User Tag List

Results 1 to 7 of 7

  1. #1
    Senior Member Vendrah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    MBTI
    NP
    Enneagram
    952
    Posts
    1,489

    Default Jung Typology Explained

    Simplified & Original Jung Typology (SOJT): In this article/post I am going to finally explain Jung typology in a clear way with a concise interpretation. I do argue why my interpretation has more value than the average interpretation with more depth at the end of the post (mainly because I mirror Jung typing somebody, there are few to no additions, my interpretation holds in most if not all passages, the "is the auxiliary function i or e?' issue is solved). I am very true to Jung in this whole explanation! I am going to explain here the theory and the concepts and explain how Jung used to type others, I won't describe the types or the meaning of some specific words (what means the terms intuition, sensation, etc..).

    PS: The text is long, but I also made a resume:


    Jung typology can be more easily understood as processes and steps. By that I mean that we basically start ‘shallow’ and slowly we get more and more deep. In the very beginning of Jung typology, a person ‘starts out’ as being undifferentiated. What means to be undifferentiated? Before I put Jung words, that are more complicated, I would like to explain it using components of two enneagram types. An undifferentiated type can be partially translated to someone being a type 6 and secondarily a type 9, if we get the right components of both types, so I can introduce the undifferentiated type with a more friendly and simpler wording before getting to Jung less friendly text.

    Quote Originally Posted by Enneagram Institute
    Until they can get in touch with their own inner guidance, Sixes are like a ping-pong ball that is constantly shuttling back and forth between whatever influence is hitting the hardest in any given moment. Because of this reactivity, no matter what we say about Sixes, the opposite is often also as true. They are both strong and weak, fearful and courageous, trusting and distrusting, defenders and provokers, sweet and sour, aggressive and passive, bullies and weaklings, on the defensive and on the offensive, thinkers and doers, group people and soloists, believers and doubters, cooperative and obstructionistic, tender and mean, generous and petty—and on and on. It is the contradictory picture that is the characteristic “fingerprint” of Sixes, the fact that they are a bundle of opposites. (from Enneagram institute)
    Quote Originally Posted by Enneagram Institute
    We have sometimes called the Nine the crown of the Enneagram because it is at the top of the symbol and because it seems to include the whole of it. Nines can have the strength of Eights, the sense of fun and adventure of Sevens, the dutifulness of Sixes, the intellectualism of Fives, the creativity of Fours, the attractiveness of Threes, the generosity of Twos, and the idealism of Ones. However, what they generally do not have is a sense of really inhabiting themselves—a strong sense of their own identity.
    Ironically, therefore, the only type the Nine is not like is the Nine itself. Being a separate self, an individual who must assert herself against others, is terrifying to Nines. They would rather melt into someone else or quietly follow their idyllic daydreams. (from Enneagram Institute)
    An undifferentiated type is basically a type that does not have a touch with the inner guidance and nor have a strong sense of identity. An undifferentiated type is constantly shuttling back and forth between whatever influence is hitting the hardest in any given moment, and is also a person who does not assert her/himself against the society and community, but instead follows what a society and community wants at the given moment. This concept goes a little beyond tests if we pay completely attention, but an undifferentiated type on cognitive function tests is conceptually a person which the cognitive function standard deviation is low. I had estimated that about 10-30% of global population are undifferentiated, depending on which point you consider differentiated.

    This is the simple explanation of what an undifferentiated type means and this is the starting point of Jung typology. But, of course, I need to put Jung quotations anyway and Jung gets a little deeper, so here is the Jung explanation of undifferentiation:

    Quote Originally Posted by Jung
    14. DIFFERENTIATION means the development of differences, the separation of parts from a whole. In this work I employ the concept of differentiation chiefly with respect to the psychological functions (q.v.). So long as a function is still so fused with one or more other functions— thinking with feeling, feeling with sensation, etc.—that it is unable to operate on its own, it is in an archaic (q.v.) condition, i.e., not differentiated, not separated from the whole as a special part and existing by itself.
    Undifferentiated thinking is incapable of thinking apart from other functions; it is continually mixed up with sensations, feelings, intuitions, just as undifferentiated feeling is mixed up with sensations and fantasies, as for instance in the sexualization (Freud) of feeling and thinking in neurosis. [“Thus, when they have to make a decision, Sixes will feel caught between various internal voices arguing for different positions and responsibilities. Sometimes the loudest internal voice will win out; at other times, there is a deadlock and procrastination. Sixes may find themselves unable to come to any closure or final decision because they cannot stop second-guessing themselves.”]
    As a rule, the undifferentiated function is also characterized by ambivalence and ambitendency, i.e., every position entails its own negation, and this leads to characteristic inhibitions in the use of the undifferentiated function. [“no matter what we say about Sixes, the opposite is often also as true.”]
    Another feature is the fusing together of its separate components; thus, undifferentiated sensation is vitiated by the coalescence of different sensory spheres (colour-hearing), and undifferentiated feeling by confounding hate with love. To the extent that a function is largely or wholly unconscious, it is also undifferentiated; it is not only fused together in its parts but also merged with other functions.
    Differentiation consists in the separation of the function from other functions, and in the separation of its individual parts from each other. Without differentiation direction is impossible, since the direction of a function towards a goal depends on the elimination of anything irrelevant. Fusion with the irrelevant precludes direction; only a differentiated function is capable of being directed.
    This is Jung on Chapter XI of Psychological Type book, which is a definition chapter. Here is Jung on the start of the book:

    The further we go back into history, the more we see personality disappearing beneath the wrappings of collectivity. And if we go right back to primitive psychology, we find absolutely no trace of the concept of an individual. Instead of individuality we find only collective relationship or what Lévy-Bruhl calls participation mystique. The collective attitude hinders the recognition and evaluation of a psychology different from the subject’s, because the mind that is collectively oriented is quite incapable of thinking and feeling in any other way than by projection. What we understand by the concept “individual” is a relatively recent acquisition in the history of the human mind and human culture. It is no wonder, therefore, that the earlier all-powerful collective attitude prevented almost completely an objective psychological evaluation of individual differences, or any scientific objectification of individual psychological processes. (...) The development of individuality, with the consequent psychological differentiation of man, goes hand in hand with the de-psychologizing work of objective science.
    Or, in enneagram and easier words, the undifferentiated type is constantly looking for a support on society and is willing to sacrifice its own individuality and give it up to the community, and always use the community as a guidance for their own decisions. Thus, they are loyal to the community. The undifferentiated types just do what they are expected to do.

    Quote Originally Posted by Enneagram Institute
    Sixes are also loyal to ideas, systems, and beliefs
    (...)
    The reason Sixes are so loyal to others is that they do not want to be abandoned and left without support—their Basic Fear. Thus, the central issue for Type Six is a failure of self-confidence. Sixes come to believe that they do not possess the internal resources to handle life's challenges and vagaries alone and so increasingly rely on structures, allies, beliefs, and supports outside themselves for guidance. If suitable structures do not exist, they will help create and maintain them.
    (...)
    Sixes are always aware of their anxieties and are always looking for ways to construct "social security" bulwarks against them.
    (...)
    Average Sixes want to reinforce their support system, to strengthen their alliances and/or their position with authorities. To that end, they invest most of their time and energy in the commitments they have made, hoping that their sacrifices will payoff in increased security and mutual support. Similarly, as a defense against growing anxiety or uncertainty, Sixes become invested in particular beliefs, be they political, philosophical, or spiritual.
    Then we get to the second part: The differentiation happening in Jung terms. First differentiation means a rise of a differentiation on E/I and/or a rise of a preferred function. The differentiation of E/I and the rise of a preferred function are separated things from each other. First paragraph of chapter X:

    In the following pages I shall attempt a general description of the psychology of the types, starting with the two basic types I have termed introverted and extraverted. This will be followed by a description of those more special types whose peculiarities are due to the fact that the individual adapts and orients himself chiefly by means of his most differentiated function. The former I would call attitude-types, distinguished by the direction of their interest, or of the movement of libido; the latter I would call function-types.
    The attitude-types are only two: Extravert and Introvert.
    The function-types are four: Feeler, Thinker, Intuitive, Sensing.
    Keep these in mind.

    It is actually easier to understand Jung typology by seeing Jung typing other people. Yup, Jung did typed a person on his book based mostly on letters (I am talking about old mail stuff) – Jung a 100 years ago typed a person based on letters from about 220 years ago (yup, such old).

    From various characteristics I have come to the conclusion that Schiller belongs to the introverted type, whereas Goethe—if we disregard his overriding intuition—inclines more to the extraverted side. We can easily discover Schiller’s own image in his description of the idealistic type. Because of this identification, an inevitable limitation is imposed on his formulations, a fact we must never lose sight of if we wish to gain a fuller understanding. It is owing to this limitation that the one function is presented by Schiller in richer outline than the other, which is still imperfectly developed in the introvert, and just because of its imperfect development it must necessarily have certain inferior characteristics attached to it. At this point the author’s exposition requires our criticism and correction. It is evident, too, that this limitation of Schiller’s impelled him to use a terminology which lacks general applicability. As an introvert he had a better relation to ideas than to things. The relation to ideas can be more emotional or more reflective according to whether the individual belongs more to the feeling or to the thinking type. (...) By the introverted and extraverted types I distinguish two general classes of men, which can be further subdivided into function-types, i.e., thinking, feeling, sensation, and intuitive types. Hence an introvert can be either a thinking or a feeling type [or a sensation or intuitive type as well], since feeling as well as thinking can come under the supremacy of the idea, just as both can be dominated by the object.

