As Jung saw it, of all the components that go into Jungian type, there was no "opposition" more strong and profound than the one between introversion and extraversion.
In case you assumed otherwise…I have ready Psychological Types many times (and other works by Jung), owning a well-worn copy, in addition to a well-worn copy of Gifts Differing.
This sort of side-steps my main point, makes some assumptions about what I think, and leaves out some key details.
1) Am I arguing that Myers has the most faithful interpretation of Jung?
- No. Rather, I am simply noting how she based her system on Jung’s ideas, and later I will explain why tossing out this foundation presents a problem for MBTI.
2) That the most faithful interpretation of Jung or the most popular interpretations are the best.
- Well, I find this illogical. The most faithful and popular are not necessarily the most reasonable or what shows up in reality. I think MBTI is a more logical and realistic system, which is probably why it is aligning with the real world data. But to say its system is totally divorced from Jung is not accurate either, IMO.
3) Jung’s types would align with actual people (which I know you don’t believe either).
- No, because he didn’t make a system to type people. Jung notes that these are pure types, and that few if anyone is a pure type. He acknowledges most people are something closer to what we call ambiversion, and he even suggests that many may not have any differentiated functions at all!
Myer’s interpretation synthesizes all these statements, which would otherwise be contradictory. The struggle between E/I in a person’s psychology is now a matter of the inferior and dominant struggle (which Jung did focus on, I agree), but the reality that people are not
entirely I or E in their mentality is explained with the auxiliary, which in every way is different
without being opposed.
I strongly disagree that Myers significantly based her "MBTI profiles" on her notion — which is best viewed as simply a part of her theoretical justification for the auxiliary attitude flip — that each type used one of their preferred functions in connection with their "inner world" and one in connection with the "outer world." And there's more from me on the schizophrenic introvert idea — outwardly J but dominantly P, or vice versa
What you seem to be suggesting here is that the only difference between, say, an ISTP and ISTJ is J/P mentality, separate from the other dichotomies.
But that is not what Myers suggests, otherwise she would’t group ISTPs and INTPs together in Gifts Differing and group ISTJs and ISFJs together, etc. She is clearly grouping them according to what she sees as their dominant preference, and for ISTPs that is T, whereas for ISTJs that is S. Her explanation to classify introverts on the J/P dimension is using their extroverted, secondary preference, although I don’t think that the J/P dimension aligns with Jung’s use of “rational†or “irrationalâ€.
I will address this more further down.
But more importantly, and for the most part, Myers really didn't base her profiles on the "functions" at all. She based them on the dichotomies. And it's reasonably clear that that's because Myers, despite quite a bit of lip service to Jung and the functions, understood that the dichotomies were the essential components of Jungian/MBTI type — and also that dichotomy combinations were associated with many noteworthy aspects of personality, but that there was nothing particularly special about the combinations that are purportedly associated with the functions.
Again, that would mean she sees each dichotomy as its own separate trait, as opposed to indicating preferences which are more than the sum of their parts.
If this were the case, then we should expect her to describe the appearance of Feeling for all IxFx types the same way. Yet, only with IxFPs does she echo Jung’s words that their Feeling is often not outwardly visible. Why would that be if J/P is not indicating something more than being it’s own preference?
What is it about IFP compared to IFJ that produces a notable difference in the way the feeling preference comes out in the personality?
The explanation is that the P/J dichotomy is affecting the other preferences, so that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. This now becomes an issue of semantics where you either call it FJ and FP preferences or Fe and Fi preferences. The differences in these seem to line up suspiciously well with Jung’s Fe and Fi types though…
In fact, Myers thought of NF/NT/SF/ST as the most significant dichotomy combinations — and it's worth noting that each of those groups is a type foursome with (assuming you believe in type dynamics at all) four different dominant functions.
If we are going to split hairs, they have the same function preferences, but different attitudes for those functions.
Of course the dichotomies are important, and I am not suggesting they are not. Jung often speaks of functions without attitudes (ie what “sensing†is without referring specifically to Si or Se). There is much overlap in tendencies with all T types, all S types, etc.
