Jung J/P (rational/irrational) versus MBTI J/P: Do they even correlate?

[Typosynthesis]

Yeah, of course, and what I'm saying is it wouldn't be strongly developed in an introvert in Jung's model (BOTH your dominant and auxiliary would be introverted), whereas you can have either Te or Fe well-developed in an introvert in the prevailing MBTI cognitive functions models...e.g. NiTe for INTJ and NiFe for INFJ.

Of course, for an extravert in Jung's theory, Te or Fe can be developed.

According to Jung, an introverted type has an introverted first function and an extroverted second (auxiliary) function. As for extroverted types, according to Jung, their first function is extroverted and their second (auxiliary) function is introverted.

it seems very consistent in MBTI that the second function is extraverted in an introverted type

the second function is extraverted in an introverted type in Jungian model too
----------------------------------
I don't understand why you think that

Jung would consider your top two functions to both be introverted in a normal introvert.

Why would the Te function be developed in an introvert? It is developed in an extrovert. And the introverted type has Ti or Fi developed, its main function. In Jung's model, the type is determined by the first function, not the second.

 

[GavinElster]

@Typosynthesis: this issue is quite complicated, and I'm quite sure you're generally mistaken about Jung's view/model, possibly due to misinformation spread widely on this issue....it's definitely not your fault, and I'm sure I struggled with sorting this out at some point in time as well, but I have given the issue a lot of detailed attention.
None of this presumes to judge whether Jung's way is right or deserved to be improved upon by future theorists. I'm just clarifying what he thought.

In Psychological Types, first of all, the MOST accurate thing to say would be that Jung never officially declared what the attitude of the auxiliary would be in direct terms, as he dedicated so little space to the subject of the auxiliary function. However, he still made the issue clear enough that I think there's little room for doubt that what he means is the auxiliary would, in most normal types occurring in practice, take the same attitude as the dominant (BOTH aux and Dom introverted in an introvert). I.e. Ni-dom+Ti-aux in an introverted intuitive dominant with thinking auxiliary. Jung would, however, allow for the more "pure" type as the less common type that has something like Ni>Te, Fe, Se, where Te, Fe, and Se are all considered inferior functions -- more unconscious than conscious.

I will provide a detailed textual support and discussion of this issue. There are two main points I want to make. One is that there is a clear cut case that, in at least one case, Jung DID employ the model I'm claiming, namely where he allowed the top two functions (dom+aux) to occur in the same attitude: this is Nietzsche, and his intuition (dominant) and his thinking (auxiliary) are both introverted according to Jung.
I will also discuss how this is no surprise: how Jung probably saw this as the typical case, although he is certainly open enough to admit other possibilities, such as the combo Ni>Te>Fe>Se, where Te, Fe, and Se are all relatively inferior and the type is relatively "pure" an intuitive type.



Before beginning with the discussion of Jung's typing of Nietzsche, it is important to be familiar with his lingo from Psychological Types, which I would assume most readers will not be in much detail.



Jung does using the common names thinking, feeling, intuition, and sensation to refer to the four usual functions. However, he also refers to the thinking function as the "intellect." In his Definitions section, Chapter XI, of Psychological Types, Jung clarifies that "intellect" refers to what he calls directed thinking, which is essentially when thinking is used in the normal sense, as a rational function (in somebody with undeveloped thinking, thinking may be used in a relatively passive fashion, and this would be called "intellectual intuition"); the relevant passage is here from within his definition of the Thinking function:

The faculty of directed thinking, I term intellect: the faculty of passive, or undirected, thinking, I term intellectual intuition. Furthermore, I describe directed thinking or intellect as the rational (q.v.) function, since it arranges the representations under concepts in accordance with the presuppositions of my conscious rational norm. Undirected thinking, or intellectual intuition, on the contrary is, in my view, an irrational (q.v.) function, since it criticizes and arranges the representations according to norms that are unconscious to me and consequently not appreciated as reasonable

Jung uses the terminology "intellect" to refer to the thinking function even when discussing the auxiliary function:

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.

where he refers to combinations, such as the "practical intellect", referring to the thinking function paired with sensation, or "speculative intellect," where the thinking function is paired with intuition.

Let us also make the related point that Jung not only uses the term "intellect" for the thinking function in its active form, but also associates this function with intellectual activity in the usual sense (intuition is a more unconscious process to him):

As a rule, one or other function predominates, in both strength and development. When supremacy among the psychological functions is given to thinking, i.e. when the life of an individual is mainly ruled by reflective thinking so that every important action proceeds from intellectually considered motives, or when there is at least a tendency to conform to such motives, we may fairly call this a thinking type. Such a type can be either introverted or extraverted. We will first discuss the extraverted thinking type.

