# The J/P Debate...Are These Labels the Reason that Psychologists Often Reject MBTI??



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

Eric B said:


> The point was, the terms have taken on two different meanings, which is what is confusing. They started out as labels for a person (and Jung even seemed to use them as such), but then came to mean "dominant function attitude" (And an apparent later citation of Jung seems to go along with this. "Strictly speaking, there are no introverts and extraverts pure and simple, but only introverted and extraverted function-types". Wasn't that you I was discussing this with not too long ago?)
> 
> That's the only reason I would say he should have changed it. Especially when changing it in the three letter codes has such a drastic result


They never took on different meanings. They have always been what they are. Attempting to correlate the systems is the problem. Eric, where did Jung ever use extraverting and introverting as labels? You do know Jung’s work when you see it correct? Jung speaks of the *Conscious* and *Unconscioius*. They became labels when they were introduced as part of a four-letter code. INTJ is merely a title, no different from “Mastermind”. My point of using the three-letter code was to show how insignificant the letters J/P are. 


Eric B said:


> I actually like the system the way it is, because I believe that E/I in the Jungian sense pretty much does correspond to E/I in the classic temperament sense (and this is what is represented in type by the Interaction Styles). I'm just saying that if one insists on the three letter system, in order to be truer to Jung, then it would be better to change it.
> 
> It's E/I and J/P together that determine whether we prefer introversion or extraversion (by "prefer", I take it you mean, dominant attitude). J/P tell us which function is extraverted, and E/I tells us which is dominant.


Uh no, temperament has little in common with MBTI, except that Keirsey chose to use the MBTI four –letter codes. Temperament is a study of behavior and core values of a group of types. Type is about processing in a cognitive manner. But Jung and Keirsey’ work has absolutely nothing in common, as indicated in discussions such as *this article*. No one is insistent on using a three-letter code, it was only used to again show why J/P has no significance which is why there has been nothing stated to show J/P is of value. 

Is it no wonder that temperament enthusiasts acknowledge the constant mistyping of SP types when using the temperament system? It’s because Keirsey’s work completely missed the boat on describing sensing vs intuiting. You like it the way it is? You do know that Jung’s work precedes Myers-Briggs and she precedes Keirsey. Keirsey’s work is not type and anyone attempting to correlate it into type will always be confused on how type actually works. Interaction styles is not temperament, it’s based on the DiSC system. 



Eric B said:


> The way the four letter code is set up, E/I becomes the least drastic factor (or "least important" as Keirsey put it, even though he rejected the functions altogether). So that types differing only by E/I prefer the same functions, only switching between dominant and auxiliary. Hence, they are still similar types.


Keirsey’s work is not about type, he never attempted to make it about type and Keirsey has no right to criticize anyone’s work, which he also did of MBTI. His own people have changed language to remove the stereotypes he brandishers in his theory. The J/P discussion is bad enough, but to bring Keirsey into the fold is silly. Keirsey missed the boat on any attempt (if that was his intention) at correlating temperament with type. 


Eric B said:


> So a person may identify with certain functions or the complete function-attitudes, and only need to sort out E or I, which corresponds to which is dominant. With the three letter code, if they're not sure of E or I, that affects which attitudes of the functions they prefer, so both have to be figured at the same time. That may make it a little more confusing (unless they're as into this stuff as many of us are).
> 
> So you believe function-attitudes shouldn't be used with MBTI?
> Berens' "Multiple Model" (which combines type, temperament, Interaction Styles, functions/attitudes and archetypes) seems to work pretty well. Some may still misunderstand things, and there may be some definitions or descriptions that are oversimplified or generalistic, but overall, I don't see what's the problem with it.


First of all, anyone that can’t discern whether they are an extravert or introvert has no business indicating they are a type. They should be looking in the mirror to study themselves. If you do have an idea of your type and believe it changes periodically due to circumstances then you are attempting to apply MBTI where it can never work. When I see someone using Xs instead of a code or claiming their type changed, or when people argue their Fe, Ne or some other code has morphed into being able to do things outside it’s limits, I am reminded of someone just learning basic arithmetic in saying 5/2= 2 remainder 1. 

You cannot use an extraverting function when circumstances call for introspection. You must use introversion. You can’t depend on an introverting function to get you through any matter that requires you to deal with external circumstances. It calls for extraversion.


----------



## TaylorS (Jan 24, 2010)

Functianalyst said:


> Vicky Jo Varner used to have a great article on the subject of J/P. I have referenced it on this forum several times, but can’t find it right now. But she does make a good point on her website *here* that is worth noting when comparing INFJ and INFP types: This is key since for whatever reasons people cannot get past the fact that when it comes to introverting types, IPs dominate with a judging function and IJs, with a perceiving function. Referencing to the J/P dichotomy and answering questions on an assessment as they pertain to these dichotomies is quite misleading.
> 
> The J/P dichotomy merely refers to the function we prefer to extravert with. And as Vicky Jo Varner and Linda Berens says, when discussions arise on the use of these two codes, we are no longer discussing type. They're not functions (S/N, T/F), they're not attitudes (E/I). J/P truly is nothing but a repeat of what is already known. Elsewhere on the forum, I had given a list of codes not using the J/P which could work just as easily:
> 
> ...


Yes, this is what classical Jungian analysts and Socionicists use, so I am *IS(T)*. The 4-letter code is too easily confused with the Extroversion, Openness, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness axes of the Big 5.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

Is it just me, or is the presumption that J types jump to conclusions more than P types full of baloney? I've just seen equally many instances to the contrary IRL. This seems like a projection between J & P types more than anything (e.g. I've seen "Ps" accuse "Js" of being narrow-minded, even though they themselves were being narrow-minded - either type has an equal risk for jumping to conclusions in my experiences). Some of the Ne auxes I know tend to have this issue, where they assume that, say, a Te-aux. is being narrow-minded by logically narrowing down certain options, even though the Te-aux might've already considered the point that the Ne-aux made a long time ago...I've had this happen where some Ne users would "jump to conclusions" that I was jumping to conclusions in making a logical deduction on a topic for some reason.


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> Is it just me, or is the presumption that J types jump to conclusions more than P types full of baloney? I've just seen equally many instances to the contrary IRL. This seems like a projection between J & P types more than anything (e.g. I've seen "Ps" accuse "Js" of being narrow-minded, even though they themselves were being narrow-minded - either type has an equal risk for jumping to conclusions in my experiences). Some of the Ne auxes I know tend to have this issue, where they assume that, say, a Te-aux. is being narrow-minded by logically narrowing down certain options, even though the Te-aux might've already considered the point that the Ne-aux made a long time ago...I've had this happen where some Ne users would "jump to conclusions" that I was jumping to conclusions in making a logical deduction on a topic for some reason.


 The term jumping to conclusion itself means a decision has been made, which only four functions can do (Te,Fe,Ti,Fi). Perceiving functions do not make decisions, they merely bring in or provide information to be decided on by the judging function. Nevertheless, Ti/Fi can be just as adamant when a ruling principle or belief has been attacked, as someone using Te/Fe. In fact Ti dominant types hone in on inconsistent or illogical conclusions, then argue vehemently appearing equally to have jumped to conclusions like someone using Te/Fe.


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

Functianalyst said:


> They never took on different meanings. They have always been what they are. Attempting to correlate the systems is the problem. Eric, where did Jung ever use extraverting and introverting as labels?
> You do know Jung’s work when you see it correct? Jung speaks of the *Conscious* and *Unconscioius*. They became labels when they were introduced as part of a four-letter code.


 Classics in the History of Psychology -- Jung (1921/1923) Chapter 10: 
"The *introvert*'s attitude to the object is an abstracting one; at bottom, *he* is always facing the problem of how libido can be withdrawn from the object... The *extravert*, on the contrary, maintains a positive relation to the object. To such an extent does *he* affirm its importance that his subjective attitude is continually being orientated by, and related to the object." 

All throughout that work, he uses them as labels of a person (nouns), not just as labels of a function (verbs). This is the same way it was used in temperament theory, or general usage. Then, later on (still don't have any citation of where that's from), he denied them as "proper" labels of a person, and said they referred to functions only.



> INTJ is merely a title, no different from “Mastermind”. My point of using the three-letter code was to show how insignificant the letters J/P are.
> Uh no, temperament has little in common with MBTI, except that Keirsey chose to use the MBTI four –letter codes. Temperament is a study of behavior and core values of a group of types. Type is about processing in a cognitive manner. But Jung and Keirsey’ work has absolutely nothing in common, as indicated in discussions such as *this article*.


 And it's funny, as that site *proceeds to use Keirsey's temperaments in its type profiles anyway* (q.v. midway down each profile: "_the classic temperament of XXXX is [old Keirsey "Greek god" name] or [classic "humour" name], for whom a driving force is [Keirsey's "core temperament need"]..._" 

It's obvious that there's some kind of correspondence. If a person prefers Se, they will have the SP in the code, and their Se will tend to lead them to have the "core need" of freedom. It will also likely lead to the other familar traits of the "Artisan" (crafter, not necessarily "[fine] arts") pattern, which involve an emergent (extraverted) Sensory focus.

Even they apparently acknowledge this, unwittingly. I don't see what the problem is.



> No one is insistent on using a three-letter code, it was only used to again show why J/P has no significance which is why there has been nothing stated to show J/P is of value.


 OK. I thought you and others were saying it is better. It is in a way, but since I (and many others) are more geared toward a temperament understanding of type, the J/P scale came in very handy for that, so it sticks. 


> Is it no wonder that temperament enthusiasts acknowledge the constant mistyping of SP types when using the temperament system? It’s because Keirsey’s work completely missed the boat on describing sensing vs intuiting. You like it the way it is? You do know that Jung’s work precedes Myers-Briggs and she precedes Keirsey. Keirsey’s work is not type and anyone attempting to correlate it into type will always be confused on how type actually works.





> Keirsey’s work is not about type, he never attempted to make it about type and Keirsey has no right to criticize anyone’s work, which he also did of MBTI. His own people have changed language to remove the stereotypes he brandishers in his theory. The J/P discussion is bad enough, but to bring Keirsey into the fold is silly. Keirsey missed the boat on any attempt (if that was his intention) at correlating temperament with type.


Again, I believe Berens' system greatly improved it. Not perfect, but still fits them together, better. (Keirsey on the other hand, must realize what you're saying, as he has moved further and further from type. In the last book, _Personology_, he no longer even uses the type codes, or individual letters. Everything is renamed!)

I believe the problem with SP, for instance, supported by my helping a few of them with these questions both here and on TypoC, is that by focusing on temperament almost exclusively, in which case the SP was the "Sanguine", and its four types were just "variations" of the temperament (so yes, it's technically not a "type" theory), *Keirsey imported a lot of general "Sanguine" traits into it*, which _introverted_ SP's will not identify with (Since Sanguine is "extroverted"). 
Since Keirsey's temperaments are "blind" to I/E to bein with, then that right there points us to Interaction Styles, which do use I/E, and are also based on the ancient four temperaments. Keirsey has imported these in his last two books, but still has otherwise moved further from the type notation.

And without the functions to tie the ISP to the SP group, then yes, they may see no relationship with the group. That doesn't mean that they don't correspond; just that this one particular theorist chose to ignore that connection, and simply show, essentially, where Kretschmer's character styles and Plato's four types of men fit in the 16 types. (For that's what they're really based on, directly).

So again, Berens' system fixes this, by reintroducing the cognitive process, in addition to highlighting the Interaction Styles (in which the introverted SP's are part Melancholic or Phlegmatic, and "Sanguine" only in a non "social"; non-I/E way (it would correspond to "pragmatic", instead of "extrovert"). My focusing on the "humour" names in correlating the systems is aimed at highlighting these differences in what is essentially "blended" temperaments).

It doesn't really matter who preceded who. People expand upon the work of earlier theorists, and [hopefully] improve it.



> Interaction styles is not temperament, it’s based on the DiSC system.


 And what is the DiSC system but the same four [classic] temperaments, with the same two dimensions? (Again, everything simply renamed). Instead of introvert/extrovert, it's called "passive/assertive", and instead of directive/informative, it's "controlled/open". 



> First of all, anyone that can’t discern whether they are an extravert or introvert has no business indicating they are a type. They should be looking in the mirror to study themselves. If you do have an idea of your type and believe it changes periodically due to circumstances then you are attempting to apply MBTI where it can never work. When I see someone using Xs instead of a code or claiming their type changed, or when people argue their Fe, Ne or some other code has morphed into being able to do things outside it’s limits, I am reminded of someone just learning basic arithmetic in saying 5/2= 2 remainder 1.
> 
> You cannot use an extraverting function when circumstances call for introspection. You must use introversion. You can’t depend on an introverting function to get you through any matter that requires you to deal with external circumstances. It calls for extraversion.


Still, other people are not as keen on this stuff as we are. I try to explain it to those around me (including my wife, who is the one studying [mainstream] psychology, and introduced me to temperament theory), but it takes time for people to even start to get all of this. If they suddenly come into contact with the theory (like being approached by someone offering the test in college, or the job), then they won't understand this stuff, yet probably will have heard about introversion and extroversion (they were all I knew when I first heard of type theory). For them to even study themselves using concepts such as I/E, they would have to know more about it. 
So people will read type profiles, and may see themselves in one or more of them, without understanding. You can't say they "have no business"; they just need to be informed better, (and it would be good to have a type system as simple as possible).
This is part of what forums like these are here for.


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

Eric B said:


> Classics in the History of Psychology -- Jung (1921/1923) Chapter 10:
> "The *introvert*'s attitude to the object is an abstracting one; at bottom, *he* is always facing the problem of how libido can be withdrawn from the object... The *extravert*, on the contrary, maintains a positive relation to the object. To such an extent does *he* affirm its importance that his subjective attitude is continually being orientated by, and related to the object."
> 
> All throughout that work, he uses them as labels of a person (nouns), not just as labels of a function (verbs). This is the same way it was used in temperament theory, or general usage. Then, later on (still don't have any citation of where that's from), he denied them as "proper" labels of a person, and said they referred to functions only.


