• 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.

Claryfing: Differences and conflicts of Jung Typology, MBTI and "The Stack"

Vendrah

New forum night mode looks cool!
Joined
Mar 26, 2017
Messages
1,744
MBTI Type
NP
Enneagram
952
Dismixing: What is Jung Typology, MBTI and “The Stack” (they are all different) (alternative title)

Warning: Loooonnng post.

The community does a mix of 3 different sets of theory, Jung Typology, MBTI and “The Stack”, which are different systems that have clashes with each other. Im going to clarify the differences.

Originally, this was a regular post. But I had decided to expand it with more details and had transformed it into a blog post. It took me some time to take the quotes on the expansion, but this clarification is something very important. This expansion went very big, it is a long read and it would be appropriate to separate this as a series, but it is very important that this is put altogether, so this is just a single long post instead. At the end, I more or less created another typing method... One quite aligned with Jung.

Well, the community does a mix of 3 different theories that somewhat clash to each other and that is a source of great confusion. Time for me to explain them separately:
1) Jung Typology
2) MBTI
3) "The Stack" (Harold Grant Stack)
These 3 have conflicts between each other.

1) Jung Typology: Jung Typology is consisted in 8 base types, as described in chapter X - each one is related to a cognitive function (there is the Se type, the Fe type and goes on). As Jung says:

“For the extravert the object is interesting and attractive a priori, as is the subject, or psychic reality, for the introvert. We could therefore use the expression “numinal accent” for this fact, by which I mean that for the extravert the quality of positive significance and value attaches primarily to the object, so that it plays the predominant, determining, and decisive role in all psychic processes from the start, just as the subject does for the introvert.
But the numinal accent does not decide only between subject and object; it also selects the conscious function of which the individual makes the principal use. I distinguish four functions: thinking, feeling, sensation, and intuition.
(...) [describes feeling, thinking, intuition and sensing]
The four functions therefore form, when arranged diagrammatically, a cross with a rational axis at right angles to an irrational axis.
(...) [describes very briefly what a feeler-dom, thinker-dom, intuition-dom and sensation-dom is]
The localization of the numinal accent thus gives rise to four functiontypes, which I encountered first of all in my relations with people and formulated systematically only very much later. In practice these four types are always combined with the attitude-type, that is, with extraversion or introversion, so that the functions appear in an extraverted or introverted variation. This produces a set of eight demonstrable function-types.” (Carl Jung)

Jung J/P is based on the cognitive functions: One is a judging-rational type if the base type, or the dom-function, is a judging function (Fi,Fe,Ti or Te), or one is a perceiving-irrational type if the base type, or the dom function, is a perceiving function (Ni,Ne,Si,Se). At the end of chapter X, Jung mentions that the 8 pure types arent supposed to be common and adds the observation of the auxiliary function:

“In the foregoing descriptions I have no desire to give my readers the impression that such pure types occur at all frequently in actual practice. The are, as it were, only Galtonesque family-portraits, which sum up in a cumulative image the common and therefore typical characters, stressing these disproportionately, while the individual features are just as disproportionately effaced. Accurate investigation of the individual case consistently reveals the fact that, in conjunction with the most differentiated function, another function of secondary importance, and therefore of inferior differentiation in consciousness, is constantly present, and is a -- relatively determining factor.
(...)
This other function, therefore, can have only a secondary importance, a fact which is also established empirically. Its secondary importance consists in the fact that, in a given case, it is not valid in its own right, as is the primary function, as an absolutely reliable and decisive factor, but comes into play more as an auxiliary or complementary function. 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. Thinking, if it is to be real thinking and true to its own principle, must scrupulously exclude feeling. This, of course, does not exclude the fact that individuals certainly exist in whom thinking and feeling stand upon the same level, whereby both have equal motive power in consciousness. But, in such a case, there is also no question of a differentiated type, but merely of a relatively undeveloped thinking and feeling.” [actually, this part is relatively contradictory to individuation department and with this phrase, attributed to Carl Jung: ‘Where wisdom reigns, there is no conflict between thinking and feeling’; Jung perhaps did change his mind about this later] (...)

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. (...) Hence the auxiliary function is possible and useful only in so far as it serves the leading function, without making any claim to the autonomy of its own principle.

For all the types appearing in practice, the principle holds good that besides the conscious main function there is also a relatively unconscious, auxiliary function which is in every respect different from the nature of the main function. From these combinations well-known pictures arise, the practical intellect for instance paired with sensation, the speculative intellect breaking through with intuition, the artistic intuition which selects. and presents its images by means of feeling judgment, the philosophical intuition which, in league with a vigorous intellect, translates its vision into the sphere of comprehensible thought, and so forth.”

However, Jung writing is unclear. So, on the auxiliary function, Jung states clearly that the auxiliary function is the opposite of the dominant function in terms of Judging and Perceiving; So, if the person is a rational type (Fi,Fe,Ti or Te dominant), then the auxiliary is a Perceiving function (Ni,Ne,Si,Se), or vice versa. Jung, however, never cleared up what happens in terms of Extroversion/Introversion. The community interprets that the auxiliary function is the opposite in terms of E/I, so, for example, a Ni-dom will get an auxiliary Extravert function; But there is another interpretation from the book that states that it is in the same direction (Introvert too). And there is a loose and literal interpretation that can be both, so the pairs for Ni can be Ti,Te,Fi or Fe, and from this pattern we get 32 types instead (I follow this line of 32 types because it represents the tests results better). More details about that here:
https://www.typologycentral.com/for...ni-doms-yall-bunch-crazies-5.html#post2221037

Jung also states that the rise of a dom-function means the suppression of its opposite function (opposite in every aspect but on Jung J/P), and this function is the inferior function.

“INFERIOR function. This term is used to denote the function that lags behind in the process of differentiation (q.v.). Experience shows that it is practically impossible, owing to adverse circumstances in general, for anyone to develop all his psychological functions simultaneously. The demands of society compel a man to apply himself first and foremost to the differentiation of the function with which he is best equipped by nature, or which will secure him the greatest social success. Very frequently, indeed as a general rule, a man identifies more or less completely with the most favoured and hence the most developed function. It is this that gives rise to the various psychological types (q.v.). As a consequence of this one-sided development, one or more functions are necessarily retarded. These functions may properly be called inferior in a psychological but not psychopathological sense, since they are in no way morbid but merely backward as compared with the favoured function. (...) It behaves like many repressed or insufficiently appreciated contents (...) to the degree that the greater share of libido (q.v.) is taken up by the favoured function, the inferior function undergoes a regressive development; it reverts to the archaic (q.v.) stage and becomes incompatible with the conscious, favoured function.”

And, from another book, in another context, Jung very quickly mention that the "inferior function has a pair too":

“If we think of the psychological function as arranged in a circle, then the most differentiated function is usually the carrier of the ego and, equally regularly, has an auxiliary function attached to it. The "inferior" function, on the other hand, is unconscious and for that reason is projected into a non-ego. It too has an auxiliary function.” (Jung in “Individual Dream Symbolism in Relation to Alchemy”).

"What about the other 4 functions?" Jung states that people 'start' with the 8 functions undifferentiated, or, basically, they are neither an inferior achile-heels nor dominant (in other words, we use them some few times), and then they differentiate by the rise of the primary function, by the suppression of the inferior function due to the rise of the primary function, the rise of the auxiliary of the primary function and the inferior function pair.

“14. DIFFERENTIATION means the development of differences, the separation of parts from a whole. In this work I employ the concept of differentiation chiefly with respect to the psychological functions (q.v.). So long as a function is still so fused with one or more other functions— thinking with feeling, feeling with sensation, etc.—that it is unable to operate on its own, it is in an archaic (q.v.) condition, i.e., not differentiated, not separated from the whole as a special part and existing by itself.

Undifferentiated thinking is incapable of thinking apart from other functions; it is continually mixed up with sensations, feelings, intuitions, just as undifferentiated feeling is mixed up with sensations and fantasies, as for instance in the sexualization (Freud) of feeling and thinking in neurosis.”

Im going to take this opportunity to draw an enneagram connection. This is a quick off topic, but a good subject. Continuing:
“As a rule, the undifferentiated function is also characterized by ambivalence and ambitendency, i.e., every position entails its own negation, and this leads to characteristic inhibitions in the use of the undifferentiated function.”

And this is from Enneagram 6 description, from enneagraminstitute.com :
“Until they can get in touch with their own inner guidance, Sixes are like a ping-pong ball that is constantly shuttling back and forth between whatever influence is hitting the hardest in any given moment. Because of this reactivity, no matter what we say about Sixes, the opposite is often also as true. They are both strong and weak, fearful and courageous, trusting and distrusting, defenders and provokers, sweet and sour, aggressive and passive, bullies and weaklings, on the defensive and on the offensive, thinkers and doers, group people and soloists, believers and doubters, cooperative and obstructionistic, tender and mean, generous and petty—and on and on. It is the contradictory picture that is the characteristic “fingerprint” of Sixes, the fact that they are a bundle of opposites.”

Although I dont think its worth posting the details, I had gathered cognitive function results of INFJs on different enneagram to notice how the enneagram influences their cognitive function test results. I had also, after read Jung, adopted a criteria to determinate level of differentiation: A person is highly differentiated if the standard deviation of his/her cognitive functions is high, and a person is highly undifferentiated if the standard deviation of his/her cognitive functions is low (and we might speak of an undifferentiated type). What I had found out is that the INFJs 6 had the lowest average standard deviation from INFJs 1,2,4,6 and 9, and they were very close of being an undifferentiated type, with the Ni dominance being very mild. So, basically, enneagram 6 ambivalence (the “whatever we say about sixes, the opposite is often true” thing) is explained by undifferentiation in Jung, and the “Until they can get in touch with their own inner guidance” part simply means starting the differentiation process. There is a connection between this and enneagram 9, but it is way too complicated, and its time to get back on topic. So, getting back to Jung describing differentiation:

“Another feature is the fusing together of its separate components; thus, undifferentiated sensation is vitiated by the coalescence of different sensory spheres (colour-hearing), and undifferentiated feeling by confounding hate with love. To the extent that a function is largely or wholly unconscious, it is also undifferentiated; it is not only fused together in its parts but also merged with other functions.
Differentiation consists in the separation of the function from other functions, and in the separation of its individual parts from each other. Without differentiation direction is impossible, since the direction of a function towards a goal depends on the elimination of anything irrelevant. Fusion with the irrelevant precludes direction; only a differentiated function is capable of being directed.”

The primary function, its auxiliary, the inferior and its pair are the differentiated functions. The other 4 are the undifferentiated functions. Jung didnt seem much worried to really draw a stack, so there is this double-category where the attention is towards the differentiated functions and the undifferentiated are pretty much ignored. So, the basic Jung stack is, for Ni-dom type (same pattern for rest):
Ni-(one of the Thinking functions)-(undifferentiated functions)-(one of the feeling functions)-(Se)
OR in general terms:
(Dominant function)-(Auxiliary function)-(undifferentiated functions)-(Tertiary, that is the inferior pair)-(Inferior function)
OR in a short version ignoring the undifferentiated functions:
(Dominant function)-(Auxiliary function)/(Tertiary, that is the inferior pair)-(Inferior function)

Note that the inferior function is known for being the achile-heels, so if we were to merge the undifferentiated functions with the differentiated functions as order of strength, the inferior function is supposed to come last and the tertiary is supposed to come right after the inferior because it is its pair, coming at 7th position, not 3rd. So, the term 'tertiary' only works for a stack with only 4 differentiated functions, 2 in favour of strength and with positive characteristics (primary and its auxiliary) and 2 in lack of strength with negative characteristics (inferior and its pair). And also note that there is no 'INTJ', ‘ESFP’, etc.. In Jung typology, such names doesnt exist. What there is is a Ni-dom with auxiliary thinking and inferior Sensing.

2) MBTI: MBTI had reformed Jung in many aspects and had dropped the cognitive functions entirely, plus switched the meaning of Judging and Perceiving. MBTI works in dichotomy: You are E or I, N or S, T or F, J or P. In MBTI, you are a Perceiver or a Judger based on a table comparing the J traits vs the P traits, but these are more focused by your outwards look in general, and have more Te, Fe, Ne and Se traits instead, plus additional stuff (that is why the organized vs disorganized is important).