IxxJ and IxxP are arguably ways of saying “Introverted Irrationals†and “Introverted Rationals†in Jung’s groupings. However, the way J/P is tested for is not really a matter of a person being a dominant rational or dominant irrational, as I agree that IxxPs aren’t “internally more like Jsâ€. J stands for “judging†and although Myers says she relabelled these as “irrational†for perceiving could be insulting to some, I don’t think that P/J aligns with rational or irrational in Jung’s theory so much as being the result of a few factors.
J/P refers to a whole mentality, IMO. For J types this refers to Pi+Je preferences and for P types it is Pe+Ji preferences (although I realize the short-hand contradicts this idea; but it’s simply for the sake of brevity, which is also a lost cause at this point). IxxP means that Ji is before Pe, and IxxJ means that Pi is before Je, but it doesn’t mean the IxxP has a J mentality at core. Given that Je and Ji are opposed in a mentality, this makes sense. IxxPs aren't judging types at core…because the P mentality is comprised of both Pe and Ji preferences.
Here I go beyond Myers, because I see her idea as having the very problem you note UNLESS we take into account the functions. Even though she over-simplifies it and doesn't explain it this way, I think it is implied.
Also, you can arrange the letter dichotomies in many ways which will show overlap with types who don’t “share the same function-attitudesâ€, but they share functions without an attitude or attitudes without a function or just the preference for I/E or are a dominant rational or irrational, etc. Strict function models and the dumb tandem theory do ignore this, but tossing the functions out brings a similar problem.
Why do all IxxP types highly value autonomy more than other types? What is the common theme for INFPs and ISTPs here? They have no functions shared, and aren’t NFs supposed to be cooperative and people-oriented? What about IxxP causes this? Well, function theory explains this rather than defies it. IxxP is “introverted rational†and would be opposed to an “extroverted rational†menality, and in the person’s psychology, this causes a friction that can look rebellious. Noting the inferior function tells us a lot about types.
The dichotomies, IMO, actually DO make this clearer to note and discuss. But that doesn’t remove the reality that Myers created the type profiles using Jung’s pure types and combining them for the top two preferences. For example, INFPs turn feeling inward like a fur lined coat, and outwardly they seek possibilities, etc, which matches the Ne description; in contrast, her portrait of INFJs is quite different. Shouldn’t the only difference between them be the J/P dimension? Rather that dimension affects the whole mentality, and Jung’s functions are used to break down HOW and WHY. That doesn’t mean these types don’t have a great deal in common, and probably way more than INFJ would have with an ISTP.
Understanding Jung properly would mean INFJs don’t “use Ti and Seâ€, but that this is rather a mostly unconscious character in their psychology and will come out in an undifferentiated way. INFPs also have an unconscious ST character, which again created similarities for the two types (and the same can be said of all types which only differ by the J/P dimension).
Only the tandem model would suggest INFJs are like ISTPs, but the letter dichotomies and Jungian theory would actually say INFPs have slightly more in common with ISTPs (although not nearly as much as INFJs and INFPs will have in common).
If you remove the conceptions about tandems, then what conflict is there with the functions, the dichotomies and data about how personalities appear in reality? Rather, functions clarify the dichotomies in such a way that makes MBTI
more consistent, not less.
and Myers ignored (and/or adjusted) substantial portions of those in creating her own type portraits. (As one example, and as discussed at length in this post, Myers' IS_Js bear little resemblance to Jung's Si-doms. And for a detailed discussion of the surgery Myers performed on Jung's conception of Te, see this PerC post.)
I disagree with most of this.
I agree she adjusted the profiles a bit, and a fair amount of that is due to creating types with two Jungian preferences over just one (ie pure types). The rest of it may be bolstered by her research, which IMO, just means she is building and refining the model with real world data. That doesn’t mean she
totally ignored Jung’s ideas besides giving them lip service and that they didn’t have influence on her type portraits.
