# Comparing Jung to MBTI



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

I've noticed a lot of negative attitudes towards MBTI and how Myers-Briggs changed the descriptions from what Jung originally stated. I actually think the negative attitude is unwarranted since the Myers-Briggs type indicator and Jung had completely different intentions and purposes. 

The MBTI wouldn't have served its purpose had Myers-Briggs not adapted and changed Jungs descriptions. As far as I'm aware, its purpose was to help guide the average person into suitable career choices. The MBTI was never intended to be used as a tool for understanding the cognitive functions or portrayed as a representation Jungs theory. It was only based on Jungs theory and I can see why they made the changes that they made. 

It's like comparing strawberries to jam/jelly. Strawberries are great in their original form and when they are needed as such, but they aren't practical that way if you want them in a sandwich. 

(Also, notice how when comparing the two, I immediately intuited Myers-Briggs motives in order to understand the reason for differences. Ne I think.?)


----------



## pandamiga (Aug 11, 2012)

I guess it is unwarranted. At the same time, I think that because MBTI is so "practical" that is what makes it sort of difficult for at least me. As the river of time goes by bits of rock and sediment get picked up and deposited. A river is not practical; personality isn't practical. Differences can be caused by so many things that we're not aware of (and besides, if I was going to be truly unique I wouldn't want it to be because I use a function that ...a lot of people use ...and that is all of the functions xD). I guess it's true that Jung doesn't care supermuch about the outside world, and he isn't trying to break people into groups. I get the feeling that Jung realizes that these "primordial images" are really about how we all express the same general idea of the soul, but with our human mind/eyes/heart. I know this idea is completely stupid, so whatever. I guess I don't mind comparing people.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Neverontime said:


> The MBTI wouldn't have served its purpose had Myers-Briggs not adapted and changed Jungs descriptions. As far as I'm aware, its purpose was to help guide the average person into suitable career choices. The MBTI was never intended to be used as a tool for understanding the cognitive functions or portrayed as a representation Jungs theory. It was only based on Jungs theory and I can see why they made the changes that they made.


The idea that the MBTI was developed for the limited purpose of career placement is a misunderstanding that's often encountered on internet forums. Briggs and Myers were interested in helping people understand themselves and others for many reasons, and I think it's fair to say their overall "purpose" was really not that different from Jung's. Gifts Differing includes an 18-page chapter on "Type and Occupation," but also has chapters on marriage, learning styles, "good type development" and various other subjects.

For more (including a quote from Myers describing her aims), see this post.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

reckful said:


> The idea that the MBTI was developed for the limited purpose of career placement is a misunderstanding that's often encountered on internet forums. Briggs and Myers were interested in helping people understand themselves and others for many reasons, and I think it's fair to say their overall "purpose" was really not that different from Jung's. Gifts Differing includes an 18-page chapter on "Type and Occupation," but also has chapters on marriage, learning styles, "good type development" and various other subjects.
> 
> For more (including a quote from Myers describing her aims), see this post.


Interesting. So what parts of Jungs theory did Myers actually discard? 
I've not found anything myself, but then I've not been able to read Gifts Differing yet.


----------



## Diphenhydramine (Apr 9, 2010)

MBTI is a collection of sad stereotypes with no basing whatsoever. 

Jung was one of the greatest psychologists in history.


----------



## pandamiga (Aug 11, 2012)

Diphenhydramine said:


> MBTI is a collection of sad stereotypes with no basing whatsoever.
> 
> Jung was one of the greatest psychologists in history.


I see what you did there


----------



## Diphenhydramine (Apr 9, 2010)

No, Im serious.


----------



## pandamiga (Aug 11, 2012)

Ah, I thought you were. I didn't want to believe that, though. But okay. If you think that's the truth, I'll leave you be. I like Jung a lot too.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Diphenhydramine said:


> No, Im serious.


Alas, seriousness of intent has never prevented a post from being silly. Sometimes it just makes things worse.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

Diphenhydramine said:


> MBTI is a collection of sad stereotypes with no basing whatsoever.
> 
> Jung was one of the greatest psychologists in history.


