# Thread: Jung J/P (rational/irrational) versus MBTI J/P: Do they even correlate?

1. Originally Posted by Vendrah
It is a little bit impossible to discuss this without framing my alternative views but I get why Myers would be only concerned about the extraverted cognitive function and makes sense. I could test that view (only use extraverted cognitive functions to determine J/P).

Also, you said a very likely reason to why most people dont have a judging/perceveing preference on Jung (rational/irrational preference), it might be due to the pairing effect/tendency and due to deep function dynamics (dynamics on a sense through correlations).

I dont completely subscribe and use the cognitive function stack as we know (INFP Fi-Ne-Si-Te), so Fi-Ne for INFP is not something I fully accept and I do have gathered stats with INFPs that prefers Ni over Ne, although people with Ni-Fi combo mostly end up typing themselves as INFJs (and there is an alternative function stack where INFP are Ni-Fi-Se-Te, something like that). I did develop almost a theory on my own, and basically I measure MBTI Perceveing using a borrowed formula from @Legion:
J vs P (relation JP)
Provided by @Legion
Degree of preference for Perceveing: Ti+Fi+Se+Ne
Degree of preference for Judgement: Te+Fe+Si+Ni
Ti+Fi+Se+Ne>Te+Fe+Si+Ni translate as preference for perceveing
Ti+Fi+Se+Ne<Te+Fe+Si+Ni translate as preference for judgement
Ti+Fi+Se+Ne=Te+Fe+Si+Ni translate as no preference/ambivalence
The complete theory is here, you dont need to look because its long:
A new vision of MBTI and function stacks: Open function stack

What I meant by Fi being MBTI perceveing is that Fi is on the MBTI perceveing side of the formula. If you were to measure Fi and correlate with dichotomies, you should expect that Fi correlates with Perceveing, with a general tendency that the stronger the Fi, stronger Perceveing is. However, as I did a measure of my own with 9 people (better than nothing), the correlation with perceveing and Fi is almost insignificant.
No thanks. I'm not interested in exploring alternative versions of MBTI. I barely believe in MBTI as it is.

I'm mainly into Jung. I've been reading a lot of Jung lately, so I feel like I can talk knowledgeably about functions in general. But Jung himself didn't like how his theories got utilized for MBTI and other personality type systems, and I can see his point: There's a lot of BS in MBTI once you get past the level of the Dom and Aux functions. Basically Jung came up with idea of the four functions, but he thought it was a waste of time trying to use them as the basis for personality typing. (He used the functions for other purposes, such as talking about repression and compensation and all that.)

So MBTI and Big Five are about as far as I get into personality typing. I don't bother with Socionics or Enneagram or other systems, and I'm not interested in an alt-MBTI system that you and Legion concocted. No offense, but I'll just stick to reading Jung at this point.

Anyway, good talking to you.

2. @OldFolksBoogie

If you pay attention, Jung doesnt actually really have types at all.
He presents 8 pure types and then he has this quote:
"In the foregoing descriptions I have no desire to give my readers the impression that such pure types occur at all frequently in actual practice."

Jung is more purely about the function themselves. As far as goes Chapter X, it seems that there is a pairing between one Jung J function (Te,Fe,Ti or Fi) and a Jung perceveing function (Ne,Ni,Se,Si), but there is a triple interpretation where the pair of Fi is either Se or Ne (which rises the Fi-Ne function stack for INFP), or the pair of Fi is either Si or Ni (Fi-Ni INFP Function stack), or the literal interpretation which gives that Fi can pair with Se,Si,Ne or Ni (that would give 64 types; There is a chance that Jung had 64 types in mind and not 16).
I could be wrong but Jung doesnt have any other specific type descriptions beyond the 8 pure types that dont occur frequently in actual practice.

3. Originally Posted by Vendrah
@OldFolksBoogie

If you pay attention, Jung doesnt actually really have types at all.
He presents 8 pure types and then he has this quote:
"In the foregoing descriptions I have no desire to give my readers the impression that such pure types occur at all frequently in actual practice."

Jung is more purely about the function themselves. As far as goes Chapter X, it seems that there is a pairing between one Jung J function (Te,Fe,Ti or Fi) and a Jung perceveing function (Ne,Ni,Se,Si), but there is a triple interpretation where the pair of Fi is either Se or Ne (which rises the Fi-Ne function stack for INFP), or the pair of Fi is either Si or Ni (Fi-Ni INFP Function stack), or the literal interpretation which gives that Fi can pair with Se,Si,Ne or Ni (that would give 64 types; There is a chance that Jung had 64 types in mind and not 16).
I could be wrong but Jung doesnt have any other specific type descriptions beyond the 8 pure types that dont occur frequently in actual practice.
Correct. Like I said in my previous post, Jung never got into personality typing. In fact, in one of his later books he specifically trashed personality typing systems that were based on his four functions (including, presumably, MBTI).

Instead, he just came up with some broad rules about how the pairs of functions operated. For example, if I use Feeling heavily, then Thinking gets repressed and plays a compensatory role, etc. In other words, Jung used the functions to illustrate how some operations of the mind work.

But as you quoted, he didn't feel that any "pure types" exist (like a pure Fi-Dom). There is a lot of "ambivalence" in personality typing because multiple functions can work in tandem and interact. So personality typing was a waste of time in Jung's mind. I suspect he felt that it's too "muddy" for good scientific analysis: the result depends too much on one's state of mind, mood, health, time of life, etc.

I think MBTI has some limited merit in terms of providing a model on how the Dom and Aux can work together, so I tend to give it some credence. But as I said in my previous post, that's about as far as I get into personality typing in general.

4. Originally Posted by OldFolksBoogie
Correct. Like I said in my previous post, Jung never got into personality typing. In fact, in one of his later books he specifically trashed personality typing systems that were based on his four functions (including, presumably, MBTI).

Instead, he just came up with some broad rules about how the pairs of functions operated. For example, if I use Feeling heavily, then Thinking gets repressed and plays a compensatory role, etc. In other words, Jung used the functions to illustrate how some operations of the mind work.

But as you quoted, he didn't feel that any "pure types" exist (like a pure Fi-Dom). There is a lot of "ambivalence" in personality typing because multiple functions can work in tandem and interact. So personality typing was a waste of time in Jung's mind. I suspect he felt that it's too "muddy" for good scientific analysis: the result depends too much on one's state of mind, mood, health, time of life, etc.

I think MBTI has some limited merit in terms of providing a model on how the Dom and Aux can work together, so I tend to give it some credence. But as I said in my previous post, that's about as far as I get into personality typing in general.

Mbti is just a generalization . Individualism is the most important process in human progress .
Evolution happens every minute that is why mature types tend to show less weaknesses , generalizations are fine when you are a kid but life is alot more complex... if you can't adapt to it you are just dead.

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO