Jung Typology Explained

[Pionart]

@Vendrah

But the methods WORK for the cognitive functions. I don't see a point in doing what you suggested.

 

[Pionart]

The contrast he is doing is on the E/I domain, or on the attitude type. It still does not let us deduct anything about the auxiliary.



"That's just how it is" without any actual evidence and neither on a single sentence on Jung directly staying that is more of what you think it is rather than what actual is. Actually, Pionart (former Legion) had said the same for Ni-Fe just on the post above me.



If you would not be so sticky about the stacks, "function orders", etc... and actual tried to make text typing and audio-voice typing out of any system, even with programs, repeatability and with predictions, it might look amazing. SO far I only had saw programs with text typing that failed, our forum had one that was discontinued last year.

You know, both audio typing and text typing have prediction built in.

Audio typing predicts that if someone shows Ni then they also show Se. Text typing predicts that if a post starts with an Ni theme followed by an Fe theme, then the next section is probably Ti themed (or maybe Te themed if it's an ISTP skipping to the tertiary).

To actually demonstrate that publicly there would need to be multiple people using the methods and comparing, but so far only one person has shown any interest in learning it.

 

[FlamingSword]

@Vendrah
I have a suggestion: I've read many of your articles, however, they tend to be too long for discussions. Be assured, that few people have the time or patience to read a discussion post of that length. A better way is perhaps to break down one super-lengthy post into several shorter ones.
Post a few more times, and try to be brief to the point. Most of your posts are like academic papers, in terms of length.

People do not seem to pay enough attention to Jungian typology, so it's a good idea to call for public attention to Jung's theory - the very root of modern theories of typology. It is the wise thing to do. However, given the fact that Jung's theory was developed >100 years ago and things have changed, new theories should not be rejected without a careful evaluation. In other words, just because Jung invented the concept of types, does not mean his theory should be treated as the Word of God. Jungian fundamentalists, similar to the devout advocates of the Grant model, tend to be unreasonable because they fall into dogmatism, and because they believe there is only one correct answer. They can be quick to reject any new theories or systems of typology, without even understanding the rationale behind them.

Personality types, just like many other topics of social sciences, are open-ended, which means, there is no single standard answer.

MBTI has its merits because it is a good attempt to translate Jung's types into psychometric terms. By doing so, types become dependent on external behavior, which constitutes a misconception of types. However, despite its limitations, MBTI became a valid means to measure personality in academic psychology. So, there are pros and cons.

Cognitive types are but one way of describing and measuring personalities. There is nothing holy about Jungian types. It's not like a final judgment rendered to an individual, about who they are, in essence, or what they can/cannot do. I disagree with the view that types are inborn and cannot be changed. Types can. Even Jung himself recognized it in the 1959 BBC interview. Nothing, nothing in this universe is stagnant. Everything is changing, and change is constant.

To avoid rigidity, and perhaps as an attempt to reconcile Jungian typology and modern MBTI, a possible way of construing the types should be as follows, IMO:

Ni dom: NiTaFaSe (Jungian INTP) and NiFaTaSe (Jungian INFP). "A" stands for Ambivert, which can be either E or I, depending on the preference of the dominant.
Ne dom: NeTaFaSi (Jungian ENTP) and NeFaTaSi (ENFP)

Ti dom: TiNaSaFe (Jungian INTJ) and TiSaNaFe (Jungian ISTJ)
Te dom: TeNaSaFi (ENTJ) and TeSaNaFi (ESTJ)

Fe dom: FeNaSaTi (ENFJ) and FeSaNaTi (ESFJ)
Fi dom: FiNaSaTe (INFJ) and FiSaNaTe (ISFJ)

Se dom: SeTaFaNi (ESTP) and SeFaTaNi (ESFP)
Si dom: SiTaFaNe (ISTP) and SiFaTaNe (ISFP)

"A" can be omitted and just written as N, T, F, or S.
I'm interested in Jungian psychology in general, and I believe that Jung has a scientific attitude and intended his type theory to be treated as one of many theories in the field, which is open to questioning and modification.

