Jung's System Is Flawed - Rip My Theory To Shreds Please

[virtualinsanity]

Hello all. I'm interested in a different viewpoint when it comes to this because I feel like functional stacking is a huge logical fallacy that has been accepted within the community of personality types. I sort of came up with my own way of typing people, which I feel is more accurate and to the point. I feel it would get rid of a lot of unnecessary bs, that blinds us from what's actually there. I want someone to bring me to a new perspective about this and make me realize that I'm wrong in my thinking or understanding. (I'm not concerned with looking dumb because in order to learn, at some point you have to be wrong and look dumb.)

"First of all, cognitive functions are not an issue but 'stacking' is. This is a flaw within the Jung system. Assuming someone has an 'underdeveloped' function simply because it doesn't fit into a stack for a standard for a *specific* personality type is supposed to have.. is a logical fallacy. If someone had Ti > Si > Ne> Etc.. That would make them an ST, logically. Yet, Jung's system would tell you that you're closest to INTP, simply because of Jung's cracked system.. (Yet, I bet you come off more of a Sensor because you are a Sensor, logically and factually speaking.) Even if you Extrovert Intuition before Extroverting anything else, first.. the core of you puts Sensing first. Jung's logical fallacy will skip the fact that you use a Sensing function before an Intuitive one... but no matter what system you use.. the truth stands. The "Si" doesn't become imaginary because it doesn't fit a flawed system. You acknowledge that an "S" function beat all of the "N" functions. That's the raw truth without leaving out any functions. Shadow functions are bullshit to me. A function, is a function.. either it comes before one or it doesn't... and if you look at people's actual functional stack, most don't even put the 4 "main functions".. in order the way Jung's system says it goes....it's also very unrealistic to think that folks would have the exact functional stack that Jung's system goes by. People will make excuses saying you're an INTP with "underdeveloped" Ne with such a stack but the truth is, your S is higher than your N and that's, that. . (I think this is why MB came up with a 4 letter test.. which is still not entirely helpful because cognitive functions are very relevant to understanding behavior.) This is the reason why some INTPs might feel more "F" than others or so forth. You might be an INTP with Fi or Fe coming right after Ti...instead of Ne coming right after. The same goes for a Sensor. Se>Fe>Ti>Etc.. will make you a Feeler.. (SF)..Yet, folks will tell you that you are an ESTP with underdeveloped 'Ti'.. or stuck in some sort of loop. The truth is, there are two types of every personality type. There's the INFP who uses Extroverted Feeling and the INFP who uses Introverted Feeling. I think the only portion that should go by cognitive functions are: NF/SF/NT/ST parts of our types. The E/I - J/P should be handled via MB's system..To support this theory, there are 'messy' and 'unorganized' ESFJs.. and ENTJs... and there are Ne dominants who work with their outside world through patterns, and etc.. but not directly with people. Some would rather not talk to people, get drained by people, and etc.. Yet, they struggle with why they're called ENFP.. I would type these people INFP.. even if they do have Ne as a dominant... because the overall human understanding of Introvert and Extrovert.. is still set on whether you're a loner or not.. or like socializing more than not.. and they have to do extra work by breaking the belief that all of their types are 'clean'.. (ESFJs.. ENTJs).. or whether their types are the 'Extroverted-Introverts' and blah blah blah.. This is also why people 'struggle' with their typing as well. This wouldn't happen if we just used MB's theory to determine I/E - J/P... and functions to determine S/N-T/F."

(My theory states that an ISFJ can be Fi dominant as long as they have Sensing over Intuiting... Whether this be Se or Si, doesn't matter.)

 

[Forever]

It's odd that when you say it be ripped to shreds I don't want to hurt you. I don't feel like being critical right now

I have a different one myself but I just thought of it recently. I can see myself typing myself as INFJ with INTJ's cognitive function because I prefer Fi over Te but Ni still remains my dominant function. I will do better if I develop Te and become more balanced and there are times where I just go with Te and they are periods of strong growth in my life. Even more so than Fe.

It's just weird that I don't call myself an INTJ because that would imply I use thinking more than feeling which I don't. But I don't really use Fe at least to all the standard definitions out there with lining and understanding cultural beliefs and staying true to them to adapt to the culture around me.

But I don't have inferior Te like an IxFP does and my Fi is not that strong enough where I can make strong decisions purely based on value systems. And I'm terribly uncoordinated with the world being in the background rather than taken as it is like more developed Se does. I seriously enjoy nonfiction over fiction. Because I self generate enough fiction for my entertainment as is. Although fiction does incorporate nonfictional views of what the author learned be it intentional or unintentional so fiction still does have a purpose in reading other than recreation and building up vocabulary/reinforcing grammar or literary style.

So yeah, I'm going to let someone else have at it. I personally don't agree though.

 

[Kingu Kurimuzon]

I like your theory. I don't know that it's wrong, as it ties in with my own view that Jungian theory and the systems built on it are more rigid than our minds are designed and wired--but then I'm probably wrong.

I've seen a lot of debates over whether the cognitive functions are even real. OK, I think they are real, in the sense that they give name and definition to various mental processes that govern our way of thinking, gathering and processing data and stimuli. No one can deny that some people are just wired to think differently and process information differently than other people. That's all the cognitive functions are trying to give name and form to, so yes, they're real, I just think we aren't completely on the money with the current most popular interpretations (MBTI, Socionics). I realize you weren't really debating the existence of the functions, but I felt it was important to get that thought out, as I think this discussion could get mired down if someone comes in and says 'we can't even prove they're real' and it shifts focus from the OP topic.

I think our Jungian based systems, in relation to our actual minds, are the equivalent of a lego model of a city--at first glance it appears to be a very accurate representation of the real city, but on closer inspection, we see there is no plumbing, wiring, or representation of the finer, smaller, under-the-surface characteristics and processes that would be present in the actual city. Jungian theory is a blueprint or sketch, but not necessarily an accurate one, and perhaps missing some key measurements and dimensions. Jung was primarily a theorist (a very good one, but still a theorist), so he was doing his best with legos to describe a city he'd only been able to glance from afar, although his intuition gave him a decent idea and map of the city's layout and workings (but still far from accurate). Myers and Briggs built on that model a bit, and they even suggested 16 distinct types of cities. Augusta and her contemporaries also built on it, but still, from a vantage point outside the city limits. Dario Nardi has gotten closer to entering the city and snapping a few up-close photos of the outskirts, but he's still barely made his way past the city limits--there is still a vast inner world in the city that we can only speculate on--perhaps it helps to imagine the Paris catacombs or NYC's subway system. If Jung only had legos to build with, we may be at a point where we will soon have the technology to build an understanding that would be the equivalent of a 3-D, computer model of the city, with a better understanding of all of the utilities and railways and cogs and denizens who keep the city running.

The question then (tying into your theory/hypothesis) is how "fluid" are the functions? I've always felt the stackings and socionics models were too rigid and "perfect," and that maybe there are far more possible type combinations to be made from a more fluid and organic interweaving of the different cognitive processes/functions. I think socionics tries to rectify this with the inclusion of subtypes, but it isn't a perfect fix as those subtypes are still stemming from and in accordance with a system that is too rigid and static, in my opinion. Model G also seems to be an attempt to tackle this problem. So I am sorry I cannot shred your theory, because I think we are mostly in agreement. I tend to be very agnostic about personality theories, despite having what I think is a good understanding of the systems. There are too many missing pieces to be saying with certainty that the current most popular theories and systems are 100% accurate.

Just my opinion too, and happy if people want to rip it to shreds or improve on it.

I think also that the majority of people are far closer to the "center" in terms of ratio of usage of sensation to intuition and vice versa. I've seen other people here suggest this as well. Obviously extremes still occur, but I'm not sure how often and to what degree--again, I think this is all very fluid and the systems we have are just too 'perfect'

 

[Merced]

Have you looked into socionics? There are some key features that your theory shares with socionics.

 

[reckful]

If someone had Ti > Si > Ne> Etc.. That would make them an ST, logically. Yet, Jung's system would tell you that you're closest to INTP, simply because of Jung's cracked system.

It sounds like you're badly misinformed. The function model that says an INTP is Ti-Ne-Si-Fe is not Jung's model. As explained in this two-part post, Jung's stack for a Ti-dom with an N-aux was Ti-Ni-Se-Fe.

The INTP=Ti-Ne-Si-Fe model is the Harold Grant function stack, and not only is it inconsistent with Jung, it's also inconsistent with Myers, and has never been endorsed by the official MBTI folks. More importantly, and unlike the respectable districts of the MBTI, that function stack has no substantial body of evidence behind it — and indeed, should probably be considered all but disproven at this point, given that the correlational patterns associated with it have stubbornly failed to show up in over 50 years of MBTI data pools.

So there's no misunderstanding, though, the point of this post is not to endorse Jung's function stack either. What I call the Real MBTI Model doesn't revolve around "function stacks" at all, and if you're open to a hefty helping of reality-based input on the relationship between the dichotomies and the functions, the place of the functions (or lack thereof) in the MBTI's history, and the tremendous gap between the dichotomies and the functions in terms of scientific respectability, you'll find a lot of potentially eye-opening discussion in this post and the posts it links to.

You're proposing to "use MB's theory to determine I/E - J/P... and functions to determine S/N-T/F," but the better approach is to use "MB's theory" (by which I mean the Real MBTI Model) to determine all four preferences, and to frame/categorize and describe all the personality-related consequences that correspond to those — including the many consequences that are best viewed as corresponding to a combination of two or more of the preferences.

 

[Forever]

I love you so much [MENTION=18736]reckful[/MENTION] you were like that guy I looked back when I first start questioning my own type.

By Jung's function models I am an INFP. Ni > Fi

 

[Pionart]

The MBTI 8 functions are different from Jung's. I don't recall Jung saying that the auxiliary is extroverted in introverts and vice versa.

So, Ti means strong in Thinking and Perceiving, and maybe Introversion, and so on for all of them. So INTP would correlate strongest to Ti, then Ne.

If you use a different model for functions, then yes ISFJ could be Fi dominant.

 

[virtualinsanity]

It sounds like you're badly misinformed. The function model that says an INTP is Ti-Ne-Si-Fe is not Jung's model. As explained in this two-part post, Jung's stack for a Ti-dom with an N-aux was Ti-Ni-Se-Fe.

The INTP=Ti-Ne-Si-Fe model is the Harold Grant function stack, and not only is it inconsistent with Jung, it's also inconsistent with Myers, and has never been endorsed by the official MBTI folks. More importantly, and unlike the respectable districts of the MBTI, that function stack has no substantial body of evidence behind it — and indeed, should probably be considered all but disproven at this point, given that the correlational patterns associated with it have stubbornly failed to show up in over 50 years of MBTI data pools.

So there's no misunderstanding, though, the point of this post is not to endorse Jung's function stack either. What I call the Real MBTI Model doesn't revolve around "function stacks" at all, and if you're open to a hefty helping of reality-based input on the relationship between the dichotomies and the functions, the place of the functions (or lack thereof) in the MBTI's history, and the tremendous gap between the dichotomies and the functions in terms of scientific respectability, you'll find a lot of potentially eye-opening discussion in this post and the posts it links to.

You're proposing to "use MB's theory to determine I/E - J/P... and functions to determine S/N-T/F," but the better approach is to use "MB's theory" (by which I mean the Real MBTI Model) to determine all four preferences, and to frame/categorize and describe all the personality-related consequences that correspond to those — including the many consequences that are best viewed as corresponding to a combination of two or more of the preferences.

I agree with you. I was misinformed concerning Jung.. (and others).. and thank you for explaining and pointing it out to me. Not only did I read the thread you provided the link to but I also read replies before and after it. (Interesting to say the least.) My conclusion is that functions should only be considered while trying to figure out F/T or N/S. If you have a harder time with this, you can look at the functions and bring Fe and Fi together and list all of the characteristics on the left and Te/Ti's characteristics on the right. Then, you can tally up which one you agree with the most. Then you look at the top 2 functions, whether E or I and come to the conclusion.

With that said, all NTs can be either, Ni/Ne/Ti/Te dominant and it doesn't matter the order of it. I agree that being an INTJ makes you a no greater 'N' type than an INTP. I'm not too set on using functions to label the 'J' or the 'P,' yet.



It seems to me that the majority of humans see being I/E based on how much they like interacting with people via verbal usage or verbal intake. (listening), instead of how much you simply interact or don't, with your outside world. For this reason, I disagree that you should be dubbed an I or E based on a function. That's very misleading as Ne/Se, aren't functions that always require human interaction.

I feel the same about J/P. It seems to me that J means two different things to people. Some say, it means that you judge others based on your value system and have strong senses of right and wrong.. (like Fi users for instance.. this is evident in Socionics.) ...while others say being a 'J' means that you're punctual, methodical, organized, on time and efficient. I tend to judge people based on their ability to analyze situations and how well they can handle/admit the truth, despite a possible shakeup in their belief system, value system, or I also like being on time and I regard deadlines. However, that's only when I'm forced to be like that... like in an emergency or something. I label myself as having more characteristics of 'P.'

However, a person going by Socionics, would say Fi is a judging function and therefore INFP in Socionics is more like INFJ. The issue with this is that what if the only part of Fi they use is the part about authenticity. Other than that, they are not punctual, they don't regard deadlines, they're messy, and etc.. They end up having more 'P' characteristics than 'J.' This is why I think MBTI should be determined in 2 separate portions. Honestly, after everything I've read, I don't understand why everything has to be a long and drawn out complication. It's really simple if you ask me.

Ne>Te>Fi>Ni>Se>etc>etc.. would be classified as an ENFP with 'well-developed' Te if they were going by Myers' system. (If I'm understanding correctly.) However, in my sytem, they'd be as an xNTx because I don't omit functions.

For while, I thought I was INFJ because I thought my stacking looked like Ni>Ne>Ti .. etc.. and people would tell me that's the stacking of an INFJ stuck in a sort of a 'loop'.. or one with underdeveloped 'Fe.' I thought this to be dishonest because it makes an excuse as to why Ti comes before Fe instead of just acknowledging it as is. My Ti comes before my Fe and Fi... Yet my Te and Fe are up for question as to which is my last function as an 8th. So I didn't say I was INTJ, either, although others did. Second of all, There is no way that I could be an INFJ, or INTJ, even according to the systems that omit certain functions to come to an appropriate type.

