Please Explain The Logic... Why Cant Someone Be An INNP? Or ESSJ?

[tommyc]

Hi everyone! Ive always been interested in MBTI but recently Ive been taking some time off work, picked up 'Gifts Differing' by Isabel Myers Briggs and have delved back into it a little deeper! I now understand the theory that every human has a dominant extrovert process, and a dominant introvert one.

I think its a stroke of genius that Jung/MB managed to deduce what the four optional processes were - and from my own observations of people, and who they are attracted to friend-wise and romantic-wise, I think its accurate. As a self typed INFJ, my best friend is an INFP and I am romantically drawn to ENFP females, in a pretty textbook way. As in I only like ENFP females, and MBTI predicts that.

My question is not to do with MBTI not standing up to observation, but one of internal logic:

Why cant someone have Intuition as both their dominant introvert and extrovert process? Or Sensing or Feeling or Thinking? Why cant all four functions be present in a person's introvert and extrovert processes? Why the dichotomy, the division? Does anyone know what the reasoning is for this?

 

[raskol]

Why cant someone have Intuition as both their dominant introvert and extrovert process? Or Sensing or Feeling or Thinking? Why cant all four functions be present in a person's introvert and extrovert processes? Why the dichotomy, the division? Does anyone know what the reasoning is for this?

It goes back to basics. We have two judging functions (F, T) and two perceiving functions (N, S). And when one function is extraverted, the other will necessarily be introverted. By the same token, when one function is dominant, the other will be inferior. In that sense, Ti dom will pair up with Fe inferior and Ni dom with Se inferior, and vice versa.

 

[tommyc]

And when one function is extraverted, the other will necessarily be introverted.

Right. My question is why? Why must that necessarily be the case? Why could both functions not be both introverted and extroverted?

 

[Drapeaux]

You do you, kiddo. The sky's the limit.

 

[raskol]

Right. My question is why? Why must that necessarily be the case?

Simplifying in the extreme, the theory is based on the assumption that we humans both judge and perceive in our cognitive interactions. Like extraversion and introversion, these functions operate along a continuum, where a low score in one will translate into a high score for its opposite. Finally, add the idea of repression to the mix, which divides functions into expressions of either conscious or unconscious activity.

Why could both functions not be both introverted and extroverted?

Originally, Jung only identified one conscious function followed by three unconscious functions. Schematically, the three unconscious functions would possess a reversed attitude of the dominant function. For instance, INFJ would be Ni (Fe, Te, Se) and its opposite ENFP would be Ne (Fi, Ti, Si). It was Isabel Myers who led the transformation away from this system, introducing the basic function stack we commonly use. Then you have the systems introduced by, e.g., Beebe and Berens, which involve four conscious functions alongside four unconscious functions.

But if you prefer the old-school system, then stick with that. Just make sure that you're consistent in your approach. That said, intuitive P-leads like us will still possess inferior sensing with a reversed attitude.

 

[tommyc]

Originally, Jung only identified one conscious function followed by three unconscious functions. Schematically, the three unconscious functions would possess a reversed attitude of the dominant function. For instance, INFJ would be Ni (Fe, Te, Se) and its opposite ENFP would be Ne (Fi, Ti, Si). It was Isabel Myers who led the transformation away from this system, introducing the basic function stack we commonly use.

Aha, thank you for this insight! So according to Jung, there would be 8 personality types, not 16. Myers decided that there were actually two conscious functions, not one. I wonder why?

Just going by empirical evidence, I have to say that Myers seems be accurate. However Jung's model of one conscious function seems plausible. Indeed when Im trying to type others I often try to determine what their one dominant function is, to narrow them down. (Much easier with extroverts).

 

[Pionart]

Well, you can try to do it, it will work to a degree, but will lack functionality.

Each subsequent function in the order provides a certain level of balance to the process, so if you do things in a different order, you don't get the same level of balance, but other function orders are nonetheless possible (I mean as a temporary state) they just require a bit of extra energy.

(Also, SeSi would be ESSP not ESSJ)

 

[raskol]

Aha, thank you for this insight! So according to Jung, there would be 8 personality types, not 16.

Right, 8 core temperaments. I'd be ENF and you'd be INF.

Myers decided that there were actually two conscious functions, not one. I wonder why?

That would be two conscious functions sharing the same attitude, taking on a different symmetry. In MBTI, all four are conscious but to a varying degree. MBTI just lacks distinctions relating to the shadow functions, which are key elements of Socionics and Berens' system respectively. To Myers, the inferior function is the shadow (slightly conscious, mostly unconscious), which isn't how I'd use the term.

Just going by empirical evidence, I have to say that Myers seems be accurate. However Jung's model of one conscious function seems plausible. Indeed when Im trying to type others I often try to determine what their one dominant function is, to narrow them down. (Much easier with extroverts).

I think the model is still under development, and that Myers made Jungian personality theory communicable. That said, the depth and unlocked potential is still located in old-school Jungian texts relating to phenomena like submersion and nigredo.