No basing whatsoever? Care to explain? I never have been good at accepting someone's opinion without an explanation.


----------



## Impact Calculus (Mar 29, 2012)

Jung's Psychological Types: Work of biased conjecture

MBTI Descriptions: Work of biased conjecture of biased conjecture


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

MBTI: Overstates it's purpose. Inaccurately depicts Jung's phenomenological descriptions as something literal, let alone, doesn't specify the purpose of how they're depicting the functions. Makes it look like the functions mean something below the surface persona of a person. Turns this stuff into fallacious dichotomies that truly don't exist (e.g. if you're a thinker, you're not a feeler BS). Underestimates the crap out of people. Creepy if not taken as a merely practical representation of Jung.


----------



## Diphenhydramine (Apr 9, 2010)

Impact Calculus said:


> Jung's Psychological Types: Work of biased conjecture
> 
> MBTI Descriptions: Work of biased conjecture of biased conjecture


 You can't take psychological types out of the greater Jungian context though (where they make good sense and were used empirically to treat thousands of people successful.) Thats the problem with MBTI is that they cherrypicked a bit of Jung and left out the rest. You can't drag one part of it out of context and apply it to typology, it doesn't work too good.


----------



## Yedra (Jul 28, 2012)

The problem is when people think they _create_ something about human psychology, when in fact we all observe and reveal. And that is what Jung did and what everyone before and after him did. I really believe there is one universal truth about the human psyche and we shouldn't view someone else's view as an absolute or dogma. All kinds of people contribute and reveal parts of the big picture in their own way. 

While Jung made amazing observations, he was not infallible. For example, at one point he thought that feeling types were extraverted and thinking types were introverted, later he realized that this is not true.

So what do you think, how much of his work would be still as it was when he initially wrote it if he now had a chance to revise it and how can we know for sure that it wouldn't have been much closer to what MBTI is?


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

Jung is very very layered, multi-faceted interpretational stuff (he doesn't make the functions fully literal - the most literal he gets is with potential mental processes that might overlap with the function concepts) - I 100% agree with @_Diphenhydramine_ - the MBTI is Jung cherry-picked at random and even re-defined at random (I'd love to see their actual sources behind some of the proposals they make, wherever these are - I hear there's an MBTI museum somewhere (California?), so perhaps there's a lot to be beheld).


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

I understand how Myers-Briggs built on his theory through her own research and to be fair all of them have built on the earlier theories. What did she actually discard? 

How come more modern theorists aren't viewed in the same negative way, even those who have decided that a person can use the same function in different attitudes? 
As far as I can see this theory takes away the whole foundation of Jungs theory.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

Mainly, MBTI is not meant to be theoretically useful. They were attempting to translate the theory for practical application, so it ended up locking up against any potential for theoretical exploration (but people can certainly use it as a starting point and add on to it to make sense of it and exercise their creative juices to expand upon and take this stuff in different directions).


----------



## Dyidia (May 28, 2010)

I wouldn't get too excited about the theories of Carl Jung. Jung is still considered one of the greatest psychotherapists in history; however, it doesn't follow that he made the most accurate of theories. It works, but then so does CBT without needing to delve into all these theories about the unconscious and complexes and whatnot.

MBTI is certainly suspect, but no reason to keep comparing it to Jungian theory. It's become it's own thing, rather widely used I must say, and has a rather different theoretical base. To "correct" MBTI back into Jungian theory, you'd also have to re-embed the MBTI types back into rest of Jungian theory, and as MBTI was not really being intended as a therapeutic method, that's rather overkill.


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

MBTI is 5 kinds of shite compared to Jung who got crippled by his reluctance to apply neuroscience to his baby.


----------



## Helios (May 30, 2012)

Boolean11 said:


> MBTI is 5 kinds of shite compared to Jung who got crippled by his reluctance to apply neuroscience to his baby.


Ouch. So much spite for MBTI. 

Since a picture is worth 1000 words, here's to MBTI:


----------