If Jung implies anything is a label, its general functions. I am unsure of the significance in pasting the quote above. Was there something there that made you infer he was considering it merely a label? You know as well as anyone that Jung goes into great detail about how an introvert type will be conscious of their introversion and unconscious of their extraversion, and vice versa for the extraverted type. 


Eric B said:


> And it's funny, as that site *proceeds to use Keirsey's temperaments in its type profiles anyway* (q.v. midway down each profile: "_the classic temperament of XXXX is [old Keirsey "Greek god" name] or [classic "humour" name], for whom a driving force is [Keirsey's "core temperament need"]..._"
> 
> It's obvious that there's some kind of correspondence. If a person prefers Se, they will have the SP in the code, and their Se will tend to lead them to have the "core need" of freedom. It will also likely lead to the other familar traits of the "Artisan" (crafter, not necessarily "[fine] arts") pattern, which involve an emergent (extraverted) Sensory focus.
> 
> Even they apparently acknowledge this, unwittingly. I don't see what the problem is.


The problem is that not all SP types lead with Se. In fact contrary to what you just said, the first thing Jung says when describing the unconscious attitude of the introverting types is:


> The superior position of the subjective factor in consciousness involves an inferiority of the objective factor. The object is not given that importance which should really belong to it. Just as it plays too great a role in the extraverted attitude, it has too little to say in the introverted. To the extent that the introvert's consciousness is subjective, thus bestowing undue importance upon the ego, the object is placed in a position which in time becomes quite untenable


Jung’s theory is polar opposite of Keirsey’s thoughts on the ISP types. Keirsey’s NT, NF and SJ theory also defies Jung’s theory on the auxiliary since the thinking and feeling in ENTP/INTJ and ENFP/INFJ types can never be equal to their use of Ne and Ni. It goes the same for the remaining types in those groups. They are not dominant intuiting types and in fact the function maybe completely unconscious. 


Eric B said:


> OK. I thought you and others were saying it is better. It is in a way, but since I (and many others) are more geared toward a temperament understanding of type, the J/P scale came in very handy for that, so it sticks.
> Again, I believe Berens' system greatly improved it. Not perfect, but still fits them together, better. (Keirsey on the other hand, must realize what you're saying, as he has moved further and further from type. In the last book, _Personology_, he no longer even uses the type codes, or individual letters. Everything is renamed!)


I do not want to appear to be bashing any of the systems, because after reading Berens/Nardi’s work, I have a greater appreciation for Keirsey. I think he should have never written individual descriptions using the four-letter codes, instead sticking to the generalizations of core values which is what temperament does. I did not say I wanted to change the four-letter codes of Myers-Briggs. We have grown accustom to them. I am an ISTP and most people will understand what that means (albeit that most are still struggling with their own prejudices of type, therefore uses stereotypes). But these systems are different and cannot easily be correlated and Jung does not correlate with Myers-Briggs or Keirsey. You cannot apply the MBTI tools in understanding cognitive functions, since it results in people giving a particular function attitude the ability to adapt to all circumstances. 



Eric B said:


> I believe the problem with SP, for instance, supported by my helping a few of them with these questions both here and on TypoC, is that by focusing on temperament almost exclusively, in which case the SP was the "Sanguine", and its four types were just "variations" of the temperament (so yes, it's technically not a "type" theory), *Keirsey imported a lot of general "Sanguine" traits into it*, which _introverted_ SP's will not identify with (Since Sanguine is "extroverted").
> Since Keirsey's temperaments are "blind" to I/E to bein with, then that right there points us to Interaction Styles, which do use I/E, and are also based on the ancient four temperaments. Keirsey has imported these in his last two books, but still has otherwise moved further from the type notation.


Uh no…. Berens does not even use the words extravert/introvert to describer her interaction styles, instead she uses the words initiate/respond. Berens also warns that these terms are not the same.


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

Functianalyst said:


> If Jung implies anything is a label, its general functions. I am unsure of the significance in pasting the quote above. Was there something there that made you infer he was considering it merely a label? You know as well as anyone that Jung goes into great detail about how an introvert type will be conscious of their introversion and unconscious of their extraversion, and vice versa for the extraverted type.


 I didn't say _merely_ a label. It's both. It can be used as a label of a person, as well as for the realm he is most conscious of. 


> The problem is that not all SP types lead with Se. In fact contrary to what you just said, the first thing Jung says when describing the unconscious attitude of the introverting types is:
> Jung’s theory is polar opposite of Keirsey’s thoughts on the ISP types. Keirsey’s NT, NF and SJ theory also defies Jung’s theory on the auxiliary since the thinking and feeling in ENTP/INTJ and ENFP/INFJ types can never be equal to their use of Ne and Ni. It goes the same for the remaining types in those groups. They are not dominant intuiting types and in fact the function maybe completely unconscious.


But it doesn't have to be dominant to be "preferred", and thus represented in the type code. Yes, Jung focused on the dominant, but as the theory became more developed (including through Myers' work), the auxiliary came to be. Just as instrumental in defining a type.

If Se is dominant, then the person will be a Sanguine (or at least, Choleric-Sanguine, if it's used with Thinking), and thus better able to identify with Keirsey's SP descriptions. So yes, the types for whom it is not dominant, and are thus introverts, might have more problems fitting Keirsey's descriptions. 


> I do not want to appear to be bashing any of the systems, because after reading Berens/Nardi’s work, I have a greater appreciation for Keirsey. I think he should have never written individual descriptions using the four-letter codes, instead sticking to the generalizations of core values which is what temperament does. I did not say I wanted to change the four-letter codes of Myers-Briggs. We have grown accustom to them. I am an ISTP and most people will understand what that means (albeit that most are still struggling with their own prejudices of type, therefore uses stereotypes). But these systems are different and cannot easily be correlated and Jung does not correlate with Myers-Briggs or Keirsey. You cannot apply the MBTI tools in understanding cognitive functions, since it results in people giving a particular function attitude the ability to adapt to all circumstances.


 Again, Berens seems to have done it quite well. As far as that last statement, I don't see where that's necessarily true. If people are strerching the functions like that, they they are misinformed as to how to fit them together. It doesn't mean that can't be fit together.


> Uh no…. Berens does not even use the words extravert/introvert to describer her interaction styles, instead she uses the words initiate/respond. Berens also warns that these terms are not the same.


 And it's clear that initiate/respond is just a renaming of E and I (Just like Keirsey renamed them expressive and reserved). 
They still fit in her system in both senses (Interaction Style and dominant cognitive function).


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

Eric B said:


> I didn't say _merely_ a label. It's both. It can be used as a label of a person, as well as for the realm he is most conscious of.


Eric, you may want to review your posts before claiming you did not say something. That is exactly the word you used, the same as when you said you did not say “ambivert”. What you write and what you think you write does not always coincide.


Eric B said:


> But it doesn't have to be dominant to be "preferred", and thus represented in the type code. Yes, Jung focused on the dominant, but as the theory became more developed (including through Myers' work), the auxiliary came to be. Just as instrumental in defining a type.


Jungian and his enthusiasts believe the auxiliary can be conscious, but it can never be equal to the most differentiated function:


> Accurate investigation of the individual case consistently reveals the fact that, in conjunction with the most differentiated function, another function of secondary importance, and therefore of inferior differentiation in consciousness, is constantly present, and is a -- relatively determining factor. [p. 514]
> 
> For the sake of clarity let us again recapitulate: The products of all the functions can be conscious, but we speak of the consciousness of a function only when not merely its application is at the disposal of the will, but when at the same time its principle is decisive for the orientation of consciousness. This absolute sovereignty always belongs, empirically, to one function alone, and can belong only to one function, since the equally independent intervention of another function would necessarily yield a different orientation, which would at least partially contradict the first.


Again, Jung is quite specific that although the auxiliary function can be conscious, it will never be equal to the dominant function. Your choice of words “preferred” should give you some idea that MBTI considers we have a conscious choice in the type we prefer and even alludes to that some types are the result of environmental influences. Jung does not believe we have a choice in our type, instead says that it is there at birth:


> The fact that often in their earliest years children display an unmistakable typical attitude forces us to assume that it cannot possibly be the struggle for existence, as it is generally understood, which constitutes the compelling factor in favour of a definite attitude. We might, however, demur, and indeed with cogency, that even the tiny infant, the very babe at the breast, has already an unconscious psychological adaptation to perform, inasmuch as the special character of the maternal influence leads to specific reactions in the child. This argument, though appealing to incontestable facts, has none the less to yield before the equally unarguable fact that two children of the same mother may at a very early age exhibit opposite types, without the smallest accompanying change in the attitude of the mother.





Eric B said:


> If Se is dominant, then the person will be a Sanguine (or at least, Choleric-Sanguine, if it's used with Thinking), and thus better able to identify with Keirsey's SP descriptions. So yes, the types for whom it is not dominant, and are thus introverts, might have more problems fitting Keirsey's descriptions.
> 
> And it's clear that initiate/respond is just a renaming of E and I (Just like Keirsey renamed them expressive and reserved). They still fit in her system in both senses (Interaction Style and dominant cognitive function).


First you’re still attempting to make Jung and the 8-model theory an either/or choice. It’s not. To imply that an ISTP should be able relate to the Choleric-Sanguine type may be true on a very general level at best. But you fail to remember that the ISTP type is not just Ti-Se. It’s Ti-Se-Ni-Fe and because of the dominant attitude being introverted, the Ni can be used just as easily if not better than the Se (unconscious to the ISTP due to extraverting). Jung makes it clear that someone using Ti-Se also uses N-F:


> A grouping of the unconscious functions also takes place in accordance with the relationship of the conscious functions. Thus, for instance, an unconscious intuitive feeling attitude may correspond with a conscious practical intellect, whereby the function of feeling suffers a relatively stronger inhibition than intuition.


As for as your assertion that Berens use of words was merely a renaming, I do not have my booklet in front of me, but she provides a footnote that initiating/responding is not the same as extraverting/introverting. **EDIT**: Now that I have the booklet in front of me, Linda V. Berens says, "This (Initiating/Responding) aspect is about role relationships. While this aspect correlates with the widely known personality dimension of Extraversion and Introversion, the Jungian definitions are much broader."


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

Functianalyst said:


> Eric, you may want to review your posts before claiming you did not say something. That is exactly the word you used, the same as when you said you did not say “ambivert”. What you write and what you think you write does not always coincide.


 The focus there was on the word *merely*. It's emphasized (italic). I did not say I never said "label", I said I never said _merely_ a label. That is very different. That acknowledges that it is a label, but it is NOT JUST a label, but that *and* something more.
Likewise, I never said I didn't _*say*_ "ambivert"; I said I didn't claim it was from before Jung's time.
You're doing the very things you're saying I'm doing; with what you think _I'm_ writing.



> Jungian and his enthusiasts believe the auxiliary can be conscious, but it can never be equal to the most differentiated function: Again, Jung is quite specific that although the auxiliary function can be conscious, it will never be equal to the dominant function.


 No one ever said it was _*equal*_ to the dominant. Lest you again claim I'm denying something I said; what I actually said was the aux. is "Just as instrumental in defining a type". That has nothing to do with "equal" (i.e. which one is claimed to be stronger). Yes, the dominant is "superior" (as it's also called), but the auxiliary function differentiates the type preferring one function, from the type preferring its opposite. That's all that was being claimed.


> Your choice of words “preferred” should give you some idea that MBTI considers we have a conscious choice in the type we prefer and even alludes to that some types are the result of environmental influences. Jung does not believe we have a choice in our type, instead says that it is there at birth:


 No, "preferred" is not understood as "conscious". We often use it for conscious decisions, but in the CONTEXT of type, we know it is something we default to at birth. It's just a figure of speech, basically. And I've never seen MBTI claim type is based on environmental influences. What they say is that those influences can _*affect*_ a type, so that it does not always act in a typical, or stereotypical way. (That is why we must be careful with overgeneralizations, including the ones regarding J/P, which are common).
You're making a lot of assumptions about people's use of words.


> First you’re still attempting to make Jung and the 8-model theory an either/or choice. It’s not. To imply that an ISTP should be able relate to the Choleric-Sanguine type may be true on a very general level at best. But you fail to remember that the ISTP type is not just Ti-Se. It’s Ti-Se-Ni-Fe and because of the dominant attitude being introverted, the Ni can be used just as easily if not better than the Se (unconscious to the ISTP due to extraverting). Jung makes it clear that someone using Ti-Se also uses N-F:


For one thing, I was discussing *dom.* Se, with Thinking. That's *E*STP, and its "introversion" would be less conscious.

I don't understand your point about the tertiary and inferior. I was discussing the dominant or auxiliary, and how it relates to the SP group, which Keirsey identified as a temperament. The auxiliary may not be "equal" to the dominant, but if Se is in that aux. place, the person will still be an "SP" type, and fit at least some of Keirsey's "Artisan" descriptions. Even if the tertiary Ni appears just as strong or stronger than the aux.; he will stil be an SP, which if anything, would show that the temperament holds, even if the function connected with it is not being "used" strongly (and it's not really so much about relative function "use" or "strength")



> As for as your assertion that Berens use of words was merely a renaming, I do not have my booklet in front of me, but she provides a footnote that initiating/responding is not the same as extraverting/introverting. **EDIT**: Now that I have the booklet in front of me, Linda V. Berens says, "This (Initiating/Responding) aspect is about role relationships. While this aspect correlates with the widely known personality dimension of Extraversion and Introversion, the Jungian definitions are much broader."


 Again, there's no "_merely_" anything, but it fitting the I/E of Interaction styles and more.


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

Eric B said:


> The focus there was on the word *merely*. It's emphasized (italic). I did not say I never said "label", I said I never said _merely_ a label. That is very different. That acknowledges that it is a label, but it is NOT JUST a label, but that *and* something more.
> Likewise, I never said I didn't _*say*_ "ambivert"; I said I didn't claim it was from before Jung's time.
> You're doing the very things you're saying I'm doing; with what you think _I'm_ writing.





> All throughout that work, he uses them as labels of a person (nouns), not just as labels of a function (verbs). This is the same way it was used in temperament theory, or general usage.


Sure sounds like you were claiming it was merely a label since you went on to say E/I is not used as a verb. Of course it’s used in the action sense, hence introverted thinking, not an introverted thinker.

As for what you said you did not say about ambivert, I will have to read again since the double negatives sounds like you did say something.


Eric B said:


> And I've never seen MBTI claim type is based on environmental influences. What they say is that those influences can _*affect*_ a type, so that it does not always act in a typical, or stereotypical way. (That is why we must be careful with overgeneralizations, including the ones regarding J/P, which are common).
> You're making a lot of assumptions about people's use of words.


Well since you read that portion, you clearly read the remainder of the Obstacles to Type Development, where it says, “In fact some people are born without any disposition to be one type or another, then outer circumstances, one might conjecture, would have a free hand in determining which type (if any) attitudes and processes would be developed. Western civilization has inclined men toward thinking and women toward feeling, and both sexes toward extraversion and the judging attitude. The pressure of outer circumstances itself would to be toward sensing. Thus anyone who came into the world as a clean slate would likely to be marked ESTJ or ESFJ fairly promptly by the collective slate pencil, which may explain why there are so many ESTJs and ESFJs in the general population.”

That’s not an assumption, Myers-Briggs implied that many are born with tabula rasa, and their environment influences their type development. 


Eric B said:


> For one thing, I was discussing *dom.* Se, with Thinking. That's *E*STP, and its "introversion" would be less conscious.
> 
> I don't understand your point about the tertiary and inferior. I was discussing the dominant or auxiliary, and how it relates to the SP group, which Keirsey identified as a temperament. The auxiliary may not be "equal" to the dominant, but if Se is in that aux. place, the person will still be an "SP" type, and fit at least some of Keirsey's "Artisan" descriptions. Even if the tertiary Ni appears just as strong or stronger than the aux.; he will stil be an SP, which if anything, would show that the temperament holds, even if the function connected with it is not being "used" strongly (and it's not really so much about relative function "use" or "strength")
> 
> Again, there's no "_merely_" anything, but it fitting the I/E of Interaction styles and more.


Eric I can read an astrological report that can describe me somewhat. Descriptions of different types can describe anyone somewhat. The common denominator of SP is the Se function-attitude. ISP types are not going to relate to the description. I only determined that I was SP after reading Berens’ “Improviser” description, because she omitted Keirsey’s language focusing on the Se. We’re just going to have to agree to disagree, because this dialogue has become completely off topic to the original inquiry, which as I said the J/P code is unnecessary to even the layman, not just professional psychologists.


----------



## LiquidLight (Oct 14, 2011)

> That’s not an assumption, Myers-Briggs implied that many are born with tabula rasa, and their environment influences their type development.


It is interesting because I've also seen Myers-Briggs imply that type is innate (this is usually the argument against type changing). Jung himself seems to describe type as being a product of the Ego, which grows out of the unconscious during the archaic and monarchic stage of development which would suggest that environment (at least the initial influences) does play some role here. That being said the development of the other complexes (anima/animus, persona, etc) he seems to indicate are directly a result of our intrapsychic interactions with those around us and the environment. To me to only consider this from a standpoint of functions ignoring the other complexes (which is essentially what the MBTI does - probably because the idea of complexes is too unorthodox to modern psychology) is to equate too much power to the functions and not enough to the other complexes. 

Jung is explicit that a person can identify too strongly with his or her persona and this will have a much more profound impact on how the person _actually_ lives their life than the functions themselves. After perusing many of the threads on this and other sites it's pretty easy to notice how much people are actually influenced by functions versus how much the persona and other complexes are in effect, and what most people attribute to functions is really vestiges of their persona (like the silly _do I think or feel_ questions). What many people call Anima is really just lesser-expressed aspects of persona too. This is fine if the Berens/Nardi and Kiersey (or Platonic/Hippocratic) stuff are to be brought into the equation because of their emphasis on the outward manifestations or character aspects, but in the strictest sense has less to do with type for its own sake. It's more a matter of what type might look like relative to a particular temperament model. Even Beebe points out that many of the people claiming to be Introverted Thinking types (especially men) are actually something else who have been socialized or have adopted a thinking persona. I would go as far as to state that what most people call type (especially those whose self-reflection is somewhat limited) is really persona and to that end a test like the Big 5 might be a more accurate measure of that person in the moment than MBTI.

Additionally because Jung does not differentiate out function attitudes of the aux/tert functions as modern type dynamics does that opens up the possibility for the expression of the type to be dramatically more complex than is commonly thought under the MBTI paradigm. As many of us know IT(S) is not the same as ISTP.


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

Functianalyst said:


> Sure sounds like you were claiming it was merely a label since you went on to say E/I is not used as a verb.


 Again, that was "not _*just*_ a verb". I'm acknowledging it's used as both.


> Of course it’s used in the action sense, hence introverted thinking, not an introverted thinker.


 Actually, Jung uses both (albeit that latter, only once, at least in the online edition).


> Well since you read that portion, you clearly read the remainder of the Obstacles to Type Development, where it says, “In fact some people are born without any disposition to be one type or another, then outer circumstances, one might conjecture, would have a free hand in determining which type (if any) attitudes and processes would be developed. Western civilization has inclined men toward thinking and women toward feeling, and both sexes toward extraversion and the judging attitude. The pressure of outer circumstances itself would to be toward sensing. Thus anyone who came into the world as a clean slate would likely to be marked ESTJ or ESFJ fairly promptly by the collective slate pencil, which may explain why there are so many ESTJs and ESFJs in the general population.”
> 
> That’s not an assumption, Myers-Briggs implied that many are born with tabula rasa, and their environment influences their type development.


 OK; now I remember that. (I just looked it up again). 
That always confused me why they would say that, when otherwise, it seems to be assumed that type is inborn. Then I just brushed it off and moved on and forgot it.

I can only speculate that they really mean a very weak preference, that is more easily shaped by factors.
Perhaps pure Phlegmatics really are "XXXX" (since that temperament is so inbetween in everything), and is the one "tablula rasa" type, that adopts its preference due to circumstance. (On TypoC, a couple of us tried to add moderate preference, in which each MBTI dichotomy would gain a third pole (A=ambiversion, for E/I, and either X's or other terms for the others), and you would end up with 76 or 81 types, with the Pure Phlegmatic (Inclusion/Control) as "AXXX"; but it really didn't work with the functions). 


> Eric I can read an astrological report that can describe me somewhat. Descriptions of different types can describe anyone somewhat. The common denominator of SP is the Se function-attitude. ISP types are not going to relate to the description. I only determined that I was SP after reading Berens’ “Improviser” description, because she omitted Keirsey’s language focusing on the Se. We’re just going to have to agree to disagree, because this dialogue has become completely off topic to the original inquiry, which as I said the J/P code is unnecessary to even the layman, not just professional psychologists.


What you're saying there seems to agree with what I've been saying (that an ISP might not identify with SP under Keirsey's descriptions which focus on "extraversion"; but Berens' helps clear things up).


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

LiquidLight said:


> It is interesting because I've also seen Myers-Briggs imply that type is innate (this is usually the argument against type changing). Jung himself seems to describe type as being a product of the Ego, which grows out of the unconscious during the archaic and monarchic stage of development which would suggest that environment (at least the initial influences) does play some role here. That being said the development of the other complexes (anima/animus, persona, etc) he seems to indicate are directly a result of our intrapsychic interactions with those around us and the environment. To me to only consider this from a standpoint of functions ignoring the other complexes (which is essentially what the MBTI does - probably because the idea of complexes is too unorthodox to modern psychology) is to equate too much power to the functions and not enough to the other complexes.


I would have to disagree Liquid. Jung is specific in the first several paragraphs that unlike Myers-Briggs who claims we have a choice or preference, Jung says:


> Such a universal distribution could hardly arise as the result of a conscious and deliberate choice of attitude. If this were the case, a definite level of society, linked together by a similar education and environment and, therefore, correspondingly localized, would surely have a majority representation of such an attitude. But the actual facts are just the reverse, for the types have, apparently, quite a random distribution. [p. 414] In the same family one child is introverted, and another extraverted.


As for any discussion of persona by Jung, are you actually alluding to our shadow type as a result of the “collective unconscious” influence?


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

Yeah, I think I agree most with @Functianalyst so far about "choosing" functions. I can't imagine how this is even possible...I mean, I've even seen twins who have quite different types from each other.


----------



## Zero11 (Feb 7, 2010)

INT-Ni_, ENT-Te_
INF-Ni_, __EST-Te_
ISF-Si_, __ENF-Fe_
IST-Si_, __ESF-Fe_
INF-Fi_, __ENF-Ne_
ISF-Fi_, __ENT-Ne_ 
IST-Ti_, __EST-Se_
INT-Ti_, ESF-Se _
_ 
Shit yeah roud:
_


----------



## Mastodon (Feb 5, 2012)

Students are often accurate barometers, especially when they emphatically nod in unison.
Most of my P students miss homework; most of my J students spend too much time on homework.
What I love about my P students is that they are vocally and visually engaged when I do demonstrations (Science)--my lesson depends on them: "That's COOL!" So, I don't ride them too hard on the homework issue, it just won't do any good. 

The homework approach needs to be rethought in schools.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

> The homework approach needs to be rethought in schools.


What, to take P/J into account? I think that would be a terrible idea, since, from a typological perspective, no one really knows what P/J is. And how is this even remotely fair to those who don't forget things to let those who do keep this up? The careful ones will probably get pissed and want that policy to apply to them as well, since most people don't like doing homework to begin with. I haven't noticed any consistency between P/J and being forgetful. Most of the people who were at the top of my high school class were so-called P-types, who were very organized and never forgot homework. The top student was a super-meticulous INFP. I'm curious as to how you quantify Ps/Js. The only people that I noticed tend to fit what you're describing are often males (maybe because they tend to mature more slowly than females) and a lot of male Se-doms who couldn't give a crap about school and their GPA.


----------



## Mastodon (Feb 5, 2012)

Not doing homework is not a function of forgetfulness in my experience. Our students are given an "agenda book" in which to write their hw. The agenda never works for the male P students--they lose it or avoid it. Some teachers penalize students who do not have their agendas; the male P students simply call a friend or check the teacher's Web site for hw, and seem much more interested in starting the lesson rather than dealing with the minutia of writing hw down. These students typically understand concepts, test well, and do little homework. The standard hw model in schools is an SJ model: do your homework, hand it in and get a "check", regardless of whether the information is copied, incorrect, etc. In this respect P students are perpetually struggling with a certain level of inadequacy. It's no surprise to me that education has the fewest SP types.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

So, are you implying that SP students are smarter than SJ students on average? I highly doubt it. Taking care of understanding the concepts as well as organization shouldn't have anything to do with each other. And I don't agree that the SJ model is really how SJs "think" (or lack thereof). Si isn't the "copy-cat" function. If anything, this might be structured on really bad SJ thinking, but not necessarily typical SJ thinking. I've had SP teachers who taught with this "so-called" SJ method, so I don't think it's what it seems.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

Also, I've known SJs who hate that method and felt like it didn't help them at all, so once again, I doubt it's what it seems.


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

Mastodon said:


> Students are often accurate barometers, especially when they emphatically nod in unison.
> Most of my P students miss homework; most of my J students spend too much time on homework.
> What I love about my P students is that they are vocally and visually engaged when I do demonstrations (Science)--my lesson depends on them: "That's COOL!" So, I don't ride them too hard on the homework issue, it just won't do any good.
> 
> The homework approach needs to be rethought in schools.


Silly me to ask the most fundamental question, but how do you know which kids are J and which are P? Are they being tested, and if so are they being tested in the worse environment one can be in which is a school, work or any other industry that has a direct influence on how someone is expected to behave? Finally if they are being given assessments to determine their type, are they going through any sort of process to confirm they are that type? The MBTI is a very poor assessment with a 50-66% accuracy.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

> The MBTI is a very poor assessment with a 50-66% accuracy.


Wow! That's worse than I last remember reading! Where did you find this out? This totally made my day (*mightconfirmmoreproblemswithJ/Plabels*)!


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> Wow! That's worse than I last remember reading! Where did you find this out? This totally made my day (*mightconfirmmoreproblemswithJ/Plabels*)!


From *CAPT*. You can review their conclusions *here*. I would like to add that even the *Myers & Briggs Foundation* admit to reliability issues in saying:


> Reliability (when scores are treated as continuous scores, as in most other psychological instruments) is as good as or better than other personality instruments.
> 
> On retest, people come out with three to four type preferences the same 75% to 90% of the time.
> 
> ...


The problem with the above assertions is that by just taking the assessment, you have a fifty percent chance of getting at least one dichotomy correct since it’s an either/or assessment, simply based on Jung’s principles. For example, 100% of I and T do not indicate that I use those dichotomies at that level. It means that there is a 100% chance that I prefer and T, which equates to Ti. I have said more than once that if an INJ type for example is constantly scoring highest in T/F as opposed to N, they may want reassess whether they actually dominate with a judging function. That is the nature of taking assessments. 

Back to my example, I consistently score highest of probability in I & T, which I can conclude makes me a Ti dominant type. If that is certain, I can only be one of two types. The only question remaining is whether I prefer S/N, since I have three out of four dichotomies correct. I give this example because it is actually what occurred with me over 10 years ago when I had the Step II administered to me. Repeating the test did not help, it only solidified that I was wrong the first time. It took me learning about myself and about type.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

Yes, I've found the tests to be useless as soon as I found type descriptions online. The tests never got me right, ever (I always got INTP), and probably for this reason:



> I have said more than once that if an INJ type for example is constantly scoring highest in T/F as opposed to N, they may want reassess whether they actually dominate with a judging function. That is the nature of taking assessments.


Also, the conclusions of the CAPT report were stunning! Definitely confirmed many things I and others have been suspicious of and revealed even more. For instance, the following particularly stood out to me:



> In other studies, researchers found that the JP and the SN scales are correlated with one
> another.11 In sum, the statistical analysis of the test does not support the theory used to describe the MBTI.


Yup, I've been extremely suspicious of N/S masquerading as P/J (look no further than a ton of the idiotic comments on youtube about P/J, where people basically mix up the definitions with this and S/N). The questions make it look like S's and J's can't see past their noses, while N's and P's are so wonderfully open-minded and broad-minded (*considers barf-bag*). The second statement is too true, in terms of the test's relevance to MBTI theory and even down to it's very origins in Jungian theory.



> Relation Between MBTI Type and Occupation. Many people have examined the relation between type and
> occupation by examining the proportions of type within each profession. For example, one might observe that many
> elementary teachers are ESTJs and conclude that ESTJs prefer to be elementary school teachers or to work in a
> related occupation. Although it sounds appealing, such a conclusion runs into many fundamental problems.
> ...


Wow, epic fail for the MBTI tests here! o.o



> Finally, there is no evidence to show a positive relation between MBTI type and success within an occupation. That
> is, there is nothing to show that ESFPs are better or worse salespeople than INTJs are. Nor is there any data to
> suggest that specific types are more satisfied within specific occupations than are other types, or that they stay longer
> in one occupation than do others.


This is interesting! It's amazing how people buy this stuff, but there really is no statistical evidence for any of the claims that these tests and type descriptions make! I totally fell for it, until I started exploring type in-depth and typing people IRL, when the faultiness of so many of the MBTI claims became apparent (after all, one statement in the article was that the test results only correlate to a random selection of the population, nothing significant (and additionally, I would add, *what is there that is significant to compare the alleged "significant" type claims of the tests against anyhow to even know that there's any truth to such claims?*)



> In summary, it appears that the MBTI does not conform to many of the basic standards expected of psychological
> tests. Many very specific predictions about the MBTI have not been confirmed or have been proved wrong. There
> is no obvious evidence that there are 16 unique categories in which all people can be placed. There is no evidence
> that scores generated by the MBTI reflect the stable and unchanging personality traits that are claimed to be
> measured. Finally, there is no evidence that the MBTI measures anything of value.


Oh, wonderful. It's an astrology test. It's a money-making scam. Drats, I knew it!



> In a recent review of the MBTI, commissioned by the Army Research Institute, it was concluded that the instrument
> should not be used for career planning counseling.


I totally agree. Now, if only it can go away...



> I believe that MBTI attempts to force the complexities of human personality into an
> artificial and limiting classification scheme. The focus on the "typing" of people reduces the attention paid to the
> unique qualities and potential of each individual.


Oh yes, this is my biggest problem with it. It's so hypocritical in this regard (the websites supporting how it "supports" diversity and whatnot are creepily propagandist to me at this point).



> Many readers may be surprised by my interpretation and objections to such a popular test. It has been my experience
> that this reaction stems from how they view the MBTI. In many cases, the popularity of the instrument is interpreted
> as an indication of its accuracy and utility, which then leads to wider use and less inclination to question the
> foundations of the test. As a consequence, the MBTI has become a popular instrument for reasons unrelated to its
> reliability and validity.


Yup. People are afraid to question it's authority. I see it here.



> The publishers do a very good job of promoting the test and providing support for its users. The MBTI also has
> *much intuitive appeal*. The descriptions of each type are generally flattering and sufficiently vague so that most people
> will accept the statements as true of themselves. If you tell people that they are "innovative thinkers and good
> problem solvers, and good at understanding and motivating people, but may have trouble following through on
> ...


Absolutely! But, can anyone tell me why the sensor descriptions are less flattering, and thus, many mistype as iNtuitives?



> Because of its apparent simplicity, the MBTI may be misused unintentionally by some people. A manager, for
> example, may come to believe that only certain personality types are appropriate for specific jobs. After learning
> about type, such a manager may conclude that only ISTJs make good accountants whereas the best people for the
> sales force will be the ESFJs.15 Thus, the type label may bias a manager's decisions on hiring, firing, evaluating, and
> ...


Oh, my! This all couldn't be more true even outside of the workforce (*ahem!* the internet forums). Wow, so much for helping people in the workforce, when they're at greater risk of getting fired. o.o

Great article!


----------



## TaylorS (Jan 24, 2010)

Mastodon said:


> Students are often accurate barometers, especially when they emphatically nod in unison.
> Most of my P students miss homework; most of my J students spend too much time on homework.
> What I love about my P students is that they are vocally and visually engaged when I do demonstrations (Science)--my lesson depends on them: "That's COOL!" So, I don't ride them too hard on the homework issue, it just won't do any good.
> 
> The homework approach needs to be rethought in schools.


I'm a J and I hated homework.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

Someone linked this topic somewhere so I found it...




JungyesMBTIno said:


> Honestly, I _really_ wouldn't be surprised if this was the main reason that MBTI can't be taken seriously in the psychological profession (for good reason too, imo).


No, that's not the reason  See below.




> Due to the fluid and various manifestations of cognitive functions in individuals, J/P cannot manifest consistently enough to be reliable, and considering that J/P only describe behaviors


The same problem could be said about all the functions. ;P I see J/P as no different in terms of that at all. Not better or worse.




> wouldn't relying on J/P in psychology potentially amount to inadvertent psychological abuse of the patient, since the therapist would be reinforcing behaviors in the patient, which might have nothing to do with J/P at all, since behavior is *always* learned (this is indisputable in psychology - look no further than feral children)


That sentence didn't quite make any sense. 1) What's wrong with reinforcing behaviour that the patient likes to do anyway? 2) Behaviour is not always learned, this has never been shown to be the case, example of feral children isn't something that decides the nature vs nurture argument. It's the *wrong* question. The answer is, there is both nature and nurture, now the question becomes meaningless because it does not give us a new good principle about anything.




JungyesMBTIno said:


> Interesting about academic research! I'm not really sure how organized the academic research environments would have to be anyway, so maybe it makes sense that it wouldn't be used in these settings? That sounds like it would be a total nightmare if MBTI was used - I can just see the raging S/N bias if that happened. My future may be safe then...^^


That section again didn't make sense to me. -.- Academic experiments etc. are very controlled & organized. Or what do you mean here? How is this to do with accepting MBTI? It's not accepted because the theory is associated with non-scientific methods.




JungyesMBTIno said:


> According to this, Ps need to experience more in life than Js to be able to judge anything, which, just...defies common sense and makes Ps look a bit...slow, according to the theory.


I do think -regardless of my type- I need more experience first to judge a new thing. Has nothing to do with being slow. That association makes no sense. Also how is it against common sense that people are different in ways?




JungyesMBTIno said:


> Yup, I've been extremely suspicious of N/S masquerading as P/J (look no further than a ton of the idiotic comments on youtube about P/J, where people basically mix up the definitions with this and S/N). The questions make it look like S's and J's can't see past their noses, while N's and P's are so wonderfully open-minded and broad-minded (*considers barf-bag*). The second statement is too true, in terms of the test's relevance to MBTI theory and even down to it's very origins in Jungian theory.


Oh another tidbit: N and T scales are also correlated.....

(I don't know about the rest of the functions. I just read that someone showed this in an investigation.)




> Oh, my! This all couldn't be more true even outside of the workforce (*ahem!* the internet forums). Wow, so much for helping people in the workforce, when they're at greater risk of getting fired. o.o


The official MBTI ethical guidelines explicitly state that the MBTI should not be used for determining how to "use" a person at the workplace (e.g. whether to hire them or exactly what task to give them etc).




Spades said:


> Do you plan things ahead and stick to the plan? You must be a J! Are you spontaneous and leave things to the last minute? You must be a P!


Ahah, I do both. The trick for me is whether the motivation is intrinsic or extrinsic. Intrinsic motivation to reach something often leads me to very "J" behaviour, as for extrinstic ones, well, I'm less enthusiastic about those, so I'll often procrastinate until the last minute. Now here's one example that's better explained by something outside MBTI or Jungian theory.




> It really adds this whole new level of confusion when people try to type themselves. Not to mention some workplaces take MBTI seriously (at least from what I've heard, luckily academic research doesn't!)


It didn't confuse me, I always categorized myself as a P because I interpret it as motivation for spontaneity, which I certainly prefer over non-spontaneity. But then I do know I have a lot of J things too, it's just that that's more in the background or something 

Another thing is that I see J-like behaviour often as too soothing and even-keeled, I prefer a more impulsive energy use pattern which I understand is associated with P in definitions.

While it didn't confuse me, it confuses others about whether I'm J or P hahaha.




Eric B said:


> Again, it's based on Meyers; plus the fact that Jung conceived of four plain functions, S, N, T, F, and the eight function-attitudes (Xe/i) are artificial constructs formed from the ego pairing its dominant function with its preferred orientation, and then the other functions falling into the opposite orientation (and then, according to later theorists, various complexes reorienting the functions in the remaining function/attitude combinations).


I only quote that because I like this, that is, I agree.  I wouldn't go as far as saying they are more artificial constructs than the basic functions, but more refining of the idea certainly muddles things up.




Functianalyst said:


> Of course MBTI is a simplified system, which only becomes more muddled when people throw in function-attitudes and attempt to use those function-attitudes with MBTI techniques. Keep the systems separate and they will not become confused. What people who prefer to keep it simple will do however is continue to use terms such as X to symbolize ambiversion or the inability to decide between S/N, or T/F due to the rigidity of MBTI in having to make a forced choice.


Do you accept usage of X or do you think the forced choice must be made?




Functianalyst said:


> The problem with the above assertions is that by just taking the assessment, you have a fifty percent chance of getting at least one dichotomy correct since it’s an either/or assessment, simply based on Jung’s principles.


Um, more than fifty percent. More like 94% chance for that. =)




> Back to my example, I consistently score highest of probability in I & T, which I can conclude makes me a Ti dominant type. If that is certain, I can only be one of two types. The only question remaining is whether I prefer S/N, since I have three out of four dichotomies correct. I give this example because it is actually what occurred with me over 10 years ago when I had the Step II administered to me. Repeating the test did not help, it only solidified that I was wrong the first time. It took me learning about myself and about type.


If one scores highest in T & P what does that mean then using your logic, is that a Ti preference still?




Functianalyst said:


> Jungian and his enthusiasts believe the auxiliary can be conscious, but it can never be equal to the most differentiated function: Again, Jung is quite specific that although the auxiliary function can be conscious, it will never be equal to the dominant function.


Oh the One Big Dominant function... :Rolleyes: Illusion by Jung!




> Your choice of words “preferred” should give you some idea that MBTI considers we have a conscious choice in the type we prefer and even alludes to that some types are the result of environmental influences. Jung does not believe we have a choice in our type, instead says that it is there at birth:


Jung said lots of things, he also said type can change over life. Oops.




> First you’re still attempting to make Jung and the 8-model theory an either/or choice. It’s not. To imply that an ISTP should be able relate to the Choleric-Sanguine type may be true on a very general level at best. But you fail to remember that the ISTP type is not just Ti-Se. It’s Ti-Se-Ni-Fe and because of the dominant attitude being introverted, the Ni can be used just as easily if not better than the Se (unconscious to the ISTP due to extraverting). Jung makes it clear that someone using Ti-Se also uses N-F:As for as your assertion that Berens use of words was merely a renaming, I do not have my booklet in front of me, but she provides a footnote that initiating/responding is not the same as extraverting/introverting. **EDIT**: Now that I have the booklet in front of me, Linda V. Berens says, "This (Initiating/Responding) aspect is about role relationships. While this aspect correlates with the widely known personality dimension of Extraversion and Introversion, the Jungian definitions are much broader."


Okay now I'm really curious, what is the unconscious auxiliary Se of ISTP like? I'd really like to know how this manifests as compared to a conscious Se function, e.g. ENFJ's tertiary Se.


----------



## Lotan (Aug 10, 2012)

TaylorS said:


> I'm a J and I hated homework.


Me too. I spent more time making excuses t not do my homework than I did actually doing my homework in school. Some of my friends would get home at 3:30 and be doing homework until 9 every single day...I never understood that. I'm a very diligent worker when it comes to something I WANT to do, but when it comes to something I HAVE to do I have a very hard time getting motivated, especially if it's "busywork".


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

@JungyesMBTIno

The MBTI can't be taken seriously because the instrument is a self report questionnaire and nobody did enough actual research to advance Jung's initial concepts, there is no way to properly test for it. You need tangible evidence that the human mind works according to the functions and not in some other way. That would mean lots of testing, brain scans and comparisons, total evaluation, proper research.

This basically means the test is shit, unreliable, throw it away. The theory might be true and certain things do point towards the functions being there.

You know J and P only means Fe-Te vs Fi-Ti within the 2 top preferred functions (aka J means preferred information evaluation function is extroverted, P means the information gathering function is extroverted).

I wouldn't base anything on tests alone ^^; and about learned behavior, my parents have tried their best to teach me to be a planner, systematic and orderly...however my mind is fucked up chaos and I thrive on the thrill of last minute crazy limit situations. I love chaotic work that involves fast paced thinking, in the moment adaptation, thinking on my feet etc. I'll never give that up to use charts, to prepare in time and all that boring shit, but I have to in a certain measure, even if I hate it, because...I tend to be all over the place...scattered, chaotic.

At work when all things go to hell I tend to really wake up with limitless energy and go into overdrive. Where my planner coworkers get stressed out and overwhelmed I seem to thrive. Imo that is a good sign for P preference. I live, eat and breathe chaos....sadly and I like it. yeah if you have to know I suck BAD with..mundane stuff..like paying bills on time and taking care of basic needs: sleep, food, health...to some degree finances (don't keep track as I tend to have bad memory and forget).

 its difficult to get a mind under control that has this kind of energy and pace to it (my mind): 






...<.< but it needs to happen to some degree at least, so learning J tendencies aka strengthening access to inferior and tertiary functions is a survival necessity. Unbalanced ppl have a problem imo, if you have mixed use among your 4 functions, then you are lucky.

^__^ I probably have some ADD (inattentive) and dyslexia as well, I always think, my mind always runs wild with ideas....even if I don't notice..I'm constantly analyzing, taking things apart, from one idea to the next, connections upon connections. I can't describe it as anything other then chaotic and disorganized. 

Meditation would probably be a good thing if i could quiet the storm inside my head, but i found that focusing on something external that is very interesting does the job quite well.

