Wilde's Jung's Personality Theory Quantified

[Seymour]

Preview (the tl;dr version)

This is pretty long post, so for the tl;dr crowd, I'm including a preview at the beginning:

Douglass Wilde's book gives an quantitative way of calculating function-attitudes (cognitive functions, or "modes" in Wilde's terms) which seems to match experience better than tradition MBTI type dynamics. So, here's a screen shot of a webpage I made that allows you to estimate your preferences and see the results given his model:




Give it a try and post your results below... it seems to fit the people I know well better than the TD model (see "Personal Note" below).

Introduction

Douglass J. Wilde's Jung's Personality Theory Quantified attempts to address some of the problems of the traditional MBTI "type dynamics" model (abbreviated by Wilde as "TD"). In the typical MBTI TD model:

• The dichotomies (E-I, S-N, T-F, J-P) are dichotomous. Strength of preference isn't important and, at most, may reflect some aspect of type development.
• The four letter MBTI code entirely determines the ranking of one's function-attitudes (or often just called "functions", Wilde uses the term "modes"). So, for example, an INFP 's function-attitudes in rank order are: Fi Ne Si Te. Every person of a given personality type, in this model, has the same dominant, auxiliary, tertiary and inferior. So, all ESTJs would have dominant Te, auxiliary Si, tertiary Ne and inferior Fi.

However, the standard type dynamics model has failed to be empirically validated. For example, ESTJs and ENTJs ("Te-doms") don't actually test higher in Te than ISTJs. Plus, as Reynierse points out, the effect of whole type can be entirely explained by the effect of a single preference or the additive effects of a dyad or triad of preferences. Therefore, MBTI type dynamic theory (TD) seems to be no more than a set of rules that cannot be validated against empirical data, and lacks any solid theoretical underpinnings.

Wilde had previously published Teamology, which describes a technique for composing teams at work such that each function-attitude is represented. Wilde's research claims to empirically show that having a diverse set of cognitive-functions ("modes", in his terminology) on a team results in better performance. Since it's typically impossible to have every function convered, Wilde came up with a method for assigning people based on their ranked, preferred function-attitudes. So, for example, if your team lacks someone whose strongest function is Te, you might assign a "Te representive" who does not have Te as their strongest function attitude (it might be their second or third strongest preference).

Wilde had already come up with an algorithm for assigning team members to teams, so when Reyneirse's "The Case Against Type Dynamics" was published (see this thread for summary of Reyneirse's approach), Wilde saw an opportunity to provide a quantitative means of determining function-attitudes that addressed some of Reyneirse's critiques of TD, and better fit observed strengths in practice.

Dispensing with Attitude Balance

Wilde proposes that attitude balance (which claims that the dominate and auxiliary function must always have opposite orientation) was never a hard and fast rule, and was based on a misreading of Jung. Given his arguments, it's easiest to quote him here:

Presently the attitude balance rule is firmly entrenched as a hard and fast Type Dynamics assumption because of an easily misunderstood statement of Jung. Taken from Psychological Types, Chap. 10, Sect. d.

The Principal and Auxiliary Functions, this notorious quotation from lines 668–670 follows: Experience shows that the secondary function is always one whose nature is different from, though not antagonistic to, the primary function.

Although this occurs in a three-page section entirely devoted to functions, not attitudes, in which the word “attitude” is never mentioned, it has been quoted by Myers and several others as justifying attitude balance. This argument is not valid, however, because Jung’s statement was taken out of his context of functions and mistakenly applied to attitudes as well. Notice that even in the statement itself the word “attitude” is not used, although “function” appears twice. Thus the contradiction between the attitude balance rule and the quantitative analysis of MBTI data (e. g., Example 6 in Sect. 7.3.3) arises entirely from taking Jung’s correct statement out of its intended context. Realization of this mistake is what first lead the author to stop using Type Dynamics when forming and organizing teams. For better or for worse, that was the start of the current effort to clean up Jung’s personality theory by quantifying it.

Myers herself mentions that some people are "pure introverts" or "pure extraverts", which gives added credence to the standard TD model being insufficient to describe the mode preferences of some.

Quantifying Preferences

Wilde starts by providing a very simple means of quantifying strength of preference. He basically assigns a percentage strength of preference based on the number of responses. So, someone who answered all "E-I" questions with a "prefers extraversion" answer would be 100% E and 0%I, where as someone who only gave extraverted answers to half the E-I questions would be 50% E and 50% I. This makes is possible to use standard MBTI scores (or any other similar instrument) to provide a standardized, quantitative "strength of preference" percentage

Decoupling the Attitudes

Wilde then proposes decoupling the attitudes into two separate, independent two dimensional scales. I'll just quote Wilde here:

Consider the two sets of cognitive modes conceived by Jung, one for perception (information gathering) and the other for judgment (decision-making). As stated in Postulate 3 of Sect. 2.2.3 in Chap. 2, the perception modes involve only the perception functions; the judgment modes, only the judgment functions. Thus Jung conceived the two mode sets, henceforth called “domains”, as completely independent of each other as far as the psychological functions are concerned. That is, he saw the p-modes as unaffected by the j-functions T and F, just as the S–N p-function pair has no influence whatever on the j-domain.

Unfortunately, this independence doesn’t hold for the traditional psychological attitude pairs E–I and P–J because they always affect both domains, as portrayed in Fig.*4.1a. Hence the two domains are unfortunately “coupled” by these attitudes, a situation in conflict with Jung’s conception, expressed in Postulate 3, of attitudes that are mutually independent, one pair affecting only the p-domain and the other pair only the j-domain. That’s why Sect. 2.2.3 in Chap. 2 formulated a different couple of attitude pairs: extraverted and introverted perception Ep–Ip for the p-domain, and similarly, extraverted and introverted judgment Ej–Ij for the j-domain. These new attitudes are said to be “decoupled” because each only affects its own domain. This makes the two domains truly independent with respect to the new decoupled attitudes, as pictured in Fig.*4.1b. Since the domains are also independent with respect to the psychological functions, they can then be regarded as mutually independent in all respects after attitude decoupling.

So, Ej-Ij only affects judging and Ep-Ip only affects perceiving. To calculate Ej-Ij and Ep-Ip he just averages the two scores (although note that the P/J is reversed in the formula for the introverted versions). So, for example, Ej = (E + J) / 2, while Ip = (I + J) / 2.

Wilde then proposes representing these two scales on a two dimensional grid. This yields a grid with four corners:

• Ep (Extraverted Perception) - Exploration
• Ej (Extraverted Judgment) - Control
• Ij (Introverted Judgment) - Appraisal
• Ip (Introverted Perception) - Focus

Each of these pairs has set of qualities (as Reyneirse would predict). Wilde gives simple, starter description just by mixing and matching descriptions from the underlying preferences. For example for Ij he gives (and remember, Ij is highest for IPs):

Introverted judgment Ij involves interior reserved improvisational variety.

Such an appraising person: Does not initiate talk with relative strangers. Values newness and variety. Appears difficult to know. Plunges ahead without detailed plans. Prefers talking individually with people known well. Keeps options open. Learns reflectively. Works well against a deadline. Is quiet, reserved and flexible.

Wilde notes that clearly better descriptions are possible, but his are just starter ones.


Back to Modes/Function-Attitudes

Wilde then maps S-N onto Ep-Ip and T-F onto Ej-Ij to calculate the modes/function attitudes. This makes some sense, given that Te (organization) is Thinking + Control (the Ej descriptor given above), while Ti (analysis) is Thinking + Appraisal (the Ij descriptor given above). So, for each value, he calculates an average (so S-N gets averaged with Ep-Ip and T-F with Ej-Ij).

This, in turn, yields the following formulas for the functions:

• Se = (Ep + S) / 2
• Ne = (Ep + N) / 2
• Si = (Ip + S) / 2
• Ni = (Ip + N) / 2
• Te = (Ej + T) / 2
• Ti = (Ip + T) / 2
• Fe = (Ej + F) / 2
• Fi = (Ij + F) / 2

This both makes intuitive sense (given how things were built up), and is as simple as mathematical calculations get. One can also render the same formulas starting from individual preference strength scores:

• Se = (((E + P) / 2) + S) / 2
• Ne = (((E + P) / 2) + N) / 2
• Si = (((I + J) / 2) + S) / 2
• Ni = (((I + J) / 2) + N) / 2
• Te = (((E + J) / 2) + T) / 2
• Ti = (((I + P) / 2) + T) / 2
• Fe = (((E + J) / 2) + F) / 2
• Fi = (((I + P) / 2) + F) / 2

This approach produces some interesting qualities:

• Opposing functions are opposed. That is, your Te and Fi scores are inverses of one another. This means 100% Te means no Fi in this model. This contradicts many interpretations of the TD model (but not Thomson's in this respect).
• Non-opposing functions are not opposed. Therefore, it's possible to have both relatively high Te and Ti. Or high Te and Fe. This fits better with results from cognitive function tests than the tradition TD model.
• One's strongest two functions may share attitude/orientation. For example, an ESTJ whose preferences are 100% with the exception of being 75% J, calculates as having higher Se than Si, making Se his or her strongest perceiving function.

Expanded Type Codes

Given these added combination, Wilde proposes an expanded type code that adds asterisks to represent some of the new variations. Note that large swaths of results require no asterisks, which helps explains how the TD model survived as long as it did as a rough approximation.

So, in Wilde's expanded type codes, someone's whose top two function share the same orientation has a type code with an asterisk following E or I. So an E*STJ leads with Te and Se, which an I*NFJ leads with Ni and Fi.

Someone whose top two functions share the same judging or perceiving preference get an asterisk after the judging or perceiving preference in their type code, respectively. So, an ENFP who leads with Ne and Ni would be an EN*FP, while an ISFJ who leads with Fe and Fi would be an ISF*J.

These expanded type codes give the possibility of a somewhat overwhelming 64 types.

Beebe's Archetypes

Wilde goes on to propose a quantitative approach to Beebe's archetypes. This approach has some complexity and I haven't taken the time to absorb it at this point. Still, it does seem to have the potential to redeem Beebe somewhat. Personally, I have found Beebe's proposed mode to archetype mapping to be a mismatch for my personal experience (although of course the experience of others may vary).


On a Personal Note

Using an approximation of my MBTI Step 2 scores with this system, my highest functions in order are Ne, Ni, Fi, Ti. This is a pretty good match for what I perceive via introspection (except that I don't think I'm that strong on Ni). I score significantly stronger on "N" than "F", and this model accurately reflects that. I also consider Te to be my weakest judging function, and that's reflected as well. It also yields my Si being lower than my Se, which seems accurate as well.

My partner's highest functions on this system come out to be Si, Ti, Te, Se. This is also a much better fit for him than the standard TD model. He clearly leads with Si and Ti (which breaks the standard TD model), but doesn't seem to have a history of trauma or invalidation that would explain any kind of "type falsification."

My mother shows a lot of social adroitness and group dynamic awareness, and in this system she should have high Fe. She finds objective reasoning (Thinking) pretty draining, though, and that's predicted by this model as well.


In Summmary

In summary, I think this is a promising quantitative approach. It's mathematically very straight-forward, but it yields result that seem to match with personal experience (which the standard TD model only sometimes does, in my experience). It helps highlight the importance of some of Reyneirse's dyads (previously ignored by the MBTI and TD), and makes intuitive sense. I'd be curious how other people fare if they plug in their numbers (or gut-level approximation of the same).

Consequently, I created a web-page which creates a graph and results of Wilde's formulas available here[/u].

More specifically I'd be interested in:

• The text of the "results" box for folks from the above, after they've estimated their preference strength. (Note that if you type in percentages you have to hit enter/return... a bug.)
• Does this Wilde's model match the results from cognitive function tests better than the standard type dynamics model?
• Does Wilde's model match your subjective impressions better?

I'm less interested in hearing that this model is different from normal MBTI type dynamics (because yes, it clearly is).

 

[Mal12345]

Why are we still using rigid function terminology with the MBTI? Just create a test that tests for all 16 types, not functions and not the more traditional individual letters.