    If, then, I consider that Schiller, in his nature and particularly in his characteristic opposition to Goethe, corresponds to the introverted type, the question next arises as to which subdivision he belongs. This is hard to answer. Without doubt intuition plays a great role with him; we might on this account, or if we regard him exclusively as a poet, reckon him an intuitive. But in the letters on the aesthetic education of man it is unquestionably Schiller the thinker who confronts us. Not only from these, but from his own repeated admissions, we know how strong the reflective element was in Schiller. Consequently we must shift his intuitiveness very much towards the side of thinking, thus approaching him also from the angle of the psychology of the introverted thinking type.
    The process of Jung typing is actually simple once you get it. Jung first evaluates the attitude type of Schiller: If he is an introvert or extrovert, and he does on a “dichotomy way” (E vs I). Then, Jung moves to determinate the function-type of Schiller (Sensing, Intuition, Feeling or Thinking), he says it gets harder and he have doubts between thinking or intuition. He decides for thinking, and then types Schiller as an introverted thinking type (aka Ti-dom) with intuitive tendencies. The differentiation process happens in two fronts: On the attitude type (where ambiverts are undifferentiated) and on the function-types. The combination of the attitude type with the function type gives rise to the 8 main types of Jung typology (where Introverted Thinker, aka Ti, is one of them).
    After evaluating the function types and the attitude types, we now we move to more depth getting into the auxiliary function – and I have a shocking news before getting into this: I had put the word ‘cognitive’ to search the whole book of psychological types. Zero matches. Exactly, zero matches, the word cognitive was never ever used on psychological types, so what we call ‘cognitive functions’ does not have the name ‘cognitive’ on them – and that actually changes a lot of things. Basically, Jung never made direct assumptions on cognition on his main typology book – that is why cognition in 21th century basically does not have any Jungian concepts on it. If you search on Google about “cognition” and go to the Wikipedia result, there won’t be any mention to Jung. The cognitive functions are not Ni, Ne, Fi, etc... but actually Inductive/Deductive/Abductive reasoning, working memory, etc... Jung defines the meaning of the word ‘function’ directly on Chapter XI of definitions, here:

    22. FUNCTION (v. also INFERIOR FUNCTION). By a psychological function I mean a particular form of psychic activity that remains the same in principle under varying conditions. From the energic standpoint a function is a manifestation of libido (q.v.), which likewise remains constant in principle, in much the same way as a physical force can be considered a specific form or manifestation of physical energy. I distinguish four basic functions in all, two rational and two irrational (qq.v.): thinking and feeling, sensation and intuition (qq.v.). I can give no a priori reason for selecting these four as basic functions, and can only point out that this conception has shaped itself out of many years’ experience. I distinguish these functions from one another because they cannot be related or reduced to one another. The principle of thinking, for instance, is absolutely different from the principle of feeling, and so forth. I make a cardinal distinction between these functions and fantasies (q.v.), because fantasy is a characteristic form of activity that can manifest itself in all four functions. Volition or will (q.v.) seems to me an entirely secondary phenomenon, and so does attention.
    (...)
    30. INFERIOR function. This term is used to denote the function that lags behind in the process of differentiation (q.v.). Experience shows that it is practically impossible, owing to adverse circumstances in general, for anyone to develop all his psychological functions simultaneously. The demands of society compel a man to apply himself first and foremost to the differentiation of the function with which he is best equipped by nature, or which will secure him the greatest social success. Very frequently, indeed as a general rule, a man identifies more or less completely with the most favoured and hence the most developed function.
    It is this that gives rise to the various psychological types (q.v.). As a consequence of this one-sided development, one or more functions are necessarily retarded. These functions may properly be called inferior in a psychological but not psychopathological sense, since they are in no way morbid but merely backward as compared with the favoured function.
    Although the inferior function may be conscious as a phenomenon, its true significance nevertheless remains unrecognized. It behaves like many repressed or insufficiently appreciated contents, which are partly conscious and partly unconscious, just as, very often, one knows a certain person from his outward appearance but does not know him as he really is. Thus in normal cases the inferior function remains conscious, at least in its effects; but in a neurosis it sinks wholly or in part into the unconscious.
    For, to the degree that the greater share of libido (q.v.) is taken up by the favoured function, the inferior function undergoes a regressive development; it reverts to the archaic (q.v.) stage and becomes incompatible with the conscious, favoured function. When a function that should normally be conscious lapses into the unconscious, its specific energy passes into the unconscious too. A function such as feeling possesses the energy with which it is endowed by nature; it is a wellorganized living system that cannot under any circumstances be wholly deprived of its energy. So with the inferior function: the energy left to it passes into the unconscious and activates it in an unnatural way, giving rise to fantasies (q.v.) on a level with the archaicized function. In order to extricate the inferior function from the unconscious by analysis, the unconscious fantasy formations that have now been activated must be brought to the surface. The conscious realization of these fantasies brings the inferior function to consciousness and makes further development possible.
    Remember the division I had introduced back then: Attitude types and function types. Attitude types are E/I while function types are N, S, T or F. The cross of both gives origin to 8 main types – so, for example, the Introverted Intuitive type (what we call ‘Ni’) has an introverted attitude with the intuitive function. Basically, what we call ‘Ni’ is not a cognitive function in Jung sense because there is no cognitive term, and it is neither an actual function, but its rather a type. Intuition is a function, Ni is a type which mainly uses the intuitive function with an introverted attitude – not a function! Jung is very clear that the functions are 4, not 8 (he directly stated it). Just as a complement, here it is another complementary quote (from Psychological Types article):

    But the numinal accent does not decide only between subject and object; it also selects the conscious function of which the individual makes the principal use. I distinguish four functions: thinking, feeling, sensation, and intuition. The essential function of sensation is to establish that something exists, thinking tells us what it means, feeling what its value is, and intuition surmises whence it comes and whither it goes. Sensation and intuition I call irrational functions, because they are both concerned simply with what happens and with actual or potential realities. Thinking and feeling, being discriminative functions, are rational. Sensation, the fonction du réel, rules out any simultaneous intuitive activity, since the latter is not concerned with the present but is rather a sixth sense for hidden possibilities, and therefore should not allow itself to be unduly influenced by existing reality. In the same way, thinking is opposed to feeling, because thinking should not be influenced or deflected from its purpose by feeling values, just as feeling is usually vitiated by too much reflection.

    The four functions therefore form, when arranged diagrammatically, a cross with a rational axis at right angles to an irrational axis.

    The four orienting functions naturally do not contain everything that is in the conscious psyche. Will and memory, for instance, are not included. The reason for this is that the differentiation of the four orienting functions is, essentially, an empirical consequence of typical differences in the functional attitude. There are people for whom the numinal accent falls on sensation, on the perception of actualities, and elevates it into the sole determining and all-overriding principle. These are the fact-minded men, in whom intellectual judgment, feeling, and intuition are driven into the background by the paramount importance of actual facts. When the accent falls on thinking, judgment is reserved as to what significance should be attached to the facts in question. And on this significance will depend the way in which the individual deals with the facts. If feeling is numinal, then his adaptation will depend entirely on the feeling value he attributes to them. Finally, if the numinal accent falls on intuition, actual reality counts only in so far as it seems to harbour possibilities which then become the supreme motivating force, regardless of the way things actually are in the present.

    The localization of the numinal accent thus gives rise to four functiontypes, which I encountered first of all in my relations with people and formulated systematically only very much later. In practice these four types are always combined with the attitude-type, that is, with extraversion or introversion, so that the functions appear in an extraverted or introverted variation. This produces a set of eight demonstrable function-types. It is naturally impossible to present the specific psychology of these types within the confines of an essay, and to go into its conscious and unconscious manifestations.
    This changes how you interpret and read what comes next, which is the part that introduces the concept of the auxiliary function. So, don’t forget: N, S, F and T are the functions, E/I is an attitude, Ni/Si/Fi/Ti/Te/Fe/Se/Ne are types! So, getting back on the subject about the auxiliary function, here it is Jung about the auxiliary function:

    In the foregoing descriptions I have no desire to give my readers the impression that such pure types [Ni/Si/Fi/Ti/Te/Fe/Se/Ne] occur at all frequently in actual practice. The are, as it were, only Galtonesque family-portraits, which sum up in a cumulative image the common and therefore typical characters, stressing these disproportionately, while the individual features are just as disproportionately effaced. Accurate investigation of the individual case consistently reveals the fact that, in conjunction with the most differentiated function [function = N, S, T or F], another function of secondary importance, and therefore of inferior differentiation in consciousness, is constantly present, and is a -- relatively determining factor. [p. 514]

    For the sake of clarity let us again recapitulate: The products of all the functions can be conscious, but we speak of the consciousness of a function only when not merely its application is at the disposal of the will, but when at the same time its principle is decisive for the orientation of consciousness. The latter event is true when, for instance, thinking is not a mere esprit de l'escalier, or rumination, but when its decisions possess an absolute validity, so that the logical conclusion in a given case holds good, whether as motive or as guarantee of practical action, without the backing of any further evidence. This absolute sovereignty always belongs, empirically, to one function alone, and can belong only to one function, since the equally independent intervention of another function would necessarily yield a different orientation, which would at least partially contradict the first. But, since it is a vital condition for the conscious adaptation-process that constantly clear and unambiguous aims should be in evidence, the presence of a second function of equivalent power is naturally forbidden' This other function, therefore, can have only a secondary importance, a fact which is also established empirically. Its secondary importance consists in the fact that, in a given case, it is not valid in its own right, as is the primary function, as an absolutely reliable and decisive factor, but comes into play more as an auxiliary or complementary function. Naturally only those functions can appear as auxiliary whose nature is not opposed to the leading function [‘nature’ here means rational or irrational, its Jung J/P, where T and F are of Rational-Judgment nature, and where N and S are of Irrational-Perceiving nature]. 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. This, of course, does not exclude the fact that individuals certainly exist in whom thinking and feeling stand upon the same [p. 515] level, whereby both have equal motive power in conciousness. But, in such a case, there is also no question of a differentiated type, but merely of a relatively undeveloped thinking and feeling. Uniform consciousness and unconsciousness of functions is, therefore, a distinguishing mark of a primitive mentality.

    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.