 

[Vendrah]

Post a few more times, and try to be brief to the point. Most of your posts are like academic papers, in terms of length.

I am actually on a big pause with that, or may even stopped entirely, but I will try to remember your advice.

. Jungian fundamentalists, similar to the devout advocates of the Grant model, tend to be unreasonable because they fall into dogmatism, and because they believe there is only one correct answer. They can be quick to reject any new theories or systems of typology, without even understanding the rationale behind them.

Personality types, just like many other topics of social sciences, are open-ended, which means, there is no single standard answer.

I am actually in another entire page this year.
The problem with the subject is that if you get seriously deep, you're going to eventually hit personality disorders, very deep, intriguing, controversial, almost forbidden subjects such as that some types are indeed quite bad and toxic, some types perform better at others im multiple tasks (forget the equality of skills of the types), and subjects such as suicide and death that must be treated eventually but I just can't. And you reach the conclusion that MBTI and the cognitive functions (that aren't the actual cognition at all) are very sugarcoated in comparison, while very few people are actually ready to face the worst of the type - "inner demons" - and accept it. Even my few attemps (most at personality-database) of using the typology from abyss were countered with hostility because people simply find my analysis to be offensive.

So a more soft version exists on the most deep level of this forum, though, but that's only for >500 posts people.

 

[FlamingSword]

The problem with the subject is that if you get seriously deep, you're going to eventually hit personality disorders, very deep, intriguing, controversial, almost forbidden subjects such as that some types are indeed quite bad and toxic, some types perform better at others im multiple tasks (forget the equality of skills of the types), and subjects such as suicide and death that must be treated eventually but I just can't.

Yes, I can see that. Although I'm not yet a long-term typology enthusiast, and this seems still quite new to me, I have realized the brutal truth. Funny how the trends on Reddit go toward one way or the other. At a certain point, the subs were full of biased posts, especially against the S types. Derogatory terms were sometimes used against Si doms and F types, whereas those elite 'NTs' might have mistyped themselves in the first place. Recently, however, there has been an emphasis on all types being equal and statements focusing on type differences tend to be very cautious. If anyone posts anything about type differences, they tend to have an urge to maintain the overall harmony, to the point that many viewpoints are rendered meaningless.

The brutal truth is, and I'm being 'politically incorrect' but speaking in honest terms here, that, not all types are equal, in the outcome. "Gifts differing" only speaks part of the story. True, every type should be treated equally, in a similar and objective way, without prejudgment or bigotry. However, the truth is, if all types are equal, then our world will be ideal, which is not. People are naturally different, and the differences are normal and real. Some are stronger than others, smarter than others, and there are winners and losers. Society has a hierarchy, and the equality is in normative terms (esp, in law), but is the outcome equal, no.

I think that types can be seen in another way. My assertion is that type differences provide an explanation for the existence of social hierarchy and inequality. Certain types are prone to certain weaknesses, and some types are not suited for leadership, etc. This is said in a broad and general sense, without considering individual characteristics.

Even my few attemps (most at personality-database) of using the typology from abyss were countered with hostility because people simply find my analysis to be offensive.

If I didn't misunderstand your view, I think that you have some reservations about explaining the weaknesses and/or dark sides of the types. Doing so will hurt people's feelings, and might also get you into trouble. I can understand. People, in general, want to hear beautiful things. If there is criticism, even if it is reasonable, it might still be treated with hostility.

I think Jung was quite outspoken about types. He would even comment that certain types were 'useless' in a socially pragmatic sense. Who dares say that today? Similarly, Van der Hoop's type descriptions are worth reading as well. There are positives and negatives in each type, and he didn't hide the ugly. For instance, he would describe a certain type as having 'nothing contemplative about them'. That's a strong word, "nothing". Few typologists would speak in that way today.

If type weaknesses are exposed, there is potential discrimination and victimization of certain types, and this could spread to how society will treat certain individuals because of their types.
If not, "all types are equal", which will render types almost meaningless. After all, as I see it, the importance of types lies in the differences, right? If no differences are seen, then why would people believe in typology? The crux is the differences, and they can be good, bad, or neutral.

