• 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.

Are JCF and MBTI incompatible?

fetus

New member
Joined
Mar 22, 2015
Messages
2,575
Enneagram
6w7
I'm sure this topic has been addressed before, but I guess I'll bring it up again. Are the two systems incompatible? Could someone have a completely different type in each?

I ask because in terms of JCF, I think I'm an INFP. Complete with Fi-Si looping (I don't loop Ne-Te; I can't imagine myself without Fi, but I could see myself neglecting Ne). But in MBTI I'm probably more ENFP. So I wonder--are the two systems even compatible? Can you be one type in one and another using the other system?
 

Lunar Light

New member
Joined
Jun 26, 2015
Messages
114
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
I'm sure this topic has been addressed before, but I guess I'll bring it up again. Are the two systems incompatible? Could someone have a completely different type in each?

I ask because in terms of JCF, I think I'm an INFP. Complete with Fi-Si looping (I don't loop Ne-Te; I can't imagine myself without Fi, but I could see myself neglecting Ne). But in MBTI I'm probably more ENFP. So I wonder--are the two systems even compatible? Can you be one type in one and another using the other system?

I definitely think that the systems are related but not the same. IMO I get annoyed when people bring in MBTI biases/stereotypes into JCF (OMG I USE Ne BUT I'M SO INTROVERTED AND I EAT PEOPLE FOR BREAKFAST BECAUSE I HATE THEM SO MUCH OMG), so yeah, I'd say they are two distinct systems because cognitive attitudes (introversion/extraversion), as opposed to social attitudes are very different. At this point I basically ignore MBTI, but that said I do have the same types. in MBTI/JCF

I do believe it's possible to have completely different types in the two systems given that they are measuring different things. Perhaps a little less likely for that to happen because some of the dichotomies seem to point toward a certain function, BUT I would say it's possible.

If you relate more to Fi/Si than Ne/Te, I'd say it's probable that you're INFP cognitively (Fi-Ne-Si-Te), but yeah you could be ENFP in MBTI.
 

Forever

Permabanned
Joined
Aug 30, 2013
Messages
8,551
MBTI Type
NiFi
Enneagram
3w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
My interpretation is that JCF fixes MBTI's scattering assumptions about each type and breaks down the type analytically. I really don't think it would make any sense at all to separate the two.

If I'm wrong:
MBTI: INFP (if we're just doing pure letters, many of the INFP's general description matches me, although great differences)
JCF: INFJ -> NiTiFiFeSeNeTeSi
 

pinkgraffiti

New member
Joined
Mar 20, 2011
Messages
1,482
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
748
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
Jungian cognitive functions. Fi, Ne, Se, etc.

Thanks. I thought this was part of MBTI theory. If not, what is thr novelty of MBTI. For me it's based solely on the functions.

Edit: You mean MBTI is just type descriptions? If so it's as new-age and fictional as the enneagram.
 

reckful

New member
Joined
Jul 6, 2013
Messages
656
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5
Thanks. I thought this was part of MBTI theory. If not, what is thr novelty of MBTI. For me it's based solely on the functions.

Edit: You mean MBTI is just type descriptions? If so it's as new-age and fictional as the enneagram.

Yikes. You've certainly got that backwards.

First of all, if what you mean by "the functions" is the internet-famous Harold Grant function stack, where INFP=Fi-Ne-Si-Te, that function model is inconsistent with Jung, inconsistent with Myers, has never been endorsed by the official MBTI folks, and has no respectable body of evidence behind it — and indeed, should really be considered all but disproven at this point.

More generally, the MBTI can actually lay claim to quite a lot of scientific respectability in the reliability and validity departments, but that really only applies to the dichotomy-centric MBTI — and not the "cognitive functions."

Carl Jung — mystical streak notwithstanding — was a believer in the scientific approach, and Myers took Psychological Types and devoted a substantial chunk of her life to putting its typological concepts to the test in a way that Jung never had, and in accordance with the psychometric standards applicable to the science of personality. Myers adjusted Jung's categories and concepts so that they better fit the data she gathered from thousands of subjects, and by the start of the 1960s (as the leading Big Five psychologists have acknowledged), she had a typology that was respectably tapping into four of the Big Five personality dimensions — long before there really was a Big Five. And twin studies have since shown that identical twins raised in separate households are substantially more likely to match on those dimensions than genetically unrelated pairs, which is further (strong) confirmation that the MBTI dichotomies correspond to real, relatively hard-wired underlying dimensions of personality. They're a long way from being simply theoretical — or pseudoscientific — categories with no respectable evidence behind them.