In accordance with his definition, we must picture a, man whose constant aim—in so far, of course, as he is a pure type—is to bring his total life-activities into relation with intellectual conclusions,

He also discusses how it is too extreme/violent for a thinking dominant type to develop his feeling function directly, as part of his discussion of why the auxiliary is useful to mediate between the two extremes:

For I have frequently observed the way in which a physician, in the case for instance of an exclusively intellectual subject, will do his utmost to develop the feeling function directly out of the unconscious. This attempt must always come to grief, since it involves too great a violation of the conscious standpoint.

Here, he is discussing a thinking dominant, termed "intellectual subject," and his attempt to clumsily develop his inferior feeling function.

OK, this is important background for understand Jung's typing of Nietzsche. It is undoubtedly the case that Jung saw Nietzsche as a Ni-dominant, but we already see evidence of his thinking Nietzsche has Ti. Here's the relevant passage:

He must surely be an reckoned an intuitive with leanings towards introversion. As evidence of the former we have his pre-eminently intuitive-artistic manner of production, of which The Birth of Tragedy is very characteristic, while his masterpiece Thus Spake Zarathustra is even more so. His aphoristic writings express his introverted intellectual side. These, in spite of a strong admixture of feeling, display a pronounced critical intellectualism in the manner of the intellectuals of the eighteenth century. His lack of rational moderation and conciseness argues for the intuitive type in general.

The correct interpretation of this passage is that Jung thinks Nietzsche displays both intuitive and thinking type tendencies, and he definitely suggests his thinking is introverted, but he still thinks overall intuition predominates. You see why I talked about Jung referring to the thinking function as the intellect and his characterization of this function as involving intellectual activity.

Jung returns to this issue later in Chapter X. He suggests:

Just as Darwin might possibly represent the normal extraverted thinking type, so we might point to Kant as a counterexample of the normal introverted thinking type. The former speaks with facts; the latter appeals to the subjective factor. Darwin ranges over the wide fields of objective facts, while Kant restricts himself to a critique of knowledge in general. But suppose a Cuvier be contrasted with a Nietzsche: the antithesis becomes even sharper.

that Darwin vs Kant is a good example of the contrast between the normal Te-type and Ti-type. However, Cuvier vs Nietzsche is an even more pronounced instance of how far Te is from Ti.

So there's no doubt Jung typed Nietzsche as an intuitive dominant, but he still is cited as not just an introverted thinking type but a pronounced introverted thinking type.
He's clearly not got Ne, it's obviously Ni as an introvert with intuition dominant. But also Ti.

OK, let us step away from Jung's typing of an example (Nietzsche) and get more into the fundamental theory: what did he think about the auxiliary, functions, and so on?
I will be very blunt and say Jung was unclear in his wording in Psychological Types regarding the auxiliary. Here's the main issue: on the one hand, Jung is very clear that we speak of a function being conscious in a person precisely when it is dominant, and all other functions are relatively unconscious.

he products of all the functions can be conscious, but we speak of the consciousness of a function only when not merely its application is at the disposal of the will, but when at the same time its principle is decisive for the orientation of consciousness. The latter event is true when, for instance, thinking is not a mere esprit de l’escalier, or rumination, but when its decisions possess an absolute validity, so that the logical conclusion in a given case holds good, whether as motive or as guarantee of practical action, without the backing of any further evidence. This absolute sovereignty always belongs, empirically, to one function alone, and can belong only to one function, since the equally independent intervention of another function would necessarily yield a different orientation, which would at least partially contradict the first.

However, Jung also suggests that in practice, the top two functions tend to pair together as both more or less conscious:

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.

A grouping of the unconscious functions also takes place in accordance with the relationship of the conscious functions. Thus, for instance, an unconscious intuitive feeling attitude may correspond with a conscious practical intellect, whereby the function of feeling suffers a relatively stronger inhibition than intuition.

Notice that he suggests the practical-intellect can overall be conscious, and even refers to the top two as the "conscious functionSSSSSSS" in the plural!!