A functions model tells you that If you have Se>Te>Fi> or Si>Ti>Fe .. You are possibly an xSFP or xSFJ.
My model tells you that if you have Se>Te>Fi or Si>Ti>Fe.. you are possibly an xSTx.

It's pretty simple to me. I think the bottom line is that I probably took MBTI or whatever one may call it to extremes when it's really meant for a guideline.. and that any argument coming from this stuff should be light. Although I do believe that my way of coming to terms with type is the most logical and honest, I think it helps if others come to a conclusion about their types the way they understand it to be.

Also, I have looked at Socionics, too. I agree more with that.. but the more popular systems used, are still flawed, to me.

 

[reckful]

^ Just in case you haven't had enough of me yet...

You can find a boatload of input from me on E/I — including quite a lot of discussion of Jung's perspective — in this post and the posts it links to.

And you can find a metric ass ton of J/P discussion in a two-post reckful roundup starting here.

And those linked posts are part of a 10-consecutive-post series that also includes quite a bit on S/N and T/F, among other stuff.

It's all dichotomy-centric, though, and in any case, you shouldn't feel any pressure to look at any of it unless you want to for your own purposes and you have too much time on your hands.

 

[Pionart]

It seems to me that the majority of humans see being I/E based on how much they like interacting with people via verbal usage or verbal intake. (listening), instead of how much you simply interact or don't, with your outside world. For this reason, I disagree that you should be dubbed an I or E based on a function. That's very misleading as Ne/Se, aren't functions that always require human interaction.

I was agreeing with this but it seemed you came to the opposite conclusion as what I would, in that I think that's WHY I/E should be based on the dominant function. However, I take it you're going by the colloquial definitions of I and E then in saying it's misleading? I think it would be better to go with the "interact... with your outside world" approach.

I agree with the difficulties around the P/J axis for introverts.

Why do you rule out Ni dominant from your self-typing?*

* I just noticed you have iLi for your socionics type which is Ni, so probably I've not given the thread a proper read. So you're saying that even if you're Ni dominant, you're still INTP because you don't really fit the J characteristics? Up to you I guess. For myself, I sometimes score P and sometimes J, but I go with INFJ, for one reason since I score consistently highly in Ni and no other function in the keys2cognition cognitive functions test.

 

[highlander]

I agree with you. I was misinformed concerning Jung.. (and others).. and thank you for explaining and pointing it out to me. Not only did I read the thread you provided the link to but I also read replies before and after it. (Interesting to say the least.) My conclusion is that functions should only be considered while trying to figure out F/T or N/S. If you have a harder time with this, you can look at the functions and bring Fe and Fi together and list all of the characteristics on the left and Te/Ti's characteristics on the right. Then, you can tally up which one you agree with the most. Then you look at the top 2 functions, whether E or I and come to the conclusion.

With that said, all NTs can be either, Ni/Ne/Ti/Te dominant and it doesn't matter the order of it. I agree that being an INTJ makes you a no greater 'N' type than an INTP. I'm not too set on using functions to label the 'J' or the 'P,' yet.



It seems to me that the majority of humans see being I/E based on how much they like interacting with people via verbal usage or verbal intake. (listening), instead of how much you simply interact or don't, with your outside world. For this reason, I disagree that you should be dubbed an I or E based on a function. That's very misleading as Ne/Se, aren't functions that always require human interaction.

I feel the same about J/P. It seems to me that J means two different things to people. Some say, it means that you judge others based on your value system and have strong senses of right and wrong.. (like Fi users for instance.. this is evident in Socionics.) ...while others say being a 'J' means that you're punctual, methodical, organized, on time and efficient. I tend to judge people based on their ability to analyze situations and how well they can handle/admit the truth, despite a possible shakeup in their belief system, value system, or I also like being on time and I regard deadlines. However, that's only when I'm forced to be like that... like in an emergency or something. I label myself as having more characteristics of 'P.'

However, a person going by Socionics, would say Fi is a judging function and therefore INFP in Socionics is more like INFJ. The issue with this is that what if the only part of Fi they use is the part about authenticity. Other than that, they are not punctual, they don't regard deadlines, they're messy, and etc.. They end up having more 'P' characteristics than 'J.' This is why I think MBTI should be determined in 2 separate portions. Honestly, after everything I've read, I don't understand why everything has to be a long and drawn out complication. It's really simple if you ask me.

Ne>Te>Fi>Ni>Se>etc>etc.. would be classified as an ENFP with 'well-developed' Te if they were going by Myers' system. (If I'm understanding correctly.) However, in my sytem, they'd be as an xNTx because I don't omit functions.