And on the other hand, the so-called "cognitive functions" have barely been studied. And the reason they've barely been studied is that, unlike the dichotomies, they've never been taken seriously by any significant number of academic psychologists.

If you're interested in reading more about the Harold Grant function stack (and its associated "tandems"), and about the relationship between the dichotomies and the functions, the place of the functions (or lack thereof) in the MBTI's history, and the tremendous gap between the dichotomies and the functions in terms of scientific respectability, you'll find a lot of potentially eye-opening discussion in this TC Wiki page and the posts it links to.
 

pinkgraffiti

New member
Joined
Mar 20, 2011
Messages
1,482
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
748
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
Yikes. You've certainly got that backwards.

First of all, if what you mean by "the functions" is the internet-famous Harold Grant function stack, where INFP=Fi-Ne-Si-Te, that function model is inconsistent with Jung, inconsistent with Myers, has never been endorsed by the official MBTI folks, and has no respectable body of evidence behind it — and indeed, should really be considered all but disproven at this point.

More generally, the MBTI can actually lay claim to quite a lot of scientific respectability in the reliability and validity departments, but that really only applies to the dichotomy-centric MBTI — and not the "cognitive functions."

Carl Jung — mystical streak notwithstanding — was a believer in the scientific approach, and Myers took Psychological Types and devoted a substantial chunk of her life to putting its typological concepts to the test in a way that Jung never had, and in accordance with the psychometric standards applicable to the science of personality. Myers adjusted Jung's categories and concepts so that they better fit the data she gathered from thousands of subjects, and by the start of the 1960s (as the leading Big Five psychologists have acknowledged), she had a typology that was respectably tapping into four of the Big Five personality dimensions — long before there really was a Big Five. And twin studies have since shown that identical twins raised in separate households are substantially more likely to match on those dimensions than genetically unrelated pairs, which is further (strong) confirmation that the MBTI dichotomies correspond to real, relatively hard-wired underlying dimensions of personality. They're a long way from being simply theoretical — or pseudoscientific — categories with no respectable evidence behind them.

And on the other hand, the so-called "cognitive functions" have barely been studied. And the reason they've barely been studied is that, unlike the dichotomies, they've never been taken seriously by any significant number of academic psychologists.

If you're interested in reading more about the Harold Grant function stack (and its associated "tandems"), and about the relationship between the dichotomies and the functions, the place of the functions (or lack thereof) in the MBTI's history, and the tremendous gap between the dichotomies and the functions in terms of scientific respectability, you'll find a lot of potentially eye-opening discussion in this TC Wiki page and the posts it links to.

Thank you for the links. I will check out.

But i'm puzzled by your assertion that the dichotomies of mbti are scientific as ive read a whole plethora of articles demythifying that.

Could you please link me to sources saying that the cognitive functions are inconsistent with mbti? (with jungian theory i already know the story and it's not exactly what you're saying). Thanks
 

Seymour

Vaguely Precise
Joined
Sep 22, 2009
Messages
1,579
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
Thank you for the links. I will check out.

But i'm puzzled by your assertion that the dichotomies of mbti are scientific as ive read a whole plethora of articles demythifying that.

Could you please link me to sources saying that the cognitive functions are inconsistent with mbti? (with jungian theory i already know the story and it's not exactly what you're saying). Thanks

[MENTION=18736]reckful[/MENTION]'s post on Debunking the MBTI Debunkers is also worth a read.
 

uumlau

Happy Dancer
Joined
Feb 9, 2010
Messages
5,517
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
953
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
Thank you for the links. I will check out.

But i'm puzzled by your assertion that the dichotomies of mbti are scientific as ive read a whole plethora of articles demythifying that.

