[MENTION=20043]lume[/MENTION] —
In developing the Myers-Briggs typology, Myers departed from Jung in many ways, both large and small, and it's pretty common to encounter internet forum posters with the perspective that the MBTI, to the extent that it departs from Jung, mostly represents an oversimplified dumbing-down of Jung and/or a misunderstanding of Jung. But I'm here to tell you that the MBTI owes much of its spectacular success to the fact that the great majority of Briggs' and Myers' additions, corrections and other changes were improvements — including appropriate
expansions — to Jung's original conceptions of the types.
In any case, there's no denying that one of the results of Myers' changes to Jung is that each of her 16 type descriptions differs (to varying degrees) from Jung's description of the cognitive function (and function-dom) that purportedly corresponds to that type. And if I wanted to pick a single cognitive function where Myers' conception of the corresponding types departed the most from Jung, I'm pretty sure I'd pick
introverted sensation.
As Jung saw it — as you may know if you followed [MENTION=6877]Marmotini[/MENTION]'s or [MENTION=7140]brainheart[/MENTION]'s links – Si-doms were awkward, touchy eccentrics, detached from reality, who inhabited "a mythological world, where men, animals, railways, houses, rivers, and mountains appear partly as benevolent deities and partly as malevolent demons." Not only does Jung's portrait bear little resemblance to a typical IS_J, I think anyone not inclined to treat Jung with too much reverence would have to agree that Jung's portrait bears little resemblance to
any significantly numerous group of normal-range people who've ever walked the face of the earth.
In describing what he referred to as "the reality-alienating subjectivity of this type," Jung said that an Si-dom "has an illusory conception of reality," and that the relation between the actual physical world and the Si-dom's perceptions of it is "unpredictable and arbitrary." Both because of that and because, in Jung's view, the Si-dom's thinking and feeling functions "are relatively unconscious and, if conscious at all, have at their disposal only the most necessary, banal, everyday means of expression," Jung said that not only is it typical for Si-doms to be unable to really communicate their views to the world in understandable ways — an Si-dom also typically "fares no better in understanding himself."
Jung said the main hope for an Si-dom to be able to communicate his thoughts to others was through art — in which case, although others would then be able to get a better glimpse of the Si-dom's soul, it would also be "strikingly clear" how "irrational" the Si-dom's perspectives were — but, alas, Jung also noted that artistic Si-doms were the exception rather than the rule, with the result that, "as a rule, [the Si-dom] resigns himself to his isolation."
Myers, as you may know, abandoned the vast majority of Jung's strange, collective-unconscious-dominated conception of what Si involved in creating her portraits of IS_Js — based on many years of typing and gathering correlational data with respect to thousands of subjects.
Far from suffering from a "reality-alienating subjectivity" that caused their relation to the real world to be "unpredictable and arbitrary," Myers portrayed IS_Js as among the most down-to-earth and realistic of all the types. She called them the "most practical of the introvert types," and said "they have a complete, realistic, practical respect both for the facts and for whatever responsibilities these facts create. Sensing provides the facts, and after the introverts' characteristic pause for reflection, their judgment accepts the responsibilities."
Far from being uncommunicative eccentrics who more grounded and productive people would be prone to view as (in Jung's words) "the most useless of men," Myers viewed IS_Js as having the kinds of personality characteristics that tend to make them model employees in many respects. To quote the brief capsule descriptions at the myersbriggs.org website:
ISTJ
Quiet, serious, earn success by thoroughness and dependability. Practical, matter-of-fact, realistic, and responsible. Decide logically what should be done and work toward it steadily, regardless of distractions. Take pleasure in making everything orderly and organized — their work, their home, their life. Value traditions and loyalty.
ISFJ
Quiet, friendly, responsible, and conscientious. Committed and steady in meeting their obligations. Thorough, painstaking, and accurate. Loyal, considerate, notice and remember specifics about people who are important to them, concerned with how others feel. Strive to create an orderly and harmonious environment at work and at home.
My parents are both IS_Js, and I've dealt with quite a few others, and I have to say I think Myers' take captures them far better than Jung's. And the thing is, not only am I far from alone in finding that Myers' (and Keirsey's) IS_J — and SJ — descriptions are more accurate (not to mention richer and more insightful) than Jung's, but the people who agree with me (on the accurate part at the least) include every reasonably well-known
cognitive functions theorist I've ever read — including Thomson, Berens, Nardi and Quenk.
