madhatter
New member
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2012
- Messages
- 114
- MBTI Type
- ISTP
- Enneagram
- 5w6
- Instinctual Variant
- so/sp
Let's take this concept of separating the systems a step farther.
The MBTI commonly practiced on this forum is not the original MBTI. It is a fusion of JCF and MBTI. As such, P and J, which didn't exist for Jung, have become simple placeholders. They have no meaning in themselves, they are ciphers. This is how ISTP is differentiated from ISTJ.
If P and J are just placeholders in this fusion of JCF/MBTI, then they can be eliminated and replaced with a different nomenclature system. ISTP would not then be differentiated from ISTJ, so it will necessary to find another way to place the emphasis on the dominant function: let's say, isT (because Ti is dominant) and iSt (because Si is dominant).
But according to the original MBTI, P and J have real meanings, they are not merely used to show which is the dominant function. For example, among other things, they can be used to denote structured (J) and unstructured (P), with regard to a person's lifestyle. (There are other ways to denote these distinctions, such as "planned" versus "spontaneous.")
Therefore, there is no reason not to believe that there can be an iSt (Si dominant) who is either an iStj or an iStp, depending on whether the Si-dominant personality is structured or unstructured, lives according to a strict plan, or is more spontaneous on the whole.
Now according to JCF the Si is either an ISTJ or an ISFJ, according to how the basics of the system are postulated. However, this is a mere postulate, an assumption. I'm not therefore saying that my own postulate is correct, I'm just offering an alternate assumption, one that is just as valid as the JCF assumption because they are both just assumptions.
However, as a result of the second assumption, 32 types, not just 16, are made possible.
I agree with you. The J/P distinction is important to MBTI, so important to Myers that she felt compelled to add it to Jung's work. She thought that balance between extraversion and introversion were paramount to a healthy type, and that's why she thought the auxiliary was so important. I don't see J/P as just placeholders; they do have more purpose than just being a cipher for the dominant function. I interpret P as "this type uses extraverted perception" which gives the "unstructured" and "spontaneous" traits to these types, and I see J as "this type uses extraverted judgment" and these types are structured, outwardly organized, planners, etc. I think it's the combination of the J/P dichotomy with the I/E dichotomy together that shows what is the dominant function, i.e. IPs are all introverted Judgers, different from EPs, the extraverted Perceivers. P describes me in many ways, on the MBTI, I will choose P over J any day. I clearly use extraverted perception and not extraverted judgment. But, to use Myers' words, this extraverted perception is only "my aide" that I task with dealing with the world for me while my "general" or introverted judgment is hidden away, dealing with more introverted important matters. You are right that J/P makes a big difference between ISTJ and ISTP, because ISTx means something vague and unspecific to me.
I think that just proves that the underlying structure of functions exists even within the Myers-Briggs theory. Myers does not ignore the functions in Gifts Differing, but in fact, organizes the types by them, i.e. the introverted thinkers (INTP, ISTP), the introverted feelers (INFP, ISFP), etc. I think you would agree that IxFPs are very different from ExFJs.
So when I say Fi in place of IxFP, or vice versa, they are synonymous, at least in my mind.