Could you please link me to sources saying that the cognitive functions are inconsistent with mbti? (with jungian theory i already know the story and it's not exactly what you're saying). Thanks

I admire reckful's take on MBTI, as it makes it clear that the typology has substance. My main disagreement with him is that MBTI is "scientific", and that somehow makes it a more reliable typology than functions. The main value that he points out is that there is a lot of data out there that supports MBTI being just as good as "more respected" personality metrics such as the "Big 5". There is value to be derived from repeated measurements. I don't regard it as "scientific", however, because the test results don't predict anything other than future test results, and the kinds of things they do predict are as trivial "predicting" that an introvert is unlikely to want to go to a party. You might as well have a test that asks "What color of shirt are you wearing?" and then "predicts" the color of shirt that you are wearing.

I happen to find JCF more useful for typing, because it allows me to make reliable predictions. Tell me that you are N or you are T, that still doesn't tell me how to communicate my ideas to you. Tell me that you're Ti (introverted thinking), and then I know exactly how to present my ideas to you.

That said, reckful's stuff is very much worth reading. Our disagreements are largely nitpicks, at least insofar as your current interests are likely to be concerned.

I'm sure this topic has been addressed before, but I guess I'll bring it up again. Are the two systems incompatible? Could someone have a completely different type in each?

I ask because in terms of JCF, I think I'm an INFP. Complete with Fi-Si looping (I don't loop Ne-Te; I can't imagine myself without Fi, but I could see myself neglecting Ne). But in MBTI I'm probably more ENFP. So I wonder--are the two systems even compatible? Can you be one type in one and another using the other system?

I'd say that JCF and MBTI overlap about 80% if you use the typical rules for converting between MBTI and functions. The problem is that where they don't overlap, it can be difficult to discern which is "right". The problem with the MBTI dichotomies for most people is that most people are "kind of in the middle" for a lot of the letters. Everyone thinks and feels. Everyone is intuitive and sensing. Everyone judges and perceives. Everyone is at times outgoing and at times reflective.

What I like about JCF is that for these "middle" cases, it helps resolve which letters apply. In JCF, you can be extroverted about ideas and introverted about thing/objects/sensations - or vice versa you can be extroverted in terms of sensing but introverted in terms of intuition. It can be easier to tell which parts of your thinking are introverted/extroverted than to tell whether you are "N" or "S".

I need to point out a caveat w/r to the Keirsey temperament sorter, which looks like MBTI, but isn't - it just uses the same letters. Keirsey overlaps with JCF about 50% and MBTI about 80%, in my estimation. If you're going by Keirsey versions of the dichotomies, JCF is going to look kind of contradictory.
 

reckful

New member
Joined
Jul 6, 2013
Messages
656
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5

pinkgraffiti

New member
Joined
Mar 20, 2011
Messages
1,482
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
748
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
I admire reckful's take on MBTI, as it makes it clear that the typology has substance. My main disagreement with him is that MBTI is "scientific", and that somehow makes it a more reliable typology than functions. The main value that he points out is that there is a lot of data out there that supports MBTI being just as good as "more respected" personality metrics such as the "Big 5". There is value to be derived from repeated measurements. I don't regard it as "scientific", however, because the test results don't predict anything other than future test results, and the kinds of things they do predict are as trivial "predicting" that an introvert is unlikely to want to go to a party. You might as well have a test that asks "What color of shirt are you wearing?" and then "predicts" the color of shirt that you are wearing.

I happen to find JCF more useful for typing, because it allows me to make reliable predictions. Tell me that you are N or you are T, that still doesn't tell me how to communicate my ideas to you. Tell me that you're Ti (introverted thinking), and then I know exactly how to present my ideas to you.

That said, reckful's stuff is very much worth reading. Our disagreements are largely nitpicks, at least insofar as your current interests are likely to be concerned.



I'd say that JCF and MBTI overlap about 80% if you use the typical rules for converting between MBTI and functions. The problem is that where they don't overlap, it can be difficult to discern which is "right". The problem with the MBTI dichotomies for most people is that most people are "kind of in the middle" for a lot of the letters. Everyone thinks and feels. Everyone is intuitive and sensing. Everyone judges and perceives. Everyone is at times outgoing and at times reflective.

What I like about JCF is that for these "middle" cases, it helps resolve which letters apply. In JCF, you can be extroverted about ideas and introverted about thing/objects/sensations - or vice versa you can be extroverted in terms of sensing but introverted in terms of intuition. It can be easier to tell which parts of your thinking are introverted/extroverted than to tell whether you are "N" or "S".

