[MBTI General] When did MBTI begin supposing every other function was intro or extroverted?

[KingAndre]

So I'm reading the MBTI manual 3rd edition for the first time and on page 30, I noticed that it supposes that each type has either an introverted or extroverted direction for their first function, and then every other function is the opposite of that. That's not the logic they use to justify it, however it is the effect. So for example they used ESTJ and said it has a dominant extroverted thinking function, and then introverted sensing, N and feeling. This was published in 98'. At what point did MBTI begin doing it the way of every other function was opposite in direction to the previous one? Or did they never argue that and its become a popular online forum sort of thing?

 

[Jai]

So I'm reading the MBTI manual 3rd edition for the first time and on page 30, I noticed that it supposes that each type has either an introverted or extroverted direction for their first function, and then every other function is the opposite of that. That's not the logic they use to justify it, however it is the effect. So for example they used ESTJ and said it has a dominant extroverted thinking function, and then introverted sensing, N and feeling. This was published in 98'. At what point did MBTI begin doing it the way of every other function was opposite in direction to the previous one? Or did they never argue that and its become a popular online forum sort of thing?

The alternating stacks (IEIE/EIEI) were devised by Harold Grant and are separate from the Official MBTI (not going to go into why they aren't valid and are also anti-Jungian in nature but keep those things in mind also).
Grant: IEIE/EIEI
MBTI: IEEE/EIII
Jung: IIEE/EEII

 

[GavinElster]

To add to the above, which I agree with, the specific part of the Grant stacking that is the most anti-Jungian is that the attitude of the auxiliary is opposite to that of the dominant. I think it's fair to say that when Jung describes a secondary as opposite in attitude to the dominant, he did not have in mind a strongly developed auxiliary. In particular, in the example of someone with strongly developed *both*, Nietzsche, Jung says both thinking and intuition are introverted. In his Ti-dom profile, Jung does say things like the sensation, intuition, feeling are all extraverted, but I think those are not the sorts I believe are typical of a hyper-developed aux.

I have a feeling one Jungian analyst who really seems to affiliate more with the MBTI than others is John Beebe. He proposed the 8-function-attitude model involving archetypes assigned to each. I think his is an extension of the Grant flavor.

I should note that, GIVEN the attitude of the aux is opposite the dom, I don't think the Grant stacking is too unreasonable! In particular, it IS a part of Jungian theory that the function-attitudes occur in pairs, with two frequently more or less developed and two often less so. Of course, the reason for this is that the functions that are more unconscious than conscious are colored with the attitude (e or i) of the unconscious. I sometimes hear people talking of the first four function-attitudes sort of in parallel as if they're the conscious ones, and that does not fly of course.

Anyway, to me, the issue boils down a lot to the attitude of the auxiliary.

 

[typologyenthusiast]

Ever since it is firstly written by Isabel Briggs Myers arguably. IMO, Isabel Briggs Myers follows Jung in this regards. It was Jung who says this earlier than Isabel Briggs Myers, In Psychological Types (1923)Ch X page 514.

Naturally only those functions can appear as auxiliary whose nature is not opposed to the leading function. For instance, feeling can never act
as the second function by the side of thinking, because its nature stands in too strong a contrast to thinking.
Thinking, if it is to be real thinking and true to its own principle, must scrupulously exclude feeling.

The Primary function energy orientation is the opposite to the auxiliary and aux function can never be the same decision making (feeling or thinking) or perceptive (intuition or sensing) function as the primary. If the first function is a judging function with extroverted energy orientation, like for example Extroverted Thinking, the auxiliary function can only be an introverted perceptive function. The auxiliary function paired with Te, therefore, can only be either introverted intuition or introverted sensing. Extroverted thinking as primary cannot be paired with the same judging function like feeling Fi (Introverted Feeling) or Fe (Extroverted Feeling) as Auxiliary. As a result, MBTI doesn't have type with judging primary and judging auxilary function stack like Te primary paired with Fi auxiliary, Te primary paired with Fe auxilary. etc.
In my view, ESTJ in MBTI is an Isabel Brigss Myers theory that proposes an answer the question of what type it would be if Extroverted thinking as primary paired with Introverted Sensing as auxilary?

 

[typologyenthusiast]

This is what answer to pairing problem by Jung's own words.

Experience shows that the secondary function is always one whose nature is different from, though not antagonistic to, the leading function: thus, for example,
thinking, as primary function, can readily pair with intuition as auxiliary, or indeed equally well with sensation, but, as already observed, never with feeling. Neither
intuition nor sensation are antagonistic to thinking, i.e. they have not to be unconditionally excluded, since they are not, like feeling, of similar nature, though of opposite purpose, to thinking for as a judging function feeling successfully competes with thinking but .are functions of perception, affording welcome assistance to
thought As soon as they reached the same level of differentiation as thinking, they would cause a change of attitude, which would contradict the tendency of thinking.
For they would convert the judging attitude into a perceiving one ; whereupon the principle of rationality indispensable to thought would be suppressed in favour
of the irrationality of mere perception. Hence the auxiliary function is possible and useful only in so far as it serves the leading function, without making any claim to the autonomy of its own principle.

 

[Pionart]

The Grant stack is the correct one, I actually have verified this.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

BECAUSE IT'S FAKE