To me I and E are more unclear then J-P.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

I/E are the core focus of Jung. They mean everything to the theory (since they explain the differences in subjective and objective approaches that make the types possible at all). Sure, it's a theory, but it holds ground on all accounts according to recent investigations. For instance, in psycho-clinical settings, it's precisely a person's subjectivity or objectivity that tends to get in the way of their biases and self-understanding. Some people are noted to think the world revolves around them and make excuses to support this (Jung related this to extraversion), while others think that they deserve to be understood and respected for standing out from the crowd on their own terms, and are reluctant to see that their personal existence/originality is not always going to cut it in the real world (Jung related this to introversion). Take it or leave it.


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> I/E are the core focus of Jung. They mean everything to the theory (since they explain the differences in subjective and objective approaches that make the types possible at all). Sure, it's a theory, but it holds ground on all accounts according to recent investigations. For instance, in psycho-clinical settings, it's precisely a person's subjectivity or objectivity that tends to get in the way of their biases and self-understanding. Some people are noted to think the world revolves around them and make excuses to support this (Jung related this to extraversion), while others think that they deserve to be understood and respected for standing out from the crowd on their own terms, and are reluctant to see that their personal existence/originality is not always going to cut it in the real world (Jung related this to introversion). Take it or leave it.


What about ambiversion or jumping back and forth between the two? Much the same way you find it difficult to see J-P difference, which for me is a simple and very clear P preference, I find it difficult not to go back and forth between the two, because I can't decide: do I use more Ne or more Fi, more Si or more Te...or is my Te, just well developed Ti and I can't make the difference...etc. Same with what you said, if true, I do both under different circumstances and depending on how I feel (tired, energized, sick, not sick etc). There is no clear and strong preference.

The continuum has a mid section and some people naturally fall almost dead smack in the middle.

(I speak only from personal experience as I consider it more valuable as data then what is generally considered, plus I don't know how others work internally).


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

Rim said:


> What about ambiversion or jumping back and forth between the two? Much the same way you find it difficult to see J-P difference, which for me is a simple and very clear P preference, I find it difficult not to go back and forth between the two, because I can't decide: do I use more Ne or more Fi, more Si or more Te...or is my Te, just well developed Ti and I can't make the difference...etc. Same with what you said, if true, I do both under different circumstances and depending on how I feel (tired, energized, sick, not sick etc). There is no clear and strong preference.
> 
> The continuum has a mid section and some people naturally fall almost dead smack in the middle.
> 
> (I speak only from personal experience as I consider it more valuable as data then what is generally considered, plus I don't know how others work internally).


I think you're taking it all too literally. Ambiversion isn't real - no one has an 100% equal habituation of introversion and extraversion - you wouldn't be able to think for yourself if that was the case - you would be deadlocked in making decisions. J and P is something that can easily work outside of MBTI/Jung altogether, because at it's core concept, it has nothing to do with Jung's conception of J/P at all (to him, this was just thinking and feeling, and intuition and sensation, respectively). Also, you don't use "more" of anything - in fact, you don't "use" functions at all - they use you and you respond to them via reasoning. Most functions tests and JCF info online are pure BS ("crap in, crap out" devices dependent entirely upon self-awareness and ideas), you might as well realize that now. None of it really obeys what Jung was getting at - it's accounting for after-the-fact results of actions that might represent the functions in some way or another (only from the presumptions of the MBTI folks, of course, which are questionable in theory at the very least, as well as according to studies conducted on the metrics). To Jung, type was about psychological habituation, not figuring out math problems or what have you that gets associated with MBTI, which is essentially a behavioral theory masquerading in Jungian material as some kind of test of strengths and abilities, not a psychological method of personality analysis.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> I think you're taking it all too literally. Ambiversion isn't real - no one has an 100% equal habituation of introversion and extraversion - you wouldn't be able to think for yourself if that was the case - you would be deadlocked in making decisions. J and P is something that can easily work outside of MBTI/Jung altogether, because at it's core concept, it has nothing to do with Jung's conception of J/P at all (to him, this was just thinking and feeling, and intuition and sensation, respectively). Also, you don't use "more" of anything - in fact, you don't "use" functions at all - they use you and you respond to them via reasoning. Most functions tests and JCF info online are pure BS ("crap in, crap out" devices dependent entirely upon self-awareness and ideas), you might as well realize that now. None of it really obeys what Jung was getting at - it's accounting for after-the-fact results of actions that might represent the functions in some way or another. To Jung, type was about psychological habituation, not figuring out math problems or what have you that gets associated with MBTI, which is essentially a behavioral theory masquerading in Jungian material as some kind of test of strengths and abilities, not a psychological method of personality analysis.


Honestly, if one gets hung up on the J/P differences, then one should get hung up on the entire letter code to begin with because all of it is equally misleading when it comes down to it. E/I is treated the same way social introversion and extraversion is, N/S is incredibly stereotyped and says very little to properly type intuitives and sensors apart, and same applies to T/F. Either you reject the entire MBTI label system all together or you see its deeper applications in relation to cognitive function coding.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

LeaT said:


> Honestly, if one gets hung up on the J/P differences, then one should get hung up on the entire letter code to begin with because all of it is equally misleading when it comes down to it. E/I is treated the same way social introversion and extraversion is, N/S is incredibly stereotyped and says very little to properly type intuitives and sensors apart, and same applies to T/F. Either you reject the entire MBTI label system all together or you see its deeper applications in relation to cognitive function coding.


Yeah. I mean, MBTI is just the tool to aiding one into a rough understanding of the cognitive functions that sort of approaches this in an awkwardly roundabout way, to the point that you don't know how to discriminate common sense from concepts that actually specify what functions are and why they process the way they do. In fact, at face value, it is useless, because it in almost every way one can think of, violates Jungian principles (or overgeneralizes them indiscriminately), down to how it should be applied, which should be in reference to a person's general cognition trends and NOT persona/behavior (if you're into the temperament side of this stuff, @EricB is your best go-to source). The letter codes are problematic in the messages they convey (I mean, with all the information out there, who even needs to waste their time decoding the label in reference to themselves? It's meaningless. To quote Shakespeare, "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet." If you have socionics labels also, which differ conceptually from the MBTI ones with J/P, shouldn't this be a red flag to the arbitrariness of MBTI's superficial and ungrounded application...).


----------



## MuChApArAdOx (Jan 24, 2011)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> I think you're taking it all too literally. Ambiversion isn't real - no one has an 100% equal habituation of introversion and extraversion - you wouldn't be able to think for yourself if that was the case - you would be deadlocked in making decisions. J and P is something that can easily work outside of MBTI/Jung altogether, because at it's core concept, it has nothing to do with Jung's conception of J/P at all (to him, this was just thinking and feeling, and intuition and sensation, respectively). *Also, you don't use "more" of anything - in fact, you don't "use" functions at all - they use you and you respond to them via reasoning.* Most functions tests and JCF info online are pure BS ("crap in, crap out" devices dependent entirely upon self-awareness and ideas), you might as well realize that now. None of it really obeys what Jung was getting at - it's accounting for after-the-fact results of actions that might represent the functions in some way or another (only from the presumptions of the MBTI folks, of course, which are questionable in theory at the very least, as well as according to studies conducted on the metrics). *To Jung, type was about psychological habituation*, not figuring out math problems or what have you that gets associated with MBTI, which is essentially a behavioral theory masquerading in Jungian material as some kind of test of strengths and abilities, not a psychological method of personality analysis.


You always have great intellectual reasoning to your post, thank you. The parts i high lighted are interesting, not because of some magical thought, because of the common sense the reeks when you read it.

If people spent half as much time taking the functions for what they are rather than trying to add data with things they don't understand, or take away from aspects they don't like. As an ENFP i totally grasp the concept, its when people add all their own personal flavour and fluff in order to make it sound better, or take Jungs theory and twist it in a knot in order to create a new box for them alone..annoying but amusing.

PerC is much different than when i first started. People leaned more towards learning the functions, Jung, MBTI. Where the functions sit according to your type and why. Lately there has been a few creating a new kind of theory, its called lets throw a bit of Jung, MBTI, maybe with a dash of Socionics and BAM, i'm a new type. Before you know it we will have those who believe they use Ni Ti Si and Fi , simultaneously , only on Sunday though. Monday they will switch to Ne Se Te and Fe,  for the lolz.


----------



## electricky (Feb 18, 2011)

MuChApArAdOx said:


> You always have great intellectual reasoning to your post, thank you. The parts i high lighted are interesting, not because of some magical thought, because of the common sense the reeks when you read it.
> 
> If people spent half as much time taking the functions for what they are rather than trying to add data with things they don't understand, or take away from aspects they don't like. As an ENFP i totally grasp the concept, its when people add all their own personal flavour and fluff in order to make it sound better, or take Jungs theory and twist it in a knot in order to create a new box for them alone..annoying but amusing.
> 
> PerC is much different than when i first started. People leaned more towards learning the functions, Jung, MBTI. Where the functions sit according to your type and why. Lately there has been a few creating a new kind of theory, its called lets throw a bit of Jung, MBTI, maybe with a dash of Socionics and BAM, i'm a new type. Before you know it we will have those who believe they use Ni Ti Si and Fi , simultaneously , only on Sunday though. Monday they will switch to Ne Se Te and Fe,  for the lolz.


But those theories about having to have only Ne or Se consciously are sooooo restricting. I can use my Se perfectly but only on Sundays when the sun in shining. Once the solar battery runs out I use my Fi and Ti as a dual-sided lightsaber to work my way through the night.


----------



## MuChApArAdOx (Jan 24, 2011)

ElectricSparkle said:


> But those theories about having to have only Ne or Se consciously are sooooo restricting. I can use my Se perfectly but only on Sundays when the sun in shining. Once the solar battery runs out I use my Fi and Ti as a dual-sided lightsaber to work my way through the night.


LOLZZZZZ. This morning i woke to Ti and Se, once i ate my breakfast it make me feel strong, so i switched to Te Se, it still didn't feel quite right so i added Fi and Ni to the mix. Tomorrow i think i might try Fe, mixed with Ne, Ti and whatever else might make the day better snickers * Only tomorrow though, i can't wait to switch it up on Wednesday. I guess that makes me an hum...RKBY


----------



## electricky (Feb 18, 2011)

MuChApArAdOx said:


> LOLZZZZZ. This morning i woke to Ti and Se, once i ate my breakfast it make me feel strong, so i switched to Te Se, it still didn't feel quite right so i added Fi and Ni to the mix. Tomorrow i think i might try Fe, mixed with Ne, Ti and whatever else might make the day better snickers * Only tomorrow though, i can't wait to switch it up on Wednesday. I guess that makes me an hum...RKBY


You forgot to use your "P" and not get anything done at all


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

Oh, and for extra precautionary measure, I should do a creative activity to engage my Ne so I can get some extra N and avoid dealing with the inferior *yah right* ;P (btw, @_MuChApArAdOx_, thanks for having such constructive posts, even when you're kidding - that takes talent).


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> I think you're taking it all too literally. Ambiversion isn't real - no one has an 100% equal habituation of introversion and extraversion - you wouldn't be able to think for yourself if that was the case - you would be deadlocked in making decisions.


Yet another sentence from you in this thread that makes no sense. 1) Ambiversion isn't 50.00% I and 50.00% E, it can be 40% I, 60% E for example. 2) Even if it was 50-50 it would not follow that you'll deadlock in making decisions. Praytell how it follows? You added extra and incorrect assumptions when you made that conclusion. An incorrect assumption there was that what you do in one moment in a situation has to be the same as you do in another moment about some completely different situation. Nope, thus not causing a deadlock. 
But just to mention, another incorrect assumption of yours is that the mind is always using one single motivation or attitude each time to make a decision and if there is more than one that is in opposition with the first one, that'd cause a deadlock. No, often decisions come out of several attitudes, values, motivations, whatnot. Much of this often isn't a conscious process as it happens quickly. Of course if it is about deciding between two very different motivations, it can make the decision harder, but deadlock is not something that'd ever happen, unless there is a physical lesion of certain brain areas or something.




LeaT said:


> Honestly, if one gets hung up on the J/P differences, then one should get hung up on the entire letter code to begin with because all of it is equally misleading when it comes down to it. E/I is treated the same way social introversion and extraversion is, N/S is incredibly stereotyped and says very little to properly type intuitives and sensors apart, and same applies to T/F. Either you reject the entire MBTI label system all together or you see its deeper applications in relation to cognitive function coding.


+1 hehe. I said the same...




JungyesMBTIno said:


> The letter codes are problematic in the messages they convey


What is problematic about the functions as single letters? Jung used them too, no? Just not in 4-letter type labels. 




> If you have socionics labels also, which differ conceptually from the MBTI ones with J/P, shouldn't this be a red flag to the arbitrariness of MBTI's superficial and ungrounded application...).


What makes Jung more grounded?




MuChApArAdOx said:


> PerC is much different than when i first started. People leaned more towards learning the functions, Jung, MBTI. Where the functions sit according to your type and why. Lately there has been a few creating a new kind of theory, its called lets throw a bit of Jung, MBTI, maybe with a dash of Socionics and BAM, i'm a new type. Before you know it we will have those who believe they use Ni Ti Si and Fi , simultaneously , only on Sunday though. Monday they will switch to Ne Se Te and Fe,  for the lolz.


Well both the jungian and the MBTI principles governing function dynamics are unproven so why do you not think it possible that someone can use both Ni and Si for example though with a preference towards only one of them? Jung himself said this was the case


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

> Yet another sentence from you in this thread that makes no sense. 1) Ambiversion isn't 50.00% I and 50.00% E, it can be 40% I, 60% E for example. 2) Even if it was 50-50 it would not follow that you'll deadlock in making decisions. Praytell how it follows? You added extra and incorrect assumptions when you made that conclusion. An incorrect assumption there was that what you do in one moment in a situation has to be the same as you do in another moment about some completely different situation. Nope, thus not causing a deadlock.
> But just to mention, another incorrect assumption of yours is that the mind is always using one single motivation or attitude each time to make a decision and if there is more than one that is in opposition with the first one, that'd cause a deadlock. No, often decisions come out of several attitudes, values, motivations, whatnot. Much of this often isn't a conscious process as it happens quickly. Of course if it is about deciding between two very different motivations, it can make the decision harder, but deadlock is not something that'd ever happen, unless there is a physical lesion of certain brain areas or something.