    For all the types appearing in practice, the principle holds good that besides the conscious main function there is also a relatively unconscious, auxiliary function which is in every respect different from the nature of the main function. From these combinations well-known pictures arise, the practical intellect for instance paired with sensation [Te type with sensation; In Jung practical relates both to E and S], the speculative intellect breaking through [p. 516] with intuition [Ti type with intuition, which mostly translates to INTP], the artistic intuition which selects. and presents its images by means of feeling judgment [Ni or Ne type with feeling, don’t know which], the philosophical intuition which, in league with a vigorous intellect, translates its vision into the sphere of comprehensible thought [Ne or Ni type with thinking], and so forth.
    This chapter controversy is the old debate “If the primary function is Extroverted/Introverted, the auxiliary function is an Extravert or Introvert function?”, with people answering the i-i/e-e (for example, Ne pair should be either Fe or Te) or the most popular answer that is the i-e/e-i (for example, Ne pair should be either Fi or Ti). However, the problem relies with the question itself. Extroverted/Introverted is the attitude, while N, S, T and F are the functions; There is no Extraverted function or Introverted function, there is just a function combined with an introverted or extroverted attitude. In my own example, the problem of the question “If Ne as a primary function is Extroverted, the auxiliary function of Ne is introverted or extraverted?” is that it assumes that Ne is a function, while Ne is a type instead. Intuition is the function. “But what about the attitude (E/I) of the secondary function?” The secondary function is less differentiated, so it is under the influence of the undifferentiated ‘type’ and serves the primary function, and that means that the secondary function orientation will be related and influenced by the environment demands and will have ambivalent tendencies (that is the consequence of the less degree of differentiation – the secondary function start working more ‘a la ennea 6’ way) and will also be influenced by the demands of the primary function at the given time. For example, for a Ne type with auxiliary Thinking, Thinking will have an ambivalent characteristic due to less differentiation, meaning that thinking will have both a E and a I attitude, but whatever its inclination is more to the I side, to the E side, or none, will depend on the possibilites which the Ne type is engaged (because Thinking serves Intuition on the example) and it will depend on whatever the environment and society/community will demand and favour (in other words, reactive to the environment, because it is not fully differentiated).

    So, what about the tertiary function and the stack? First, there are 4 functions (N, S, T and F), not 8 (these are the main types), so “the stack” (the term stack actually does not exist in Jung terms – Jung never ever draw a stack) is made of 4 functions: Primary, auxiliary, tertiary and inferior (Jung does mention these but never use the term ‘stack’). There is no “stack” of 8 functions, since the functions are only 4. The primary function have a differentiation with positive qualities, i.e. the person has positive qualities related to it. The rise of the primary function is supposed to cause a suppression on its opposite function of the same nature (the opposite of N of the same nature is S and vice versa; While the opposite of F of the same nature is T and vice versa), and this creates the inferior function, which is a function that have a differentiation with negative qualities. The auxiliary has also a differentiation with positive qualities, yet this differentiation is partial and is limited by the primary function. What is left here is the tertiary, that is actually the least relevant of all the four. Its so much irrelevant that it is not even mentioned on Psychological Types book, but only books later with a quick and brief mention:

    Quote Originally Posted by Jung
    If we think of the psychological function as arranged in a circle, then the most differentiated function is usually the carrier of the ego and, equally regularly, has an auxiliary function attached to it. The “inferior” function, on the other hand, is unconscious and for that reason is projected into a non-ego. It too has an auxiliary function.” (Jung in “Individual Dream Symbolism in Relation to Alchemy”).
    Basically, the tertiary function works as a pair to the inferior function. So the tertiary function, as the inferior pair, must also have a differentiation of negative qualities as the inferior has, partially coming “down” by the same effect of suppression that the primary function does to the inferior, but instead this effect is created by the secondary. What I mean is that the auxiliary function is supposed to cause a repression of the tertiary function, so the positive qualities of one makes negative qualities of the other. The tertiary is still partially undifferentiated, so it will have some few aspects that are not inferior, but instead reactive and adaptable – even more reactive and adaptable than the secondary function.

    And here we get to other questions like “INTJ and INTP does not share any functions”. Actually, in this frame all types use all the functions (the inferior is actually used as least as possible, but it is still used), so, basically, all types share all functions on their stack (all of them has N, S, T and F), each one with a different order. If this still looks awkward, it has to be this way specially to be consistent with this phrase: “No function can be entirely eliminated -- it can only be greatly distorted” (Jung on the Te type). May I repeat: No function can be entirely eliminated – only be greatly distorted, and that means that basically all types share the same 4 functions. Another observation is that when you reverse the functions you just got the opposite type, but only if you ignore Jung J/P, since the opposite of a rational type is also a rational type. But Jung J/P is not really much of a dichotomy anyway (different than MBTI), because a rational function does not suppress an irrational function and vice versa.

    “What about the trickster functions, the demon functions, shadow functions, etc...?” Part of these were pure inventions, and quite a bad ones since they either take a flawed interpretation. However, not all of them. At the same time that Jung did mentioned that the inferior function might appear in dreams as a monster, he in other parts of the books does the similar affirmation for the inferior function and demons. The inferior function might be seem by the person as demoniac in Jung experience, that is why it can also be known as a “demon function” and facing your inner demons might means facing something related to the inferior function. There is no trickster function, that is definitely a bad invention, although the trickster is a Jung archetype, but archetypes are another subject. There are other archetypes, such as The Hero, which is associated with the primary function, and it is the same story of the trickster: Exists as an archetype but was NEVER associated by Jung with a function (only the Demon and perhaps the Shadow were). Shadow is a little problematic, because Jung did not really had a strong concept of shadow in Psychological types as far as I could notice. I suspect that the shadow function is the inferior as well, or that there is no such thing as shadow function.

    “What about the loops?” There are no loops. Don’t belong to Jung, are completely post-Jung and are based on the flaw interpretation where Si, Se, etc... are cognitive functions instead of types – don’t use this to evaluate if you are healthy or unhealthy, Big 5 Neuroticism and Personality Disorders are, like, a 1000 times more functional. But there are notions of what is “healthy” and “unhealthy” on Jung and I will explain these latter.

    Although there is one more component of Jung typology that is important, these parts are enough for the basic Jung typology. So, let me do a resume and explain again how Jung types (and yeah, this is entirely based on how Jung himself types others): You first evaluate and give the person an attitude type, which are two types: The Extraverted Type and The Introverted Type (this is basically E vs I). The person can also have an undifferentiated attitude, that basically means that the person acts like an Introvert or an Extravert depending on the environment conditions, society demands and has ambivalent tendencies. Then you evaluate and give the person a function type, which are four types, one for each function: The Intuition Type (or Intuitive Type), The Sensation Type, The Feeling type, The Thinking type. A person can also be undifferentiated here, or of an undifferentiated type on the function type, meaning that the person will not have a dominant function and will use the functions according to the society’s expectation, environment demands, etc... After you decide the attitude type and the function type, you arrive in one of the eight basic types of the Jung typology – Jung has a description for each one of them on chapter X but also a description for a purely Introverted type (Introverted attitude with no function differentiation) and for a purely Extraverted type (Extraverted attitude with no function differentiation). This is the process that Jung’s use to type Schiller, so this is purely Jung with zero additives. I just explained it in my own words with more clarity (and yeah, I had some effort into deciphering this since Jung’s explanations lacks clarity). After this, there is the determination of the auxiliary function, and from there we must keep in mind that there are two ‘natures’ of functions: Rational, which are T and F, and irrational, N and S. Although there are no example in Jung’s, you determinate the auxiliary function by basically evaluating which rational function the person prefers if the person has an irrational primary function or which irrational function the person prefers if the person has a rational primary function. So, for example, if a person primary function is Sensing, then the secondary function can be either Thinking or Feeling, and you evaluate whatever the person has a higher preference for Thinking or Feeling (which predominates) or if the person simply does not have preference for any of these two (and in Jung terms, that means that the secondary function is undifferentiated), and also note that this is the secondary function: It is less differentiated, so the E/I attitude will be ambivalent and/or reactive to the environment and society expectations. After you get this process, typing others and yourself actually becomes way easier. So, for example, using the Schiller example, “Schiller attitude type is the introverted type because he is quite reflective and has more relation to ideas than to things [in Jung, abstraction and relation to ideas was tied to Introversion instead of Intuition; This was latter changed in MBTI with statistical justification]; Schiller function type is the Thinker type because he uses a lot of reasoning and is very analytical on his letters [actually, Jung did not justify why Schiller is a thinker for those of us who never read Schiller letters, so I made up a justification for the example]. Thus, Schiller is an Introverted Thinking type [‘thus approaching him also from the angle of the psychology of the introverted thinking type’]”. We also know that Jung was in doubt between Thinking and Intuition, and that means that Schiller has auxiliary Intuition. This is the basic Jung typology.

    Finally, the last component of Jung typology that I did judged as essential is the intensity of the primary and the secondary functions. So far Jung typology isn’t actually that much different from MBTI as it is painted if we think of. But here the things might change a bit. MBTI is overly positive – like, people got gifts, you know? The type descriptions in Jung are significantly less optimistic. Although the undifferentiated type lacks a “real sense of” self/personality, it is quite adaptable. Differentiated types are by contrast way less adaptable. Overly differentiated types not only are actually the inverse of adaptable, but they can also have disorders. There is an intrinsic idea in Jung typology that an excessive differentiation might lead to Neurosis in types, which does actually connects to Personality Disorders. Some of what is inside the 8 basic types descriptions are traits related to excesses of that type – for example, Ni related excess is “But, since he tends to rely exclusively upon his vision, his moral effort becomes one-sided; he makes himself and his life symbolic, adapted, it is true, to the inner and eternal meaning of events, but unadapted to the actual present-day reality. Therewith he also deprives himself of any influence upon it, because he remains unintelligible. His language is not that which is commonly spoken -- it becomes too subjective. His argument lacks convincing reason. He can only confess or pronounce. His is the 'voice of one crying in the wilderness'”. These excesses are related with having a strong primary function and a “pronounced” attitude (quite strong I or quite strong E) – so, Jung’s on all descriptions describe the types in a “pronounced way”, and the 8 main types descriptions have disproportionately effaced individual features, meaning that their characteristics are distorted “in extremes” in order to make easier the type explanation, and these types are also disproportionately stressed so Jung can explain the neurosis related to them. [“They are, as it were, only Galtonesque family-portraits, which sum up in a cumulative image the common and therefore typical characters, stressing these disproportionately, while the individual features are just as disproportionately effaced ”]

    In this last part Im going to proper explain the bad effects of having a very pronounced type – which in MBTI that is theoretically so desirable. This is what the Chapter 6 is about, however Jung explain this on a scattered way for E/I. Chapter 6 name is ‘the type problem in psychopathology’. I at the beginning thought that it was about the typology of psychopaths. No, it happens that the wording psychopathology here has a different meaning – it seems to be more closer to personality disorders. Jung even describes things such as paranoia (Paranoid Personality Disorder). Although 21th century theory is definitely better and I do think that it is imminent that Jung actually had made mistakes on a few points, it has an important aspect of typology about the primary and secondary functions. Jung describes what happens when a person have a very strong preference for the first function – this is mentioned as a long primary function with a weak/short secondary function. In this case, the person has a very high preference in one of the attitude type or for one of the four functions. The other case is when a person has a very strong preference for the two functions – thus, highly differentiated – meaning that a person has a very pronounced type as I like to call.