This is not at all surprising considering his typing of Nietzsche as both an intuitive type AND a thinking type! After all, Jung does suggest belonging to the thinking or intuitive type really means thinking, respectively intuition, predominates in you/that are you are PRIMARILY oriented by:

A type is a specimen, or example, which reproduces in a characteristic way the character of a species or general class. In the narrower meaning used in this particular work, a type is a characteristic model of a general attitude (q.v.) occurring in many individual forms. From a great number of existing or possible attitudes I have, in this particular research, brought four into especial relief; namely, those that are primarily orientated by the four basic psychological functions (v. Function) viz. thinking, feeling, intuition, and sensation. In so far as such an attitude is habitual, thus lending a certain stamp to the character of the individual, I speak of a psychological type. These types, which are based upon the root-functions and which one can term the thinking, the feeling, the intuitive, and the sensational types

I think what's going on is that Jung would say technically, you have just one function type and one attitude type, where your function type is given by your dom function. But for all intents and purposes, it looks like he often saw the auxiliary function as, while LESS conscious than the dom, MORE conscious than not conscious, and thus for all intents and purposes also a source of a function type for you.
This is the best explanation of the fact that he alternates between calling just one function conscious and referring to your top two functions as the "conscious functions" in the plural, plus the fact he clearly types Nietzsche an intuitive+introvert type, and then suggests he is also not just an example but a PRONOUNCED example of a thinking type with very introverted thinking.

I should make the following note for clarity: Jung DOES in his discussion of the "pure" types tell us that all but the top function may be unconscious and inferior, and in this case, you can imagine say, a Ti-dom having relatively inferior Ne, Se, and Fe.

The relatively unconscious functions of feeling, intuition, and sensation, which counterbalance introverted thinking, are inferior in quality and have a primitive, extraverted character, to which all the troublesome objective influences this type is subject to must be ascribed.

But Jung is clear in his discussion of the auxiliary that these pure types are relatively extreme, and the ones appearing in practice are not like this usually (although he is open and I'm sure he has encountered the relatively pure types too). Here's what he says about the pure types he described (that are exclusively focused on the dom 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.

Anyone who is under the impression a Ti-dom would have a Ne-aux and not a Ni-aux in Jung's model must likely be getting tripped up by the line before this one, but notice Jung is talking here about one of the pure types, and he even makes it clear that all of thinking, intuition, and sensation are inferior in quality and doesn't even specifically address how feeling is the function that would be most strongly repressed by a thinking dominant....it's not that he wouldn't think that, it's just his emphasis in this particular segment is to note how, in a relatively pure thinking type, ALL other functions would be considered more inferior than not...more unconscious than not. Jung does in the end refer to the auxiliary+dom pair as the conscious functions, despite his original statement that technically only one function can be TRULY conscious.

 

[GavinElster]

Somebody I think could provide helpful insight about this is @reckful, who has also made this case. I'm not sure if he has the same presentation, but he can surely help make the same case I've made.

I think he'd agree that any attempts to call the attitude of the auxiliary the opposite of the attitude of the dominant for normal types is a product of theorists coming after Jung. For Jung, there was an attitude of consciousness, and any more-conscious-than-not functions would be deployed in that attitude, and the auxiliary was definitely more-conscious-than-not, although it is less so than the dominant, in Jung's original presentation, as far as I can tell.

 

[Typosynthesis]

@GavinElster Thank you for the detailed explanation. You are right. I absolutely agree with you that " Jung never officially declared what the attitude of the auxiliary would be." I completely missed that, since the concept of extroversion-introversion of auxiliary function has no relation to the rationality-irrationality of the type.

At the same time, I believe that there is not enough justification to assume that

the auxiliary would, in most normal types occurring in practice, take the same attitude as the dominant (BOTH aux and Dom introverted in an introvert).

I will quote Jung from the chapter The Principal and Auxiliary Functions: ‘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… 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.’

In your example of Jung's typing of Nietzsche, it is not said that introverted thinking is an auxiliary function.

As we know today (at least in the socionic world this is known to everyone), all eight functions are present in the psyche of each person. This example of Jung's typing of Nietzsche very well illustrates the socionic understanding of 16 types. The type with dominant introverted intuition and auxiliary thinking strongly exhibits extroverted thinking if he is engaged in practical things (business, projects), and strongly exhibits introverted thinking if he is engaged in theoretical activities (writing, philosophy).

Even if, when typing Nietzsche, Jung meant that introverted thinking is an auxiliary function for Nietzsche, this example is not enough to establish a typological law.

 

[GavinElster]

@Typosynthesis:

Even if, when typing Nietzsche, Jung meant that introverted thinking is an auxiliary function for Nietzsche, this example is not enough to establish a typological law.

First of all, I was not drawing any generalization solely from Jung's typing of Nietzsche -- I provide detailed theoretical justification, not based on an example. The example is just to establish that, once and for all, Jung did type SOMEONE who is an introvert as having conscious, differentiated thinking and intuition where they prioritize intuition foremost, but still prioritize introverted thinking, not extraverted thinking.