For while, I thought I was INFJ because I thought my stacking looked like Ni>Ne>Ti .. etc.. and people would tell me that's the stacking of an INFJ stuck in a sort of a 'loop'.. or one with underdeveloped 'Fe.' I thought this to be dishonest because it makes an excuse as to why Ti comes before Fe instead of just acknowledging it as is. My Ti comes before my Fe and Fi... Yet my Te and Fe are up for question as to which is my last function as an 8th. So I didn't say I was INTJ, either, although others did. Second of all, There is no way that I could be an INFJ, or INTJ, even according to the systems that omit certain functions to come to an appropriate type.

A functions model tells you that If you have Se>Te>Fi> or Si>Ti>Fe .. You are possibly an xSFP or xSFJ.
My model tells you that if you have Se>Te>Fi or Si>Ti>Fe.. you are possibly an xSTx.

It's pretty simple to me. I think the bottom line is that I probably took MBTI or whatever one may call it to extremes when it's really meant for a guideline.. and that any argument coming from this stuff should be light. Although I do believe that my way of coming to terms with type is the most logical and honest, I think it helps if others come to a conclusion about their types the way they understand it to be.

Also, I have looked at Socionics, too. I agree more with that.. but the more popular systems used, are still flawed, to me.

I agree with a lot of things you are saying but not all. I don't agree with your bolded statement above, the reasons for which I will explain below. I am also dubious about the shadow functions - meaning the bottom 4 and any kind of ordering or role they might have. It just seems unlikely. As to the top 4, I think it probably is mostly accurate though not for all people. I do think the looping thing happens and I do think people have undeveloped functions and so forth and this does impact their test results. I tend to believe in the inferior because there is too much stuff written about it and how this manifests that seems eerily accurate for people I know.

[MENTION=18736]reckful[/MENTION] you keep saying things like this, "The INTP=Ti-Ne-Si-Fe model is the Harold Grant function stack, and not only is it inconsistent with Jung, it's also inconsistent with Myers, and has never been endorsed by the official MBTI folks." There are grains of truth in what you are saying, but mostly it is rhetoric and misleading and your continued references to your own posts don't do much to convince me of your arguments. Jung never said anything about function order at all so a model which takes what he did and says there is an order in which they manifest is not inconsistent with his theory. It is an extension of it. Second, the function stack is referenced in the MBTI manual (take for example Step 2 MBTI Manual page 8). It is also clearly explained in Gifts Differing, written by Isabel Briggs Myers and Peter B. Myers, which is for sale on the official CPP site. Naomi Quenk, who is one of the authors of the official MBTI Step 2 manuals wrote an entire book on the inferior function. The only conclusion I can come to is you are confusing the theory with the instrument and that is the key.

The fact is the official MBTI test works pretty well. It doesn't use cognitive functions at all. I believe one of the reasons it works is because it uses a lot of data points to come up with a result. They have also added facets and stuff which are all pretty interesting. They also have a focus on validating the accuracy of the results.

A test which relies on cognitive function ordering is in essence looking for the order of the top two functions because that is what determines the type. I have found this is a very difficult thing to test for accurately - for those top two functions and their order. Does that mean that function order doesn't exist? It could but not necessarily. The test on the site relies on function order and I have reviewed countless results from people taking it. Though the logic isn't perfect, there are few things I have been able to discern:
- The top two function scores are often very close. Many times they are tied. I don't think you can look at scores for the top two functions and reliably determine someone's type based on their order.
- I can usually guess a person's type by looking at their raw scores. If I can't tell for certain, I can usually narrow it down to two or three options. I'm still working through how to codify the fuzzy logic in my head into the program. Having played around with developing tests based on temperaments, cognitive functions and interaction styles, I can see why the official MBTI test relies on dichotomies. It works.
- The introversion/extraversion scale is key in determining type. Cognitive function tests don't include this at all. I believe that is a mistake because it is a very useful data point in determine what the dominant function might be.
- People who tend to test high for for an introverted function tend to test high for the extraverted side of that function as well (and visa versa).

Anyway, there is the type that you are and there is the description of what that type of person is like and their characteristics. Then there is the tests which help you to determine your type. These are different things, though obviously related.

 

[Mal12345]

It sounds like you're badly misinformed. The function model that says an INTP is Ti-Ne-Si-Fe is not Jung's model. As explained in this two-part post, Jung's stack for a Ti-dom with an N-aux was Ti-Ni-Se-Fe.

I don't have to click the link to know that you're citing yourself again. I'm just too damn good.

And nowhere did Jung talk about function stacking. Using your example, he said that Ti dominant has Intuition or Sensing as auxiliary, and Fe is the inferior function.