I entirely disagree that her ISxJs don’t align with Jung’s Si type or that she altered Te. I think people don’t understand Jung’s Si type well, and Myers did a good job of putting it in layman’s terms instead of the heavy metaphorical and symbolic language Jung uses.
She was also strongly influenced by Van Der Hoop, whom she also quotes and who basically wrote less dense profiles of Jung’s 8 types.
Her conception of ExTJs shows how the S/N preference affects the Te preferences; again, the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.
The fact that she still groups ExTJs together in her portraits shows she sees the shared dominant preference.
I read your interpretation of Myers vs Jung's Te and I don’t agree with it. If the types arent pure, then of course an ENTJ wouldn’t stick with conventional methods or ideas - BUT one may use conventional and accepted logic to order/arrange original ideas to meet a particular end goal. Myers very much saw how the Te and Ni preference synthesized to produce a whole, distinct personality. That is pretty much how the ENTJ profiles read, especially as compared to ENTPs who are described as more outwardly experimental in their
methods. Sure, TJs and TPs may often reach similar end conclusions, just as Fi and Fe types do, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t starting from a different end. Te types are noted to be more hung up on data than Ti types.
You sort of comically support that in every post you make, as you frequently reference statistics and put a lot of stock in the data itself. In contrast, INTPs seem more focused on a consistent line of reasoning to back an idea, and data is often secondary or seen as supportive. Coincidence?
…other than a diagram near the end that shows that "ENFJs like Feeling best, Intuition next, Sensing third and Thinking least," and one brief note about tending to use Feeling in the "outer world" and Intuition in the "inner world." All the rest of the ENFJ descriptions in the report — after the brief initial profile, which isn't broken down by components — are descriptions of N (not Ni or Ne), F (not Fi or Fe) and so on, and they're the same descriptions of N and F (and the five subscales of each) that ENFPs receive in their reports (notwithstanding the fact that ENFJs are Fe-Ni and ENFPs are Ne-Fi).
I don’t see how the contradiction here is not glaring to you….
Why are ENFJs feeling first and ENFPs intuition first if the foundation of their type descriptions is not rooted in Jung’s type descriptions?
If we toss out functions, then what justification can be used?
And if we explain it as “The P/J preference affects the whole so that N+P and F+P produces particular traits, etcâ€, then we just have a matter of semantics on our hands. And it still wouldn’t justify the idea that ENFPs are N first, unless we continue to accept that J/P points to the function of the extroverted preference. To accept that means there is a function stack, although that doesn't support a tandem theory.
The more I reread Psychological Types, the more I appreciate the extent to which getting from Jung to the Myers-Briggs typology involved substantial adjustments and additions. I think the formidable job Briggs and Myers did in separating the Jungian wheat from the chaff, and modifying and supplementing Jung's theory, is grotesquely underappreciated by many internet forumites.
I agree it is under appreciated (but I think the comments about Myers not having a degree are tasteless and pointless; how you don’t see a Te attitude in that is hilarious. Someone is only smart and educated if we’ve used the conventional means of measuring them as such and handed them a piece of paper stating it?). But these online communities started getting interested in the functions because of holes in the MBTI that its very foundation patches.
A major hole is when testing for dichotomies as if they are individual factors that don’t influence one another in a whole personality, the dichotomies aren’t always properly separated (which may not be possible for the reason just noted). For example, the sensing questions lean towards SJ and the feeling descriptions lean towards FJ, but why that is may not be grasped unless we understand that Se and Si are a bit different, and Fe and Fi are a bit different, etc. Without that understanding, people who mistype or those who are close on two dimensions may struggle to settle on a correct type.
More on the idea of types being on a spectrum later…
But if what you're really asking is why middlish test results are more of an issue with the dichotomies than with the functions... where have you gotten that idea?
No…I am suggesting many people type 50/50 because of the way the dichotomies are based on functions without attitudes, and how functions
with attitudes can alter how the function appears or how one experiences it. This is where understanding how the type portraits were created off of Jung’s 8 types can be helpful when people are trying to find their type.