I haven't finished reading yet, but it correlates well with the observation, made way back in 1999, that this function theory is not logically sound.

 

[Mal12345]

Dispensing with Attitude Balance

Wilde proposes that attitude balance (which claims that the dominate and auxiliary function must always have opposite orientation) was never a hard and fast rule, and was based on a misreading of Jung.

Myers herself mentions that some people are "pure introverts" or "pure extraverts", which gives added credence to the standard TD model being insufficient to describe the mode preferences of some.

This part is irrelevant. Myers did not use Jung's idea of introversion and extraversion.

This quote from Jung from the cited section above is more interesting:

"For instance, feeling can never act as the second function by the side of thinking, because its nature stands in too strong a contrast to thinking. Thinking, if it is to be real thinking and true to its own principle, must scrupulously exclude feeling."

Apparently it's Jung who is to blame, not Myers-Briggs.

 

[Seymour]

This part is irrelevant. Myers did not use Jung's idea of introversion and extraversion.

This quote from Jung from the cited section above is more interesting:

"For instance, feeling can never act as the second function by the side of thinking, because its nature stands in too strong a contrast to thinking. Thinking, if it is to be real thinking and true to its own principle, must scrupulously exclude feeling."

Apparently it's Jung who is to blame, not Myers-Briggs.

Well, Wilde is talking about the rule about the top-two functions having the same attitude/orientation in that particular passage. Still, I agree that Wilde's model can yield results that contradict some statements by Jung (like a result with one's top-two functions being Te and Fe for an extremely Extraverted and Judging individual whose other preferences are middling).

Still, I think Wilde sees these as additions to Jung:

The preceding chapter showed that quantifiying Jung’s personality theory inevitably leads to two modes in each domain—four in all. Jung himself considered only the principal one in each domain, giving the name “dominant” to the more prominent and “auxiliary” to the other. Quantitative theory identifies a new “subsidiary” mode in each domain, both absent from Jung’s entirely qualitative formulation.

So Wilde does state he's adding, at the least.

 

[Mal12345]

Well, Wilde is talking about the rule about the top-two functions having the same attitude/orientation in that particular passage. Still, I agree that Wilde's model can yield results that contradict some statements by Jung (like a result with one's top-two functions being Te and Fe for an extremely Extraverted and Judging individual whose other preferences are middling).

Still, I think Wilde sees these as additions to Jung:

The preceding chapter showed that quantifiying Jung’s personality theory inevitably leads to two modes in each domain—four in all. Jung himself considered only the principal one in each domain, giving the name “dominant” to the more prominent and “auxiliary” to the other. Quantitative theory identifies a new “subsidiary” mode in each domain, both absent from Jung’s entirely qualitative formulation.

So Wilde does state he's adding, at the least.

I haven't seen anything about a subsidiary mode yet.

I can use his calculator to produce a result such as
Ne 58%, Se 26%, Ti 25%, (Te 9%)
by juggling the settings back and forth, especially the j/p preference.

 

[Seymour]

I haven't seen anything about a subsidiary mode yet.

I can use his calculator to produce a result such as
Ne 58%, Se 26%, Ti 25%, (Te 9%)
by juggling the settings back and forth, especially the j/p preference.

Well, it's my page using his formulas, but true. I think Wilde would say that a traditional Jungian classification would classify such a person as Ne/Ti, and ignore the subsidiary perceiving mode of "Se" and the subsidiary judging mode of "Te". So the "subsidiary modes" are the secondary functions that exist in the same domain (judging or perceiving). So they are represented, but not labeled as such.

 

[Mal12345]

Well, it's my page using his formulas, but true. I think Wilde would say that a traditional Jungian classification would classify such a person as Ne/Ti, and ignore the subsidiary perceiving mode of "Se" and the subsidiary judging mode of "Te". So the "subsidiary modes" are the secondary functions that exist in the same domain (judging or perceiving). So they are represented, but not labeled as such.

Then does your calculator produce an MBTI result different from the usual cognitive functions test?