I need to point out a caveat w/r to the Keirsey temperament sorter, which looks like MBTI, but isn't - it just uses the same letters. Keirsey overlaps with JCF about 50% and MBTI about 80%, in my estimation. If you're going by Keirsey versions of the dichotomies, JCF is going to look kind of contradictory.

Your post, although probably meant well, said nothing new to me. It was exactly what i said (or meant to say) to the other user. I also feel a slightly paternalistic tone in both your and his posts that make me wonder whether i should be offended....but that's probably just the INTJ way, to convince people that what they're saying are facts and they're an expert, when they're actually just presenting their personal and thus very debatable opinion.

As for the INFP, thank you, you were the most helpful of the 3. I had indeed read that article weeks ago and had decided I didnt agree with the author, so case closed I still prefer cognitive functions to what you can MBTI (function devoid MBTI)
 

Lunar Light

New member
Joined
Jun 26, 2015
Messages
114
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
I admire reckful's take on MBTI, as it makes it clear that the typology has substance. My main disagreement with him is that MBTI is "scientific", and that somehow makes it a more reliable typology than functions. The main value that he points out is that there is a lot of data out there that supports MBTI being just as good as "more respected" personality metrics such as the "Big 5". There is value to be derived from repeated measurements. I don't regard it as "scientific", however, because the test results don't predict anything other than future test results, and the kinds of things they do predict are as trivial "predicting" that an introvert is unlikely to want to go to a party. You might as well have a test that asks "What color of shirt are you wearing?" and then "predicts" the color of shirt that you are wearing.

I happen to find JCF more useful for typing, because it allows me to make reliable predictions. Tell me that you are N or you are T, that still doesn't tell me how to communicate my ideas to you. Tell me that you're Ti (introverted thinking), and then I know exactly how to present my ideas to you.

That said, reckful's stuff is very much worth reading. Our disagreements are largely nitpicks, at least insofar as your current interests are likely to be concerned.
Yeah, I agree with you 100% here. I understand where reckful is coming from, but I would definitely disagree that MBTI supposedly being more "scientific" and supported makes it more reliable. When I first heard that cognitive functions are largely disregarded, it did make me question it, as I appreciate hard, straight logic and evidence as much as anybody... but simply because something can't be "proven" doesn't mean it can't be true. This might be taking an overly simplistic view of reckful's argument (and for that I apologize), but personally I've been able to clearly see cognitive functions in people and find it to be useful in communication.

I'd say that JCF and MBTI overlap about 80% if you use the typical rules for converting between MBTI and functions. The problem is that where they don't overlap, it can be difficult to discern which is "right". The problem with the MBTI dichotomies for most people is that most people are "kind of in the middle" for a lot of the letters. Everyone thinks and feels. Everyone is intuitive and sensing. Everyone judges and perceives. Everyone is at times outgoing and at times reflective.

What I like about JCF is that for these "middle" cases, it helps resolve which letters apply. In JCF, you can be extroverted about ideas and introverted about thing/objects/sensations - or vice versa you can be extroverted in terms of sensing but introverted in terms of intuition. It can be easier to tell which parts of your thinking are introverted/extroverted than to tell whether you are "N" or "S".
lol, you've basically said what I hoped to convey (and more) much more intelligently than I did. Technically, it's certainly true that one is not more "right" than the other in the bits that don't overlap (imo, social introversion/extraversion vs cognitive introversion/extraversion), and I appreciate that you pointed that out. It's definitely my own choice to follow JCF more than MBTI.
[MENTION=24479]themightyfetus[/MENTION], I've noticed that you seem to be searching for a sort of "objective" truth, but IMHO, I think that these finer details of typology are ones you have to discern for yourself, based on which you personally value more. And, well, if you still can't, then you can be indecisive and choose one for each because as I said before, I do believe that's valid \o/

also note: I'm aware that JCF was actually not the 4-function structure that people generally refer to when speaking of cognitive functions, and Jung's original theory was different, but the functions are derivative of Jung so it's why I don't bother to clarify.
 