IMO, getting a 50/50 result means the test is not able to indicate a type confidently based on what
you input. It doesn’t necessarily mean you don’t have a preference, but that the test is not
picking up on it. It doesn’t indicate
strength of preference either, but the
likelihood of having a preference based on what info
you gave it. Example: 3% T is more like a confidence level that you are a T type.
However, you can also only give it info based on what it asks...and if it is asking about T/F and F sounds like FJ, then you have a problem...
As explained at more length in this post — which also addresses a number of other issues often raised by people claiming to "debunk" the MBTI — the reliability stats for the MBTI put it essentially "on a par" with the leading Big Five tests. In my experience, claims that the Big Five is substantially superior to the MBTI in the test/retest reliability department are most often accompanied by statistics that confuse retest rates on single dimensions with retest rates for a complete four-letter type.
I never suggested the MBTI was inferior to Big 5. That is not why I mentioned how people’s results often change. I am not a Big 5 fan, and I didn’t even mention it, so I don’t know the purpose of comparing/contrasting the two here, but since you bring it up…
It seems to me you want to assert MBTI is as - if not more - valid than Big 5, and one way of doing that is removing Jung’s theory from MBTI, as if this is what makes it invalid to people (fluffy theory instead of a data backed system).
But the problem with Big 5, IMO, is that it tells you nothing beyond what you give it. You tell it you like poetry, and it says “you are open, and open people like such things as poetry.†Ummmmm…..yeah, that’s what I told it! It doesn’t take every dimension it tests and combine them and create a WHOLE recognizable personality type.
Whereas MBTI is an INDICATOR that uses the info you give it to suggest something deeper. It uses dichotomies to indicate something MORE than just what you put into it. The 4 letters indicate something more than 4 preferences, they indicate a WHOLE personality type distinct from the other 15.
Now, if it’s just a scale of preference, then why call them dichotomies? I don’t disagree with the idea as a possibility, but it does sort of make calling and structuring the preferences as dichotomies rather, well, stupid.
IRL, human qualities do tend to exist on a spectrum, even if we can create categories that most people will be able to be sorted into (ie hair color). Nonetheless, these categories often have middle areas where the traits blur together and someone is “inbetweenâ€.
Here, function theory patches the hole. T and F are dichotomous….but Te and Fe have some things in common (extroverted rationals), as do Ti and Fi (introverted rationals). The different commonalities you can find between the 8 types involve I/E and J/P aspects and cut across S/N and F/T preferences, meaning the dichotomies sometimes assign a particular quality to one preference when it exists to a degree in others (or other combinations). This can be explained when we note that functions have attitudes, and that the whole is more the sum of the parts, and how the letters combine to form a larger whole rather than being separate dimensions within a personality.
Personal anecdote - I test close on T/F, and what helped me decide the best fit type for myself was learning that Fi often doesn’t appear outwardly in the personality as Feeling and that Feeling is rational. To deny this comes from Jung’s theory is disingenuous. It is also hard to explain why IFP often looks that way but IFJ doesn’t. That Feeling is directed inward for a FPs explains it, and it really explains it when we see a similarity with how feeling operates in EFPs and IFPs, because we cannot just chalk it up to introversion anymore.
So does a person really have no preference or are they making a choice on the test influenced by another aspect of their personality, since in reality they are a whole personality and not some abstract preferences cobbled together?
Well, I think MBTI is often at fault here, for being a tad too overly simplistic, but it doesn’t mean it is totally invalid or doesn’t do a pretty good job of indicating type based on the info you plug into it. When it fails to do so for some individuals, the foundation it was built on can be helpful to them for determining what type suits the best.
If we take it purely as a spectrum and toss out dichotomous preferences, then the system sort of collapses, because what J/P is used to justify can no longer be justified, and we no longer have distinct types (and all that data on whole types and their tendencies means very little), and we’re left with something similar to Big 5.