 

[Seymour]

Then does your calculator produce an MBTI result different from the usual cognitive functions test?

Well, that's one interesting question (and one reason I coded up a page and wanted people to give it a try and see how it compares). If it generally fits cognitive function test results better than the standard type dynamics, that's an indication that it might have some validity (although not true scientific empirical proof). Certainly people's cognitive function test results don't follow traditional type dynamics very closely (Wilde's model may fare no better, but a comparison would be nice).

I'm also curious about whether it seems to work better subjectively. Personally, seems like it works pretty well for some of the people I know best... hence my curiosity about others (still acknowledging that the plural of "anecdote" is not "data").

 

[Nicodemus]

The text of the "results" box for folks from the above, after they've estimated their preference strength. (Note that if you type in percentages you have to hit enter/return... a bug.)

I used results from the last MBTI test I took (two years ago):

Preferred Modes: Ni 61%, Ti 46%, Te 39%, Si 17%
Code: I*NTJ

Does this Wilde's model match the results from cognitive function tests better than the standard type dynamics model?

Yes. But I did dislike the questions in the tests I took.

Does Wilde's model match your subjective impressions better?

That depends on what it means to prefer a function. Ti, for instance, is something that comes in handy sometimes, but in others I usually find its long-windedness inefficient and boring. Logical consistency does not rank very highly on my personal list of appreciated characteristics; it bothers me only when it is blatantly violated. I would also say, and I believe people who know me would agree, that my Fi (-39 according to your calculator) is misrepresented. I believe I 'use' more Fi than Ti. Si, on the other hand? Who knows. My memories are not very sensual and usually quite devoid of details, but I am a fairly good proofreader because odd textual features often automatically catch my eye.

 

[Such Irony]

Ni 73.75
Ti 63.75
Fi 58.75
Ne 56.25
Si 43.75
Te 41.25
Fe 36.25
Se 31.25

I don't think I'm Ni dominant. I did put the slider near the middle, 55% on T because I am borderline on that scale but I identify with Ti alot as a function. Moreso than Ni.

 

[Seymour]

Ni 73.75
Ti 63.75
Fi 58.75
Ne 56.25
Si 43.75
Te 41.25
Fe 36.25
Se 31.25

I don't think I'm Ni dominant. I did put the slider near the middle, 55% on T because I am borderline on that scale but I identify with Ti alot as a function. Moreso than Ni.

How about Ni vs Ne? And Ti vs Te?

 

[Seymour]

By the way, I did just fix an Internet Explorer specific bug on the calculator page, so people using IE should have better luck now. Let me know if other people see issues.

 

[cascadeco]

Thanks for fixing the bug!!

Filled it in based on how I think my %'s are compared to those I encounter in day-to-day life and over the years; obviously it's a self-assessment so there's that.

My results: (not sure how to copy/paste so that everything displays; also, I didn't get the % breakdown in the format that Such Irony did, and the resulting bar chart had some formatting issues so I couldn't easily read/interpret what each bar represented (hit 'enter' btw, after inputting numbers))

I input E=10, I=90, S=15, N=85, T=45, F=55, J=65, P=35

ResultsPreferred Modes: Ni 62%, Fi 17%, (Ne 7%), (Ti 7%)
Code: INFJ

 

[Seymour]

Thanks for fixing the bug!!

Filled it in based on how I think my %'s are compared to those I encounter in day-to-day life and over the years; obviously it's a self-assessment so there's that.

My results: (not sure how to copy/paste so that everything displays; also, I didn't get the % breakdown in the format that Such Irony did, and the resulting bar chart had some formatting issues so I couldn't easily read/interpret what each bar represented (hit 'enter' btw, after inputting numbers))

I input E=10, I=90, S=15, N=85, T=45, F=55, J=65, P=35

ResultsPreferred Modes: Ni 62%, Fi 17%, (Ne 7%), (Ti 7%)
Code: INFJ

I THINK I just fixed the IE-specific bar labeling issue (let me know if you still see an issue).

And what's your subjective impression of the results? Clearly Fi vs Fe would be a pretty big difference.

