• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

[MBTI General] Summarising my Understanding of Jung and MBTI.


May 22, 2021
Instinctual Variant
Emphasis on 'my understanding'; this is how I like to approach things rather than a lesson in which way to go about things.

1) The dichotomies reign superior to the '8 functions', both in simplicity and validity.

2) There are only four functions: Intuition, Sensation, Thinking, and Feeling, both in the official MBTI and in Jungian typology. Ni, Fe, etc, all refer to functions with either a extraverted or introverted attitude; they are not functions in of themselves.

3) The IEIE/EIEI stacking proposed by Harold Grant is wack and flies in the face of both MBTI and Jung. MBTI officially uses IEEE/EIII, which I consider valid but still not the most accurate representation of what Jung was going for; that would be IIEE/EEII, or IxEE/ExII.

4) The P/J dichotomy should be treated separately from the functions. The whole 'which function you extravert' thing that Myers came up with makes little sense to me; I instead see it as each type having two subtypes depending on which of their functional preferences is strongest. I myself am an INTP dichotomy-wise, but I lead with intuition, then thinking, making me an INTP NiT as opposed to an INTP TiN.

5) I have a suspicious feeling that the majority of IP types are going to relate to leading with a perceiving function (y'know, it's in the name after all), and that the IJ types are going to relate to leading with a judging function. Therefore, I assume there are more INTP NiTs than TiNs, and more INTJ TiNs than NiTs as an example, though I think both are valid.

6) Speaking of the names, INTP (as an example) is both IN and IT, introverted intuitive and introverted thinker, which I think is a neat tie-in to the idea of IIEE and subtypes that I like to roll with. This perspective is also why I think that people struggle so much with the P/J dichotomy. Using the Grantian method, INTPs and INTJs share nothing in common. However, I think you'll find that a lot of INTxs find both types very relatable; maybe they shouldn't be treated as not understanding Ni or Te or whatever well enough and instead the system itself should be questioned. I think that someone that shares three preferences in common with someone else is obviously going to be fairly similar to them in a lot of ways, and considering that the P/J dichotomy is the least well-defined out of the four as a stand-alone dichotomy, maybe a more flexible approach is required than the currently most popular one.

Those are the main points that I can think of atm, consider this as my real 'welcome to the forums' post.