Well, I'm coming at it from the perspective of the way a person's mental energy is oriented (so, Jung's general conception of I/E). He didn't think it was possible to be both equally, because this would mean that also, the inferior couldn't get oriented toward the dominant, but instead, would be entirely working against it, which would probably result in the person being a lunatic (because he thought that the dom. is preferred precisely because it reflects the strengths of the person, so you need an (almost) unconscious extraversion as well to channel the strengths, but also, give a person some limit to thinking that they have so much power over their strengths and that there's more to them than they can realize). I think we're looking at this from very different and basically incompatible perspectives (mine's pure Jung and yours is sort of dragging an extra mish-mash of stuff in there of a more MBTI nature). The percentages on the tests reflect the questions answered - not the actual reality of the person (I mean, this is down to the honesty and self awareness of the person answering often almost impossible questions that they "force" answers to on the MBTI tests, especially the internet ones anyhow, which are probably a shadow of the actual MBTI tests in every conceivable nightmare), of which a test cannot capture (there's no limit on how many questions can be determined to capture such a reality anyway, so it's just a futile method).


----------



## Anemone (Apr 26, 2012)

I will simply say that the throughts, feelings, emotions, etc. can't be measured scientifically. That's why it's rejected- and psychology is a science of the mind, so that's that. Freud's theories can't be SCIENTIFICALLY measured, which is completely unreasonable to the scientists back in the day and present. So the people who reject MBTI are actually rejecting it because it can't be measured through a scientific method... that isn't to say that emotions aren't real, or our thoughts aren't real- it just can't be scientifically tested.

Yep, that's what I've learned from my psych class.


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

From what I've seen of the psychological "studies" involving MBTI types the main problem, and the reason that they might be rejected as a pile of crap, is that the researchers don't pay attention to the cognitive functions behind the four-letter codes. It's like they are unaware that these exist. For example, in one study on depression that I've seen they put everyone typed NF into the same group, not acknowledging that xNFJs and xNFPs types are very different from each other - they don't have any cognitive functions in common! so how can they be grouped like this? This mistake ruins many studies done on MBTI types and makes their results be utter crap. I think J/P-issue is another example of this, that the researchers don't seem to understand the fundamentals of MBTI types.


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> I think you're taking it all too literally. Ambiversion isn't real - no one has an 100% equal habituation of introversion and extraversion - you wouldn't be able to think for yourself if that was the case - you would be deadlocked in making decisions. J and P is something that can easily work outside of MBTI/Jung altogether, because at it's core concept, it has nothing to do with Jung's conception of J/P at all (to him, this was just thinking and feeling, and intuition and sensation, respectively). Also, you don't use "more" of anything - in fact, you don't "use" functions at all - they use you and you respond to them via reasoning. Most functions tests and JCF info online are pure BS ("crap in, crap out" devices dependent entirely upon self-awareness and ideas), you might as well realize that now. None of it really obeys what Jung was getting at - it's accounting for after-the-fact results of actions that might represent the functions in some way or another (only from the presumptions of the MBTI folks, of course, which are questionable in theory at the very least, as well as according to studies conducted on the metrics). To Jung, type was about psychological habituation, not figuring out math problems or what have you that gets associated with MBTI, which is essentially a behavioral theory masquerading in Jungian material as some kind of test of strengths and abilities, not a psychological method of personality analysis.


That is exactly why I decided on ENFP in stead of INFP, INTP or ENTP. Its interesting if you only take the functions imo and look back at how you seem to be habitually gathering and processing information disregarding the consequence of that: behaviour. (something which may indicate a preference or it might not).

If we would take the classical MBTI description for extroversion, then I would be a heavy introvert simply because I'm in my head most of the time and have problems and tendencies that make me reclusive and withdrawn most of the time. However I'm not, because I tend to take in and explore information, deciding on what it means only gradually, not at all or later. The only time I jump to any sudden conclusion is when right and wrong is in the ballance and that is more my superego talking then anything else (which is good info coming from behaviour: means "superego type 1,2,or 6).

I'd like to point out that self awareness is a serious problem for a lot of people, it certainly is for me. Looking inward and recognizing the functions is incredibly difficult. Its easyer for me to look at what I tend to do and say especially here on the forums (cus its all written down). Its why the enneagram was easyer for me then MBTI or socionics. Doesen't matter what I like or think, behaviour is visible and clear, its gutwrenchingly painful to see back into me through it and I didn't like what I saw at first. The level of self awareness can be distorted by many variables: denial, ideal self image, self image, imposed image of what one should be, bias, inability to see etc. 

Considering, the above, its easy to see why "figuring out fuction preference" is such a monumental task for some, why they rely on tests. I prefer solid and secure information, not grasping at clowds. If it quacks like a duck, looks like a duck..is it a turtle? ^^ know what I mean?

We can't rely on tests or our internal perception of ourselves, its nothing more then stumbling through a fog grasping at ghosts. The focus here imo should be on developing reliable rock solid ways to scan for and detect ways the human barin tends to be wired.

J or P, I or I, it will become clear once the results speak for themselves. 

*I really dislike this "lack of solid ground"*, but its fun trying to figure it out and getting to know others while at it. Socionics has a better naming system imo Intuitive Ethical Extrovert (IEE) > ENFP.



cyamitide said:


> From what I've seen of the psychological "studies" involving MBTI types the main problem, and the reason that they might be rejected as a pile of crap, is that the researchers don't pay attention to the cognitive functions behind the four-letter codes. It's like they are unaware that these exist. For example, in one study on depression that I've seen they put everyone typed NF into the same group, not acknowledging that xNFJs and xNFPs types are very different from each other - they don't have any cognitive functions in common! so how can they be grouped like this? This mistake ruins many studies done on MBTI types and makes their results be utter crap. I think J/P-issue is another example of this, that the researchers don't seem to understand the fundamentals of MBTI types.


o.o that is true, ESTJ, ISTJ, ENFP and INFP are in the same group, not the NF's. In socionics its actually called the delta quadra: LSE (ESTj), SLI (ISTp), IEE (ENFp), EII (INFj)


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

And this is why I advocate anyone interested in the MBTI/socionics to actually also learn the enneagram system because the depth we achieve when understanding the human psyche is so much greater than any of the other two systems alone. I understand that it is hard for people to tell their dominant function apart because these processes are so used by us that we no longer truly recognize them. It's easier to tell when we are using a function we are less accustomed to because we usually experience some kind of problem with it - it's difficult to use, the perspective feels wrong and so forth. That we also tend to push away the inferior from our consciousnes psyche might also make it hard to spot which function set is our dominant pair. 

With that said, I completely second cyamitide's comment that the problem isn't the MBTI system itself but the people who don't understand the MBTI system and what the four-letter codes actually represent in Jungian terms. The problem isn't over-reliance on Jung but over-reliance on measuring things that necessarily has little to do with Jung. Sensors can be as imaginative as intuitives (the exception seems to mostly be dominant Se types). And this is the problem with _quantitative science_ - quantitative science will have to generalize and simplify in order to provide with data that is useful in a generalized sense. This is why the type me questionnaires in the subforum ask qualitative questions because they provide with in-depth examples of how people reason by forcing them to type out answers to these questions, and we also keep a dialogue with these people in order to narrow down the list of possible types. 

It simply shows the superiority of qualitative over quantitative science when it comes to things that cannot truly be quantitatively measured such as cognitive function use.


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

Rim said:


> That is exactly why I decided on ENFP in stead of INFP, INTP or ENTP. Its interesting if you only take the functions imo and look back at how you seem to be habitually gathering and processing information disregarding the consequence of that: behaviour. (something which may indicate a preference or it might not).
> 
> If we would take the classical MBTI description for extroversion, then I would be a heavy introvert simply because I'm in my head most of the time and have problems and tendencies that make me reclusive and withdrawn most of the time. However I'm not, because I tend to take in and explore information, deciding on what it means only gradually, not at all or later. The only time I jump to any sudden conclusion is when right and wrong is in the ballance and that is more my superego talking then anything else (which is good info coming from behaviour: means "superego type 1,2,or 6).
> 
> ...


 What led you to go back to F, then? (Socionics?)
I had determined you were on the T side, and also between E and I, based on behavior, which is what the temperament side of personality is about. I believe it is all interrelated, so a T preference, while tied to a function, will generally affect your behavior, (because Thinking is a judgment, and the judgments you make, while not directly behavior themselves, do manifest through behaviors), and what you had described before was clearly a more "impersonal" type of reactions, and a bit more that just an extravert being angry and "emotional" (often inaccurately tied with "Feeling") in the moment.


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

Eric B said:


> What led you to go back to F, then? (Socionics?)
> I had determined you were on the T side, and also between E and I, based on behavior, which is what the temperament side of personality is about. I believe it is all interrelated, so a T preference, while tied to a function, will generally affect your behavior, (because Thinking is a judgment, and the judgments you make, while not directly behavior themselves, do manifest through behaviors), and what you had described before was clearly a more "impersonal" type of reactions, and a bit more that just an extravert being angry and "emotional" (often inaccurately tied with "Feeling") in the moment.


I couldn't relate to how my brother works, more precisely to Ti..I think and he is ENTP. In socionics its unclear to me, I relate equally well to Alpha and Delta quadras (NTPs and NFPs). I think it ultimately was the fact that the NTPs I have met can let certain things slide...while I can't...not without having to deal with tremendous amounts of guilt and anger.

I don't really care for the system or the laws, the beauty of it or such things. I just react and its irrelevant what what the rules say, I listen to what the urge is, what I feel.

Still unsure, this whole function thing is very foggy, I'm internally short sighted...introspecting is very difficult. As I said it takes time, I never stop thinking and will figure it out eventually. Need more input.


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

Rim said:


> I couldn't relate to how my brother works, more precisely to Ti..I think and he is ENTP. In socionics its unclear to me, I relate equally well to Alpha and Delta quadras (NTPs and NFPs). I think it ultimately was the fact that *the NTPs I have met can let certain things slide*...while I can't...not without having to deal with tremendous amounts of guilt and anger.
> 
> I don't really care for the system or the laws, the beauty of it or such things. I just react and its irrelevant what what the rules say, I listen to what the urge is, what I feel.
> 
> Still unsure, this whole function thing is very foggy, I'm internally short sighted...introspecting is very difficult. As I said it takes time, I never stop thinking and will figure it out eventually. Need more input.


 I think what you're describing is affected mostly by experience and not type. I'm the same way, and then you have the more stereotypical NTP's who are supposed to be so "calm" and "detached", and then temperament or type profiles are founded upon this. But it's possible to not fit that [stereo]typical portrait of the type. And again, I think for us, part of is is also being Supine (unrecognized in type theory) rather than Phlegmatic (typical of INTP's) or Sanguine (ENTP); both of which were in Eysenck's view "Stable" (as opposed to Neurotic). That's why those two types often end up fitting that "calm and detached" description. The Phlegmatic stays calm (And this is connected to the INP, not the NT), while the Sanguine (ENP) gets angry, but quickly cools off. The Supine is Neurotic like the Choleric and Melancholy, and holds on to a lot of frustration, which does erupt in the sort of angry reactions you describe.

And also, that "not caring" is the language of Feeling being less than Thinking, and the emotion or even just the term "what you _feel"_ does not make it a "Feeling" _preference_. (I want to emphasize that word "preference" more and more, because that's what those letters are referring to, not _instances_ of _behavior_). 
In fact, if anything, what you describe sounds exactly like part and parcel of Feeling being immature or "primitive" as Jung calls it in its nonpreferred state for Thinkers.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

@_Rim_

Okay, I mean, the JCFs are great as a learning tool toward application, you're certainly right, but I'm always the kind of person here stressing that just because they work towards understanding concepts (or proving or disproving your unconscious conceptions of them) does not mean that they accurately represent your true tendencies (which is what Jung is grounded in - viewing personality tendencies in terms of how one reacts to sensation, intuition, thinking, and feeling). Strong objectivity is required toward this, and by relying on "objects" in JCFs, I think this gives people the impression that they are merely subjects to the system - it fails to promote people making themselves some kind of experimental object of self-exploration via ways you know best, since the system already takes care of that so that you can just take any old face-value observation that most likely means nothing at all in terms of type about yourself and manage to fit it into one of the JCF boxes (e.g. Fe, Te, whatever). I mean, there is critical thinking about the concepts required if you want to get anywhere, of course, which MBTI tries too hard to eliminate, to the point that their system winds up defeating it's own purpose of helping you learn to explore yourself, because instead, it's designed so that it seems like it already accepted you (which is just silly - of course it doesn't know you as an individual - no kidding), making the person typed tempted to fit it, instead of get it to fit them. Honestly, I think the way MBTI promotes itself couldn't be more atrocious - it has potential IRL, but delivers in a horoscopic fashion through its promotion (very conceptually vague as well where, say, emotions are suddenly "feelings," etc. - look no farther than most internet tests) instead of something that gets people to think (unless, of course, a person already is critical of it and has no reservations about attacking the foundations of MBTI ideas to make sense of them). Since you think, most of what I said is not pointed toward you, but just toward general observations I've made regarding the futility of these systems in really teaching anything. I have a profound respect for how Jung was as specific as possible in clarifying conceptual possibilities within this paradigm of personality analysis - for instance, MBTI sort of vaguely covers the inferior, making it look as if it is something "bad" about you, while Jung doesn't imply anything ridiculous about needing to work toward the dominant version of your inferior/or on the contrary, just accept that it doesn't define you, which isn't true anyway (and "everyone is special, but equal" blah, blah, blah nonsense (horoscopic statement that can apply to anything), and you should under this dogmatic assertion, learn to see function "abilities" in others who are better than you as a reason to respect them, in spite of individual characteristics of the person) - he just details psychological type-related phenomena that tend to get in the way of people owning projections around the inferior and learning to adapt better to it, at best, see the other side (by ignoring this aspect of the inferior, MBTI yet again shoots itself in the foot by acting like people actually exist as pure types who sort of have to just learn to accept that they suck with the inferior, so thus, they should respect those who are good at it - but wait a minute, if you take psychological ideas into account, this wouldn't be possible, because people are going to project their inferiority complexes onto others and perhaps not even really see honest reason to think that those with their inferior as a dominant are superior to them there, let alone, realize it - this is probable anyhow). MBTI is great as a simplification of ideas (very very simplified, but useful for more complex applications going in a lot of different directions), but because it is a simplification, it doesn't really leave you much room for theoretical exploration (nor was that ever it's intent, which I preach over and over again to those who are too emotionally wrapped up in type codes and whatnot, as if they've suddenly become some kind of alter ego under a "new name"). Jung and MBTI are "apples and oranges" - Jung works with psychology in terms of the self/ego and MBTI works with ideas of outward appearance and generalizes reasoning styles. In truth, a lot of the reason why looking inward with MBTI concepts is so hard would be because they are over-complicated (due to being vague) and have too many presumptions - it's not a scientific exercise to begin with, so frankly, I think it's wrong that it's set up so scientifically. If you need that much help, you might want to talk to someone specialized in the MBTI tool (MBTI certified people). They should have a mastery of the variables involved.


