• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Proposed Changes To the Codes (To Preclude J/P Confusion)

entropie

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 24, 2008
Messages
16,767
MBTI Type
entp
Enneagram
783
I guess the greatest problem concerning MBTI I have is, there is absolutely no german reference. I searched the web, I found nothing that explained any of the functions or types in words, I understand a 100% aswell.
 

entropie

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 24, 2008
Messages
16,767
MBTI Type
entp
Enneagram
783
Think about the thing about pushing people back, who want to get close to you.

You hit my weak spot on purpose :). I might seem infp due to this fact, meaning getting closer to people, but I aint because I dont. I respect your thoughts and your insights thats why I want to get closer. That's no Fi thing.
 

"?"

New member
Joined
May 2, 2007
Messages
1,167
MBTI Type
TiSe
The flipping was a large catalyst in my decision to minimize thinking about functions at all. The socionics system retains Jung's functions, and since I'm INTP and INTp, I have two mutually exclusive dominant functions listed, Ti and Ni, and they both make sense on their own terms. When you can do that, something's wrong.
See this is where things get blurred. I prefer Ti-Se per Jung, regardless of what system it is. Jack what you are implying is that you prefer Ti-Ne as defined by one system (MBTI) and Ni-Te as defined by the other (Socionics). Clearly they are different functions so I have always asked people who come to the same conclusion as you, are the two systems defining the cognitive functions that differently or is it the reader?
 

Eric B

ⒺⓉⒷ
Joined
Mar 29, 2008
Messages
3,621
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
548
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
But I think we most agree that Keirsey only confused things when he used Myers-Briggs' four letter codes instead of staying with his titles. Since his theory is not based on the same thing, he has muddled things for those who attempt to correlated the two systems. Besides Myers-Briggs saw temperaments from her system as ST-SF-NT-NF.

Berens also used the four letter codes, however as she develops her system more and weens herself from Keirsey she refers to her titles more. The two word titles are good because they have meaning for the individual as they see themselves and for those who see the person differently, hence Analyzer/Operator (ISTP), Designer/Theorizer (INTP) etc.

When I considered the three letter codes, I was basing it more on Jung's theory than MBTI. Since Myers-Briggs believes that the dominant function is less prevalent in introverts my codes reflect Jung's thoughts that the dominant function is prevalent (regardless of attitude) and the auxiliary is in clear subordination:
I wondered why Keirsey didn't just make up his own letter code, since he replaces two of the MBTI factors with two of his own. So you could have something like this:
http://www.typologycentral.com/foru...ype-compatible-keirsey-type-2.html#post194150

I guess he wanted to hook on to what was popular.
 

"?"

New member
Joined
May 2, 2007
Messages
1,167
MBTI Type
TiSe
Actually I question why he uses codes at all since he gives his descriptions names. The difference is that although I do relate to the SP core values (even more since Berens/Nardi modified the temperaments), I do not relate to any of Keirsey's individual descriptions in that core. The INTJ sounds more like me. Thus he could have went with his names, but it would have not been as impactful as using the MBTI codes. Nevertheless his system in my opinion is the least like MBTI.
 

INTJMom

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2007
Messages
5,413
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w4
This system was actually listed somewhere in Jung's book, if I'm not mistaken. Anyway, your system makes more sense functionally speaking and in Jungian terms. It also brings MBTI theory into closer accord with Socionics.

Although there is one thing I have a concern about, though... J/P seems to measure something. It seems to me that Js are people who get things done on time, think about what they'll do to reach their goals, and have something of a self-preservation instinct. Ps, on the other hand, are all adventurous and everything, just run around all over the place, take risks they don't stand to gain from, struggle to make themselves do anything they don't want to, have a poor understanding of boundaries/priorities, etc...

Can you explain why this is? Does it have more to do with rationality/irrationality than J/P?
Your description of P is rather inaccurate, and unkind as well, especially insinuating that Ps are irrational.
You make them sound flighty and incapable rational thinking.
You named all the bad qualities of being P but none of the good ones,
besides the fact that not all Ps have all those bad traits.

I understand how you could think that way though,
because to a J, especially a TJ, Ps certainly LOOK that way.

P desires to keep its options open as long as possible believing that closing off options quickly might prevent the "best" solution from coming about.
P is constantly weighing opportunities and advantages.
They don't want to exclude anything from possibly being used in whatever application they're looking at.

Sometimes the P way is better than the J way.
In actuality, they each have their pros and cons.
 

