[Jungian Cognitive Functions] You Can't Derive A Type From A JCF Test

[Mal12345]

While listening to this guy on Youtube compare our old (banned) member Dj Arendee to the Beatles (EJArendee Legacy - YouTube), I've been browsing this forum for something of interest to write about. Here's what I came up with.

The problem with forced choice personality tests is that they force a black-and-white choice even when the answer may be ambiguous to the test taker. So this adds an element of chance to the result.

And then there is the ever-present issue of how to interpret a tie score.

But even with a result that seems to delineate a type perfectly and unambiguously, the formula used by the MBTI people determines whether the last letter in the 4-letter result is a P or a J. The quiz itself does not test for P or J, it is assumed by the highest function score. So if the high score is Ti, then the last letter is, according to the formula, always going to be a P.

There is no proof that a Ti-dom has to have P as the last letter, none whatsoever. And that goes for the rest of the dominant functions. Ni-dominance does not imply that J is the last letter in the type. Si-dominance does not imply that J is the last letter. Se-dominance does not imply that P is the last letter.

I find function tests to be interesting, but only so far as they aren't used to derive an MBTI type. There may even be a personality disorder implied in the results. But more importantly, they help to demonstrate very well that the MBTI is a flawed personality system.

 

[Mal12345]

After finding out that there are INFP types who score J on a judging/perceiving test, or who type themselves as Fi-dominant but with J, the MBTI seems really primitive and incomplete. For years I knew there was a theoretical problem with a now slightly older method of determining type by combining one's I/E score with T, S, N, or F, and then determine the J/P factor by means of a formula. The modern method is to find one's dominant function which already contains the I/E and T/S/N/F score (for example, Te, which is Extroverted Thinking).

But the same formula is applied either way, because via either method the formula is determined by the combination of attitude (I/E) and one of the four other letters. Extroverted Thinking, for example, derives Judging as your type, while Introverted Thinking derives Perceiving.

This is by assumption, and function tests derive your type based on that assumption, thus circularly "proving" that the formula is true without any testing in reality. It is completely theoretical and ivory tower in nature.

The oldest method is simply to find your type by testing for each letter, including P and J. By doing this, you may find an ESTJ who is Si-dominant. There is no contradiction in this, because the I in Si is not the same thing for Jung and Myers-Briggs. Nor is the E. For Jung, the I/E distinction tells us whether or not the dominant function is introverted or extroverted. But Meyer-Briggs' idea about I/E is to find out if YOU are introverted or extroverted.

So there was a theoretical problem with this idea from the beginning. Most forum members don't remember how it was from before, and so they take the present methodology for granted as if nothing else existed before they were born, or if it did, it's out-dated, uses "stereotyping," and is therefore false.

 

[Jaguar]

I've been browsing this forum for something of interest to write about.

Keep browsing.

 

[Mal12345]

I'm not necessarily in favor of returning to the old method of simply testing for each of the four letters individually. That type of test also suffered from the issue of scoring evenly on a letter type. I scored evenly on S and N on a book test I took before most of you were born. But the next step is to read the type descriptions and make up your own mind. If you're one of the Compliant personality types, though, you probably won't think that's an important step since Compliant types lack a strong sense of identity and independence of mind.

It's very common when taking a function test to wind up with a tie for highest function. This is especially true for those who don't have enough self-knowledge to game the test. Function descriptions are very abstract, so trying to decide which is the correct type for you will be very difficult. But if your top score is distinct, then the next step is to take a J/P test which is available online at Myers-Briggs: Are You Judging Or Perceiving? | BrainFall.

It's very possible that you will have a score combination of something like Fi and J. In that case, you aren't one of the 16 traditional MBTI types. You may also find that two or more type descriptions fit you equally well. This is only natural because the 16 types aren't true to reality. This won't be your fault, it's the system that's flawed.

 

[Jaguar]

There are many people who score close to center, just like politics. Not everyone is an extremist.

 

[Mal12345]

You may ask, "If the system is flawed, then why are so many people finding out their MBTI type?" They aren't finding their type, they are finding something to give them a sense of identity. Identification with a type leads to conformity with the type descriptions. Your "type" doesn't exist, it is a relic of a flawed theory.

To the extent that you may have brought yourself into conformity with a type description you have become that "type." The natural assumption to then make is that the types actually exist. But they don't. What exists are personality traits, not types. The large number of personality systems out there only proves that personality traits can be grouped in arbitrary ways that make sense to people subjectively. Once you have identified with a type (out of a need for identity and conformity), you have identified with the entire system, and it's this identification that only makes the system seem to be true.