“The purpose of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator® (MBTI®) personality inventory is to make the theory of psychological types described by C. G. Jung understandable and useful in people's lives. The essence of the theory is that much seemingly random variation in the behavior is actually quite orderly and consistent, being due to basic differences in the ways individuals prefer to use their perception and judgment. (...)

Favorite world: Do you prefer to focus on the outer world or on your own inner world? This is called Extraversion (E) or Introversion (I).

Information: Do you prefer to focus on the basic information you take in or do you prefer to interpret and add meaning? This is called Sensing (S) or Intuition (N).

Decisions: When making decisions, do you prefer to first look at logic and consistency or first look at the people and special circumstances? This is called Thinking (T) or Feeling (F).

Structure: In dealing with the outside world, do you prefer to get things decided or do you prefer to stay open to new information and options? This is called Judging (J) or Perceiving (P).

Your Personality Type: When you decide on your preference in each category, you have your own personality type, which can be expressed as a code with four letters.” (The Myers & Briggs Foundation - MBTI(R) Basics)

The type codes comes from MBTI, not Jung, so it is here that comes the INTJ type, which is preference for Introversion, preference for Intuition, preference for Thinking, preference for Judging, or Introversion+Intuition+Thinking+Judging. It doesnt matter if it is Ni-dom or Ti-dom or Te-dom or another function dom. That is why Im saying it is possible to be INTJ without being a Ni-dom, or INFP without being a Fi-dom and that goes on. INTJ and Ni with auxiliary thinking are different ideas and constructions, although they overlap a lot with each other. However, explaining in INFP terms, the average INFP is a Fi-dom (same goes to almost all types but INTJ, these happen to be Te-doms or sometimes even Ti-doms because the Ni from Jung is biased through feeling and is more INFJ friendly), but, in theory, INFP can be a dom of any function but Te. In practice, most INFPs are Fi-dom and some few of them are Ne-dom or Ni-dom.

Oh, Myers is considered soft-scientific because they have tests with things such as test-retest rate, internal consistencies and correlations, including dichotomies independencies (like "being detail oriented" correlates with "being practical" and does not correlate with "being organized"). It is soft because these independencies and internal consistencies are tendencies, not laws, since one can be detail oriented and not practical, although that is unusual.

“The best reason to choose the MBTI instrument to discover your personality type is that hundreds of studies over the past 40 years have proven the instrument to be both valid and reliable. In other words, it measures what it says it does (validity) and produces the same results when given more than once (reliability). When you want an accurate profile of your personality type, ask if the instrument you plan to use has been validated.

The theory of psychological type was introduced in the 1920s by Carl G. Jung. The MBTI tool was developed in the 1940s by Isabel Briggs Myers and the original research was done in the 1940s and '50s. This research is ongoing, providing users with updated and new information about psychological type and its applications. Millions of people worldwide have taken the Indicator each year since its first publication in 1962.” (The Myers & Briggs Foundation - MBTI(R) Basics)

There are a little bit more details about that here:
The Myers & Briggs Foundation - Reliability and Validity

So, just to reinforce: The MBTI had abandoned the cognitive functions, and from decades the MBTI has no longer direct associations with the cognitive functions (but, of course, there are connections, but these are another subject that I already explored using different views).

But, as a note of Jung typology, although Jung does not explicit it directly, there is a INTP and the others 15 type codes on Jung Typology. But the Jung INTP (or INTI – I is for irrational, which is Perceiving in Jung) and MBTI INTP are different – this relates to Socionics because Jung INTP is the INTP from socionics (actually, more or less, because socionics have stacks). Jung INTP means Introversion attitude, which means that the dominant cognitive function is an Introvert one; The N means that on the Perceiving ‘axis’, which is N vs S, the person is an intuitive; The T means that on the Judging ‘axis’, which is T vs F, the person is a thinker; The ‘P’ on Jung means that the dominant function will be one of the perception or irrational functions, which can be Ne, Ni, Se or Si; In this case, the person is Introvert and Intuitive, which gives that the dominant function is Ni, and the person is a Ni-dom with auxiliary thinking. That is why in socionics INTP is MBTI INTJ, and the socionics INTJ is MBTI INTP (the same goes for every Introvert type). But the INTP on Jung is, in average, the INTJ: It is possible to be INTJ or INTP in both. If you have a preference for I-N-T-J, but the highest cognitive function of yours is Te or Ti, or even both, then you are a INTJ in both systems. And, just to conclude this note, just re-affirming: Jung INTJ and MBTI INTJ are different meanings, and they dont have a direct conversion between each other; Jung INTJ is, usually but not always, INTP in MBTI.

3) Grant-Stack: Grant Stack tries to merge Jung typology, Jung functions and MBTI by drawing a stack for each MBTI type. This is popularly known as “The stack”, or cognitive function stack, or function stack, these sort of names. There are two versions: The one with four functions and the complete one. For INFJ, the four functions stack is Ni-Fe-Ti-Se (so it uses the interpretation that the pair of an Introvert function must be an Extravert function). The four function versions states that INFJ uses only these 4 functions and take every other function as they are unused (while in Jung, they are used but they are undifferentiated). The complete one uses Ni-Fe-Ti-Se-Ne-Fi-Te-Si.
First note, the INFJ here is INFJ from MBTI and not Jung INFJ. Ni-dom with auxiliary feeling is INFP in Jung. Problem number 1: MBTI INFJ is simply preference for Introversion, Intuition, Feeling and Judgment, and it does not require a specific dominant function as I had stated earlier.

First mismatch of Jung on the Grant side is to put the 'tertiary' as if this function is really the third function in terms of strength and attributing positive qualities to it, ignoring that it is the pair of the inferior function, that works as an achile-heel. As I stated in the Jung typology part of this post, the tertiary function is the pair of the inferior function, and the inferior function is meant to be the less used one of all functions due to being suppressed by the primary function. So, the Ti on INFJ is not meant to play a positive role, where INFJ gets Ti characterizations and characteristics of ISTPs and INTPs by having an “analytical” (or something like that) side and ‘abilities’, but rather the opposite: Of lacking these.

Second mismatch is attributing names like 'trickster' to functions. Jung stated that people have tendency to see their inner demons in inferior functions (that part is hard to find, so I wont look for it) and to see it as 'demoniac' but he never stated that the inferior is demoniac and there isnt any other references to archetypes and the other cognitive functions, specially on the undifferentiated ones that are pretty much ignored. Some sources mention ‘shadow’ functions; The ‘shadow’ theory is actually separated from typology, but the shadow functions are (at least on my own interpretation) the inferior and its pair, and not the undifferentiated functions.