Some types could be toxic, due to the very ways the functions are lined up. People may get angry at the negatives because they perceive criticism of their type as an attack against the person. There is confusion between the general and the individual. Still, people, collectively, cannot be expected to see things logically.

Last but not least, Typology Triad is your website, correct? It's impressive. I enjoy reading the articles and you have well-designed tests as well.

 

[Vendrah]

The brutal truth is, and I'm being 'politically incorrect' but speaking in honest terms here, that, not all types are equal, in the outcome. "Gifts differing" only speaks part of the story. True, every type should be treated equally, in a similar and objective way, without prejudgment or bigotry.

Well, even that last line does not look as it should.
For example, if a type is low Honesty-Humility and low Agreeableness on HEXACO (ya can search HEXACO if you don't know it), then it should be treated the same as a high Honesty-Humility and high Agreeableness? No judgment for low A and low HH have terrible consequences. So you can't just treat them equally when one type literally destroys and exploits others around beyond capitalism (and there is potentially another one for that as well).

My assertion is that type differences provide an explanation for the existence of social hierarchy and inequality.

Could you develop more? I don't see types in hierarchies still.

If I didn't misunderstand your view, I think that you have some reservations about explaining the weaknesses and/or dark sides of the types. Doing so will hurt people's feelings, and might also get you into trouble. I can understand. People, in general, want to hear beautiful things. If there is criticism, even if it is reasonable, it might still be treated with hostility.

I think Jung was quite outspoken about types. He would even comment that certain types were 'useless' in a socially pragmatic sense. Who dares say that today? Similarly, Van der Hoop's type descriptions are worth reading as well. There are positives and negatives in each type, and he didn't hide the ugly. For instance, he would describe a certain type as having 'nothing contemplative about them'. That's a strong word, "nothing". Few typologists would speak in that way today.

Yes, pretty much.

Typology Triad is your website, correct? It's impressive. I enjoy reading the articles and you have well-designed tests as well.

Thank you very much! Yes, it is or it was since I stopped posting and creating tests for a good while (although my exploration is not gone yet)!

EDIT: Sorry for taking long, I am just quite inactive from public posts lately on any forum basically.

 

[Indigo Rodent]

Some types wield power and make their specific weaknesses forgivable while punishing other. For example if Te-doms wouldn't be allowed to get away with being delusional psychopaths their outcomes would worsen drastically.

 

[FlamingSword]

Could you develop more? I don't see types in hierarchies still.

I don't have a database of types or figures, and I can imagine the practical obstacles in doing such research:

1. Accurate typing - everyone in the sample must be typed correctly, which is difficult.

2. If we assume that social hierarchy is the outcome of the rate of success, then the term "success" needs to be defined accurately. I did a brief Google search and success is most often defined as career success (as measured by average income) and by academic success, such as GPA. These are arguable good indicators of success and I think, definitely not the whole story. Success is hard to define or measure, and IMO it's multi-dimensional, going beyond the figures such as grades.

3. There must be a large enough sample, which means, a double-digit sample is probably not convincing. Gathering a large enough sample will be very challenging.

4. Exclusion of any unhealthy individuals within a type. If we are talking about the general situation, then it would be ideal to exclude those whose failures can well be explained by other factors, such as mental illnesses. This might require everyone in the sample to disclose their mental health record.

There are other hurdles, and I think if this is to be a project, a team will probably be needed, and also, time, and funding.

There are some articles indicating types and career success, and types and academic records, such as:

How does your personality affect your income potential? | World Economic Forum

How Your Personality Type Impacts Your Income

You're probably well aware that your income depends on how much education and experience you have. You may have thought about how much more you might earn by moving to a hotter labor market or changing industries. But there's a big piece of your earning power you may be overlooking—your...

www.truity.com

Academic performance based on MBTI type

DISCLAIMER: The following information is all based on my own observations and should be taken with a grain of salt. The MBTI is a…

medium.com

All these were done within the past five years, so they can be considered recent.