    The core theory of this is... Sometimes problematic. There are not much statistics on this. Even my few modest ones are struggling.. So, Im going to tell more of what I think and is compatible with Jung that may or may not be true. People who are less differentiated are supposed to be more Extravert than people who are more introvert. E types are less differentiated because they are more prone to the environment and are more willing to switch functions to adapt to society expectations than introverts. This should be a tendency, even if Jung treat it as a law. So, the majority of people on the disorders mentioned on Chapter 6 are mostly introvert – in fact, for example, people with Paranoid disorder have tendencies of being Introverts on Big 5 (Low Warmth and Low Gregariousness).

    To sum up: the primary function is in my view more important than the secondary. The intensity of the primary function is the decisive factor. It depends on the general psychic tension, i.e., on the amount of accumulated, disposable libido. The factors determining this accumulation are the complex resultants of all the antecedent psychic states—mood, attention, affect, expectancy, etc. Introversion is characterized by general tension, an intense primary function and a correspondingly long secondary function; extraversion by general relaxation, a weak primary function and a correspondingly short secondary function.
    People who have a long primary function have a tendency to be more closed to experience (less Openness to Experience), unless that function is intuition. That can be somewhat said to to people who have a strong primary and secondary functions (unless one of them is intuition). When a person has a strong first function and a weak secondary one, the person has a tendency of being significantly less open minded (unless intuition), but that depends on which function is. For example, a person with a very high Feeling and introversion might just ‘get lost’ into her/his own feelings and only listens to their feelings, while not only have a very ignored thinking but also is a person which ignores sensation and intuition – only listens to Feeling. The process of thought of this person becomes enclosed, limited, more tight, because it uses a lot one function and not much of the others. The person becomes more one-sided.

    It is important foo me to tell that I did had a look on Personality Disorders and MBTI, but only indirectly (Personality disorders -> Big 5 -> MBTI). And, actually, there are indeed some indications that some disorders are connected with excessive preferences (or, long principal function & pronounced attitude type), and most of them are generally connected to two dichotomies (or, in Jung typology, either two functions or one function with a very specific E/I attitude), even though some connections are weak. The case I mention with a high Feeling with Introversion statistically has a weak relation to depressive disorder (remember: These statistics are actually quite indirect, there is nothing solid about this). The person with an excess Feeling and excess Introversion has a tendency to be more depressed – and Im not talking about the Big 5 facet depression but the depressive as a disorder and as a whole. There is a stereotype on this that might be correct (Fi types depressed). The excessive of Feeling with an Introversion orientation might lead to depression per se – or depression leads to high Introversion and Feeling, but that would go against the Chapter 6 theory. Every single function and attitude has a Personality Disorder related to its excess, even though a lot of them will only come out combined. I would not go far as Jung to say that only excess of preferences explains personality disorders, but core Jung theory does have this premise and perhaps long primary function can explain some of them.

    The other case Jung’s features is the case of a person with both a long secondary and primary. This is the case of a quite pronounced type in MBTI (on the T, F, N and S department). Jung gives some descriptions that are not much different than a long primary one. The person of a pronounced type might still be a little bit limited, but is a person of a specially pronounced ‘inferiority’ of the inferior function and not much of the tertiary.

    This is the final part of the evaluation: Long/short primary and secondary functions, and their unhealthy consequences. So, just revising, Jung typology zero point is the undifferentiated type, then there is a differentiation on E/I and then there is the first differentiation of a primary function that gives rises to the 8 main types. But this is still somewhat shallow. Then, there is a rise of the auxiliary function, that gives some depth of typology, and that indirectly generates 16 types, even though Jung is no longer counting. And then, there is the characteristic of a long/short primary and secondary functions, that relates to the, let’s say, ‘intensity’ of personality, together with differentiation, and if we count that there are many dozens of types (actually more than a 100, I counted a total of 141 types). There is one or another thing that I just had missed for the sake of basis, but this is the whole Jung typology process. We also need to notice that Jung, back then had an unproper association of Introversion and Intuition and Extraversion and Sensing. For example, he did consider being more towards the abstract as an Introversion trait instead of Intuition.

    Most explanation of this last part was done in my words, and on purpose because the chapter is way more complicated wording. But here I will left the quotes that explains what I did now in more complicated words and with a little bit more depth, since I sort of resumed it:

    Quote Originally Posted by Jung on chapter XI
    It is therefore only natural to ask whether there may not be individuals, or even types, in whom the period of recovery, the secondary function, lasts longer than in others, and if so, whether certain characteristic psychologies may not be traceable to this. A short secondary function, clearly, will influence far fewer consecutive associations in a given period of time than a long one. Hence the primary function can operate much more frequently. The psychological picture in such a case would show a constant and rapidly renewed readiness for action and reaction, a kind of distractibility, a tendency to superficial associations and a lack of deeper, more concise ones, and a certain incoherence so far as an association is expected to be significant. On the other hand many new themes will crowd up in a given unit of time, though not at all intense or clearly focussed, so that heterogeneous ideas of varying value appear on the same niveau, thus giving the impression of a “levelling of ideas” (Wernicke). This rapid succession of primary functions necessarily precludes any real experience of the affective value of the ideas per se, with the result that the affectivity cannot be anything other than superficial. But, at the same time, this makes rapid adaptations and changes of attitude possible. The actual thought-process, or process of abstraction, naturally suffers when the secondary function is curtailed in this way, since abstraction requires a sustained contemplation of several initial ideas and their after-effects, and therefore a longer secondary function. Without this, there can be no intensification and abstraction of an idea or group of ideas.
    The rapid recovery of the primary function produces a higher reactivity, extensive rather than intensive, leading to a prompt grasp of the immediate present in its superficial aspects, though not of its deeper meanings. A person of this type gives the impression of having an uncritical or unprejudiced attitude; we are struck by his readiness to oblige and by his understanding, or again we may find in him an unaccountable lack of consideration, tactlessness, and even brutality. That too facile gliding over the deeper meanings evokes the impression of blindness to everything not lying immediately on the surface. His quick reactivity has the appearance of presence of mind, of audacity to the point of foolhardiness, which from lack of criticism actually turns out to be an inability to realize danger. His rapidity of action looks like decisiveness; more often than not it is just blind impulse. Interference in other people’s affairs is taken as a matter of course, and this comes all the more easily because of his ignorance of the emotional value of an idea or action and its effect on his fellow men. The ever renewed readiness for action has an adverse effect on the assimilation of perceptions and experiences; as a rule, memory is considerably impaired, because, in general, the associations that can be most readily be reproduced are those that have become massively interlinked with others. Those that are relatively isolated become quickly submerged; for this reason it is infinitely more difficult to remember a series of meaningless, disconnected words than a poem. Excitability and an enthusiasm that soon fades are further characteristics of this type, also a certain lack of taste due to the rapid succession of heterogeneous contents and a failure to appreciate their differing emotional values. His thinking has more the character of a representation and orderly arrangement of contents than that of abstraction and synthesis.
    (...)
    In this type the secondary function is particularly intense and prolonged. It therefore influences the consecutive associations to a higher degree than in the other type. We may also suppose an intensified primary function, and hence a more extensive and complete cellperformance than with the extravert. A prolonged and intensified secondary function would be the natural consequence of this. As a result of this prolongation, the after-effect of the initial idea persists for a longer period. From this we get what Gross calls a “contractive effect”: the choice of associations follows the path of the initial idea, resulting in a fuller realization or approfondissement of the “theme.” The idea has a lasting influence, the impression goes deep. One disadvantage of this is that the associations are restricted to a narrow range, so that thinking loses much of its variety and richness. Nevertheless, the contractive effect aids synthesis, since the elements that have to be combined remain constellated long enough to make their abstraction possible. This restriction to one theme enriches the associations that cluster round it and consolidates one particular complex of ideas, but at the same time the complex is shut off from everything extraneous and finds itself in isolation, a phenomenon which Gross (borrowing from Wernicke) calls “sejunction.” One result of the sejunction of the complex is a multiplication of groups of ideas (or complexes) that have no connection with one another or only quite a loose one. Outwardly such a condition shows itself as a disharmonious or, as Gross calls it, a “sejunctive” personality. The isolated complexes exist side by side without any reciprocal influence; they do not interact, mutually balancing and correcting each other. Though firmly knit in themselves, with a logical structure, they are deprived of the correcting influence of complexes with a different orientation. Hence it may easily happen that a particularly strong and therefore particularly isolated and uninfluenceable complex becomes an “over-valued idea,” a dominant that defies all criticism and enjoys complete autonomy, until it finally becomes an all-controlling factor manifesting itself as “spleen.” In pathological cases it turns into an obsessive or paranoid idea, absolutely unshakable, that rules the individual’s entire life. His whole mentality is subverted, becoming “deranged.” This conception of the growth of a paranoid idea may also explain why, during the early stages, it can sometimes be corrected by suitable psychotherapeutic procedures which bring it into connection with other complexes that have a broadening and balancing influence. Paranoiacs are very wary of associating disconnected complexes. They feel things have to remain neatly separated, the bridges between the complexes are broken down as much as possible by an over-precise and rigid formulation of the content of the complex.
    (...)
    Accordingly this type has a decided tendency to fight shy of external stimuli, to keep out of the way of change, to stop the steady flow of life until all is amalgamated within. Pathological cases show this tendency too; they hold aloof from everything and try to lead the life of a recluse. But only in mild cases will the remedy be found in this way.
    (...)
    [this passage is already specific in terms of types] The introvert is always in danger of getting too far away from life and of viewing things too much under their symbolic aspect [although this is aimed to introversion in general, this is actually a Ni type excess]. This is also stressed by Gross. The extravert is in no better plight, though for him matters are different. He has the capacity to curtail the secondary function to such an extent that he experiences practically nothing but a succession of positive primary functions: he is nowhere attached to anything, but soars above reality in a kind of intoxication; things are no longer seen as they are but are used merely as stimulants. This capacity is an advantage in that it enables him to manoeuvre himself out of many difficult situations (“he who hesitates is lost”), but, since it so often leads to inextricable chaos, it finally ends in catastrophe. [although this was aimed to extraverts in general as the other was aimed at introverts in general, it fits excess of the Ne type]”
    If the reader is somewhat lost, that is understandable, and I did some resume about it anyway.
    But here comes a clearer part of Jung Typology that is a little bit against what people know and think. Ever heard the story ‘type can’t change!’? Also, many descriptions out there make sounds that Jung typology is immune to environment influences. Both are false in Jung: Jung has statements that type can change and that the environment has influences. However, there is one caution thing here. Jung believes that there are natural inclinations – and this one is supposed to be hard to change – that defines type, and also E and I are mentioned as mechanisms (functions are alike as well), where one can use and switch between one and of, but it is the habitual use of E or I that gives a person a E or I type. Also, although I had lost the passage, Jung says that when a person is forced against her/his own natural inclination, then some neurosis is expected. These things are stated in this chapter – with quite clarity.
    “There is a further fact which in my opinion carries even greater weight: the psychological attitude in one and the same individual can change its habits in a very short space of time. But if the duration of the secondary function has a physiological or organic character, it must surely be regarded as more or less constant. It could not then be subject to sudden change, for such changes are never observed in a physiological or organic character, pathological changes excepted. But, as I have pointed out more than once, introversion and extraversion are not traits of character at all but mechanisms, which can, as it were, be switched on or off at will. Only from their habitual predominance do the corresponding characters develop. The predilection one way or the other no doubt depends on the inborn disposition, but this is not always the decisive factor. I have frequently found environmental influences to be just as important. In one case in my experience, it even happened that a man with markedly extravert behaviour, while living in close proximity to an introvert, changed his attitude and became quite introverted when he later came into contact with a pronounced extraverted personality. I have repeatedly observed how quickly personal influences can alter the duration of the secondary function even in a well-defined type, and how the previous condition re-establishes itself as soon as the alien influence is removed.
    A final thing that I must revise is about differentiation. There are actually 3 ‘fronts’ in Jung typology in terms of differentiation, 1 of them run independent of each other. First, there is the attitude types, which is E or I. Something like 30-60% of overall population are undifferentiated on the attitude – these are the ambiverts. Second, there is the function types, which in one turn is the differentiation of a primary function, and in second turn is the differentiation of the secondary function. I do estimate that 10-30% of population are undifferentiated in all of these criteria (by the functions – no specific primary and secondary functions), however how much of the population is differentiated simultaneously on these 3 (clear preference for E/I, a clear primary function and a clear secondary function)? Well, in general 20-40% of society should be fully differentiated. All these are my estimations with NOT rigorously statistics, but the real message here and my point is that the majority of people (likely 60-80%) are undifferentiated in at least one of these 3 points, being either an ambivert (30-60% of people), lacking a clear primary function (10-30%) or having a clear primary function but not a clear secondary function. Besides that, when a person has a weak primary function, the person is also less differentiated, but I did not take these cases on the count. This is why that it is important to understand the undifferentiated “type” (Jung does not consider undifferentiated type but I do for the sake of the explanation and inspired on enneagram, since more type 6 shares more than half of traits with the undifferentiated type), because most people are undifferentiated in one aspect, and it is true that most tests forces a clear type and do treat like everybody is very differentiated, and that generates a big mess where some people test sometimes as one type or another while relating to the description of multiple MBTI types because they have undifferentiated functions or undifferentiated E/I attitude – which makes everything confusing while this is completely natural to Jung typology and is properly described/conceptualized by it.