I have two points a) and b): I agree there is no typological law, but I did not myself purport to establish any kind of without-exception law generalizing the case of Nietzsche, so as long as we're clear on that, we can continue. I said Jung allows both possibilities, e.g. NiTeFeSe and NiTiFeSe (I even discussed in what situations he'd say the first holds and in what situations the second, and that's what we should be asking ourselves: WHEN does he think each of these situation holds?), and I'd even say he was likely pretty open to some others too. But I think we do have enough info to say not only that a) Jung does think Nietzsche belongs to the latter case NiTiFeSe (I recommend reading the very detailed discussion I provide to clarify this issue further), but also that b) Jung probably thought this (with the auxiliary and dominant in the same attitude) is the most common/typical case. But that doesn't mean he thought it is a law, that it is always the case, and I even addressed when it wasn't the case in my post. My reading of his believing the aux/dom are probably more often in the same attitude was not at all based on Nietzsche's typing alone, it's based on his discussion of what actually causes a function to even have an attitude, although the reasoning through Nietzsche's type really helps understand how Jung types people.
The very simple way of looking at it is Jung basically thought your conscious attitude was one (introversion/extraversion), and the unconscious one was the opposite of the conscious one (e..g introverted in an extravert).... AND.... Jung thought a conscious function would serve the conscious attitude (e.g. introverted in an introvert), and an unconscious (inferior) function would serve the unconscious attitude (e.g. extraverted in an introvert). Jung (and I quoted him earlier) discusses how a relatively pure Ti-dom would have Ne, Fe, and Se, as all his non-thinking functions would be inferior and more unconscious than not. Similarly, we expect a relatively pure Ni type would have Te, Fe, Se likely, because any inferior=unconscious function would be in the opposite attitude to the dominant (see one of the quotes below). It's just that Jung suggests that often, while the auxiliary is LESS conscious than the dominant, we can still think of the top two as the "conscious functions" (more conscious than not)... not in the pure types, but in the types frequent in practice. I'll get into this more below.

In terms of not making laws, I would even go as far as saying Jung did not necessarily think you HAD to have a dominant function type (N, F, S, T) E.g. he says

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.

Uniform consciousness and unconsciousness of functions is, therefore, a distinguishing mark of a primitive mentality.

I think such cases, where the functions exhibit uniform consciousness/unconsciousness, with no specific predominance of anything over anything else, he associates with a primitive mentality...it's not impossible, but it's not the normal, well-adapted individual, but someone with totally undifferentiated functions.

It was common (but no rule) to find a preference develop for one of the four functions over the others, and it was common to find a predominance of introversion or extraversion. It's common to find an auxiliary, but Jung only said it's often something you see in practice, not that it is always there -- he also discusses relatively pure types, but says these do not appear frequently in practice.

Anyway, as I believe you'd agree, we really should keep socionics a priori distinct from Jung and focus on deciphering how Jung thought (and then we can ask if he thought similarly to socionics, Isabel Myers).

Socionics' model, along with John Beebe's model, are both 8-function-attitude models. You are trying to say Jung's typing of Nietzsche could just involve Jung claiming Nietzsche has Ti, and this, by Socionics style reasoning, could be interpreted to mean it's just that Ti has some position in his psyche, but so does Te as well so it's kind of in a trivial sense that Nietzsche has Ti--of course he has Ti, as everyone has both Ti and Te in some role.

However, Jung's model, whatever it is, definitely is not analogous to John Beebe's or socionics in this particular regard: he does not have a pre-prescribed set of 8 roles for each of the function-attitudes in the psyche. In socionics, there are positions like creative information element, POLR, leading, ignoring, etc..8 total.
Jung would agree you have all four functions somewhere in your psyche, not all 8 (that's Beebe and socionics), though the positions weren't elaborate like with the Beebe model, involving things like the Good Parent archetype and the Trickster and so on (or the creative, POLR, ignoring, demonstrative, etc in socionics)....the positions were more or less two: your conscious side or your unconscious. Each of the four functions would be placed in one of those two positions: consciousness or the unconscious. And, generally, your conscious personality would be either introverted or extraverted, with the unconscious personality taking on the opposite character.

For Jung, having Ti is not a matter of saying "well you have all the function-attitudes, each in some role.....you have Ti in one role and Te in another" -- it's a lot more like your thinking function overall takes on either a more introverted or extraverted attitude. What determines the direction of your thinking? I already said it is based on how conscious/unconscious it is.... You'll find a discussion of this below. The obvious cases are your superior function is conscious if it exists. Your inferior is unconscious.

When does Jung normally say a function has an attitude of either introversion or extraversion? I promised a discussion of this above, and here's a relevant line, explaining the normal case of taking on an attitude is where, due to its being the most conscious function, the superior function takes on the general attitude of consciousness (extraversion in an extravert) and the inferiors in the plural ALL take on the attitude of the unconscious, due to being quite unconscious functions.