 

[Pionart]

Right, 8 core temperaments. I'd be ENF and you'd be INF.

Don't you mean ENP and INP or INJ (I'm not sure which)?

Though, I actually think we are a mix of all types, not just the one, with types like ENFP and ENFJ going together as a natural pair, so I would say what you said actually is in line with how things work.

 

[tommyc]

Don't you mean ENP and INP or INJ (I'm not sure which)?

Though, I actually think we are a mix of all types, not just the one, with types like ENFP and ENFJ going together as a natural pair, so I would say what you said actually is in line with how things work.

Wait a second. I agree with the first bit. If we were to be purely Jungian its: INJ, IFP, ITP, ISJ, ENP, EFJ, ESP, ETJ. The natural pairs would surely be found within those tho? Ie INFJ with INTJ, ENTP with ENFP etc.

 

[Pionart]

Wait a second. I agree with the first bit. If we were to be purely Jungian its: INJ, IFP, ITP, ISJ, ENP, EFJ, ESP, ETJ. The natural pairs would surely be found within those tho? Ie INFJ with INTJ, ENTP with ENFP etc.

The model I use is as follows:

imagine that we can alternate between the different types. We might be INTJ one moment, and then go to do a different task and switch to ENFP.

One of the 16 types though will be your "default". It will be what you naturally revert to, and you (probably) spend more time operating as that type than as any other.

So, what I mean by natural pairs, is that if a person has a strong influence of ENFP, then they will also have a strong influence of ENFJ. ENTP might be strong too, but the correlation isn't as high.

Types with the same first 3 letters correlate (quite strongly), types sharing the same first letter correlate, types sharing the same last letter correlate.

I've done a bit of self-analysis according to my model and it seems to hold up to preliminary investigation.

 

[tommyc]

Ok - thank you for sharing your model! I agree that one type is our default. I also agree that you can take on, or appear to take on a different type at different times. I suppose what Myers tells us about that is the cognitive functions we use can be placed out of order at different times - so an INFJ can be an ENFJ, ISTP or ESTP. These types all share the same cognitive functions. Would you be able to reverse the function, ie go from being an Introverted Intuitive to an Extroverted Intuitive? Im not sure. I guess that was my whole question in the first place.

As regards types with the first three letters correlating - absolutely! They often make very good friends. ENFP with ENFJ, as you say. INFJ with INFP. I also agree that types sharing the first letter correlate - I tend to steer clear of extroverts for the most part.

Types sharing the same last letter correlate - but tend not to attract. I think Js need Ps, and vice versa. One to plan, one to improvise.

As regards to pairings or groups, Im quite fond of Myers' groupings: ST, SF, NF, NT. Find others in the same group as you and you can relax a bit. Each has their own, fairly consistent approach to life. Very simplistically thats: People, or Things. Sensors about people or things; Intuitives about people or things.

 

[Pionart]

Ok - thank you for sharing your model! I agree that one type is our default. I also agree that you can take on, or appear to take on a different type at different times. I suppose what Myers tells us about that is the cognitive functions we use can be placed out of order at different times - so an INFJ can be an ENFJ, ISTP or ESTP. These types all share the same cognitive functions. Would you be able to reverse the function, ie go from being an Introverted Intuitive to an Extroverted Intuitive? Im not sure. I guess that was my whole question in the first place.

As regards types with the first three letters correlating - absolutely! They often make very good friends. ENFP with ENFJ, as you say. INFJ with INFP. I also agree that types sharing the first letter correlate - I tend to steer clear of extroverts for the most part.

Types sharing the same last letter correlate - but tend not to attract. I think Js need Ps, and vice versa. One to plan, one to improvise.

As regards to pairings or groups, Im quite fond of Myers' groupings: ST, SF, NF, NT. Find others in the same group as you and you can relax a bit. Each has their own approach to life.

When I mentioned correlation I meant within the one person. So having a notable presence of one indicates that you would have a notable presence of the other (the one which is higher is predicted by whether you're a J or a P).

Another thing I believe to be the case is that we can use different function orders than the standard one. The standard one goes from most conscious to most unconscious, but we can mix things up:

For example, I've observed myself using the following function order: Ni - Si - Fe - Te - Ti - Fi - Se - Ne

And, more to the point of the thread, I've also observed this function order in myself: Ni - Ne - Fe - Fi - Ti - Te - Se - Si.

So, in that case I was operating as an INNJ. So it can be done, it's just not standard, because it's different from the order of consciousness (it basically involves alternating between conscious and unconscious, while going from most to least energising. It is characterised by a sense of inspiration and energeticness).

 

[tommyc]

When I mentioned correlation I meant within the one person

Ohhh I completely missed your point
Thanks for clarifying further, that the model is all 8 functions, from most to least conscious. Myers seems to think that they have to alternate in order - ie Perceiving function - Judging function - Perceiving function - Judging function... But yes. I dont know why that would have to be the case, why you cant rearrange the order.