Third, Jung pretty much ignores the undifferentiated functions, the order of them pretty much doesnt matter, and my 'A' here is that their order more or less are influenced about how much you need them, and they contribute to 'individualize' you, but also your MBTI type influences them too. The undifferentiated functions are, guess what, undifferentiated. This term is completely omitted from Grant Stack, and the undifferentiated functions goes.. Differentiated and on a very specific order.

Fourth, and important, the inferior function is known for being 'inferior', and Grant Stack list it not in the most inferior position (on the complete version). Although lots of sources will use them as achile heels, some few of them even like to state that the inferior function is above the undifferentiated functions, and that goes completely against Jung theory.

Fifth, the loops. Jung does actually mention a secondary function that is very weak to the point of being almost a skip, but the skip of the secondary function does not make a person to go to the tertiary function, but rather to jump to the undifferentiated functions instead (or, rather, the secondary function goes to the undifferentiated realm). So, a person with Ni first and Ti later is not a INFJ on a Ni-Ti loop, but actually is a Ni dom with auxiliary thinking. Detecting function skips is something really complex (I havent figure out how), but that is definitely not properly done because ‘there is no Ni-Ti pair’.

So, Grant stack is different from the Jung typology, it does not follow it, even if almost everybody on the community thinks its very Jungian (they do not even know that Jung did never draw a stack explicitly). Just as I had stated, the stack pattern for Jung, on the complete version, is:
(Dominant function)>(Auxiliary of Dominant Function)>(undifferentiated functions)>(Inferior pair)>(Inferior function)
Which for INFJ (actually, for the Ni-dom with auxiliary Feeling), goes as:
Ni>(Fe or Fi)>(undifferentiated functions, which are Fi, Te, Ne, Si for the Ni-Fe pair and Fe,Ti,Ne,Si for the Ni-Fi pair)>(Te, if the Ni pair is Fi; or Ti, if Fe is the Ni pair)>Se
And this is definitely NOT Ni-Fe-Ti-Se-Ne-Fi-Te-Si.
The short version, however, more or less matches:
(Dominant function)>(Auxiliary of Dominant Function)>(Inferior pair)>(Inferior function)
Which for INFJ is Ni>(Fe or Fi) / (Te, if the Ni pair is Fi; or Ti, if Fe is the Ni pair)>Se
I put the / to indicate that the first two functions relates to qualities, or ‘strengths’, while the second part and last two relates to ‘weakness’.
Of course, INFJ is the example here. This is true for all types.

And what happens is that, in either Google Scholar articles and on the cognitive function tests on the internet, Grant Stack does not show up with the proper patterns. In one side, people love to blame the tests, because none of them managed to get the Ni-Fe-Ti-Se-Ne-Fi-Te-Si order (and it looks like that most of people have not thought for a second to doubt the theory of the stack instead). In “the other side”, people who describe themselves as dichotomy people (the MBTI followers), take the whole cognitive functions as wrong and invalidated because the Grant Stack was invalidated. But the Grant Stack not showing up does not invalidate Jung Typology and neither cognitive functions on its own.

So, what really shows up the tests? Well, this is on TCF Series I had posted (link for people who are members here; link for people reading this without an account, here), but I will put a resume here. Here it is the take: I have two tests ordered; In one of them, sakinorva, there is not a pattern, but Sakinorva does have basic flaws that prevent to have that order (like Fi not correlating with Feeling). The second one is the Dario Nardi one. Dario Nardi has questions that forces the pair to the I-E interpretation (the pair of a I function is a E function and vice versa), so, basically, there are 8 questions that points for each I-E pair, so, for example, there is one question that scores for both Se and Fi and that forces Se+Fi to show up for ESFP/ISFP. This makes the analysis sort of complicated. But, besides that, Nardi obeys the most basic premises (like that Fi must correlate with Feeling). The “average stack” for each type, for Nardi test, is this one:

sem-tc3adtulo3.png


But we need to see this with some observation from TCF Series. The most reliable types are all INs (with plenty of results) and ENFP with some results. I will use ENTP as a matter of convenience and to aid the explanation, data seems reliable but number of ENTPs are just 8. Another observation: ENFPs from this sample are actually ambivert, they score very close to the middle on E/I.

So, here are the 4 first functions patterns for NP types:
INTP: Ti-Ne-Te-Ni
INFP: Fi-Ne-Ni-Ti
ENFP or ANFP: Ne-Fi-Ni-Ti
ENTP: Ne-Ti-Te-Ni

Basically, the pair is being ‘rigged’, so we dont actualy know how much one function is boosting possible pairs – for example, INFP Fi boosts Ne and Se up, so the INFP here can be either Fi-Ne or Fi-Ni. My loose interpretation is: There are Fi-Ni and Fi-Ne Jungian types, and these are merge on MBTI INFP. But when we observe the back of the stack, to be more specific the two last functions, even with the Se being boosted due to being INFP pair, there is a pattern:
INTP: Se-Fe
INFP: Se-Te
ANFP: Te-Si
ENTP: Fi-Si
And guess what – this pattern on the back is properly explained by this:
(Dominant function)>(Auxiliary of Dominant Function)>(undifferentiated functions)>(Inferior pair)>(Inferior function)
For INTP, Ti>(Ne or Ni)>(undifferentiated functions, which are Fi, Te, Ni, Se for the Ti-Ne pair and Fe,Ti,Ne,Si for the Ti-Ni pair)>(Se, if the pair for Ti is Ni; Si, if the pair for Ti is Ne)>Fe

(Inferior Pair)>(Inferior function)

INTP: (Inferior Pair = Se)>(Inferior Function = Fe)
INFP: (Inferior Pair = Se)>(Inferior Function = Te)
ANFP: (Inferior Pair = Te)>(Inferior Function = Si)
ENTP: (Inferior Pair = Fi)>(Inferior Function = Si)
As we can note, INTP as Ti-dom gets Fe in inferior function, same for the others; The sensing pairs for Fe are either Se or Si, and in this case, Se is picked up (note that Si is on the sixth position and that is expected because we are actually merging Ti-Ni and Ti-Ne types into a single type), meaning that the front without the pair bias/rig should be Ti-Ni, and omitting the undifferentiated functions, which the order doesnt matter, we have Ti-Ni /Se-Fe, but with the pair bias is Ti-Ne / Se-Fe OR Ti-Ne-(middle functions which order doesnt matter because they are the undifferentiated functions)-Se-Fe.