----------



## Phantomhive (May 21, 2012)

Rim said:


> Uhm this is simple. J means your first extroverted function is a judging function..uhm that would be either Te or Fe. I and E determine which one that is primary or secondary. P means the perceiving function is extroverted....very simple imo.
> 
> Since Js use Te or Fe and an introverted perceiving function it means they make faster visible decisions about outside stuff then a P who has either Ne or Se as extroverted and introverted judging functions. Its the reverse for Ps, intake of information is enormous and external visible judging of it is delayed.
> 
> ...


This makes so much sense. I've always been confused about J and P, even after extensive research on mbti.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> Well, I'm coming at it from the perspective of the way a person's mental energy is oriented (so, Jung's general conception of I/E). He didn't think it was possible to be both equally, because this would mean that also, the inferior couldn't get oriented toward the dominant, but instead, would be entirely working against it, which would probably result in the person being a lunatic (because he thought that the dom. is preferred precisely because it reflects the strengths of the person, so you need an (almost) unconscious extraversion as well to channel the strengths, but also, give a person some limit to thinking that they have so much power over their strengths and that there's more to them than they can realize). I think we're looking at this from very different and basically incompatible perspectives (mine's pure Jung and yours is sort of dragging an extra mish-mash of stuff in there of a more MBTI nature). The percentages on the tests reflect the questions answered - not the actual reality of the person (I mean, this is down to the honesty and self awareness of the person answering often almost impossible questions that they "force" answers to on the MBTI tests, especially the internet ones anyhow, which are probably a shadow of the actual MBTI tests in every conceivable nightmare), of which a test cannot capture (there's no limit on how many questions can be determined to capture such a reality anyway, so it's just a futile method).


True we're looking at it from different perspectives. I did not use any MBTI in my reasoning about this issue however. What I said about different situations and motivations is not MBTI stuff.

Anyway the problem with the theory you present is that being an ambivert is nothing to do with being a lunatic. When you use theoretical principles such as dominant vs inferior dynamics, you seem to forget that these are just guesses at possible governing psychological laws based on observations but these guesses are possibly not correct, at least they have not been tested well, so you need to take into account that the laws of the dynamics of the psyche can be different laws, and not use these to make such far-jumping conclusions, going from ambiverts to lunatics. Or at least when you try to reason like this about such complex things, try to take into account more than a few untested ideas.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

Rim said:


> We can't rely on tests or our internal perception of ourselves, its nothing more then stumbling through a fog grasping at ghosts. The focus here imo should be on developing reliable rock solid ways to scan for and detect ways the human barin tends to be wired.


Reliable rock solid ways? You rightly decided to not classify the method of introspection under those. The only ones are physical methods that enable scanning or otherwise direct observing of the brain itself. However without access to those, the second best method is still introspection, internal perception of ourselves, our mind's stuff, e.g. attention processes, motivational reasoning, etc.




> o.o that is true, ESTJ, ISTJ, ENFP and INFP are in the same group, not the NF's. In socionics its actually called the delta quadra: LSE (ESTj), SLI (ISTp), IEE (ENFp), EII (INFj)


Ahah you are not going to convince me that ESTJ is closer to INFP than ENFJ. Sorry, just no. And socionics is a different system.




LeaT said:


> It's easier to tell when we are using a function we are less accustomed to because we usually experience some kind of problem with it - it's difficult to use, the perspective feels wrong and so forth.


I'm not sure if the perspective always feels wrong, I think motivation and situation dependent. Overall, I would say, the less preferred functions could feel right in special situations 




> Sensors can be as imaginative as intuitives (the exception seems to mostly be dominant Se types).


Why are dom-Se's the exception?  I'm certainly not big on daydreaming stuff but I'm able to think up stories for fun at times. Or if I read a fiction book I can totally imagine myself being there as things are happening, though this is not visual like it would be with a movie, yet it works just as well as with a movie.




JungyesMBTIno said:


> Strong objectivity is required toward this, and by relying on "objects" in JCFs, I think this gives people the impression that they are merely subjects to the system - it fails to promote people making themselves some kind of experimental object of self-exploration via ways you know best, since the system already takes care of that so that you can just take any old face-value observation that most likely means nothing at all in terms of type about yourself and manage to fit it into one of the JCF boxes (e.g. Fe, Te, whatever). I mean, there is critical thinking about the concepts required if you want to get anywhere, of course, which MBTI tries too hard to eliminate, to the point that their system winds up defeating it's own purpose of helping you learn to explore yourself (...) In truth, a lot of the reason why looking inward with MBTI concepts is so hard would be because they are over-complicated (due to being vague) and have too many presumptions - it's not a scientific exercise to begin with, so frankly, I think it's wrong that it's set up so scientifically. If you need that much help, you might want to talk to someone specialized in the MBTI tool (MBTI certified people). They should have a mastery of the variables involved.


I think the attitude of MBTI about avoiding too much thinking is good for those people who don't want to spend time theorising, exploring themselves with a lot of trial-and-error. But of course a professional psych expert is even better for those people so I completely agree with the last sentences in your post.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

itsme45 said:


> I'm not sure if the perspective always feels wrong, I think motivation and situation dependent. Overall, I would say, the less preferred functions could feel right in special situations


Right. You're correct that it's also part contextual. I meant in a more generalized sense of course.


> Why are dom-Se's the exception?  I'm certainly not big on daydreaming stuff but I'm able to think up stories for fun at times. Or if I read a fiction book I can totally imagine myself being there as things are happening, though this is not visual like it would be with a movie, yet it works just as well as with a movie.


Poor use of words. I didn't mean imaginative as much as being capable of hving gut reactions. Se dominants tend to for some reason ignore their gut reactions the most. A lot of Se doms that have made type me threads have expressed that they rarely if ever get gut reactions and when they do they supress them greatly or distrust them which seems to be at odds with dominant Si types. I have yet to come up with a reasonable explanation why this is, since both are S dominants with inferior N, so logically one should assume that both SPs and SJs would actually deny and distrust their gut reactions yet this is not the case.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

LeaT said:


> Poor use of words. I didn't mean imaginative as much as being capable of hving gut reactions. Se dominants tend to for some reason ignore their gut reactions the most. A lot of Se doms that have made type me threads have expressed that they rarely if ever get gut reactions and when they do they supress them greatly or distrust them which seems to be at odds with dominant Si types. I have yet to come up with a reasonable explanation why this is, since both are S dominants with inferior N, so logically one should assume that both SPs and SJs would actually deny and distrust their gut reactions yet this is not the case.


By gut reaction do you mean feeling of premonition and things like that?


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

And here I just thought it was because either they think there is more to human personality than just a few traits. Also, they all have their own pet theories they want to promote more.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

I sort of have this gut feeling that @_Rim_ is an INFP (he always seems so apathetic about having a game plan to the point that I have to wonder if there's some inferior Te behind this - I swear he says something about this every time I read a post about him trying to type himself - it's either that or Te is some shadow presence in him that makes him biased, putting him into the ENTP-ish realm that @Eric B speaks of, maybe) - I dunno, I think all of the Fi types have a tendency to look more T-ish behaviorally than the Fe types (*GASP, shocka, I know*), since their thinking is more oriented toward outward presentation (being extraverted) - in fact, Jung pretty much makes it out that the Fi (esp. dom.) types might look like they don't even have emotions to the outside world, since their inner ideals are usually totally irrelevant to outer objectives and outer accord with others (and they're also ruled by them in decision-making in life, so).


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

itsme45 said:


> By gut reaction do you mean feeling of premonition and things like that?


Just a gut reaction. My gut tells me for example that this guy is up to no good or I can kind of understand what you mean without truly understanding it. It's very hard to describe intuition to someone who has it as their inferior function and I remember that we've already been over this before and yet I left you utterly confused, so


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

LeaT said:


> Just a gut reaction. My gut tells me for example that this guy is up to no good or I can kind of understand what you mean without truly understanding it. It's very hard to describe intuition to someone who has it as their inferior function and I remember that we've already been over this before and yet I left you utterly confused, so


Ok, good examples, thanks  don't worry about it being hard to describe


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> I sort of have this gut feeling that @_Rim_ is an INFP (he always seems so apathetic about having a game plan to the point that I have to wonder if there's some inferior Te behind this - I swear he says something about this every time I read a post about him trying to type himself - it's either that or Te is some shadow presence in him that makes him biased, putting him into the ENTP-ish realm that @Eric B speaks of, maybe) - I dunno, I think all of the Fi types have a tendency to look more T-ish behaviorally than the Fe types (*GASP, shocka, I know*), since their thinking is more oriented toward outward presentation (being extraverted) - in fact, Jung pretty much makes it out that the Fi (esp. dom.) types might look like they don't even have emotions to the outside world, since their inner ideals are usually totally irrelevant to outer objectives and outer accord with others (and they're also ruled by them in decision-making in life, so).


o.o hmm yeah I do test INFP, but its difficult to tolerate the level of confrontation avoidance, need for harmony and whining on the INFP forums...especially that "its hard for INFP nice guys *cry* *cry*"...pfff...annoying bullshit! I have some serious problems with Te thou...it takes effort or I need a certain level of stress.

Btw regarding the J and P difference..I have a long-ass post here somewhere explaining it as inductive vs deductive thinking preference.

*Basically its this imo:*


> If you find yourself needing more and more external information before you "make a decision on it" or "judge it" <.< you are a P, the reverse is a J. It is all in how we process information. Being a planner or keeping the room tidy has nothing to do with it and no self respecting person knowledgeable in the MBTI would make the mistake . Read some books.


Its related to having introverted irrational function preference with extroverted rational and vice verso. P tendency is to go from more and more information to a well informed decision. J's kinda already look for a pattern they recognize internally and try to fit the external info into that...deductive reasoning. 

From specific to general or from general to specific, the tendencies differ.


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

Gut reactions are also heavily associated with Fi.
@Rim; that again sounds SO not F. An ENFP might not come off in the way you are describing INFP's as "whiny", but still, as the same intelligence variant (Same preferred functions), they would not be that reactive against it, as they still process things pretty much the same way; it's just that with the extraversion out front, they are more expressive, and that's why they don't come off that same way.


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

Eric B said:


> Gut reactions are also heavily associated with Fi.
> @Rim; that again sounds SO not F. An ENFP might not come off in the way you are describing INFP's as "whiny", but still, as the same intelligence variant (Same preferred functions), they would not be that reactive against it, as they still process things pretty much the same way; it's just that with the extraversion out front, they are more expressive, and that's why they don't come off that same way.


...hmm yeah I find strong expressions of emotionalism irritating and annoying.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

> ...hmm yeah I find strong expressions of emotionalism irritating and annoying.


Jung says this of Fi dominants - he goes into how these types tend to be very resistent to strong expressions of emotion and try to "brusquely" kill them off, unless they serve to draw them farther into their inner ideals, rather than away from them (which would come from some kind of more Fe-ish pull).


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

But the overall context of what he's been saying here makes it look like either form of Feeling is patently unpreferred. He was initially talking about his aversion to the kind of emotion displayed by INFP's, not Fe types, and not with any qualification of whether they drawn them into their inner ideals or not.


----------



## Impact Calculus (Mar 29, 2012)

It honestly depends on many things. The sheer number of ways that you could interpret the MBTI and the sheer number of different sorts of preferences that different sorts of psychologists have would likely influence the likelihood that it will be more/less appreciated by the community as a whole and the extent of which it is influenced.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

Eric B said:


> But the overall context of what he's been saying here makes it look like either form of Feeling is patently unpreferred. He was initially talking about his aversion to the kind of emotion displayed by INFP's, not Fe types, and not with any qualification of whether they drawn them into their inner ideals or not.


So Fi types have a specific way of displaying emotion? Can you explain? That's news to me.


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

http://personalitycafe.com/cognitiv...logists-often-reject-mbti-10.html#post3038295


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

Well, I wouldn't blame him for not identifying with some of those forum members - I mean, there's likely a lot of people there operating off of stereotypes (the Fi dom descriptions online couldn't be more corrupted with these emo kinds of stereotypes, let alone, stereotypes in general). I can't speak for @_Rim_, but as an INTJ in the MBTI, I'm pretty much allergic to the behaviors and stereotypes upheld in that forum (I don't even remember the last time I posted in there, just because certain people there are beyond persuasion). The question of interaction style might be something to look into though online, I suppose...


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

Rim said:


> Its related to having introverted irrational function preference with extroverted rational and vice verso. P tendency is to go from more and more information to a well informed decision. J's kinda already look for a pattern they recognize internally and try to fit the external info into that...deductive reasoning.
> 
> From specific to general or from general to specific, the tendencies differ.


I'm inductive so that works so far as I'm definitely more "P" than "J". However, I *do* this too about looking for a *logical* pattern that I recognize *internally* and drop external info that doesn't fit. This happens when I have views that I believe are very well based and that I believe will not ever change in my life. Not too many views of mine are this strongly founded though and they come to me pretty slowly throughout my life.

So yes, the trend is P for me, even if I have some J too that can seem like a strong trend too. P still wins even if it's hard for others to see if I'm P or J because they don't know me internally. (They do see the P though, just they see the J too and that confuses them  )

Anyway, I think this J-P question is way overcomplicated. First decide what short concise definition you want to use, then don't try to mix other ideas into it. Other ideas are other ideas, that, no more. Prove the logical connection before speculating further.