Jack Flak

Permabanned
Joined
Jul 17, 2008
Messages
9,098
MBTI Type
type
See this is where things get blurred. I prefer Ti-Se per Jung, regardless of what system it is. Jack what you are implying is that you prefer Ti-Ne as defined by one system (MBTI) and Ni-Te as defined by the other (Socionics). Clearly they are different functions so I have always asked people who come to the same conclusion as you, are the two systems defining the cognitive functions that differently or is it the reader?
What's most important is that the functions and their descriptions are but one attempt to describe what's actually going on inside the head. It's fundamental, everything else follows that. Once you accept it could be flawed:

Depending on the school, alternate function descriptions can overlap and make equal sense to the supposed bearer, as in my case. When I read Jung's Psychological Types, I identified much with (I'll use function shorthand just for convenience) his descriptions of types Ti, Ni, Ne, and Te almost equally, to be perfectly honest. That done since his day stole a bit, made up some more, threw some strange bedfellows together, and called it good. The only author I'm aware of who took a step back was Keirsey.

So I'm confident I'm an "Intuitive Thinker," but to get more specific doesn't provide me with any satisfaction.

I should note that I am quite sure those of a type such as INTP have things in common beyond the preferences, but I stick to what can be observed, not conjected.
 

"?"

New member
Joined
May 2, 2007
Messages
1,167
MBTI Type
TiSe
This system was actually listed somewhere in Jung's book, if I'm not mistaken. Anyway, your system makes more sense functionally speaking and in Jungian terms. It also brings MBTI theory into closer accord with Socionics.
Hmmm…. I have never seen the system before. If someone has seen it please let me know since I do not want to be passing off someone else’s work as my own.
Although there is one thing I have a concern about, though... J/P seems to measure something. It seems to me that Js are people who get things done on time, think about what they'll do to reach their goals, and have something of a self-preservation instinct. Ps, on the other hand, are all adventurous and everything, just run around all over the place, take risks they don't stand to gain from, struggle to make themselves do anything they don't want to, have a poor understanding of boundaries/priorities, etc...
At one time you claimed to prefer INFJ did you not? So I will refer you back to one of my original threads started on behalf of the INFJ.COM author. I am in agreement that when most discuss J/P, they are not really talking about type any longer.
Can you explain why this is? Does it have more to do with rationality/irrationality than J/P?
J/P dichotomy was created in my opinion for Myers-Briggs to expound on her theory and introduce her instrument. Jung references to J/P merely in distinguishing T/F from S/N, nothing else. The J/P dichotomy in the succession of codes is redundant since it only points out what extraverted cognitive function is being preferred. It’s just my opinion but Myers-Briggs also created the final code to coincide with her theory for reversing the letters for introverts, however her reasons outlined in “Gifts Differing” appear to misstate that Jung gave little notice of how introverted types engage their environments which is untrue.
 

entropie

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 24, 2008
Messages
16,767
MBTI Type
entp
Enneagram
783
You mean the pee way ? :D

Sry I know that was totally childish :D
 

"?"

New member
Joined
May 2, 2007
Messages
1,167
MBTI Type
TiSe
What's most important is that the functions and their descriptions are but one attempt to describe what's actually going on inside the head. It's fundamental, everything else follows that. Once you accept it could be flawed:

Depending on the school, alternate function descriptions can overlap and make equal sense to the supposed bearer, as in my case. When I read Jung's Psychological Types, I identified much with (I'll use function shorthand just for convenience) his descriptions of types Ti, Ni, Ne, and Te almost equally, to be perfectly honest. That done since his day stole a bit, made up some more, threw some strange bedfellows together, and called it good. The only author I'm aware of who took a step back was Keirsey.

So I'm confident I'm an "Intuitive Thinker," but to get more specific doesn't provide me with any satisfaction.

I should note that I am quite sure those of a type such as INTP have things in common beyond the preferences, but I stick to what can be observed, not conjected.
Keirsey did not take a step back. His work is based on the temperament school of thought that has been around since Aristotle. Temperament naturally takes a step back, which is why they call it behaviorism since it groups people, not individualize. The cognitive functions created by Jung are said to be recognized by both Myers-Briggs and Socionics in applying their schools of thought. So Ti is or should be the same in either system. There is no overlapping.
 

Jack Flak

Permabanned
Joined
Jul 17, 2008
Messages
9,098
MBTI Type
type
I read the guy's book, and he took from the Ancients and Jung and MBTI.

Said to be; Should be; Are = Different things.
 

cloakofsnow

New member
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
152
MBTI Type
INFx
I didn't have time to read through the entire thread (at work on lunch break right now), so my response is to the OP:

I remember reading that Myers (or maybe her mother) already had her own personality typing system before she came across Jung's. When she read Jung's Psychological Types, she apparently found that it was so similar to her own system and yet so much more superior/complete that she discarded her own partially-completed book and decided to adopt Jung's.