As we can note, for INFP, its the same pattern: Fi-Ne / Se-Te, that without the rig should be Fi-Ni / Se-Te.
For ANFP, which is not a clear preference for either Extroversion or Introversion towards slightly Extroversion (its more like eNFP), its Ne-Fi / Te-Si.
For ENTP, with a clear preference for Extraversion, its Ne-Ti / Fi-Si, that without the rig should be Ne-Te / Fi-Si.

Catch the pattern? I hope so. So, here it is the thing: If a person is a clear introvert or extrovert, both the main function and the pair are more properly addressed as i-i or e-e, both introvert or extrovert function, and the same for the back. If the person is more close to an ambivert, and that is a little bit more than half of the population, then the best pair is i-e or e-i. For MBTI ENTP, its Ne-Te. For MBTI ANTP, these are Ti-Ne (more towards INTP) or Ne-Ti (more towards ENTP). For MBTI INTP, its Ti-Ni. People with strong preference for Extraversion rarely shows up on the forums, so the Ne-Te and Ne-Fe types are very difficult to be found on the web (and they are minority when compared to Ambiverts and Introverts, and that is in WPE). And with that I can have “my own stack” (perhaps I should call it V-Stack? Yep, lets say V-Stack), which are in accord to Jung and quite close to data:

vstack.png


The / is where it is located the 4 undifferentiated functions, R is for Rational, which is Jung J, and I for Irrational, which is Jung P. There are some very important observations here:
a) I havent counted, but I think a little bit less than half of the people actually fills these patterns. What happens is that, at the same time that in Jung typology there are people, lots of people, that are not purely one of the Jung 8 types, it is normal that people are not purely a single MBTI type as well, but rather a mix of MBTI types. The fact is that a pure, or perhaps ideal, INFP is supposed to have Fi-Ni / Se-Te, but most people which are fit into INFP are not pure INFPs, so they might have a particular mix of functions that is not Fi-Ni / Se-Te. For example, Enneagram 5 and INFP combination gives a big boost to Te and Ti; A INFP 5 is not a pure INFP at all, because there are Enneagram 5 properties relating to Thinking. Lots of INFPs 5 should be actually a mix of INFP and INTP instead. But the average INFP is supposed to be close to the pure INFP, most of times where – hopefully – there is not a big environment disturbance.

b) People from Neurotic states (high Neuroticism on Big Five) have tendency to have distortions, that was already covered on the blog section relating cognitive functions and big 5.

c) Although I had put a version of this in MBTI types form, it is good to repeat: MBTI types does not need any of these stacks and are independent of cognitive functions. The conversion I had put from Jung type to MBTI type happens in average, not always.

d) There is a complement on the Jung typology at Chapter VI, related to Psychopathology. This chapter makes some weird predictions for psychopathy and cognitive functions. I had more or less tested them and most of them are not correct, so the Jung affirmations regarding modifications of aspects of cognitive functions leading to a person being a psychopath isnt really correct – I haven't found any room for predicting psychopathy traits just because the first cognitive function or the second are very high or very low or by drawing distances of them, and I havent found any relation from that and Big Five Neuroticism. But this chapter opens a very interesting page of concepts if we take the unhealthy components out (since their predictions all failed). I will mostly fruitpick – yeah, fruitpick not on a bad intention, but for the sake of being short – passages that explains these nuances. Starting from this one:
“A short secondary function, clearly, will influence far fewer consecutive associations in a given period of time than a long one. Hence the primary function can operate much more frequently.” -> In other words, its possible to have a very weak secondary function, and that will open room for the primary function to operate more frequently (partially because the case gets closer to a pure type from the 8 Jungian pure types). What I had found in statistics is that, when this happens, Big Five Openness to Experience tends to drop (unless the primary function is Ne or Ti), and no relationships with this and Neuroticism were found. But this is the origin of the so called ‘loops’: A short secondary function can be passed and mix itself on the undifferentiated functions (or, for those who pretend the undifferentiated functions are not used at all, which is wrong, the person skips to the tertiary function). Have in mind, although, that the loops the community describes are not real by the way they phrase: For example, a person with Ni first and Ti second is not a INFJ in a loop, but rather a INTJ instead. Detecting a very short secondary function is very hard (Jung doesnt really gives much clues about how to do that besides the unhealthy behaviours that doesnt seem to fit the stats). However, by the way he wrote, if your secondary function on the tests is usually a different one each time you take one, then you should be a case of a short secondary function, but there is not any evidence that this is really an unhealthy behaviour and this might increases cognitive flexibility, which, if that happens, can be considered healthy until some point at least.
“In this type the secondary function is particularly intense and prolonged.” -> Its possible to have a very strong secondary function instead, and when that happens the secondary is intense and prolonged.
“We may also suppose an intensified primary function” -> There is room for having an intense primary or weak primary as well.
Jung also describes a good prediction for a person who have both primary and secondary functions very intensified: “As a result of this prolongation, the after-effect of the initial idea persists for a longer
period. From this we get what Gross calls a “contractive effect”: the choice of associations follows the path of the initial idea, resulting in a fuller realization or approfondissement of the “theme.” The idea has a lasting influence, the impression goes deep. One disadvantage of this is that the associations are restricted to a narrow range, so that thinking loses much of its variety and richness.” -> Although this was meant to describe a mental disease, it does indirectly but in a proper way relates to cognitive inflexibility, which is the reverse of the cognitive flexibility. People that uses a lot of secondary and primary function have a tendency to reduce the use of the undifferentiated functions, that, even though are mostly ignored by Jung typology, works as the real supportive functions, and because of that they lose flexibility and cognitive flexibility, which restrict them to a narrow range and thinking loses much of its variety and richness (reduction of cognitive flexibility is related to IQ loss).
By Jung interpretation, it is possible to have a short primary and long secondary, and in terms of tests, this means that they can switch places between each other. However, that is more my interpretation than a Jung statement. But this is a very important observation, because there is indeed in Jung typology cases of excessive suppression of primary and an intense secondary function, which makes room for them to switch places on the test result.