Another question might be - which typology model should be used? If the Jungian model is adopted, then all the statistics from those articles become invalid because they are based on the Grant model. For some reason, the Fi types tend to have the lowest average income, according to the article. In terms of GPA, it's the Se types that have the lowest GPA.

There hasn't been research done about Jungian types and success. Statistics generated from the Grant model cannot be directly applied if the types are in the Jungian model. For instance, the Jungian ISFP is actually SiFiTeNe, and INFP is actually NiFiTeSe. Totally different.

My assertion is that, if 'success' is defined in conventional terms, as career/external success, then, in the most general sense, Es tend to be more successful than Is, and the least successful type might be a type leading with an introverted perceiving function. This is based on my understanding of the functions after having read many function descriptions and has not been tested yet.

 

[Indigo Rodent]

I don't have a database of types or figures, and I can imagine the practical obstacles in doing such research:

1. Accurate typing - everyone in the sample must be typed correctly, which is difficult.

2. If we assume that social hierarchy is the outcome of the rate of success, then the term "success" needs to be defined accurately. I did a brief Google search and success is most often defined as career success (as measured by average income) and by academic success, such as GPA. These are arguable good indicators of success and I think, definitely not the whole story. Success is hard to define or measure, and IMO it's multi-dimensional, going beyond the figures such as grades.

3. There must be a large enough sample, which means, a double-digit sample is probably not convincing. Gathering a large enough sample will be very challenging.

4. Exclusion of any unhealthy individuals within a type. If we are talking about the general situation, then it would be ideal to exclude those whose failures can well be explained by other factors, such as mental illnesses. This might require everyone in the sample to disclose their mental health record.

There are other hurdles, and I think if this is to be a project, a team will probably be needed, and also, time, and funding.

There are some articles indicating types and career success, and types and academic records, such as:

How does your personality affect your income potential? | World Economic Forum

How Your Personality Type Impacts Your Income

You're probably well aware that your income depends on how much education and experience you have. You may have thought about how much more you might earn by moving to a hotter labor market or changing industries. But there's a big piece of your earning power you may be overlooking—your...

www.truity.com

Academic performance based on MBTI type

DISCLAIMER: The following information is all based on my own observations and should be taken with a grain of salt. The MBTI is a…

medium.com

All these were done within the past five years, so they can be considered recent.

Another question might be - which typology model should be used? If the Jungian model is adopted, then all the statistics from those articles become invalid because they are based on the Grant model. For some reason, the Fi types tend to have the lowest average income, according to the article. In terms of GPA, it's the Se types that have the lowest GPA.

Stuff like social work, teaching, etc. is punished with low income and stuff like grifting and exploitation is rewarded with high income which renders using it as criteria of success meaningless. Working in development of others often means working with vulnerable people who don't have income to pay much or outright being paid from underfunded social services budget.

 

[Vendrah]

I don't have a database of types or figures, and I can imagine the practical obstacles in doing such research:

1. Accurate typing - everyone in the sample must be typed correctly, which is difficult.

2. If we assume that social hierarchy is the outcome of the rate of success, then the term "success" needs to be defined accurately. I did a brief Google search and success is most often defined as career success (as measured by average income) and by academic success, such as GPA. These are arguable good indicators of success and I think, definitely not the whole story. Success is hard to define or measure, and IMO it's multi-dimensional, going beyond the figures such as grades.

3. There must be a large enough sample, which means, a double-digit sample is probably not convincing. Gathering a large enough sample will be very challenging.

4. Exclusion of any unhealthy individuals within a type. If we are talking about the general situation, then it would be ideal to exclude those whose failures can well be explained by other factors, such as mental illnesses. This might require everyone in the sample to disclose their mental health record.

There are other hurdles, and I think if this is to be a project, a team will probably be needed, and also, time, and funding.

There are some articles indicating types and career success, and types and academic records, such as:

How does your personality affect your income potential? | World Economic Forum

How Your Personality Type Impacts Your Income

You're probably well aware that your income depends on how much education and experience you have. You may have thought about how much more you might earn by moving to a hotter labor market or changing industries. But there's a big piece of your earning power you may be overlooking—your...

www.truity.com

Academic performance based on MBTI type

DISCLAIMER: The following information is all based on my own observations and should be taken with a grain of salt. The MBTI is a…

medium.com

All these were done within the past five years, so they can be considered recent.