    So, this is it, and this is completely “true to Jung”! For the main explanation, I am also writing notes clarifying some other details. But just answering a final question, “what makes this true to Jung and other interpretations I read about it are [extremely likely] not true to Jung?” Two reasons. First, because I explained in a way that completely mirrors the example where Jung actually types somebody else. Second, well, although, of course, I had to pick quotes, wherever you read Jung, independently from which part, what I explained here predominates, so there is no loose interpretation here. So, for example, Myers says that the secondary function is extraverted because Jung quotation said that the “auxiliary function which is in every respect different from the nature of the main function” thus the secondary function is Extroverted when the primary is Introverted and vice versa even though for some “odd” reason Jung “forgets” to mention this, while there are other passages that are about the great E/I divides that describe types that are very Extraverted – thus, leaving no room for a compensated I secondary function - and suggesting that the secondary function has the same attitude. However, “my” interpretation does explain why Jung did not specify any attitude for the secondary function (because the attitude is more ambivalent and reactive and that is because the secondary is less differentiated, and the ambivalence and reaction comes from less differentiation, and also because it serves the principal function) and also explains that there is specific a case (long primary, long secondary and pronounced E preference) where the secondary function is the same attitude of the primary, which is the case of the very Extraverted type. This is one is one example of a possible discussion where other interpretations becomes full of doubts and lacks clarity (the understanding depends on where you are reading Jung), while mine interpretation does clear the aspects, says why Jung did not mentioned a E/I divide for the secondary function without having any substantial addictions to Jung – there are other aspects that are not related to the E/I doubt, like the stacks, that also does are explained with clarity (even with me not being a native English speaker and making grammar mistakes all the time), without doubts and without any substantial additions of my own to Jung (while others add stacks in ways that Jung never ever drawn – for example, there was never ever a 7th function on the stack). There is one problem, though: I actually never figured the unconscious part in a clear way, so what I say here ignores the conscious and the unconscious divide, and is more related to types in general, specially when they are described on the general way without the conscious/unconscious divide. There are passages that seems to contradict what I say, for example, for the Ti type: “The counterbalancing functions of feeling, intuition, and sensation are comparatively unconscious and inferior, and therefore have a primitive extraverted character that accounts for all the troublesome influences from outside to which the introverted thinker is prone”. However, this quote is on an unconscious context. The same for this one: “When the mechanism of extraversion predominates... the most highly differentiated function has a constantly extraverted application, while the inferior functions are found in the service of introversion”. This quote appears to contradict what I said, however this is inside the unconscious description of the extraverted type (Extraverted Type description has: a) Conscious; b) Unconscious; c) Type description; This quote comes from b, it is related to the unconscious). I had only explained the general Jung typology without specifying a conscious or unconscious divide because Jung unconscious description is inconsistent, because it is impossible to integrate these two quotes:

    “The "inferior" function, on the other hand, is unconscious” (Jung on Individual Dream Symbolism book)
    “Thus in normal cases the inferior function remains conscious” (Jung on Psychological Types)


    They directly contradict each other: The earlier says the inferior is unconscious and the latter says it normally is conscious.

    Even if the conscious or unconscious description is something important on Jung typology and one might complain that I am ignoring an entirely different aspect and might try to use a conscious/unconscious divide to just to partially or totally come back with the stacks with 8 positions and with 8 “cognitive” functions, the conscious/unconscious divide was completely unused when Jung typed Schiller (he did not made conscious/unconscious evaluations) and can be partially replaced with the concept of differentiation and, thus, we can type without the conscious/unconscious divide (actually, in MBTI this is totally ignored, this divide does not shows up on tests, and most people on the net type others without considering any conscious/unconscious clear division) and there is indeed a Jung typology that is general without the conscious/unconscious divide and with proper clarity. So, in short, what I bring here is more true to Jung than popular interpretations related to Grant, Bebee, etc.. because I completely mirror the process of Jung typing another person and my interpretations are consistent along all the Jung text (if you discount the conscious/unconscious divide) without having any additional concepts that are weird, strange and foreign to Jung typology (like Trickster functions).
    Last edited by Vendrah; 01-13-2021 at 07:38 PM.

  2. #2
    Senior Member Vendrah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    MBTI
    NP
    Enneagram
    952
    Posts
    1,489

    Default

    NOTES

    The text originally on the earlier post was larger, but to make it shorter I removed some parts and tried to be more objective and right on the subject. I also had tried to detach my own opinions on part 1 to focus on an interpretation very close to Jung, even at cost of understanding sometimes. There are others things to talk about – things that might generate doubts and things that requires more depth. Sadly, I won’t be able to write every note I would for now (because the notes here have been delaying me to post the original text for weeks now), just the ones I think are the most important.

    Explaining “stacks”

    Jung does not have a stack, yet I did draw 4 stacks position, one for each function.
    The main difference between me and the other sources are these:
    1) Every position on my stack exists on Jung typology. As I had implied earlier, Jung originally only have 4 positions: Principal, Auxiliary, Inferior Pair, Inferior function. There is no 5th slot, 6th slot, etc... No trickster slot, etc... None of these.
    2) I use the 4 functions because there are actually 4 and not 8.

    I think for clarity I would rather explain each “slot” in more detail, more for the sake of understanding rather than officiating anything.

    1: Primary function: Primary function is a function that is very or totally differentiated. The attitude is aligned with Extraversion, Introversion or can have an undifferentiated attitude (just N). For example, a person with a strong E direction and long N function won't use N on an introverted attitude much. However, for most people the primary is very yet not fully differentiated on the attitude, meaning that this function will be mostly used on one of directions, but sometimes will be used in the other direction as well (yeah, Jung typology is more 'gray' then black and white - actually, every time I say totally differentiated it is fully black and white, and every time I say undifferentiated is completely gray). If a person has a weak-short primary function, then this function will only be partially differentiated, meaning that it will be more reactive, and this reactiveness for consequence makes the inferior less differentiated as well. So, a person with a short N function will have some few reactive uses of S. When a N-dom person is on an environment that forces the use of the S function, then the N it is imminent that N will have a weak primary function. Also, in the case of a function having an Extravert orientation, it will be more likely short.

    2: Secondary function: The secondary function is only partially differentiated, not fully differentiated and that is why the attitude of E/I is not applied to it. The second function depends on the primary function on its use and will have an attitude according to the primary demands, and these demands are not fixed (so a primary i or e function won't demand anything e/i specific to the secondary function). Just an example, if a Ne type is pursuing a possibility where the person needs to make others happy and 'conquer' others sympathy, the person will use Feeling in an Extraverted attitude. If a Ne type is pursuing a possibility that requires an intense feeling, like being on an experience that evoke intense feelings, then Feeling will be on an introverted orientation. Sometimes it will be of neither orientation as well. Along that, since the secondary function is partially undifferentiated, it will also be subject to the convenience of the environment on its orientation, so contexts that requires a more extraverted or introverted orientation will actually affects the secondary function first (and actually the tertiary) and the primary only later. The secondary function is partially reactive, meaning that it will be E or I according to the reaction, however that depends on the intensity of it. This is why we don't assign any specific attitude orientation (E/I orientation) for the secondary function. A weak secondary function will have a tendency to be quite reactive and adaptive, because it is less differentiated. A normal one will be partially reactive. If the secondary function is long, then it is no longer much reactive. Although I explain this with my words and I like using the word 'reactive' from the enneagram (the reactive here is very similar to the reactiveness of an enneagram type 6), it holds completely true to Jung. There is only one exception: If a person has a strong-long secondary function, which implies a long primary function, and a strong orientation towards a E or a I type, then in that case the secondary function follows the primary on the E/I orientation and on the ENFI case we have a Ne-Fe type, on the INFR a Fi-Ni type and that goes on. However, when that happens it is always considered unhealthy.