 

[reckful]

[MENTION=18736]reckful[/MENTION] you keep saying things like this, "The INTP=Ti-Ne-Si-Fe model is the Harold Grant function stack, and not only is it inconsistent with Jung, it's also inconsistent with Myers, and has never been endorsed by the official MBTI folks." There are grains of truth in what you are saying, but mostly it is rhetoric and misleading and your continued references to your own posts don't do much to convince me of your arguments. Jung never said anything about function order at all so a model which takes what he did and says there is an order in which they manifest is not inconsistent with his theory. It is an extension of it. Second, the function stack is referenced in the MBTI manual (take for example Step 2 MBTI Manual page 8). It is also clearly explained in Gifts Differing, written by Isabel Briggs Myers and Peter B. Myers, which is for sale on the official CPP site. Naomi Quenk, who is one of the authors of the official MBTI Step 2 manuals wrote an entire book on the inferior function. The only conclusion I can come to is you are confusing the theory with the instrument and that is the key.

And nowhere did Jung talk about function stacking. Using your example, he said that Ti dominant has Intuition or Sensing as auxiliary, and Fe is the inferior function.

You're entitled to your own opinions, gentlemen, but not your own facts.

Jung described a stack of four functions, and said that, in the typical case, the auxiliary (mostly conscious) served the dominant (the most conscious) and the tertiary (mostly unconscious) served the inferior (the most repressed).

For Jung quotes, etc., see this post.

Myers' function stack for a Ti-dom with an N-aux (for example) was Ti-Ne-Se-Fe, and the official MBTI folks have never endorsed the stack that flips the orientation of the tertiary. They've simply acknowledged that there is disagreement about that issue among MBTI theorists.

And that's huge, [MENTION=8936]highlander[/MENTION], because without that flip, you lose the whole "tandems" side of things, and the idea that you're either an "Fi/Te type" or an "Fe/Ti type," and an "Ni/Se type" or an "Ne/Si type," and so on.

But honestly, and as you should know from my posts, the most devastating flaw in the Harold Grant function stack isn't that the official MBTI folks have never endorsed it. It's the fact that, as discussed at length in this post and this post, the patterns that would correspond to it (if it had any validity) have steadfastly failed to show up in 50 years of MBTI data pools.

Which, of course, is why it's not hard to understand that, despite the fact that people like Berens and Nardi have basically been peddling that stack for 15 years as if it's "the MBTI," the official MBTI folks who wear grown-up pants — and who accordingly share Isabel Myers' allegiance to data-based personality science — haven't endorsed it.

 

[Pionart]

You're entitled to your own opinions, gentlemen, but not your own facts.

Just thought that this was a very quote-worthy line

 

[highlander]

You're entitled to your own opinions, gentlemen, but not your own facts.

Jung described a stack of four functions, and said that, in the typical case, the auxiliary (mostly conscious) served the dominant (the most conscious) and the tertiary (mostly unconscious) served the inferior (the most repressed).

For Jung quotes, etc., see this post.

If those are accurate, it seems you are right. I stand corrected.

Myers' function stack for a Ti-dom with an N-aux (for example) was Ti-Ne-Se-Fe, and the official MBTI folks have never endorsed the stack that flips the orientation of the tertiary. They've simply acknowledged that there is disagreement about that issue among MBTI theorists.

That is correct with respect to the manual, which is many years old. I don't believe there are actually many people in the type community who in reality believe this though.

And that's huge, [MENTION=8936]highlander[/MENTION], because without that flip, you lose the whole "tandems" side of things, and the idea that you're either an "Fi/Te type" or an "Fe/Ti type," and an "Ni/Se type" or an "Ne/Si type," and so on.

I don't understand what you are saying here. You just stated that Jung mentioned a dominant and auxiliary. Then you said he recognized an inferior. That a few people debate the orientation of the tertiary doesn't mean that much IMO. It seems you are also contradicting yourself because you said that the function ordering is inconsistent with what Jung said but then you just said that he said it.

But honestly, and as you should know from my posts, the most devastating flaw in the Harold Grant function stack isn't that the official MBTI folks have never endorsed it. It's the fact that, as discussed at length in this post and this post, the patterns that would correspond to it (if it had any validity) have steadfastly failed to show up in 50 years of MBTI data pools.

Which, of course, is why it's not hard to understand that, despite the fact that people like Berens and Nardi have basically been peddling that stack for 15 years as if it's "the MBTI," the official MBTI folks who wear grown-up pants — and who accordingly share Isabel Myers' allegiance to data-based personality science — haven't endorsed it.

You're talking about the instrument again.

For years, I used the dichotomy based model. I discovered cognitive functions when I joined this site in late 2009. I have found that my depth of understanding about people has dramatically increased by understanding them, so my personal data points don't align with your observations about what works in relation to a testing instrument. Ti is a lot different than Te and I see that difference in people I interact with on a daily basis.

I liked the quote about introversion/extraversion in your referenced post. i agree with that.