e) The inferior function and its pair can be developed and bring to consciousness.
“Since the conflict between the two auxiliary functions is not nearly as great as that between the differentiated and the inferior function, it is possible for the third function — that is, the unconscious auxiliary one — to be raised to consciousness and thus made masculine. It will, however, bring with it traces of its contamination with the inferior function, thus acting as a kind of link with the darkness of the unconscious.” (Jung)
“In order to extricate the inferior function from the unconscious by analysis, the unconscious fantasy formations that have now been activated must be brought to the surface. The conscious realization of these fantasies brings the inferior function to consciousness and makes further development possible.” (Jung)
What happens is that, in data, the backwards part of the stack – the inferior function and its pair – are not really reliable. I have seem cases where, for example, INTJs that didnt had inferior Se, Se was on the middle instead. These cases are normal, this is one of the reasons I dont consider evaluating the back of the stack reliable.

f) The persona concept is an achile heels of basically every typology system. I wont explain it here (you can google it), but, basically, adaptations to environment, activities and ‘social masks’ can change the cognitive functions use. Basically the majority of tests are very prone to persona distortions (these distortions I had mentioned), and ideally tests should try to avoid the persona as much as possible.

g) I can explain here pretty quickly my alternative methods of reading cognitive function test results, I will use INFP as example; Fi-Ni and Fi-Ne are categorized as INFP on MBTI, mostly. The merge of Fi-Ni and Fi-Ne types is Fi-Ne-Ni, taking Fi-Ne pair as most common (there are more ambiverts than introverts in general). This is the best explanation for the Sum Typing stacks I use, and I dont use the inferior Te because its unreliable. Another method is to simply convert to dichotomy by summing the functions – Summing E functions and subtracting I functions to evaluate Extroversion, summing N functions and subtracting S functions to evaluate Intuition (Ne+Ni-Se-Si), that is the Open Stack method. And another one is to use the cognitive function averages from a previous database (what is the average value for each cognitive function for INFP? I have that for Nardi test) and calculate the distance between each type average cognitive function values and a given result, this is the distancing method. These are my 3 most simple typing methods – I have two other more complex ones that are more or less stuck on eternal cooking and development. This serves to synthesize and give my more or less final answer (I can come up with new views in the future) about what my point of view (or, rather, my family of points of views) on the cognitive functions subject is (are).

So, now it is going to be easy to read cognitive function test results?
Well, no. No doubts that MBTI dichotomy is easier, although MBTI cant tell which types you are a mix of. Actually, this whole theory explains that it isnt easy. Here are some of the difficulties:
- People not being purely a single type.
- The person can be an undifferentiated type.
- The first function can be the auxiliary function instead of the dominant function (long secondary, short primary).
- The secondary function can enter the realm of the undifferentiated functions and disappear.
- The inferior function can be bring to the conscious, mix itself on the undifferentiated functions realm and disappear from the back.
- The same can happen for the inferior function pair.
- The test must be clean of persona. Questions like “I am good at (...)” or “Others see me as (...)” has to be avoided. This is to prevent the undifferentiated functions to differentiate way too much because of environment adaptation.

I will do some case analysis of real test results. In this type of analysis, which I would like to call V-Stack method (my 8th method), but in the part 2 of this post (actually, its more of an extra since all the theoretical info is already here). Im going to show that sometimes - not all the times – these things can be dealt with and you can still arrive to a type on the difficult cases (I will analyze difficult cases only, not easy cases like, for example, Ni>(Fi or Fe)>(other functions)>Se, that is clearly INFJ). It will have a little bit of math, but its an easy math and there are only letters. But, as I said, that is for the next post.

PART 2

So, here it is the part 2!
From the observations I made on the part 1, there are, considering that the test made a good filter of the persona, these qualities:
1) To detect if a person is a differentiated or undifferentiated type, just take the standard deviation of the 8 functions from the test result.
2) The first function of the test result can be either the dominant function or the secondary function.
3) The dominant function is the first or the second on its Jung J/P department (for example, a Si-dom must be the 1st or 2nd function between Si, Se, Ne and Ni). It must be a Jung J/P department and not in general because some people can be ‘very Jung J’ or not having a E/I differentiation on the function (for example, no differentiation between Ne or Ni).
4) If there is an inferior function that has not disappeared into the undifferentiated realm, it will appear very down on the graph, almost to a point of being a function-tard. The same goes for the inferior pair, it can be discerned on a figure being somewhat down, if it as not disappeared into the undifferentiated realm. The inferior can be used to determinate the dominant function or to mark inferior function candidates.
5) The pairing of a J function is always a P function and vice versa.

By the way I did the examples, the general pattern is to detect one MBTI type mixed with one of the 8 pure Jungian types (or, rather, a person is normally a mix of 3 Jungian pure types).
These examples are all real cases, but I wont put up names. Most are from keys2cognition test, one from Typology Central test, one from Sakinorva and some of them are just generic (person just posted the order pondering different tests).

The first case
Cognitive functions: (Te > Ti > Ni > Ne > Fi > Si > Fe > Se)
MBTI Dichotomy: INTJ, with J being the weakest preference.

This case does not have a graph, but, for the sake of example, lets pretend that Fe and Se are very down.
When a person has Te-Ti or Ti-Te I like to say that it is a ‘master/primary thinker’ type, or that the person is more like a thinker type first, and then a INTJ or another Thinking type. The same for Ne-Ni or Ni-Ne, which is the master/primary intuitive type, or Se-Si and Si-Se, or Fe-Fi and Fi-Fe. However, on Jung typology such type doesnt exist, apparently. Actually, it does: A Thinker without a clear Extraversion or Introversion attitude. But this type of analysis will more or less lead to confusion. So, using what I had drawn earlier:
1) Its a differentiated type. [To detect if a person is a differentiated or undifferentiated type, just take the standard deviation of the 8 functions from the test result]
2) Te is either dominant or auxiliary. [The first function of the test result can be either the dominant function or the secondary function.]
3) The dominant function can be either Te, Ti, Ni or Ne. [The dominant function is the first or the second on its Jung J/P department]
4) The candidates for the dominant function are Ni (because of Se) and Ti (because of Fe). [If there is an inferior function that has not disappeared into the undifferentiated realm, it will appear very down on the graph (...) The inferior can be used to determinate the dominant function or to mark inferior function candidates]
5) Only Ni can form pair with Te [The pairing of a J function is always a P function and vice versa.]
6) Thus, case is a Ni type with a repressed/short primary function and with Te as a long auxiliary function (and that is INTJ, or rather iNTJ), mixed with a pure Ti-dom type (because there is Ti on the front and Fe on the back), which gives iNTJ with INTP traces (or IXTP traces to be more precise).