fetus

New member
Joined
Mar 22, 2015
Messages
2,575
Enneagram
6w7
Yeah, I agree with you 100% here. I understand where reckful is coming from, but I would definitely disagree that MBTI supposedly being more "scientific" and supported makes it more reliable. When I first heard that cognitive functions are largely disregarded, it did make me question it, as I appreciate hard, straight logic and evidence as much as anybody... but simply because something can't be "proven" doesn't mean it can't be true. This might be taking an overly simplistic view of reckful's argument (and for that I apologize), but personally I've been able to clearly see cognitive functions in people and find it to be useful in communication.


lol, you've basically said what I hoped to convey (and more) much more intelligently than I did. Technically, it's certainly true that one is not more "right" than the other in the bits that don't overlap (imo, social introversion/extraversion vs cognitive introversion/extraversion), and I appreciate that you pointed that out. It's definitely my own choice to follow JCF more than MBTI.

[MENTION=24479]themightyfetus[/MENTION], I've noticed that you seem to be searching for a sort of "objective" truth, but IMHO, I think that these finer details of typology are ones you have to discern for yourself, based on which you personally value more. And, well, if you still can't, then you can be indecisive and choose one for each because as I said before, I do believe that's valid \o/

also note: I'm aware that JCF was actually not the 4-function structure that people generally refer to when speaking of cognitive functions, and Jung's original theory was different, but the functions are derivative of Jung so it's why I don't bother to clarify.

Personally I enjoy using an interesting mix of both. :)
 

Seymour

Vaguely Precise
Joined
Sep 22, 2009
Messages
1,579
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
Yeah, I agree with you 100% here. I understand where reckful is coming from, but I would definitely disagree that MBTI supposedly being more "scientific" and supported makes it more reliable. When I first heard that cognitive functions are largely disregarded, it did make me question it, as I appreciate hard, straight logic and evidence as much as anybody... but simply because something can't be "proven" doesn't mean it can't be true. This might be taking an overly simplistic view of reckful's argument (and for that I apologize), but personally I've been able to clearly see cognitive functions in people and find it to be useful in communication.

I think there are some subtleties here. First, support for type dynamics hasn't been found even by people explicitly looking for support. That's more than "not proven", that more like "not detectable or predictive of anything that anyone has been able to try."

Secondly, as I've mentioned before, taking an empirical/preferences view still allows for existing "function descriptions" to describe something... if only for one's top two functions. The "functions" can be seen as primarily describing the interaction of on of the "function" preferences with the judging/perceiving preference. Hence, "Ne" describes N+P (and perhaps a little of the influence E), and "Te" describes T+J (and perhaps a little of the influence of E).

However, that doesn't extend to third and fourth function (tertiary and inferior functions) as described by type dynamics. There's been no evidence found for that, whatsoever. t's also important to note that weak preferences have weak predictive power. So a mild J/P preferences means that someone with a mild perceiving preference maps only a little better to "Ne" vs "Ni".

So, I absolutely believe that typing someone by "function" can give one insight in how best to communicate (provided the function is one of the two functions and the other person has some clear preferences). Whether it grants more insight than any other preference pairs is more dubious... but given JCF, we have much better function descriptions than we do of other combinations (with the possible exceptions of the NF and NT descriptions).


lol, you've basically said what I hoped to convey (and more) much more intelligently than I did. Technically, it's certainly true that one is not more "right" than the other in the bits that don't overlap (imo, social introversion/extraversion vs cognitive introversion/extraversion), and I appreciate that you pointed that out. It's definitely my own choice to follow JCF more than MBTI.

[MENTION=24479]themightyfetus[/MENTION], I've noticed that you seem to be searching for a sort of "objective" truth, but IMHO, I think that these finer details of typology are ones you have to discern for yourself, based on which you personally value more. And, well, if you still can't, then you can be indecisive and choose one for each because as I said before, I do believe that's valid \o/

also note: I'm aware that JCF was actually not the 4-function structure that people generally refer to when speaking of cognitive functions, and Jung's original theory was different, but the functions are derivative of Jung so it's why I don't bother to clarify.

I think people certainly can choose what models they find useful... and do. However, I think it pays to take a step back, and evaluate whether type dynamics actually describes reality better than the alternative. I've found for me that type dynamics fails to do so (and so have motivated people looking for detectable evidence). I'm open to evidence to the contrary, though, since others apparently do find type dynamics useful.
 
Top