 

[Mal12345]

You're entitled to your own opinions, gentlemen, but not your own facts.

Jung described a stack of four functions, and said that, in the typical case, the auxiliary (mostly conscious) served the dominant (the most conscious) and the tertiary (mostly unconscious) served the inferior (the most repressed).

For Jung quotes, etc., see this post.

Myers' function stack for a Ti-dom with an N-aux (for example) was Ti-Ne-Se-Fe, and the official MBTI folks have never endorsed the stack that flips the orientation of the tertiary. They've simply acknowledged that there is disagreement about that issue among MBTI theorists.

And that's huge, [MENTION=8936]highlander[/MENTION], because without that flip, you lose the whole "tandems" side of things, and the idea that you're either an "Fi/Te type" or an "Fe/Ti type," and an "Ni/Se type" or an "Ne/Si type," and so on.

But honestly, and as you should know from my posts, the most devastating flaw in the Harold Grant function stack isn't that the official MBTI folks have never endorsed it. It's the fact that, as discussed at length in this post and this post, the patterns that would correspond to it (if it had any validity) have steadfastly failed to show up in 50 years of MBTI data pools.

Which, of course, is why it's not hard to understand that, despite the fact that people like Berens and Nardi have basically been peddling that stack for 15 years as if it's "the MBTI," the official MBTI folks who wear grown-up pants — and who accordingly share Isabel Myers' allegiance to data-based personality science — haven't endorsed it.

Thank Zeus I didn't mention Grant's theory because I would have been in for a major drubbing. And anyway I already know that it's not very popular and doesn't hold up to the data.

Here is your original Jung quote (sort of):

If we think of the psychological function [sic] as arranged in a circle, then the most differentiated function is usually the carrier of the ego and, equally regularly, has an auxiliary function attached to it. The "inferior" function, on the other hand, is unconscious... It too has an auxiliary function. ...

In the psychology of the functions there are two conscious functions... Since the conflict between the two auxiliary functions is not nearly as great as that between the differentiated and the inferior function, it is possible for the third function — that is, the unconscious auxiliary one — to be raised to consciousness... It will, however, bring with it traces of its contamination with the inferior function, thus acting as a kind of link with the darkness of the unconscious.

I've edited out Jung's garbage about masculine, feminine, father, son, and the like, in order to reduce these quotes to the relevant information about functions. Do you believe Jung is saying that the tertiary ('third') function is the inferior's ('unconscious') auxiliary function referenced in the quotes? What are the "two conscious functions" referenced in the second quote? What are the "two auxiliary functions" referenced in the second quote?

 

[Mal12345]

Closer investigation shows with great regularity that, besides the most differentiated function, another, less differentiated function of secondary importance is invariably present in consciousness and exerts a co-determining influence.
...
For all the types met with in practice, the rule holds good that besides the conscious, primary function there is a relatively unconscious, auxiliary function which is in every respect different from the nature of the primary function. The resulting combinations present the familiar picture of, for instance, practical thinking allied with sensation, speculative thinking forging ahead with intuition, artistic intuition selecting and presenting its images with the help of feeling-values, philosophical intuition systematizing its vision into comprehensible thought by means of a powerful intellect, and so on.

This is the quote I was referring to when I said that Ti allies itself with Intuition or Sensation ("for instance, practical thinking allied with sensation" which is Te allied with Sensation). Jung does not say that Te must be allied with Introverted Sensation, as an example. That is Myers-Briggs' invention.

The unconscious functions likewise group themselves in patterns correlated with the conscious ones. Thus, the correlative of conscious, practical thinking may be an unconscious, intuitive-feeling attitude, with feeling under a stronger inhibition than intuition.

Likewise, Intuition in this quote is not necessarily extroverted just because the Feeling function is introverted.

 

[reckful]

That is correct with respect to the manual, which is many years old. I don't believe there are actually many people in the type community who in reality believe this though.

As you'd know if you'd read those linked posts, I don't endorse Myers' stack — or any function stack.

I don't understand what you are saying here. You just stated that Jung mentioned a dominant and auxiliary. Then you said he recognized an inferior. That a few people debate the orientation of the tertiary doesn't mean that much IMO. It seems you are also contradicting yourself because you said that the function ordering is inconsistent with what Jung said but then you just said that he said it.

As I noted in the very first paragraph of my very first post in this thread, and as further explained in the linked post I provided there (with Jung quotes!), "Jung's stack for a Ti-dom with an N-aux was Ti-Ni-Se-Fe."

You're talking about the instrument again.

No, Highlander, I'm talking about the dichotomies that the instrument is based on. And FYI, and as further explained in those posts I've already linked you to, the real reason the "instrument" uses the dichotomies to type you is that the dichotomies are the real, substantially genetic building blocks of someone's type.

Ti is a lot different than Te and I see that difference in people I interact with on a daily basis.