    Tertiary: Here we got a little bit on a messy part because I haven't truly figured the unconscious theory of Jung partially because Jung said that the inferior function is fully conscious in one part and then said the inferior is fully unconscious in another. I avoided reaching the unconscious because not only is hard to understand but I think there are studies that refutes the Jung's view of the unconscious as primitive and unsophisticated. The tertiary is the inferior pair, and it works as the auxiliary function of the inferior function, but that only has meaning for the unconscious. In conscious terms, the tertiary function should work partially like the second, however it is slightly avoided because the secondary function suppresses it. So, a person will use it the tertiary function also on a reactive way and with the environment influences, and will change the E/I attitude accordingly, this function might aid the primary but will be partially avoided.

    Inferior: Jung says the inferior is undifferentiated, however I think it is differentiated – it is an avoidance preference, the person avoids it, so that could count as differentiation. It is the opposite of the primary. It will be avoided at all costs, a person only uses the inferior if the other 3 functions can't be used to solve the issue or solve the issues poorly. In theory, a person that is forced to use the inferior very often gets stressed.

    Also, which stacks would be for each type? Well, remember when we speak of a function “stack” for Jung typology, we are only referring to the function-type of Jung typology and NOT the attitude type. With that in mind, the Jung “stacks” are easy:
    Type: Primary>Auxiliary>Tertiary>Inferior
    Si type: S>T=F>N
    Se type: S>T=F>N
    Ni type: N>T=F>S
    Ne type: N>T=F>S
    Te type: T>N=S>F
    Ti type: T>N=S>F
    Fe type: F>N=S>T
    Fi type: F>N=S>T
    Fi-n: F>N>S>T
    Fe-n: F>N>S>T
    Fi-s: F>S>N>T
    Fe-s: F>S>N>T
    Ti-n: T>N>S>F
    Te-n: T>N>S>F
    Ti-s: T>S>N>F
    Te-s: T>S>N>F
    Ni-t: N>T>F>S
    Ne-t: N>T>F>S
    Ni-f: N>F>T>S
    Ne-f: N>F>T>S
    Si-t: S>T>F>N
    Se-t: S>T>F>N
    Si-f: S>F>T>N
    Se-f: S>F>T>N

    Stages of differentiation

    Jung Typology has 8 main types, however it does actually have a total of 141 types if we consider all degrees of differentiation (considering Chapter X and the 'psychopathology' chapter) in all domains (E/I and functions, with primary and secondary functions), but I will only list the 31 types, and in Jung terms, only 16 are considered 'ideal' and healthy. Jung does have degrees of differentiation, but not stages of differentiation, but I think that explaining stages of differentiation aids clarity for the whole theory. What people usually say out there on Jung typology as 'stage of development' is some sort of a distorted version (with some good modifications and some modifications that goes against Jung typology) of what in Jung typology is called 'differentiation process' and I will distort it a bit for the sake of clarity as 'stages of differentiation'. Notice that these stages are approximately, but not exactly, equal in terms of differentiation. Introverted types are slightly more differentiated than extroverted types as stated by Jung, and I do have the impression that people who are have a E/I attitude with no secondary function differentiation are more differentiated than people who have a secondary function but has no E/I attitude type (or which the E/I attitude type is the undifferentiated type)

    STAGE 1: In this stage, the person is completely undifferentiated. Here, we have the undifferentiated type, although for Jung undifferentiated is a state, not a type. Jung considers this state to be primitive, archaic, and it is the initial point of Jung typology. In this stage, a person has a very weak or non-existent sense of self. Most people on this stage are on enneagram 6, with some on enneagram 9, and 'score' as these on the enneagram test.
    Types:
    - U type (undifferentiated type)

    STAGE 2: In this stage, there is either the rise of the first function or the rise of an attitude (E or I), while the other parts keep undifferentiated. The person is mostly reactive but still have a kind of preference. In this stage, the person has a weak sense of self. Types:
    - E type (the Extraverted type)
    - I type
    - N type
    - S type
    - T type
    - F type

    STAGE 3: In this stage, the person either have a clear primary function with a clear E/I attitude or a clear primary function and a secondary function without a clear E/I attitude. In this case, there is a moderate-good sense of self. This is the stage where the 8 main types of the Chapter X are, however this stage has two divisions, and in this case we can divide healthy vs unhealthy. Healthy types does have a moderate primary function and moderate E/I attitude; Unhealthy and 'distorted' types have a very strong/long primary function and a very strong E/I attitude, and this makes them overly rigid. For example, a type with a too strong N function and with a very high Introversion will be a lot Schyzotypal, weird, eccentric, unable to communicate like is talking on an ancient language, etc.... All types on Chapter X are on this stage and are on the unhealthy category, they all have a long primary function and a strong E or I attitude, and that is why they are 'distorted' and they are not common along people nor healthy, but they serve very well to describe the types. Types:
    - Ne type (extraverted intuitive type)
    - Ni type
    - Se type
    - Si type
    - Fe type
    - Fi type
    - Te type
    - Ti type
    - N-t type (intuitive type with auxiliary thinking and no E/I attitude, ambivert)
    - N-f type
    - S-t type
    - S-f type
    - T-n type
    - T-s type
    - F-n type
    - F-s type

    STAGE 4: This is the last stage. On this stage,a person has a defined E/I attitude, a clear primary function and a clear secondary function. This is the desired stage for MBTI (plus a clear preference for J or P) and the ideal stage for Jung. In this stage a person is quite differentiated and healthy when the person has a moderate E/I attitude, a moderate primary function and a moderate secondary function - this is what Jung considers as ideal and healthy and, lets say, 'mature', although that is really forcing the 'mature' word. And this is the 'fully developed' stage, however this is also forcing the word 'develop' quite a bit. If the person has a long/too strong primary function or long/too strong secondary function or long/too strong E/I attitude, then the person is unhealthy. When the person has these 3 things simultaneously, you have a fully differentiated type, however a fully differentiated type is very unhealthy and the majority, if not all of them, does have one or more personality disorders. A fully differentiated type has a very black and white approach to life, is overly 'rigid' (which is the opposite of the 'flexibility' of the undifferentiated type), so, for example, a full differentiated Ni-T or Ti-N (actually, this is the exceptional case where the secondary function has a clear E/I orientation, so its a Ni-Ti or Ti-Ni) is basically completely lacking social 'skills', desires, etc, always avoiding people at all costs, is a completely sensor-tard and very prone to fantasy and 'magical thinking', completely ignores his/her feelings because everything needs to be fully logic, lacking empathy and etc. Some super exaggerated stereotypes are from this stage as well (this is a good stage to create type memes as well lol). Types (these are the 16 types):
    - Ne-f (Extraverted Intuitive type with auxiliary feeling)
    - Ne-t
    - Ni-f
    - Ni-t
    - Se-t
    - Se-f
    - Si-t
    - Si-f
    - Te-n
    - Te-s
    - Ti-n
    - Ti-s
    - Fe-n
    - Fe-s
    - Fi-n
    - Fi-s

    Things to observe:
    - The moderate E or moderate I applies on the primary function and in general terms, but not on the other functions, including in terms of healthyness. So, for example, a N function with a very high preference for E generates an intuitive function that has a very rigid E attitude, becoming one sided in terms of its E/I attitude. An 'introverted' secondary function does not compensates this.
    - Jung believes that all people are supposed to develop and have a sort of innate preference, so there is some implicit notion that people should 'differentiated their secondary function', their primary function, etc... and some people switch the word 'differentiated' for 'development'. However, undifferentiation does NOT actually means lack of development. A person with an undifferentiated function does not necessarily have an "undeveloped function" or a function that is 'struggling development', even inside Jung typology where there is the implicit (and wrong) notion that preferences equal skills. The person simply does have either N/S functions (if primary T or F) or T/F functions (if primary S or N) mixed, reactive and adaptive, or in other words, undifferentiated.
    - Jung believes that no one is in-born undifferentiated and no one has innate undifferentiated, in every terms, meaning that everyone is supposed to differentiate until stage 4, and this is actually a Personality Development (not skill development, that is an entirely different thing). Jung thinks that the undifferentiated type is primitive. However, besides Jung's view, nothing else proves or point that this is actual true. I did evaluate this through the enneagram and reading about cognitive flexibility and flexibility in psychology and in no way the undifferentiated type is primitive, but rather primitive conditions (aka having to survive on the forest) generates the undifferentiated type. And it seems that this notion of the primitiveness and retard development of the undifferentiated type should be false when environment conditions are controlled, and some people likely does have an innate lack of preference, even though a person that fully lacks preferences should be rare or very rare.

    Cognitive function tests

    Actually, the way Jung is seem here is different than any test you see around the web. I plan to create at least a quotev quiz in a few weeks. However, we can still sort of adapt the “traditional cognitive function test” format, of course that there will be some bias I may talk about on the notes.
    Jung was not much worried about tests, so this method is actually bizarre to the tests and would need a test specifically designed for it – basically, you have an E/I general counter in one side to evaluate the attitude type department, and then you basically evaluate 4 function types (the intuitive type, the sensation type, the thinking type, the feeler type), and after you cross both you got one of the 8 types of cognitive functions – so Schiller has an Introvert attitude with a Thinking function, and that makes him an Introverted Thinking type, which goes to the Ti-dom description. The next two steps, that Jung indirectly already evaluated for Schiller, is to determine which function is the auxiliary one, and to determinate if the first function and its pair are high/not high, intense/not intense, short/long. This is basically the core Jung typing method and the Jung’s way of interpretation for the main type (the 8 main types) – I will explain these two next steps better later.
    It is possible to improvise this method to the cognitive function tests we know, even though that might be a little bit problematic – and there is a reason for that that I will mention later. Basically, this:
    Attitude type (Extraverted or Introverted):
    E/I: (1) Se+Ne+Te+Fe <=> (2) Fi+Ti+Si+Ni
    If (1) side is higher than (2) (E functions>I functions), then you are an extravert, the opposite is introvert, and if it is too much on the middle then you are undifferentiated.
    Function-type (N, S, F, T):
    Intuition: Ne+Ni
    Sensing: Se+Si
    Thinking: Te+Ti
    Feeling: Fe+Fi
    Whichever those wins determinate if you are an N, S, T or F function type.
    The problem of this improvisation is that in some cases the dominant function of this method and the one that the tests says won’t match. For example, you might get an introverted type, thinking might be the strongest, yet the person highest score is not Ti, but Ni instead (or Ne or other function). This happens actually because the tests does one assumption that is a conceptual error – I will get to that soon.

    More about the undifferentiated type

    There is one general thing on typology that is generally overlooked and partially with purpose. Jung himself is a highly critical of environments that gets in the way of the individual – communities that forces people to become undifferentiated types. However, when you expand typology by crossing Enneagram, Big 5 and MBTI, I did noticed that some types can cause undifferentiation in other people, and that is something very real and present: Some types of people does make and demand others to be undifferentiated. I don’t pretend to really write anything about it in short term except by this, but, traitly speaking, these traits: Low tolerance of diversity, high Extraversion, lack of effective empathy and authoritarian & tyrannical tendencies, are the traits related to a type that does cause undifferentiation on other people, or, basically, it is a type that oppress the individuality of other people. I already know which MBTI and Enneagram combo is closest to these traits (actually, I firstly investigated the combos and just came up with these traits now so I don’t need to say which combo is), made an evaluation of the occurrence of this combo and countries, and, in fact, the more a country has this type, lower the IQ is. Part of these traits relates to the Narcissistic Personality Disorder, and we speak of a specific kind of Narcissism (that is far from being actually rare and can be found in different degrees) where a person have a notion that he/she is a God and that everyone else should be made by her/his own image, basically forcing people to behave and be on their image instead of their own individuality, and they may force others to be a like them, giving rise to an introverted type that mirrors them in all traits except on E/I, by basically having a type that is alike them except on mainly on self-esteem and assertiveness, and on these traits Introversion and Neuroticism gravitates. The Enneagram 6 chapter ("The Wisdom of the Enneagram" book) has an actual example of this:

    Quote Originally Posted by Type 6 person on the Wisdom of the Enneagram book
    I had a very powerful, controlling, somewhat dazzling mother. She was capable of withdrawing her love at a moment's notice, angrily, and often inexplicably. It was a highly conditional love, and depended above all on absolute loyalty—to her values, beliefs, and judgments, no matter how erratic and off the wall they might be. I often felt that it was my role to confront my mother—to fight for my own survival.
    The problem was that my approach was negative: I resisted her and survived but never felt confident that I had prevailed. It was never going to be possible to both win the approval of others (most notably my mother) while also maintaining my independence and developing my own sense of self.
    Typology is not really immune to the things related to undifferentiation – Jung is actually aware of that. Jung considers the Extravert types to be less differentiated than the introverted types. In my own stats, I did connections of Jung typology and indirectly from dichotomy conversion, and I had found that there is a weak correlation between Introversion and differentiation (differentiation in this context mean the standard deviation of cognitive functions): People who are introverts have an actual tendency to be more differentiated than extraverts. I had also found that in Myers J (accessed indirectly by cognitive functions), and in general Perceivers are slightly more differentiated than Js.

    Beyond this factor, I also need to observe: Jung did consider the undifferentiated type (undifferentiation ) more archaic, where on MBTI there is also this notion that you should “develop your preferences”, something like that. However, the enneagram, specially on enneagram 9, does have a notion of “balance” and there are philosophies related to the “balance of things”. So, for some, undifferentiation could just means balance – and they could have even a high emotional stability, peace of mind, etc... So, it is completely true that Jung and MBTI paints the undifferentiated type as a bad type, and I say that they might be right in some cases where extreme cases put the person on this state, but for some other people, there is the possibility of just a “natural balance”. It is a possibility, so I’m not sure, and what I question is the “archaism” of the undifferentiated type. Another notion in Jung and Myers is that all people have natural preferences, I ask myself: Really? Couldn’t be there people who are just naturally ambiverts or does not have a preference for a secondary function naturally? I do question them on these issues.

    Jung J/P explained, why it is not much relevant and Myers J/P

    You are a Jung J if your primary function is F or T. You are a Jung P if your primary function is N or S. And yes, that corresponds to socionic J/P and it is actually as simple as that, it is just that your sources try to marry it with MBTI and for that the explanation gets more complicated.

    However, in Jung, when a Jung P function rises as a primary function, the other Jung P function is suppressed in the same proportion (by the cog. Func. Tests, about the same proportion for most of people). That means that in the general picture, F+T=N+S for everyone, or that in the general picture, the sum of the person’s rational function and irrational will be equal. This is why Jung J/P does not work well as a dichotomy, since most people are supposed to be very balanced on it. This is likely why that Myers had to change it entirely.

    Myers J/P got little to do with Jung J/P in the end. Jung J/P got very few to do with being organized or not, with being scheduled or unplanned, systematic or casual, spontaneous and open ended or planful, etc... As I measured indirectly on the cog. Function tests, the correlations are zero or weak. I do recognize that Myers J/P got traits that are “sort of external”, and, although there is not a straight stats to this, it is likely that there is some relation for extraverts while zero for introverts, but I am sure there is no straight conversion. So there is not really an actual completely conversion as socionics claims, where every INTJ in Jung is a INTP in MBTI – every “INTJ in Jung” (there is actually no “INTJ” as a 4 letter-code in Jung) (that is basically a Ti-dom with auxiliary intuition) can be either INTP or INTJ on MBTI. Although this might looks awkward, it actually makes a lot of sense once you get it, and this makes me go to another subject: The 8 types description over the internet.

    Socionics quick note

    The J/P notation of socionics is equal to the Jung typology, however socionics uses 8 “cognitive functions” rather than 4 functions. I was suggested to even draw a Socionics conversion here, decided to do so and then had changed my mind because the Socionics types have 8 cognitive function stacks, so creating a direct bridge to Socionics could be misleading, specially because of the Socionics also has groups, i.e. they categorize types, based on an 8 cognitive function stack, even though there is connection no doubt. The principal and inferior functions matches, so for example, SEE and SLE are both Se types (and have inferior Ni), as the internet sources does matches as well, and the theory properly presented here matches on the principal and inferior function on both socionics and “common internet sources” (sources that uses Grant Stack) (although Jung never ever wrote a direct hint to the orientation of the inferior function, or at least I did not spot any, it is imminent to be the opposite of the principal one). But, out of that, they are different, and I think that a lot of stuff on Socionics are misread of Jung because they contradict original Jung and have “counter-evidence” against them “data” (like in James Reynierse article, "The Case Against Type Dynamics").

    The 8 types “internet” descriptions bias

    All over the internet, for now we got very popular websites that does the explanation of the 8 main types, that are presented as if they were cognitive functions. Most people know the 8 main types from Jung by these sites and not by the original source of Jung. As I said on the last item, the MBTI J/P and Jung J/P cannot be really converted. These websites, due to their theory, forces these conversion, and by that a lot of them does modify their explanations to fit the forced conversion. So, for example, when explaining Ni some will say that Ni will focus on a single objective in the future and the Ni type will pursue this single vision of them, with focus and discipline. However, this is not Jung Ni type at all; It is rather just a MBTI xNxJ type. Ni on a lot of sites description does posses some of J traits that, at least in very theory, don’t exist in original Jung – worst thing is, even I when writing about it still have this bias. So, just as a clearer example, I will jump quickly to Big 5: On Big 5, there is a E/I notion and Openness to Experience is reasonably close to the function Intuition, while Conscientiousness is somewhat close of Myers J/P. So, here are a description of an approximation of the Ne type on Jung (which is a type with High Extraversion and High Openness to Experience on Big 5) versus an approximate description of a NP (which is High Openness and Low Conscientiousness) (from ipip.org):

    FANCIFUL/IMAGINATIVE TYPE (Low C, High O) [xNxP approximation]
    Fanciful/Imaginative Types are unconventional nonconformists who pride themselves on being different from others. They are not so much openly antisocial and disruptive in their behavior as they are fanciful, impractical, and unconcerned about the general welfare of others. They are described by others as complex, imaginative, and critical.

    DEBONAIR TYPE (High E, High O) [Ne type approximation]
    Debonair Types are intelligent extraverts. In their worldliness they can be quite witty and charming. They have a flair for the dramatic, and can be histrionic and theatrical. People are naturally attracted to debonair types, but if a debonair type dislikes somebody, he or she can swiftly cut that person to the quick. Therefore, this type is generally described with positive terms such as enterprising, eloquent, forward-looking, confident, and sexy, but can also be described as critical, candid, and intense.

    So, yeah, these are different conceptions, so Ne type does not really equal NP. So, for example, a INTP can be either a Ti-dom or a Ni-dom, yet since people hold a concept biased through Ni=NJ, they will have a hard time picturing a INTP Ni-dom, yet INTP can be either a Ti-dom or a Ni-dom.

    For the Ni big 5 approximation, for some reason, there were some few Conscientiousness but also thinking traits as well. Even though, as I said, conceptually Ni does not have much to do with MBTI J.
    I do know that there would be some demand for me or someone to write a more clearer description of each 8 Jung type without the MBTI J/P interference; For me that is a little bit hard, I do find that myself I do still have that bias on my thinking, it is hard to take it out.

    About the “evidence against Jung functions”

    It is a very good idea to wrote about the articles that disproves the functions.
    I really do not have access to all of them, however from the few of them that I did had a look, all of them seems to use 8 functions, even calling them “cognitive functions” sometimes, and some of them use an 8 function stack, so, basically, these articles did NOT disprove Jungian functions because they are not even testing the Jungian functions in the first place, since there are 4 Jungian functions, not 8. This applies entirely to the James Reynierse article (in "The Case Against Type Dynamics"), since he used 8 functions, not 4.
    About Oddly developed resume against the functions, here:
    Cognitive Functions and Type Dynamics - A Failed Theory? | Oddly Developed Types

    Although I did not accessed the articles that did come that text, they are all likely using 8 functions, Oddly Developed Types seems to think that Jung did used the term ‘cognitive’ but not only these issues; First, I do wonder what dynamic a static stack of functions have. But, well, there is also the MBTI assumption where one assumes that, for example, INTP is a Thinking dominant type, while I had explained that MBTI INTP can be either a Thinking dominant or Intuitive dominant in Jung typology, so the research looking for evidence that INTP is a Thinking-dominant type with words-choice or looking for a T>N pattern for INTP, is pretty much not going to find any of these – and I had explained why already. A lot of things shown there actually even aids my point, but this is perhaps the most golden one: “The fact that the four letter code for a type is empirically solid does not imply that cognitive function theory is also empirically solid.” That is true, however if we replace “cognitive function” by “Jung functions” (that are N/S/T/F), I could actually say that the four letter code (actually, a three letter code, we have to remove J/P) for a type is as empirically solid as Jung functions combined with attitude type are solid, because they are very similar. For example, a Thinking type with auxiliary intuition is supposed to have a T>N>S>F stack; However, I did find cases on converted results from cognitive function tests to a Jung function format where we had cases that were T>F>N>S, which were a case where the stack failed. Well, in this case, the Jung phrase that “Thinking causes a repression of Feeling, because both are opposites in nature” (ok, Jung did not said that on that words, but he said something of the same meaning) did failed, because the premise that Thinking and Feeling would repulse each other fail. This kind of failure actually does affect the MBTI, since the MBTI dichotomy Thinking vs Feeling work exactly with the same premise. But that would not be a self-report fault? Not actually. There is this concept that I had drawn in different posts: In typology there are the absolute opposite and the negative correlated opposites. For example, we can relate I to silent and E to talkative, and these are opposites, since you cannot have a “silent talkative” person, that would be a paradox, so a person saying “I am talkative” -> Completely agree, “I am silent” -> Completely agree, is making a self-report mistake and is lying on the test. However, characteristics like logic vs empathetic are not absolute opposites: You can have a logical empathetic person, however these traits are negative correlated so you are unlikely to find an “empathetic logician” however that is not impossible, and that is a source for errors on the stacks I had drawn. So, a T>F>N>S kind of failure where both Thinking and Feeling are high is actually a failure for a MBTI premise as well, even if MBTI dichotomy frame can actually hide this weakness under the carpet by programming all T questions to score negative for F and vice versa or by simply merging T and F in the same score line. So, just to end my point, there is in fact “no evidence” for what I had wrote here directly because the whole MBTI does make the evidence on it’s own for here, because, in fact, this proper interpretation and MBTI have their differences but share a lot of common premises (by the way, because this is the original MBTI source). It would be interesting to see articles analyzing this point of view even though I still ask myself what would be understood as “evidence” for this.

    MBTI versus Jung typology

    I wrote this earlier but just in case and to clarify: These are different.
    Jung typology does NOT have a 4 letter code, so, for instance, there is no INFP in Jung typology, what there is is a Fi type with auxiliary intuition (Fi-n) (and as I said on the last note, INFP can be both a Ni-f or a Fi-n; And Fi-n can be either INFP or INFJ). On MBTI, you evaluate personality in 4 separate dimensions: E vs I, N vs S, F vs T, P vs J. There is no notion of a dominant function on MBTI, the MBTI is indifferent to which dominant function you have.
    However, one might think: But the equivalent of a Fi-n on MBTI should be simply INFx, right? Well, first, MBTI INFx is not sensible to a dominant function, for a Fi-n type, F>N is a must, while for a INF can be F>N or N>F. Second thing, even if we were to short this conversion to Fi and say “would not Fi and IXFX (supposing the preference for Feeling is higher than the N/S one) equivalent?” My answer is yes and no.
    Yes because IXFX and Fi type both means a cross between feeling and introversion. However, the E/I concepts of MBTI are very social focused: So a IXFX type might be, in a very superficial-quick description for the sake of the example explaining the concept, would be a shy person that has values, while the Fi type means a person who is very guarded and cautioned about their feelings, which the feelings are intense. So the no answer comes because there is this difference on the descriptions, that happens because Jung E/I is not social focused and instead is very wide, while the MBTI facets are mostly focused on how social someone is or not. For example, Jung presents things like external/internal orientation (which on MBTI seems to almost disappears because there is a N/S relationship with this), notions such as being cautioned (on the I side) versus being reckless (on the E side) and goes on. Jung E/I, at least in my own opinion, is deeper and wider than the E/I from MBTI even if it have its statistical flaws and some stuff needs to be moved, however this overly focus on MBTI E/I into just being social or not social, basically making E/I only people focused, really takes some depth out. Here it is a converter and acronyms for each of the 31 types I had drawn earlier – remember that, if somebody has undifferentiated functions or undifferentiated attitude type (E/I), then the person will very likely get different MBTI test results.




  3. #3
    Haunted Echoes Red Memories's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    MBTI
    ESFP
    Enneagram
    215 sx/so
    Socionics
    SEE Fi
    Posts
    7,081

    Default

    I don't have much to add besides my mind feels blown. XD in a good way.


    After all,
    How can you run from what is inside of you?
    Likes Vendrah liked this post

  4. #4
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    20,758

    Default

    And your point is?
    Likes miss deceit liked this post

  5. #5
    Senior Member Vendrah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    MBTI
    NP
    Enneagram
    952
    Posts
    1,489

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaguar View Post
    And your point is?
    I haven't posted it on the politics section this time!
    Did you really read everything?

    This theory types somewhat different than what people is used to. For example, Ne, Ni, Te, Ti, etc... are not cognitive functions and are Jung types. N, S, T and F are the functions. This changes the "stack" (as it is only 4), solves the auxiliary issue, etc... So, yeah, there are plenty of points here.

  6. #6
    Senior Member Vendrah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    MBTI
    NP
    Enneagram
    952
    Posts
    1,489

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaguar View Post
    And your point is?
    I had made a resume:

    - Jung typology first important concept (that very few people know because this is almost never mentioned) is about the process of differentiation, but I basically explain what undifferentiation means. A person who is "undifferentiated" is a person who is reactive & adaptive to the environment: The person will use the functions according to the demands of the environment without any particular preference (that includes E/I as well). This makes the person ambivalent. Also, the undifferentiated type is very sunk in the community: He/she will be who the community needs the person to be, and her/his opinions and preferences will be the community one. These are the two most important aspects of an undifferentiated person in short. We can say that this is the Jung's concept of "no type".

    - The word 'cognitive' was never used by Jung in the Jung type book ('Psychological Types'). So there are Jung functions, just 'functions', not 'cognitive functions'. Cognition is not at all about the "cognitive functions" you know (instead of Ne, Ni... actual cognitive functions are working memory, deductive reasoning, etc...), you can even search Wikipedia definitions of Cognition (today, 13 Jan 2021 there are zero mentions).

    - Ne, Ni, Se, Si, Fe, Fi, Te, Ti are NOT functions. They are types. These are the 8 basic types from Jung Typology. N, S, T and F are the functions. Jung stated directly that the number of functions are 4 multiple times.

    - There are two divisions of Jung typology (notice that the person can be undifferentiated in none, one or both):

    + Attitude-type: E (The Extraverted type) or I (The Introverted Type).

    + Function-type: S (sensing), N (intuition), T (thinking) and F (feeling).

    - When typing a person, Jung first looks for the attitude-type, then he looks for which of the 4 functions is the most relevant to the person, and the combination of the attitude-type and function-type give rises to the 8 basic Jung types. For example, Jung typed a guy with the Introverted attitude and see the Thinking function as most relevant to him, typing him the Introverted Thinking type (aka Ti type).

    - N & S are Perceiving-Irrational functions, while T & F are Judging-Rational functions. These are the 'nature' of the functions. The auxiliary function is the function of different nature of the primary, so, if one is rational, the other is irrational. Also, the secondary function is partially differentiated ("less strong") and not much differentiated on the attitude (E or I); The attitude (E or I) of the secondary function is partially adaptive to the environment demands, partially adaptive to the primary functions demands and partially ambivalent. For this reason, Jung never marked any attitude to the secondary function. It is also possible to be differentiated on the attitude type and on the function type, while being undifferentiated on the secondary function: The 8 main Jung types are this way.

    - You are a Jung J or rational type if your principal function is T or F. You are a Jung P or irrational type if your principal function is N or S. MBTI J/P and Jung J/P cannot be a 100% converted (even though there are tendencies), partially because Jung J/P has nothing or not much to do with being planned, scheduled, organized, etc...

    - Jung never used the terms 'stack', but the terms primary function, auxiliary function, tertiary function and inferior function exists. What is called "5th, 6th, 7th, 8th slot" doesn't actually exist on Jung typology. There are 4 functions, so a "stack" is made of 4 functions. So, for example, a Fi-n type (Introverted Feeling with auxiliary intuition) has a F>N>S>T "stack", where Feeling is the only highly differentiated function, so it has the Introverted attitude. All types uses all the functions, but the inferior is distorted. Also, since MBTI J/P and Jung J/P are not directly related, a Fi-n type can be both INFP or INFJ in MBTI (but that is definitely a J in Jung, since the principal function is Feeling).

    - There is a concept where types and functions are more or less pronounced. The Jung 8 types descriptions are for very very pronounced types, while people normally are less pronounced.

  7. #7

    Default

    WHAT AN ACCOMPLISHMENT!!!!

    BRAVO @Vendrah !!!!

    What can I say? It's a great job, very enlightening.

    Personally, I have a difficult relationship with Jung. I find that studying him is like studying latin. It's useful, it's rewarding, it helps you in multiple ways and enriches you. But is damn hard!
    I studied latin for 5 years and one could argue that I use it everyday, sincce I'm teaching italian to Spainards for a living.
    But I got sick of studying a dead language back in high school.

    I love Jung, but I find it very tiresome to read sometimes. So thanks for "digesting" and figuring Jung out for us. I confess I'm still pondering the implication of all of this: just 4 functions, no J/P match with MBTI, undifferentiated functions/types/attitudes... It changes a lot!

    I plan to come back with more to say. For the time being, once more, CONGRATS!!!

    Likes Vendrah liked this post

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