Another question might be - which typology model should be used? If the Jungian model is adopted, then all the statistics from those articles become invalid because they are based on the Grant model. For some reason, the Fi types tend to have the lowest average income, according to the article. In terms of GPA, it's the Se types that have the lowest GPA.

There hasn't been research done about Jungian types and success. Statistics generated from the Grant model cannot be directly applied if the types are in the Jungian model. For instance, the Jungian ISFP is actually SiFiTeNe, and INFP is actually NiFiTeSe. Totally different.

My assertion is that, if 'success' is defined in conventional terms, as career/external success, then, in the most general sense, Es tend to be more successful than Is, and the least successful type might be a type leading with an introverted perceiving function. This is based on my understanding of the functions after having read many function descriptions and has not been tested yet.

I am starting to get it what you say, but I don't think that a one dimensional hierarchy - like patent I, patent II or level I, level II - would work.
So for example, the worst GPA and the worst income are not the same types so the one-dimension hierarchy already fails here. We could try to use the income perspective to contain the types at an hierarchy, or try to use the bosses perspective, but then we would need to forget about school grades and GPA.

Also, yeah, what the word "success" in meaning is can be different in a lot of contexts, which makes harder to ever draw the hierarchy in the traditional linear fashion. I would not take a multi-dimensional hierarchy out of the table, but that is already quite out of line with how people see and understand hierarchy (which is basically a vertical line or a pyramid that is still a vertical line with an horizontal line measuring how many people have on each level).

And there's a second issue bring by - @Indigo Rodent - about ethics, but TBH I don't think you are running into a fair life fallacy hopefully. There is one "secret" on MBTI: you can correlate country GDP per capita with MBTI types (the official MBTI gives enough information for that). There is a slightly room for subjectivity in terms of which countries you should include or not and there are too much developed countries on the list, but you can use that to correlate types with GDP. It looks remarkably different from the income ones. There is at least one type on which the correlation with GDP per capita is negative and income is one of the highest and another one that is the opposite of it. When a type have a negative correlation with GDP per capita yet has high income then exploitation is one of the most likely and best explanations (and being exploited is the explanation for the opposite). This can get more deeply (and more creepy) to the point where I've reached the conclusion that the pattern can be related to sadistic disorder (and masochism on the other side), but even to the point of me seeing subtly on the 16P little art of each type. Well, again, it gets creepy.

However, in terms of life outcomes, I did with a more proper system and on a more wide way, had a good idea how they look like - several different aspects with some different types. Using the types as outcome, I did actually correlated the outcomes and find out there were 3 major groups, and I did found that for job skills there is also three major groups of skills that are similar to my group of life outcomes.



The triple division of Social, Mental and Physical, as I like to call, is actually a real cluster of skills on jobs.
The cognitive includes, as far as I remember, School-academic success (GPA, earlier grades, odds of having a bacherlor, doctorate, masters..) and intelligence (IQ, Critical Thinking, Numerical Reasoning, another 2 I forgot already) basically, and job performance for Laboratory and "Skilled" jobs (skilled on a quite vague definition); The social includes income (income correlates to the social cluster and are the most valued), job performance for sales & customer jobs; The third one is health, by physical and mental health, for personality (which is somewhat different than the physical skills).
Each one has a best type for it, with no best type for overall (its 2-4 best types depending on number of types).

 

[Lazinc]

Another question might be - which typology model should be used? If the Jungian model is adopted, then all the statistics from those articles become invalid because they are based on the Grant model. For some reason, the Fi types tend to have the lowest average income, according to the article. In terms of GPA, it's the Se types that have the lowest GPA.

Jung says of introverts:

"The more the ego seeks to secure every possible liberty, independence, superiority, and freedom from obligations, the deeper does it fall into the slavery of objective facts. The subject's freedom of mind is chained to an ignominious financial dependence"