A habitus can be called extraverted only when the mechanism of extraversion predominates. In such a case the most highly differentiated function has a constantly extraverted application, while the inferior functions are found in the service of introversion, i.e. the more valued function, because the more conscious, is more completely subordinated to conscious control and purpose, whilst the less conscious, in other words, the partly unconscious inferior functions are subjected to conscious free choice in a much smaller degree.

The superior function is always the expression of the conscious personality, its aim, its will, and its achievement, whilst the inferior functions belong to the things that happen to one. Not that they merely beget blunders, e.g. lapsus linguae or lapsus calami, but they may also breed half or three-quarter resolves, since the inferior functions also possess a slight degree of consciousness. The extraverted feeling type is a classical example of this, for he enjoys an excellent feeling rapport with his entourage, yet occasionally opinions of an incomparable tactlessness will just happen to him. These opinions have their source in his inferior and subconscious thinking, which is only partly subject to control and is insufficiently related to the object ; to a large extent, therefore, it can operate without consideration or responsibility.

To Jung, there is a general attitude of consciousness (introverted/extraverted) and the attitude of the unconscious would be the opposite.
The reason the superior function is in service of extraversion in an extravert is because it is more conscious, and the reason the inferior (i.e. unconscious) functions are in service of introversion in an extravert is that they are less conscious.

SO....what we should really be asking ourselves is what did Jung think about the level of consciousness of the auxiliary in the typical person vs in the less typical, more pure type where one function squashes the other three out???
If Jung thought the auxiliary is more unconscious than conscious, i.e. more the level of consciousness of the inferior function than closer to the level of the superior function, then he would say the auxiliary is in the OPPOSITE attitude of the dominant. If Jung thought it is more conscious than unconscious (although, of course, always relatively unconscious compared to the superior function), then it would have the attitude of consciousness (introversion in an introvert) predominantly.

OK, so how does Jung begin his discussion of the auxiliary?

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.

That is to say, he begins his discussion of the auxiliary saying that he is clarifying that, unlike in the relatively pure types he discussed prior to this point, if we are to understand what appears "frequently in actual practice," there's a secondary function that is a relatively determining factor in consciousness, next to the superior function.

And he explains how the conscious top two pair together in consciousness, and the bottom two pair together as well, so that a superior practical-intellect corresponds to an inferior intuitive-feeling, I.e. Jung does think in the types frequently occurring in practice, probably the top two were both more conscious than unconscious, although the auxiliary is less conscious than the superior function. I mean, this is hardly surprising: if the auxiliary were more unconscious than conscious in the normal case, there was no reason to even make the clarification about the previously discussed types being too pure/not frequent in practice.

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.

A grouping of the unconscious functions also takes place in accordance with the relationship of the conscious functions. Thus, for instance, an unconscious intuitive feeling attitude may correspond with a conscious practical intellect, whereby the function of feeling suffers a relatively stronger inhibition than intuition. This peculiarity, however, is of interest only for one who is concerned with the practical psychological treatment of such cases.

The feeling suffers a stronger inhibition than intuition with a conscious practical intellect because he means a conscious T>S. Practical (S) is the adjective and intellect is being modified, so this refers to a T-dom.



Having discussed all this, what is Nietzsche's conscious personality in terms of function type? Let us forget about Ti, Ni, Ne and Te -- we can surely agree his superior function is intuition, and his auxiliary is thinking. He is in possession of what is called philosophical intuition, which Jung discusses here

the philosophical intuition which, in league with a vigorous intellect, translates its vision into the sphere of comprehensible thought, and so forth.

By what I discussed, Nietzsche has conscious intuition-thinking (in that order). It would be in service of the conscious standpoint (introversion).
When he cited an introverted intellect to Nietzsche, the correct interpretation is that he has Ti overall, not Te. Jung does NOT adopt a Beebe model that would say you have both.

If you are still looking for more, Jung went even farther: he went as far as to say Nietzsche not only has a Ti (introverted intellectual) SIDE, but he is also a pronounced, sharp example of an introverted thinking TYPE!

Just as Darwin might possibly represent the normal extraverted thinking type, so we might point to Kant as a counterexample of the normal introverted thinking type. The former speaks with facts; the latter appeals to the subjective factor. Darwin ranges over the wide fields of objective facts, while Kant restricts himself to a critique of knowledge in general. But suppose a Cuvier be contrasted with a Nietzsche: the antithesis becomes even sharper.