Second case
Cognitive functions: (Fi>Ne>Ti>Te=Ni>Se>Fe>Si)
MBTI: xNxP

vst1.png


I had highlighted the inferior zone, the undifferentiated zone, and the dominant and its pair zone.
1) Its a differentiated type.
2) Fi is either dominant or auxiliary (although Ne and Ti have relatively similar values; person never scored Ti over Fi).
3) The dominant function can be either Fi, Ti or Ne.
4) The only possible candidate for the dominant function is Ne, because only Si is inferior. The inferior pair has gone to the undifferentiated realm.
5) Ti and Fi are possible pairs with Ne, but since Fi is on front Fi is the most likely pair.
6) Thus, case is a Ne type with a repressed/short primary function and with Fi as a long auxiliary function (and that is ENFP, or, rather, eNFP), mixed with a pure Ti-dom type (because there is Ti on the front and Fe on the back), which gives eNFP with INTP traces (or IXTP traces to be more precise).

Third case
Cognitive functions: (Ni=Fi>Ne=Fe=Ti>Te=Se>Si)
MBTI: xNxx

There are two possible analysis, an easier and with only one answer that is related to supposing only inferior Si, and another one considering Te, Se or Si as possible inferior. So...

a) Inferior Si as the only possible inferior
1) Its a differentiated type.
2) Ni and Fi are either dominant or auxiliary.
3) The dominant function can be either Ni, Fi, Ne, Fe or Ti.
4) The only candidate for the dominant function is Ne, because Si is inferior.
5) Only Fi is a possible pair for Ne, not Ni.
6) Thus, case is Ne type with a repressed/short primary function and with Fi as a long auxiliary function (ENFP-eNFP), mixed with a pure Ni type (due to Ni being high and Se being on the back), which gives ENFP with INFJ traces (or INXJ traces to be more precise). This predicts the E/I and J/P borderline, but not the F/T borderline.

b) Inferior Te, Se or Si are possible
1) its a differentiated type.
2) Ni and Fi are either dominant or auxiliary.
3) The dominant function can be either Ni, Fi, Ne, Fe or Ti.
4) The candidates for dominant function are Fi, Ni or Ne.
5) This leads to multiple possible results: The one on ‘a’, that relates to Ne-dom; A second one, a Ni-dom, and a third one, Fi-dom.
6) Thus, the person can be a Ni-Fi INFJ (mixed with Ne-dom Jungian type), Fi-Ni INFP (mixed with pure Ne-dom), Ne-Fi ENFP (mixed with Ni-dom), Ne-Fi eNFP mixed with Ni-dom is the most likely answer due to E/I borderline.

Fourth case
Cognitive functions: (Ne=Ni>(Te, Ti, Fi, Fe on any order)>Se=Si)
MBTI: xNxx

This case is clearly an Intuitive type, that is clearly a Perceiver in Jung (although no clearance in MBTI). This case is simply a hybrid of pure Ne and pure Ni Jungian types, with a very short secondary function, to the point where it is impossible to determinate which secondary function is (or, rather, which are the two secondary functions, one for the pure Ne type and another for the pure Ni type). Nothing more than this can be said from such case.

Fifth case
Cognitive functions: Ni>Fi=Fe>Si>Se=Ne=Te>Ti
MBTI: INFJ

vst2.png


1) Its an undifferentiated type. Note how the results are close to each other.
I took this case just to do some few statements about the undifferentiated type:
a) A person can be undifferentiated on Cognitive functions and yet still have a somewhat clear MBTI type, although in most of cases that doesnt happen.
b) A differentiated person on cognitive functions can have an unclear MBTI type (which is exactly the last case, case 4).
c) A person that is undifferentiated on MBTI/Cognitive functions can be perfectly differentiated on Big 5.
d) Undifferentiated types will have a tendency to be on Enneagram 6 (due to “whatever you say, the opposite is true”) or Enneagram 9 (the explanation is complex, but its related to ‘Nines can be type 1, type 2, etc...’) most of the times.
In most cases I should stop here, but this one, luckily, has the right sets of functions on the front to form a type, so I will continue.

2) Ni is either dominant or auxiliary.
3) The dominant function should be Ni.
4) There is no clear inferior nor inferior pair.
5) Ni can have Te, Ti, Fe or Fi. But note that Fi and Fe are higher than Te and Ti, so its a feeler type.
6) Thus, the person is a Ni-dom with auxiliary Feeling (no inclination specific towards Fi or Fe) mixed with an undifferentiated type, meaning that these preferences are all mild and there is no inferior function nor inferior pair.

Sixth case

This one has two results, same person in two different tests in different days. Although they show up with a more or less different and quite complex order, the final answer is the same.
MBTI: IXFX

Result 1: Cognitive functions: Ne>Fi=Si>Ni=Ti>Se=Te=Fe

vst3.png


Notice that, in this one, we have 3 functions on the Dom-pair zone and 3 functions on the inferior zone, and only 2 functions on the undifferentiated realm.

1) Its a differentiated type.
2) Ne is either dominant or auxiliary.
3) The dominant function can be either Fi, Si or Ne.
4) The only possible candidate for the dominant function is Fi, because only Te is on the inferior. Inferior Fe belongs to Ti, and Ti is on the undifferentiated realm. Inferior Se belongs to Ni, that is on the undifferentiated realm.
5) Ne and Si are the possible pairs.
6) Thus, case is a Fi type, that is slightly short, with auxiliary Ne, that is very long. This case can be interpreted as a mix of 2, 3 or multiple types (its quite a complex mix). The most simple mix it Fi-Ne / Si-Te (iNFP) and a Fi-Si / Ne-Te (ISFP) type.