 

[cascadeco]

I THINK I just fixed the bar labeling issue (let me know if you still see an issue).

And what's your subjective impression of the results? Clearly Fi vs Fe would be a pretty big difference.

My subjective impression is that it's accurate; I've often felt that my rather extreme introversion throughout my teens and into my 20's (and I guess continuing today, but I feel I've gotten a lot better at extroverting and having more balance in recent years) resulted in my honing in on Fi in some cases, and a lot more self-reflection/analysis than might be typical for the average FJ... rather than Fe; thus in Fe discussions on this forum/descriptions of what Fe-ers do in various posts (usually from Fi-ers hating on Fe-ers ), I often don't really identify, or identify to a degree but not in a large degree. Similarly, I can relate to many things TJ's and FP's say; just not to an extreme.

 

[Such Irony]

How about Ni vs Ne? And Ti vs Te?

I think Ne should be higher than Ni.
I agree with Ti being greater than Te.

Thanks for fixing the bug!!

Filled it in based on how I think my %'s are compared to those I encounter in day-to-day life and over the years; obviously it's a self-assessment so there's that.

My results: (not sure how to copy/paste so that everything displays; also, I didn't get the % breakdown in the format that Such Irony did, and the resulting bar chart had some formatting issues so I couldn't easily read/interpret what each bar represented (hit 'enter' btw, after inputting numbers))

I input E=10, I=90, S=15, N=85, T=45, F=55, J=65, P=35

ResultsPreferred Modes: Ni 62%, Fi 17%, (Ne 7%), (Ti 7%)
Code: INFJ

It didn't compute results for me either. I had to score it by hand.

 

[garbage]

• The dichotomies (E-I, S-N, T-F, J-P) are dichotomous. Strength of preference isn't important and, at most, may reflect some aspect of type development.
• The four letter MBTI code entirely determines the ranking of one's function-attitudes (or often just called "functions", Wilde uses the term "modes"). So, for example, an INFP 's function-attitudes in rank order are: Fi Ne Si Te. Every person of a given personality type, in this model, has the same dominant, auxiliary, tertiary and inferior. So, all ESTJs would have dominant Te, auxiliary Si, tertiary Ne and inferior Fi.

However, the standard type dynamics model has failed to be empirically validated. For example, ESTJs and ENTJs ("Te-doms") don't actually test higher in Te than ISTJs.

It's about damn time that someone actually looked at this.


This is a bitchin' web interface, and the underlying model is a much better and very refreshing way to look at cognitive functions. We've had discussions elsewhere on the forums about expressing introversion/extraversion of functions as "gradients," and this captures that concept pretty well. It's also more in line with trait-based personality constructs, which.. you know, tend to be more accurate.

Congratulations; Jungian typology has stepped from the 1920s squarely into the 1990s

I'd place myself pretty much here, which gives these results:

Ne 48%, Ni 31%, Fe 24%, (Fi 7%)
Code: EN*FX​

 

[RaptorWizard]

ResultsPreferred Modes: Ti 71%, Ne 33%, Te 19%, (Ni 3%)

Code: INTP

I = 61% N = 68% T = 95% P = 91%

 

[Mal12345]

"Someone whose top two functions share the same judging or perceiving preference get an asterisk after the judging or perceiving preference in their type code, respectively. So, an ENFP who leads with Ne and Ni would be an EN*FP, while an ISFJ who leads with Fe and Fi would be an ISF*J.

These expanded type codes give the possibility of a somewhat overwhelming 64 types."

Including Fudjack's types, you have 128.

 

[Impact Calculus]

Why are we still using rigid function terminology with the MBTI? Just create a test that tests for all 16 types, not functions and not the more traditional individual letters.

I haven't finished reading yet, but it correlates well with the observation, made way back in 1999, that this function theory is not logically sound.

Jung is logically sound. MBTI related instruments (functions or not) lack validity, consistency and accuracy.

Myers did not use jung's ideas of introversion/extraversion

Good catch. That would fall into the category of "Shit we assumed cross applies just as well to jung's work", where as the rest fall in "Shit we assumed would effectively convert from jung's work to fit this context".