He gives Nietzsche as a posterchild of a Ti type, with even more introverted thinking relative to Cuvier than Kant is relative to Darwin. It's not that he has a Ti-side. He's literally an introverted thinking/Ti type!
And, he clarifies immediately RIGHT after mentioning Nietzsche vs Cuvier is an e.g. of a Ti-type vs Te-type....in his discussion of the introverted thinking type:

The introverted thinking type is characterized by a priority of the thinking I have just described.

What is the priority of thinking he just described? In the organization of Chapter X, he first discusses introverted thinking Ti, and then discusses the introverted thinking type, so the kind of thinking he's saying Nietzsche exhibits priority of is.....you guessed it....introverted thinking!!!

I must say there's no wriggling out of this -- Nietzsche definitely has Ti, not Te, preferred. You can put this with the mention of his introverted intellectual side, plus the general theoretical point that someone with conscious thinking (i.e. a thinking type) would have their thinking serve the conscious attitude.

In your example of Jung's typing of Nietzsche, it is not said that introverted thinking is an auxiliary function.

First of all, one trap people fall into is calling Nietzsche a Ti-dom based on reading Jung Ch. X, where he cites Nietzsche and Kant as both examples of the introverted thinking type that he proceeds to describe. I think that would be a mistake given Jung even expressly clarifies that intuition outranks intellect for Nietzsche earlier in the book.

Anyway....the definition of auxiliary function is nothing more and nothing less than the second most differentiated/conscious function. technically, it is most correct to say the superior function is intuition, not Ni, and the second most developed function of Nietzsche is thinking. Nietzsche is clearly given as an example of both an intuitive type and a thinking type, and in fact, a pronounced introverted thinking type exhibiting priority for introverted thinking characteristic of introverted thinking types. So, he is either a thinking dominant or auxiliary, and his priority is for introverted thinking specifically.
But, since Jung is clear intuition outranks thinking for Nietzsche, i.e when discussing Schopenhauer and Hegel, he is clear that

in both cases, however, intuition was subordinated to intellect, but with Nietzsche, it ranked above it.

So, this rules out that Nietzsche is a Ti-dom. A cursory reading of Ch. X might actually lead one to mistake Nietzsche for a Ti-dom.

Basically, if you WANTED, you could TRY to argue Jung thought Nietzsche is a Ti-DOM, if you're unhappy with my calling his auxiliary function thinking in the introverted attitude....you could try to say his dominant is thinking in the introverted attitude. But I'm very sure you'd be falling into a trap, and not giving the best reading of Jung combining all the info in Chapters III and X, if you made that case.
Jung clearly thinks Nietzsche is a N>T type, despite being a pronounced Ti-type.



Basically, and I hate to disappoint people, but this is the truth...Jung's way was unrigid and kind of simple! You have four functions in your psyche (all four, not all 8!), and some of them are conscious and others are unconscious. You often (but not always) have an auxiliary. And you are overall an introvert or extravert. Whether your functions are conscious or not determines whether they were in service of introversion or extraversion. No complicated rules about each of the 8 function-attitudes being in one of 8 roles, like Beebe or socionics!

And, quite simply, the reason Jung never rigidly determined the attitude of the second function is perhaps that he has seen cases where it is quite conscious (but never as much as the dom) and where it is quite unconscious.... and which attitude it took on would depend on that.

 

[GavinElster]

I hate quoting authority, and I did my best to explain this solely through Jung's writing, but for what it's worth, Carl Alfred Meier was one of Jung's closest collaborators and the first president of the CG Jung Institute in Zurich. He had the benefit of going beyond all the nitpicking and close reading I had to do of Psychological Types... he had direct contact with the man Jung himself, so his interpretation is much more likely to be Jung's! And I'm not really quoting authority, because this isn't about the truth about what functions theory is true, it's more a question of what the man Jung thought himself, and whether people today are quite unfamiliar with that because their exposure is mainly through the MBTI.

In his book on Jung's typology, Personality: The Individuation Process in Light of C.G. Jung's Typology, you can see his interpretation of the attitude of the auxiliary generally being the same as that of the dominant. Describing extraverted sensation types with auxiliary thinking, he writes

In this type, thinking always remains unconscious to a certain extent, but is nevertheless capable of great achievements. Cooperation with the main function is made easier because of thinking's similar attitude (extroversion).

The reason what I've written is so foreign to people is most people have a very cursory familiarity with Jung's writing+ the fact that at this point, the MBTI is much, much better known and practiced than original Jungian stuff. It's not an unfamiliar perspective to people who worked with Jung or with people whose first exposure to typology is his work.

I am NOT claiming Jung is right. But I think there is extremely strong a case for what I've written being the fairest interpretation of Jung's writings.

And the writing of CA Meier should increase the reader's confidence in my interpretation. Although I honestly do not think it is needed at all.