Result 2:
Cognitive functions: Si=Fi>Ne>Ni=Fe>Se>Ti>Te

vst4.png


1) Its a differentiated type.
2) Fi and Si are either dominant or auxiliary.
3) The dominant function can be either Fi, Si or Ne.
4) The only possible candidate for the dominant function is Fi, because only Te is on the inferior. Inferior Fe belongs to Ti, and Ti is on the undifferentiated realm.
5) Ne and Si are the possible pairs.
6) Thus, case is a Fi type, but the pair can be either Ne or Si, making this person a mix of Fi-Ne and Fi-Si types, or a mix of iNFP and ISFP.

I would like to take the opportunity to do a little bit of off-topic to final have a saying about who are the ‘Si-Fi’ or ‘Fi-Si’ types, since I already did some controversially unconventional speaking here anyway. There are two possibilities for these types:
0) Is it a ‘Fi-Si’ or ‘Si-Fi’ loop? Well, on the rigorous idea of a loop, no, but it can be a product of secondary function skip, that is ‘the realistic equivalent’ of a loop (that is not really a loop), and this can be related to unhealthyness but due to a different cause (possibility 2). If a person is a mix of types (possibility 1), this can be due to a ‘developed’ Si combined with a function skip, which gives more or less a loop, but not precisely a loop.
1) They can be a Fi-Si ISFP or Si-Fi ISFJ, most of the times mixed with another type that is usually have Se and/or Fe as inferior or as inferior pair, which brings Se down and/or Fe down, creating the confusion (or vice versa, they are another type with low Se/Fe mixed with Fi-Si ISFP or Si-Fi ISFJ).
2) They can be a MBTI XXFP type in transit to a MBTI XXTJ type (most of the times, ISTJ) (this is based on dichotomy ‘transit’), in the Si-Fi or Fi-Si case its a XXFP in transit to ISTJ or ISFJ (ISTJ is way more likely). This process is usually very slow and take 2 to 20 years to complete. I say this is likely, specially if Neuroticism is high on the starting on of the ‘process’. There is no MBTI study over very large periods of time with the same MBTI test form (I mean, a study accompanying the same people over decades), but the combination of my analysis on studies of MBTI and ages (this one is presented on the member blog), combined with me analyzing studies with US population from the 90’s, 00’s and ‘10s with age range and big samples on them (so I can more or less track a generation pattern), but with different forms. These combinations of information show a general trend of reduce of XXFPs type over age and increase of XXTJs over age (and a trend of Intuitives increasing over generations on a rate of 0.5-1.5% per decade), however that doesnt necessarily mean that XXFPs becomes XXTJs later (could be XXFPs to other types and other types migrating to XXTJs). However, for the Si-Fi or Fi-Si case, could be a XXFP migration to XXTJ migraiton. Fi is the last function to disappear based on Fi-Si or Si-Fi results on the internet (or it is never really erased, but the person still manages to get a XXTJ type with Fi being on 2nd, 3rd position, or even EXTJ without inferior Fi – being the person at least an unusual XXTJ type, or more of a dichotomy ESTJ/ENTJ that is far from being a ESTJ/ENTJ on the functions, specially if Fi is on the 2nd or 3rd position) (this can even lead to results of a ISTJ Fi-dom), Fi is more resistant to the process, while Ne or Se can drop more ‘quickly’. Although one might associate this with maturity, my answer is: Not necessarily and unlikely. The idea ‘if XXTJs are more mature than XXFPs, than a countries with more XXTJs instead of XXFPs will be more mature in general, leading to countries with higher numbers of XXTJs and less numbers of XXFPs being more developed than countries with more XXFPs and less XXTJs’ is reasonable, but the affirmation ‘countries with more XXTJs and less XXFPs are more developed than countries with more XXFPs and less XXTJs’ is false. Still, the XXFP to XXTJ migration could be a matter of maturity, or, alternatively, a matter of adaptation and persona: XXFP types migrates to XXTJs to get more society acceptance and more income (XXTJ have more income than XXFP in average) (or some sort of better adaptability), either with a type change or adopting a very strong persona while suppressing the non-persona aspects of conscious/unconscious (mostly the ego).

7th case
Cognitive functions: Ni>Ti>Te>Fi>Ne>Si>Se>Fe
MBTI: INTP

vst5.png


1) Its a differentiated type (its from Sakinorva, Sakinorva usually has less dispersion).
2) Ni is either dominant or auxiliary.
3) The dominant function can be either Ti or Ni.
4) The only candidates of dominant function are Ti (due to a likely inferior Fe) and Ni (due to a likely inferior Se).
5) Ni and Ti are the possible pairs.
6) Its impossible to tell if it is a case of dominant Ni and auxiliary Ti or dominant Ti and auxiliary Ni. It can be either of them. Regardless of that, this case is a mix of Ni-Ti and Ti-Ni types, or a mix of INTJ and INTP.

--THE END--
PS: Finally decided to took this out of my own member blog.
 

typologyenthusiast

New member
Joined
Aug 7, 2019
Messages
729
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
-
.

Yes he didn't specify it. He only say that
Carl Jung said:
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.
. But the phrase "whose nature is different from " determines which one.
Carl Jung said:
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.
Extrovert perceiving primary and extrovert judging aux pairing posses the same energy or libido nature of the perceiving and judging function, hence can't be paired. Introvert judging principal/primary and introvert perceiving auxiliary can't be paired since their energy orientation nature is the same: both are introvert.
 

Vendrah

New forum night mode looks cool!
Joined
Mar 26, 2017
Messages
1,744
MBTI Type
NP
Enneagram
952
.

Yes he didn't specify it. He only say that
. But the phrase "whose nature is different from " determines which one.

Extrovert perceiving primary and extrovert judging aux pairing posses the same energy or libido nature of the perceiving and judging function, hence can't be paired. Introvert judging principal/primary and introvert perceiving auxiliary can't be paired since their energy orientation nature is the same: both are introvert.

Reckful covered that years ago already on the link that it is on the first post:
https://www.typologycentral.com/for...ni-doms-yall-bunch-crazies-5.html#post2221037

The idea of both pairs - Ni-Ti and Ni-Te for INTJ and same for others - also fit better test results and it is wider, since leaves room for a highly introvert and one closer to ambiversion.
 
Top