Well, I have a copy of Jung's Psychological Types and have tried reading it. I found the writing very difficult to decipher, but whatever I did get out of it I found quite different from the Myers-Briggs system. Jung always emphasized the dominant function and its opposition to the unconscious, "inferior" function.

Jung doesn't seem to say much about the attitude of the auxiliary function (whether it is same or opposite to the dominant), but I almost got the sense that he sees the auxiliary as being in a similar attitude as the dominant. So in the case of an Introverted Thinking type, the auxiliary would also be introverted though maybe not as distinctly introverted as the dominant thinking function.

Because Jung talks so much about the opposition between conscious and unconscious functions and attitudes, the portraits that he draws of each type shows more psychological complexity. For example, I remember very well the chapter he writes about the Introverted Feeling type. According to MBTI, Fi types are friendly, altruistic, and mostly harmless, angelic people who are quite incapable of being "bad". All light and no darkness. But Jung's Fi type can act out unconscious ("inferior") Te and become cold, suspicious, despotic, scheming and vengeful. He says that many women in history who have been notorious for their mishievious intrigues and ruthless ambitions are often examples of this type. Lady MacBeth?

Also, Jung makes a clear distinction between the perceiving functions and the judging functions. All of his perceiving functions (Ne, Ni, Se, Si) behave like Myers's P types and all his judging functions (Te, Ti, Fe, Fi) behave like Myers's J types. When I read Jung's description of the Introverted Intuitive type, for example, I can't help seeing how similar it is to the MBTI descriptions of INFP and INTP.

My opinion is that MBTI and Jung's system is not the same.

Edit: But I do think they are similar.
 
Last edited:

mlittrell

New member
Joined
Sep 3, 2008
Messages
1,387
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
9w1
you can come up with a thousand different systems that logically make sense, the original system works just fine.
 

"?"

New member
Joined
May 2, 2007
Messages
1,167
MBTI Type
TiSe
Well, I have a copy of Jung's Psychological Types and have tried reading it. I found the writing very difficult to decipher, but whatever I did get out of it I found quite different from the Myers-Briggs system. Jung always emphasized the dominant function and its opposition to the unconscious, "inferior" function.

Jung doesn't seem to say much about the attitude of the auxiliary function (whether it is same or opposite to the dominant), but I almost got the sense that he sees the auxiliary as being in a similar attitude as the dominant. So in the case of an Introverted Thinking type, the auxiliary would also be introverted though maybe not as distinctly introverted as the dominant thinking function.
Good points and I agree they are different, as much as Keirsey is different than Myers-Briggs, but they all must be respected for their individual accomplishments. What you assert is the reason that I casually proposed the dichotomies as I think that Jung would have seen them since he emphasizes dominant function. But read post number 23, where I pasted his comments on the auxiliary function. Actually to pinpoint his thoughts in the chapter, Jung says
Naturally only those functions can appear as auxiliary whose nature is not opposed to the leading function. For instance, feeling can never act as the second function by the side of thinking, because its nature stands in too strong a contrast to thinking.....

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.
 

"?"

New member
Joined
May 2, 2007
Messages
1,167
MBTI Type
TiSe
you can come up with a thousand different systems that logically make sense, the original system works just fine.
Obviously not too many since there continues to be questions about the most ineffectual dichotomy of the bunch (J/P) and for whatever reasons why many fail to grasp the inverted theory of Myers-Briggs. I am not saying that her system is not okay, but it is not Jung's system and the codes suggested would be for how he may saw them, if he would have used codes because I would bet that he would simply refer to his function codes and call an ISTP Ti-Se.
 
Last edited:

"?"

New member
Joined
May 2, 2007
Messages
1,167
MBTI Type
TiSe
Does he go into function use at all? I don't remember, lost the book a long time ago, but I did glean that he values functional analysis little, like myself. Too much extrapolation.
Nope...., as stated the way I see it is Jung focuses purely on his cognitive functions (specifically the dominant funciton), Myers-Briggs focuses on functions but emphasizes development of the auxiliary function for balance. This is necessary, however I theorize that there is a sense of being unrealistic since Jung, and Myers-Briggs, says that the auxiliary is far subservient to the dominant function. Myers-Briggs, to make her indicator successful had to go a step out of using cogntive functions by introducing dichotomies which is more general than the functions. Keirsey based his theory on Myers-Briggs' work since the descriptions matched so well with his temperament theory. So as I see it from specific to general Jung, Myers-Briggs and then Keirsey. They're only correlative in that they used part of each others theory to create their own, however the distinctions are paramount in that what they do focus on makes the theories uncorrelative.
 
Top