 

[tommyc]

On further reflection - might it be because they have to come in a pair? Like whatever your current state, you are Perceiving somehow, and Judging somehow. If you say your two dominant functions are Ne and Ni - that means you are ONLY perceiving. Is that what youre saying? That you can get yourself into a mind state which is ONLY perceiving?

 

[Pionart]

On further reflection - might it be because they have to come in a pair? Like whatever your current state, you are Perceiving somehow, and Judging somehow. If you say your two dominant functions are Ne and Ni - that means you are ONLY perceiving. Is that what youre saying? That you can get yourself into a mind state which is ONLY perceiving?

Well... even if the first 2 functions are perceiving, there will still be judging functions in the mix.

One thing I probably didn't clarify was that "function order" simultaneously means two different things. It's the order from strongest to weakest... but it's also literally an order, in the sense that the first function is used first, and then the second is used, down to the 8th.

So having Ne and Ni as the first two functions would mean that you first use one of those, and then use the other, and then move on to a different function. It's just that doing it that way doesn't achieve the same level of counter-balancing that the standard order achieves.

 

[tommyc]

Are you interested in Buddhism/meditation? Im starting to wonder if this is connected. Like maybe Enlightenment is a state of PURE perception. No Judging function at all, no feeling or thought. Just pure Intuition and/or Sensing, inside and out. For it seems that the Perceiving function is a form of awareness. While the Judging function is egoic, a way of quantifying and separating the world.

Im really interested in ego and Buddhist stuff: Ive meditated for a while, even spent time in a monastery. If the amount of judging function you use is, as I theorize, related to your attachment to ego, that kinda makes sense for me. For sometimes I feel Im both Introverted Intuiton and Extraverted Intuition, or Sensing. I still maintain some Extraverted Feeling and Thinking in there, Im not totally imbalanced, but I could see a state where there was barely any.

 

[Pionart]

I don't think that's correct... I mean, assuming the goal of meditation is a valid one? Neither perception nor judgement are more "enlightened" than the other.

I tend to associate higher states of being with what goes beyond the cognitive functions. So meditation would ideally allow you to transcend both the judgement and perception functions.

There could be forms of meditation that are more focused on activating/deactivating certain functions, but in general, enlightenment first involves getting to the 8th functions, then going beyond it.

--

The functions most associated with the ego are the first and second functions (especially the first), though can include perhaps the third and/or fourth, or perhaps the conscious functions of secondary types. Basically, the most conscious functions which you identify with.

So, by having all functions active, you've made progress in moving past the ego, and as you go further, you move even further away from it.

--

A useful parallel here is with Maslow's hierarchy of needs: once you've moved past physiological needs, you've entered the realm of the cognitive functions. Once you've achieved esteem needs, you've got all 8 functions active, and once you've entered self-actualisation you've got all 8 functions working in a more transcendent form of unison ("the self").

Self-transcendence has many levels, and the further you move up it, the more enlightened you are (which can be framed in terms of how far you've moved up throughout your life, or what level you're operating at at the time). Self-transcendence is transcendent of matters pertaining to the cognitive functions.

There are a set of, perhaps, "spiritual" functions associated with this level.

 

[raskol]

Don't you mean ENP and INP or INJ (I'm not sure which)?

Right, it was someone else (Eysenck?) who formed a system of Jung's eight personality types. For example, Ti (Ne Se Fe) became INT and Ti (Se Ne Fe) IST. In such a system, there is a big difference between INFP (IFN) and INFJ (INF), as the former is J-lead while the latter is P-lead. That creates a surface-level inconsistency with dichotomal MBTI, as all IxxJ are in fact P-lead.

Though, I actually think we are a mix of all types, not just the one, with types like ENFP and ENFJ going together as a natural pair, so I would say what you said actually is in line with how things work.

That's why I especially appreciate the extended systems, which take into account the "internal dialogue" generated by our shadow functions. In my case, following Berens, I (ENFP) would be constantly facing my sagacious shadow self (INFJ), permissive superego (ESTP) and by-the-book anima (ISTJ).

As for compatibility, temperament is key, and both ENFP and ENFJ are extraverted idealists. Although I assume ENTJ and INTP would also be suitable matches for ENFP, even though it would be of a more complimentary nature than with fellow idealists.

On further reflection - might it be because they have to come in a pair? Like whatever your current state, you are Perceiving somehow, and Judging somehow. If you say your two dominant functions are Ne and Ni - that means you are ONLY perceiving. Is that what youre saying? That you can get yourself into a mind state which is ONLY perceiving?

You are overlooking repression, which is the psychological phenomenon that forces feelings, experiences, thoughts, and desires into our unconscious mind. Without it, we wouldn't be human.

 

[Pionart]

and by-the-book anima (ISTJ).

I don't know why there is a common association between the anima/animus and the inferior function. I would associate the inferior with the shadow (I think) and the unconscious functions, especially the 5th functions, with the anima (pretty sure).