 

[Typosynthesis]

@GavinElster I see how much you are interested in the question of extroversion-introversion of the auxiliary function and unfortunately, I cannot discuss this topic with you, since this question does not bother me at all. It is better to create a new thread for this topic.

In this discussion, we are talking about the Jungian concept of rationality-irrationality

You write:

Anyway, as I believe you'd agree, we really should keep socionics a priori distinct from Jung and focus on deciphering how Jung thought (and then we can ask if he thought similarly to socionics, Isabel Myers).

This is what I want to do, but regarding Jung's concept of rationality-irrationality

 

[GavinElster]

@Typosynthesis that's fine. I think it's actually a related issue, but I agree it's not quite the same as what we were originally discussing.

I think the answer to the original question of this thread depends on what we mean by the J/P dichotomy.

MBTI consists of two things: a test involving 4 dichotomies I/E, N/S, J/P, and T/F....and an accompanying theory that this test somehow measures one's type based on a system roughly based on Jungian functions (intuition, sensation, feeling and thinking) and attitudes (introvert/extravert).
The claim is that the J/P dichotomy on the test is related to whether your top extraverted function is rational or irrational.

Jung's rational/irrational types are different, in that they are based on whether your superior function is rational or irrational -- not your top-most extraverted function.

IF we believe the italicized claim, then the answer is that there is indeed a relation, but obviously a difference as well. The similarity is that both your J/P type via MBTI and your Jungian type via rational/irrational tell us whether one of your top two functions is rational or irrational.
The difference is that your Jungian type of rational/irrational tells you whether your superior function is rational or irrational, whereas MBTI J/P tells you whether your most developed extraverted function is rational or irrational.

However, the italicized claim is highly controversial, as many would argue J/P as measured by the MBTI dichotomies doesn't do that great a job of capturing the concept of extraverted-rational vs extraverted-irrational functions.
I would say the correspondence is very loose at best, and indeed, it's not even clear to me that the J/P dichotomy, to the extent it does help distinguish Je vs Pe, does so in a way that's unique from distinguishing Ji vs Pi.
While not exactly based on Jungian or MBTI theory, I'd say an inventory like the rational-experiential inventory captures something closer (but not identical with) rational vs irrational a lot better overall, though it does not get into the subtlety of Je vs Ji or Pe vs Pi.

 

[GavinElster]

Anyway, to the interested party, the reason that Jung likely did see the top two functions (superior and auxiliary) occurring in the same attitude in the more common/typical type is based on the following logic (which applies to the common/typical type -- I will not keep reiterating all this is regarding the typical case), which I try to arrange concisely, without all the supporting quotations (which you can find above).

- Jung believed that there is both a superior and an auxiliary function that are both more conscious than not, and overall referred to them as the conscious functions, despite viewing the superior as the most conscious.
- Jung thought that there is a general attitude of consciousness that is either introverted or extraverted, and the unconscious has the opposite compensatory attitude
- Jung believed the degree of consciousness of a function determined the extent to which it would be oriented by the conscious attitude (introversion in an introvert, extraversion in an extravert)
- Jung believed a function is oriented by the attitude of the unconscious precisely if it is ... you guessed it ... an unconscious (i.e. inferior) function, of which there can be up to three, but in typical cases, two, albeit the function opposite the superior undergoes a stronger repression.

Putting all this together, it is clear that, since the second function was not seen as one of the inferior/unconscious functions (that is, more unconscious than conscious), the attitude of the second function and first function would generally coincide in the typical case.

Anyone who has serious doubts about this should ask themselves: why does Jung even think, according to them, that the superior function in an introvert is introverted? Jung has no elaborate 8-functions model. It's quite simple: he thought an introvert is oriented by the subjective factor, so when a function rises to consciousness, it would be oriented by the subjective factor as well--that's why the superior is introverted in an introvert! So, the only question about the aux is whether it is more conscious or more unconscious -- despite obviously being more unconscious than the superior always. And the answer is clearly that Jung thought of the top two as roughly conscious and the bottom two as typically roughly unconscious.
_______

Regarding the typing of Nietzsche, the TLDR version is this:

- In Ch. X, Jung mentions Nietzsche, along with Kant, as a posterchild of the introverted thinking type, which he makes clear gives priority to introverted thinking.
- One may conclude from this that Nietzsche is a Ti-dom, but, as we observe looking closer, in Ch. III, Jung considered Nietzsche to have an introverted intellect (Ti) side, but felt intuition is higher in him and at some point in Psychological Types, makes clear that, while Schopenhauer has intellect (T) outranking intuition, for Nietzsche, the opposite holds.
- So, it is a better interpretation of Jung to say Nietzsche had Ti-aux than Ti-dom, although certainly one of the two must hold based on the Ch. X typing. The reason Jung STILL refers to Nietzsche as an introverted thinking type, despite obviously seeming to see Nietzsche as having intuition>thinking, is very likely because in the end, Jung often saw your top two functions as conscious. Hence, even with conscious secondary, not primary, thinking, he would consider this conscious thinking to serve the conscious attitude of introversion.

 

[GavinElster]

Also, one other note: EVEN if I'd say there is very strong support that Jung thought the top two most conscious functions are, in many common cases (but not all) in the same attitude (both introverted in an introvert like Nietzsche), I would definitely say there's also support that the second one is probably at least a tiny bit more in the opposite attitude (extraversion in an introvert) than the first is, although it would (e.g. in an introvert) still be more introverted than extraverted.

When Jung calls the primary and secondary functions conscious, he definitely means more conscious than unconscious. Not that both are equally conscious. The secondary is more conscious than not, but it is still less so than the superior. And, as quotes like

A habitus can be called extraverted only when the mechanism of extraversion predominates. In such a case the most highly differentiated function has a constantly extraverted application, while the inferior functions are found in the service of introversion, i.e. the more valued function, because the more conscious, is more completely subordinated to conscious control and purpose, whilst the less conscious, in other words, the partly unconscious inferior functions are subjected to conscious free choice in a much smaller degree.

tell us, it is the degree of consciousness of the function that determines the level of subordination of said function to the conscious attitude (introversion in an introvert, extraversion in an extravert) vs to the unconscious attitude.

So, I would surmise that Nietzsche's thinking, at least in principle, while strongly introverted>extraverted, might possibly be more extraverted (according to Jung) than his intuition is--which would be the purest of all in its service to the conscious attitude of introversion. But, interestingly, despite this, Nietzsche is apparently so introverted that his auxiliary was probably seen by Jung as more introverted (Ti>Te) than the dominant introverted thinking of Kant.

 

[Typosynthesis]

@GavinElster This thread is not about extroversion-introversion, but about rationality-irrationality. The concept of rationality-irrationality is not related to the concept of extroversion-introversion.

 

[GavinElster]

@Typosynthesis: Your portrayal of this thread

@GavinElster This thread is not about extroversion-introversion, but about rationality-irrationality. The concept of rationality-irrationality is not related to the concept of extroversion-introversion.

can be amended or made clearer in the following way: this thread is not merely about rationality-irrationality, but also about MBTI J/P, and also whether they are related to one another. MBTI J/P is supposed to correspond to your top extraverted function's rationality or irrationality.
Further, my posts clarifying in response to yours were mostly about the attitude of the auxiliary, not about clarifying what introversion/extraversion is about in general. Jung spent more of Psychological Types talking about the introvert-extravert notion than all the functions. It's safe to say that discussions of the attitude of the auxiliary are very far from discussions of introversion-extraversion in general.


Anyway, discussing how related/unrelated MBTI J/P is to Jungian rationality/irrationality is exactly where the issue of the attitude of the auxiliary is very relevant--if, as it has seemed to me (and the poster reckful has done a lot to clarify this), Jung really thinks an introvert's extraverted functions are typically inferior and unconscious, and views a more conscious auxiliary function (which is the more typical case) as in the same attitude as the dominant, this is a huge, huge divergence between MBTI J/P and Jungian rationality/irrationality. It's a divergence to the point where Jung might well suggest the very fundamental premise behind J/P is wrong, and that thus, it CANNOT correspond to his rationality/irrationality!
That definitely deserves a mention.
Notice that, for purposes of concluding Jung contradicts this premise of MBTI, it is sufficient that Jung thought at least some people can have the top two functions in the same attitude (e.g. Nietzsche)....rather than a stronger claim that the majority are this way.

Then, you said

According to Jung, an introverted type has an introverted first function and an extroverted second (auxiliary) function. As for extroverted types, according to Jung, their first function is extroverted and their second (auxiliary) function is introverted.

So, I clarified the issue in detail, explaining why this is mistaken in various ways. I did not feel the need to clarify in detail until then.

I never suggested you have to have interest in this issue or engage it further once you expressed disinterest. And indeed, I haven't myself even posted in this thread in several days until your mention.

In my post 28, I even attempted to discuss issues related to the topic of this thread that have nothing substantial to do with the debate regarding the attitude of the auxiliary. The attitude of the aux is one thing relevant to differentiating J/P and Jungian rationality/irrationality, but not the only thing.

If you are not interested in the attitude of the aux anymore (although you did express an opinion about it earlier in this thread), you're welcome to engage the other issues.