If, in referring to "Ti" and "Te," you're talking about TPs vs. TJs, those observed differences you're talking about say zip, zero, zilch, nada about whether the appropriate theoretical framing — corresponding to the real, evolutionarily-selected components of type — is the Real MBTI Model (as described in my linked posts) or some function stack.

And if, on the other hand, you're saying that you've "observed" that the other folks who are most like TJs in the "Te" department are the FPs, and that the FPs (with both preferences flipped, as compared to TJs) are more like TJs (in those "Te" respects) than either TPs or FJs (each of which have just one preference flipped, as compared to TJs)... then Highlander, my man, I'm not sure whether to offer you my congratulations or my condolences, but I'm here to tell you that in that case you've "observed" a pattern among the types that has steadfastly failed to show up in over 50 years of MBTI data pools.

There are a metric ass ton of MBTI data pools where the results look like this set of self-selection ratios that Myers reported for a study involving 705 Cal Tech science majors:

INTJ 3.88
INFJ 2.95
INTP 2.92
INFP 1.97
ENTJ 1.56
ENTP 1.42
ENFP 1.09
ENFJ 1.08
ISTJ 0.68
ISTP 0.50
ISFP 0.49
ISFJ 0.43
ESTP 0.22
ESTJ 0.12
ESFJ 0.18
ESFP 0.02

Stat spectrums that tidy are what you call a personality psychologist's dream, and what they indicate (and the sample size was pretty large, at 705) is that the MBTI factor that has the greatest influence on somebody's tendency to become a Cal Tech science major is an N preference, and the MBTI factor that has the second greatest influence is introversion, with the result that the spectrum tidily lines up (from top to bottom) IN-EN-IS-ES.

And when I say there are a metric ass ton of MBTI data pools that "look like" that one, what I mean is that if whatever you're correlating type with is something where two of the MBTI dimensions make a significant contribution, and if the TJs (for example) come out at one end of the spectrum, you can pretty reliably expect the FPs to come out at the other end.

By contrast, there is no respectable body of data pools supporting the validity of the Grant stack expectation that, if what you're correlating with type is something that's influenced by Te/Ti, and where "Te types" are "a lot different" (as you put it) from "Ti types," the TJs and the FPs come out on one side of the correlational divide (albeit with the TJs presumably farther out toward the end, natch, onnaccounta dom vs. tert) and the TPs and FJs on the other.

As I am forever and ever pointing out, the notion that an INFJ has "tertiary Ti," and will therefore tend (probabilistically speaking) to have "Ti" aspects of personality in common with a typical ISTP that ISTJs tend not to exhibit, is a typological assertion that — like all assertions that crosscut the dichotomies in that counterintuitive way — has no more validity than the notion that two people born at around the same time will tend to have aspects of personality in common because they're both Capricorns.

 

[reckful]

I've edited out Jung's garbage about masculine, feminine, father, son, and the like, in order to reduce these quotes to the relevant information about functions. Do you believe Jung is saying that the tertiary ('third') function is the inferior's ('unconscious') auxiliary function referenced in the quotes? What are the "two conscious functions" referenced in the second quote? What are the "two auxiliary functions" referenced in the second quote?

???

Jung says that what he refers to as the "third" function (the tertiary) essentially functions as the inferior's "auxiliary."

Jung said that one of his types had what he referred to as a "conscious attitude" (E or I) and an "unconscious attitude" (the opposite of the conscious attitude). And in a typical case, he envisioned that the dom and aux would essentially be conscious and the third (tert) and fourth (inferior) would be unconscious. And in that quote from Chapter X of PT, he specifically refers to those pairs as the "conscious functions" and the "unconscious functions."

ADDED: As further discussed in that two-part post I've already linked to, Jung described a kind of default state of the psyche where the only differentiated function was the dom and the other three functions were all unconscious, and fused together (undifferentiated), and in that state Jung described all three of the non-dom functions as having the opposite attitude to the dom. But that description is very much inconsistent with Jung's description of the auxiliary function, which he described as a function that was largely differentiated and brought up into consciousness to serve the dom. Assuming that differentiation of the auxiliary took place (and Jung said that was "typical"), the auxiliary, as a "conscious function," would then share the dom's "conscious attitude."

 

[Mal12345]

???

Jung says that what he refers to as the "third" function (the tertiary) essentially functions as the inferior's "auxiliary."

Jung said that one of his types had what he referred to as a "conscious attitude" (E or I) and an "unconscious attitude" (the opposite of the conscious attitude). And in a typical case, he envisioned that the dom and aux would essentially be concious and the third (tert) and fourth (inferior) would be unconscious. And in that quote from Chapter X of PT, he specifically refers to those pairs as the "conscious functions" and the "unconscious functions."

What do you mean by "conscious" and "unconscious" in this context?