and is generally more concerned with theories than on solving immediate problems. In other words, Jung's Introverted Thinking types are natural scholars. I think the average IST would be too practical and down-to-earth for that level of speculation.
- I really can't think of any particular MBTI type which properly fits with Jung's Introverted Feeling type. The MBTI function stacks state that IFPs are the Fi doms, but Jung's portrait of Introverted Feeling types having a cold severity about them doesn't fit, since IFPs tend to be the most warm and personable of the introverts on average. There's been an evolution from Jung's conception of Thinking and Feeling as logic vs. values to something closer to Big Five Agreeableness, and in Big Five terminology, Jung's Introverted Feeling type could be said to be not just low in Extraversion, but also low in Agreeableness and high in Neuroticism - although he thought all introverts were neurotic, since he believed introversion was a natural defence against the influence of the external world. It also doesn't make sense to characterise Feelers merely as people who "make decisions using their emotions," since any sane person will inform their decisions using facts and logic. Jung himself dithered about what Feeling actually was, going from claiming it's a different kind of rational process to Thinking, to claiming to be struck by people who consistently made decisions at the expense of reason.
- In contrast to its extraverted counterpart, the Introverted Sensing type is the one where MBTI types have diverged the most from Jung. Their official MBTI equivalents, the ISJs, are typically characterised as dutiful, attentive to detail, organised, and conventional minded. All of these traits fly in the face of Jung's Introverted Sensing type, which is essentially a basket case who, at their most unhealthy, mythologises the world as a place "where men, animals, railways, houses, rivers, and mountains appear partly as benevolent deities and partly as malevolent demons." Before you say "but aren't ISJs into traditions," remember that Jung believed introverts tended to reject traditions imposed upon them by others in favour of their own ideas and eccentricities. Even though Introverted Irrational types are described as the "most fruitless of men," Jung also regarded them as "an educational experience for the man who refuses to be blinded by the intellectual mode of the day."
- Like with all functions, MBTI descriptions of Ni as a "singular vision" tend to be jerry-rigged to descriptions of things NJs have in common, rather than representing Jung's original ideas about those types. The Introverted Intuitive type is a type who amuses themselves through flights of fancy. Instead of developing a singular vision, making plans and committing themselves to realising their plans, they're more inclined to constantly come up with all these zany ideas all the time without acting on any of them. When there's an emphasis on exploring ideas in one's own head, it usually leads to neglecting structure in one's own affairs. Hence why I have assigned INP to Introverted Intuition, and not INJ. Compounding the problem is Jung's own beliefs in visions and psychic powers which permeated his work, which lends to the Introverted Intuitive description the aspect of those types as prophets and seers. It's common for INTJs to read Jungian descriptions of Ni, and when they find they don't relate to them because they're overly mystical, end up doubting their own type. INTJs are natural sceptics who are inclined to poke holes in superstition and dogma. Science careers are the careers with the greatest average job satisfaction for INTJs, and INTJs are among the types most likely to be irreligious.
Last edited: