MBTI and Jungian functions

[hommefatal]

What I don't understand: According to the functions ENFP is most similar to INFP, ESTJ, and ISTJ, and most different from ENFJ. That really doesn't make sense from a MBTI point of view.

 

[hommefatal]

bump

 

[Virtual ghost]

Which is because order of function in types is nonsense/illogical as an idea.

On the other hand the entire function thing is fishy. I think that MBTI would actually be more valid theory if you just keep it at 4 letters.

 

[NewEra]

Eh, I don't know, I think Jungian functions and their order are pretty accurate for each type. I have found this true for a few people (knowing their types), but none more clearly than for myself.

 

[laughingebony]

What I don't understand: According to the functions ENFP is most similar to INFP, ESTJ, and ISTJ, and most different from ENFJ. That really doesn't make sense from a MBTI point of view.

If you consider function order...

ENFP: Ne, Fi, Te, Si
INFP: Fi, Ne, Si, Te
ESTJ: Te, Si, Ne, Fi
ISTJ: Si, Te, Fi, Ne

... ENFP should be closest to INFP. Depending on where you place the remaining four functions, you could argue that ISTJ is the exact opposite of ENFP.

But really...

Which is because order of function in types is nonsense/illogical as an idea.

On the other hand the entire function thing is fishy. I think that MBTI would actually be more valid theory if you just keep it at 4 letters.

... I think this makes the most sense.

Eh, I don't know, I think Jungian functions and their order are pretty accurate for each type. I have found this true for a few people (knowing their types), but none more clearly than for myself.

Considering that there are eight cognitive functions, there are actually fifty-six possible combinations of dominant and auxiliary functions. The MBTI gets pretentious when it claims that only sixteen of these actually exist, and, further, when it proceeds to lay out the remaining function order for these types for a total of at least four functions. That is, it says that out of 1,680 possible combinations of dominant, auxiliary, tertiary, and inferior functions, only sixteen exist.

 

[Jaguar]

The MBTI gets pretentious when it claims that only sixteen of these actually exist, and, further, when it proceeds to lay out the remaining function order for these types for a total of at least four functions. That is, it says that out of 1,680 possible combinations of dominant, auxiliary, tertiary, and inferior functions, only sixteen exist.

Worse yet, there are a hell of a lot of people who actually believe it.

 

[simulatedworld]

What I don't understand: According to the functions ENFP is most similar to INFP, ESTJ, and ISTJ, and most different from ENFJ. That really doesn't make sense from a MBTI point of view.

MBTI drew influence Jung but the two are incompatible in a lot of ways.

There are a lot of various typology ideologies running around and none of them really makes perfect sense on its own.

The best you can do is study the different ones and try to come to a personal conclusion about what makes the most sense to you.

 

[garbage]

There's a simple way to resolve that issue.

Taken from the standpoint that Ne and Ni are two sides of the same coin, as are every other extroverted/introverted function pair, ENFP is closer to ENFJ than ISTJ, but closer still to INFP.

It would make sense to look at functions in that way, anyway; to claim otherwise would also necessitate that Ne and Ni are just as different as, say, Ne and Ti are.

Considering that there are eight cognitive functions, there are actually fifty-six possible combinations of dominant and auxiliary functions. The MBTI gets pretentious when it claims that only sixteen of these actually exist, and, further, when it proceeds to lay out the remaining function order for these types for a total of at least four functions. That is, it says that out of 1,680 possible combinations of dominant, auxiliary, tertiary, and inferior functions, only sixteen exist.

Jung restricted function order in some ways as well; namely, something along the lines that one dominant in an extroverted function likely relies upon introverted functions in inferior positions. He didn't delve into the level of detail specified by MBTI, however.

 

[Jeffster]

There are a lot of various typology ideologies running around and none of them really makes perfect sense on its own.

The best you can do is study the different ones and try to come to a personal conclusion about what makes the most sense to you.

Yeah. This.

 

[simulatedworld]

It always makes me feel so good when Jeffster supports my posts.

 

["?"]

What I don't understand: According to the functions ENFP is most similar to INFP, ESTJ, and ISTJ, and most different from ENFJ. That really doesn't make sense from a MBTI point of view.

There are Jung's cognitive functions Ti-Fe-Si, etc, then there are MB functions. If you refer to those functions, then I would say that ENFP resembles INFJ (NFTS) since their function orders are exact except the energy flows in the opposite direction. ESTJ is the same as ISTP (TSNF) and ISTJ is the same as ESTP (STFN).

 

[Matthew_Z]

Considering that there are eight cognitive functions, there are actually fifty-six possible combinations of dominant and auxiliary functions. The MBTI gets pretentious when it claims that only sixteen of these actually exist, and, further, when it proceeds to lay out the remaining function order for these types for a total of at least four functions. That is, it says that out of 1,680 possible combinations of dominant, auxiliary, tertiary, and inferior functions, only sixteen exist.

MBTI asserts two rules for the dominant and auxiliary functions:
1. Be opposites on the introversion/extroversion scale
2. One function must be a perceiving function(Ni, Ne, Si, or Se), and the other a judging function. (Ti, Te, Fi, or Fe)

From these rules, there are only 16 possibly combinations of auxiliary and dominant functions.

From there, the theory goes further to dictate a rule for the tertiary and inferior functions:
The inferior function is the "opposite" of the dominant function, (IE: if the dominant is Ti, the inferior is Fe) and the tertiary the opposite of the auxiliary.

Because tertiary and inferior functions are determined by the dominant an auxiliary functions, they have no bearing on the possible combinations, and we are still left with 16.

To illustrate this principle more graphically, I'll divide the functions into triple variable binaries:

Key:
X = Judging or Percieving
Y = Sensing/iNuition or Feeling/Thinking (depending on X)
Z = Introverted/Extroversion
A = inverse of X
B = inverse of Y
C = inverse of Z

Dominant Function:
XY1Z

Auxiliary Function:
AY2C

Tertiary Function:
AB2Z

Inferior Function:
XB1C

In short, MBTI assumes (I make no argument for or against that assumption in this post.) that the dominant, auxiliary, tertiary, and inferior functions are not independently assorted. (Note my allusion to genetic linkage) This assumption goes to state that only 2 auxiliary functions(as opposed to 7) can support any given dominant function, and that only 1 combination of tertiary and inferior functions can support the given dominant-auxiliary combination. Or, rather, a person is only inclined develop one of two possibly auxiliary functions to support their dominant function, that after their auxiliary function has developed they are only truly inclined to a single tertiary function that can support the dominant and auxiliary functions, and that they are only inclined to develop a single inferior function to support the already developed dominant, auxiliary, tertiary, and inferior functions.

I'll write on the validity of this assumption later.

 

[Jeffster]

It always makes me feel so good when Jeffster supports my posts.

I'm in the business of making dreams come true.

 

[hommefatal]

Which is because order of function in types is nonsense/illogical as an idea.

On the other hand the entire function thing is fishy. I think that MBTI would actually be more valid theory if you just keep it at 4 letters.

So true. Eventually I'd prefer a test which tells me how I act in all kinds of situations based on say, 1000 questions and the elimination of lying to yourself. The idea 200 millions of people in the world act exactly the same is just ridiculous which makes the functions unreliable in some way. For example which behaviour I like and how I behave in certain situations is a big difference (N/S). So as I'm intuitive I could easily manipulate a test result. Everything I know is I won't act like an archconservative on social issues and I won't act like a 'mental retard' (to describe a person unable to think logically) on intellectual issues. It just doesn't make sense to me. But whenever I find certain behaviour useful I will use it.