Lenore Thomson notes that Sensation gives
all S-doms "an appreciation for objective facts and circumstances, as perceived by the senses, [and] excellent powers of observation"; and she says Si-doms "count on established facts and concrete results" and particularly excel at "accumulat[ing] information — names, dates, numbers, statistics, references, guidelines, and so forth," and that Si "prompts [them] to reconcile [their] new impressions with the ones [they've] already stored." She also notes that Si-doms "consider it a point of honor to discharge their responsibilities, to be on time, and to keep their word"; and are "reassured by a defined place in a larger group." They "make it their business to know how things are supposed to work ... and they're concerned that others take these operating standards seriously as well." So Thomson's Si-doms are basically Myers' IS_Js, not Jung's Si-doms.
Linda Berens (who also makes use of Keirsey's SJ descriptions in her multifaceted approach) and Dario Nardi also describe Si-doms in ways that are essentially consistent with Myers and inconsistent with Jung. Berens explains that sensing — for Se-doms and Si-doms both — "is a process of becoming aware of sensory information and often involves responding to that sensory information without any judgment or evaluation of it. ... In the Sensing process, the focus is on the actual experience, the facts and the data."
Here's an "ISTJ snapshot" from Berens and Nardi: "Theme is planning and monitoring, ensuring predictable quality. Thorough, systematic, and careful. See discrepancies, omissions and pitfalls. Talents lie in administrating and regulating. Dependable, realistic, and sensible. Want to conserve the resources of the organization, group, family, or culture and persevere toward that goal. Thrive on planning ahead and being prepared. Like helping others through their roles as parent, supervisor, teammate, and community volunteer."
Similarly, Naomi Quenk explains: "Introverted sensing types are careful and orderly in their attention to facts and details. They are thorough and conscientious in fulfilling their responsibilities. ... They are typically seen as well grounded in reality, trustworthy, and dedicated to preserving traditional values and time-honored institutions. With their focus on the reality of the present, they trust the evidence of their senses, and rely on carefully accumuated past and present evidence to support their conclusions and planned courses of action. ... They tend to take a skeptical, critical attitude to information that has not been verified by the senses and are likely to distrust people who are careless about facts, sloppy about details, and favor imagination and novelty over accuracy and solid substantiation."
Again, Quenk's Si-doms are basically Myers' IS_Js. In terms of the relationship of an Si-dom to sensory data and reality in general, Quenk's conception of introverted sensation — like Myers' and Thomson's and Berens' and Nardi's — comes closer to resembling the
opposite of Jung's Si-dom than matching Jung's conception.
And again, as you may know, Thomson, Quenk, Berens and Nardi are the most well-known MBTI theorists whose approaches are centered more around the cognitive functions than the dichotomies. I assume it goes without saying that all the well-known authors who follow the MBTI's dichotomy-centric approach (like Keirsey and Kroeger & Thuesen) offer IS_J profiles that match Myers' IS_J descriptions far more than Jung's Si-dom description, so I'll spare you quotations from them.
So I'd certainly agree with [MENTION=7140]brainheart[/MENTION] that "Jung's description of Si ... is so, so different than the MBTI ones!" What's hard for me to understand is why he and [MENTION=6877]Marmotini[/MENTION] would think it made any sense for you to be reading Jung's description.
And by that I mean I'd find it hard to understand even if it sounded like you were an IS_J. Given that you really don't sound like an IS_J, it's even harder for me to understand.
Jung broke with Freud in large part because he thought Freud wanted him (and others) to treat Freud's theories as a kind of religion, rather than having an appropriately sceptical and open-minded scientific attitude toward them. If Jung was still around and became aware that, 90 years after
Psychological Types was published, somebody was ignoring all the improvements that had been made to his original ideas by Myers and others and was trying to type themselves based on the function descriptions in
Psychological Types, I really don't think he'd approve.
Anyway... in my earlier post, I pointed you to a couple of tests, and you took the first one (the official MBTI) and came out INFP, as I'd expected (with F being the only borderline score), but it looks like you haven't (yet, at least) taken the second test — which, as I explained, will both score you on the Big Five dimension that doesn't have a corresponding MBTI dimension and
also offer a potentially useful "second opinion" on your MBTI preferences.
Feel free to ignore me but, if you'd potentially be interested in taking the Big Five test and posting your results, I'd be more than happy to continue giving you type input — particularly on your T/F preference (if it turns out that's the one that the most uncertain).