JungyesMBTIno said:


> Jung says this of Fi dominants - he goes into how these types tend to be very resistent to strong expressions of emotion and try to "brusquely" kill them off, unless they serve to draw them farther into their inner ideals, rather than away from them (which would come from some kind of more Fe-ish pull).


Ow, the umpteenth Fi definition that conflicts with other Fi definitions. Each theory has its own, ya know?
Forgive me for my seething sarcasm here.




JungyesMBTIno said:


> I can't speak for @_Rim_, but as an INTJ in the MBTI, I'm pretty much allergic to the behaviors and stereotypes upheld in that forum (...) The question of interaction style might be something to look into though online, I suppose...


1) You use behaviour examples yourself a lot, just a bit more generic ones. When you quoted Jung above about Fi, that was a behaviour example too about rejecting strong expressions.
2) I predict that investigating interaction styles is just going to confuse this issue even more.


Anyway, I can't add anything more to this discussion, just pointed out a few errors, not personal to anyone, off I go now to do other things


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

@itsme45

Yes, exactly, these things are more like preferences to process information in certain ways more often then not.


----------



## LiquidLight (Oct 14, 2011)

Rim said:


> @_itsme45_
> 
> Yes, exactly, these things are more like preferences to process information in certain ways more often then not.


Actually that is not MBTI though. We need to clear that up. MBTI more or less contends that these things are innate preferences. More like biological dispositions, which is where the contention that type does not change comes from.

Jung, however, saw type as the result of habituated preference (which is more what you guys are talking about). The process of doing the same thing over and over again until it becomes habituated. As such there is some flexibility for type to be a little bit more fluid, as his theory allows (though lets not run away too far with this). So we use the term preference sort of loosely which is probably a mistake because preference sort of implies that we prefer say Thinking over Feeling, which is not untrue, but Jung saw that preference largely as the result of ego-development rather than innate disposition (it's slightly more complex than that but that's the general gist). But I think its well known that Jung contended that type was probably more dynamic than the more modern theories allow for. (The modern theories get around this and the inconsistencies that the rigidity of type dynamics prescribes with things like shadow functions or crows-nest functions or dom-tert loops or whatever to help explain cases where people seem to be operating in ways that don't fit the model but it all goes back to the fundamental difference between biological disposition and habituated preference). 

Again we have to always look at the broader picture with Jung and ego-development because if you simply read where he says 


> Although nothing would induce me to underestimate the well-nigh incalculable importance of parental influence, this experience compels me to conclude that the decisive factor must be looked for in the disposition of the child. The fact that, in spite of the greatest possible similarity of external conditions, one child will assume this type while another that, must, of course, in the last resort he ascribed to individual disposition. Naturally in saying this I only refer to those cases which occur under normal conditions. Under abnormal conditions, i.e. when there is an extreme and, therefore, abnormal attitude in the mother, the children can also be coerced into a relatively similar attitude; but this entails a violation of their individual disposition, which quite possibly would have assumed another type if no abnormal and disturbing external influence had intervened. As a rule, whenever such a falsification of type takes place as a result of external influence, the individual becomes neurotic later, and a cur can successfully be sought only in a development of that attitude which corresponds with the individual's natural way.
> 
> As regards the particular disposition, I know not what to say, except that there are clearly individuals who have either a greater readiness and capacity for one way, or for whom it is more congenial to adapt to that way rather than the other. In the last analysis it may well be that physiological causes, inaccessible to our knowledge, play a part in this. That this may be the case seems to me not improbable, in view of one's experience that a reversal of type often proves exceedingly harmful to the physiological well-being of the organism, often provoking an acute state of exhaustion.


...clearly this is what those who are proponents of type-as-innate are referencing because Jung is sort of saying that people have natural 'talents' or 'inclinations' that take specific forms. But when you start to get into some of his works on ego-development and so forth its a little less clear. For example one of his contentions is that not everyone is a type.



> “It gradually became clear to me that there must be two fundamentally different general attitudes which would divide human beings into two groups-provided the whole of humanity consisted of highly differentiated individuals. Since this is obviously not the case, one can say that this difference of attitude becomes plainly observable only when we are confronted with a comparatively well-differentiated personality; in other words, it becomes of practical importance only after a certain degree of differentiation has been reached."
> 
> - Jung


So long story short many of these things that people sort of casually throw about regarding type are not always as cut-and-dry as they appear (and likely unprovable anyway).


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

LiquidLight said:


> Actually that is not MBTI though. We need to clear that up. MBTI more or less contends that these things are innate preferences. More like biological dispositions, which is where the contention that type does not change comes from. (...) So long story short many of these things that people sort of casually throw about regarding type are not always as cut-and-dry as they appear (and likely unprovable anyway).


Nice to read, thanks, just a few comments.

1) The difference between biological disposition and habituated preference is indeed there, but it doesn't follow that only Jung's idea of habituated preference can allow for the possibility that the function dynamics is not as rigid as imagined by some theories. I think biological disposition is just the same with this, some people can have a more typical brain wiring and then some have less typical ones... Or maybe you just meant that the mix of the two is what causes confusion and making people create extra explanations inside theories. I would agree about that 

2) The statement about some people having less differentiated functions forgets about the case that Jung himself mentioned where someone has consciously differentiated more than one function (the dominant)... that would also lead to less clear trends in preferred attitude.

Btw, a question, did Jung ever say anything about habitual preference *not* forced externally upon the person yet this preference still differing from genetical gifts? What do you think about this one? I can't see how someone would take up an attitude that's not due to external influence and not due to being good at it genetically. Because if someone's not good at it initially and thus not experiencing reinforcement with success, why would they keep trying if not due to some environmental influence? So, preferences would come from both environmental influence and both from inborn skills/talents. A mix of those... hopefully the influence doesn't go too much against the talents though. =) And obviously everyone has to adjust to the world in many ways so if someone wishes to adjust well they'll either have to rely on more than just one dominant function's conscious attitude or form their environment in a way that it fits their dominant very well... by "forming", either change environment or ignore certain elements which just means it gets unconscious then but then that'd cause problems, no...? So the last option of ignoring things is not as ideal.

Oh and yeah, I agree, none of the functions or types are clear-cut at all. I can break the 8 functions down into smaller elements depending on which theory definitions I use and then it all gets muddled and inconsistent. So, I'm not quite subscribing to the idea of exactly eight functions truly existing in a clear-cut way. It's either more than eight, or not clear-cut, choose an option. (Types are generated from functions, so all this applies to that too.)


----------



## LiquidLight (Oct 14, 2011)

I can point to Anna-Maria Garden who I think explains these differences better than I can:



> There is a third group, and here it is hard to say whether the motivation comes chiefly from within or without. This group is the most numerous and includes the less-differentiated normal man, who is considered normal either because he allows himself no excesses or because he has no need of them. The normal man is, by definition, influenced as much from within as from without. He constitutes the extensive middle group, on one side of which are those whose motivations are determined mainly by the external object, and, on the other, those whose motivations are determined from within. The first group extraverted, and the second group introverted. (Jung, 1971, p. 516).
> 
> This statement could be interpreted as meaning simply that the attitude of this “third group" is difficult to detect, rather than nonexistent. Yet, it is very clear in his descriptions of the attitude types and function types, that one should only be treated as a type when one's use of that attitude or function is habitual. Otherwise, one is not a type; e.g., ”when orientation by the object predominates in such a way that decisions and actions are determined not by subjective views but by obiective conditions, we speak of an extraverted attitude. When this is habitual, we speak of an extraverted type" (Jung, 1971, p. 333).
> 
> ...


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

LiquidLight said:


> I can point to Anna-Maria Garden who I think explains these differences better than I can:


Why the goddamn hell isn't this stuff more often mentioned here? What you quoted is my thinking exactly, about all this. Thanks, nice quote


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

itsme45 said:


> Why the goddamn hell isn't this stuff more often mentioned here? What you quoted is my thinking exactly, about all this. Thanks, nice quote


Ditto! I have no idea where some of the BS about type comes from (e.g. functions "equating" to external behavior - functions DESCRIBE how you approach RATIONAL DATA (not your complexes, dreams, and witty interactions, etc.) - they aren't your "programmed behavior" (behavior IS always programmed or a reflection of programming that arose from the earliest years of life - sorry if this disturbs anyone, but it's the truth - I'm sick of the sugar coating of what's truly important around here just to pander to people's ignorance on issues that are so important - why let them learn with gross misunderstandings in mind? They'll just abuse this stuff anyway in the end), and WHAT you're doing). Sorry people, but this stuff is the ANTITHESIS of common-sense ideas of personality in EVERY POSSIBLE WAY ONE CAN IMAGINE. Get used to it - it's a *totally new way* of explaining the formerly inexplicable in people from a psychological perspective. It gets you to rationalize occurrences in people that you could never explain (as in, find an answer to) about them from the perspective of their outward persona (otherwise known as "personality" in today's culture). If you look at it as new, you'll actually get somewhere in understanding this stuff, because then, you won't be making false associations with stuff that isn't type.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

> n Jungian theory, it is degree of development or differentiation of the functions with which type theory is concerned, not simply preference. Having a function or attitude in the conscious sphere means that it is differentiated, not merely that it is preferred to its opposite (Jung, 1971). The differences between types are not so much due to ”basic differences in the way individuals prefer to use their perception and judgment” (Myers 8: McCaulley, 1985, p. 1), but due to basic differences in the way individuals have developed the respective functions and attitudes. Development of a function is definitional, not merely a probable outcome of an underlying preference (cf. Myers ät 1985, p. 3). if the MBTI were an operationalization of Jung's theory of types rather than Myers’ theory of types, it would be a direct measure of how developed the functions were, and it would be intended that it be such a measure. Thus, a statement that ’type theory teaches us that people are bom with natural preferences amid external influences" can cause individuals to use preferences other than their natural ones” (Hirsh «Sr Kummerow, i989, p. 271) is a reflection of Myers' type theory more than Jung’s and should be specified as such. Moreover, the verbal or written formulation that emerges as one's ”type" is just a shorthand for the complex interaction of all eight attitudes and functions. Even when líp*-service is paid to recognition of this ”underside,” it is the shorthand only (i.e. ENFP, ISFJ, etc)that is often taken into account. Yet, this may be a far greater determinant of an individuals behavior than the conscious functions, which account for the proverbial tip of the iceberg. As jung (1959) says, "Consciousness grows out of the unconscious psyche which is older than it, and which goes on functioning together with or even in spite of it” (p, 281).


Greatest critique EVER of type imo!! That 1959 Jung quote says it all about how impossible "type development" is, because, with an unconscious behind the conscious already, what's there to develop? Nothing - but the will to look farther and see yourself as a dynamic being who is capable of being "uncivilized" (and that this isn't a bad thing in-and-of-itself - people just tend to be behaviorally programmed to fear this, and they are struggling too hard to maintain their personas/overly concerned with what others should think of them).


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> Ditto! I have no idea where some of the BS about type comes from (e.g. functions "equating" to external behavior - functions DESCRIBE how you approach RATIONAL DATA (not your complexes, dreams, and witty interactions, etc.) - they aren't your "programmed behavior" (behavior IS always programmed or a reflection of programming that arose from the earliest years of life - sorry if this disturbs anyone, but it's the truth - I'm sick of the sugar coating of what's truly important around here just to pander to people's ignorance on issues that are so important - why let them learn with gross misunderstandings in mind? They'll just abuse this stuff anyway in the end), and WHAT you're doing). Sorry people, but this stuff is the ANTITHESIS of common-sense ideas of personality in EVERY POSSIBLE WAY ONE CAN IMAGINE. Get used to it - it's a *totally new way* of explaining the formerly inexplicable in people from a psychological perspective. It gets you to rationalize occurrences in people that you could never explain (as in, find an answer to) about them from the perspective of their outward persona (otherwise known as "personality" in today's culture). If you look at it as new, you'll actually get somewhere in understanding this stuff, because then, you won't be making false associations with stuff that isn't type.


Um, I don't really understand this part about programmed behaviour. Doesn't make a lot of sense to me, I'm sorry but can you elaborate? Why should behaviour be *always* programmed?  And by who or why?




JungyesMBTIno said:


> Greatest critique EVER of type imo!! That 1959 Jung quote says it all about how impossible "type development" is, because, with an unconscious behind the conscious already, what's there to develop? Nothing - but the will to look farther and see yourself as a dynamic being who is capable of being "uncivilized" (and that this isn't a bad thing in-and-of-itself - people just tend to be behaviorally programmed to fear this, and they are struggling too hard to maintain their personas/overly concerned with what others should think of them).


Well, development would mean making unconscious stuff become conscious. That does often help. I read about Carl Rogers' theory recently and that nicely ties into this: Carl Rogers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Btw, I like your phrasing about dynamic beings who are capable of being uncivilized


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

itsme45 said:


> Um, I don't really understand this part about programmed behaviour. Doesn't make a lot of sense to me, I'm sorry but can you elaborate? Why should behaviour be *always* programmed?  And by who or why?
> 
> Well, development would mean making unconscious stuff become conscious. That does often help. I read about Carl Rogers' theory recently and that nicely ties into this: Carl Rogers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Btw, I like your phrasing about dynamic beings who are capable of being uncivilized


Well, behavior has to be specifically defined before people start claiming that type is relevant to behavior. From what I'm aware of from a college-level psychology class, behavior is always learned and can easily be modified under any circumstances - that's why people are capable of acting "out of character," of course. An example of this reality would be feral children, who do not learn to behave in socially adaptable/acceptable ways - does that mean they do not have a type? Probably not. After all, type is just about how the ego prioritizes and makes sense of the world around you in terms of sensation, intuition, feeling, and thinking - everyone needs to do this on some level to be able to have any ability to direct their own actions and get basic needs/wants. People can probably program their own behavior under the influence of others/society. After all, if people weren't programming their own, they wouldn't be adaptable, which is a necessity to survive (throwing a bit of Darwinian thought in there).


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> Ditto! I have no idea where some of the BS about type comes from (e.g. functions "equating" to external behavior - functions DESCRIBE how you approach RATIONAL DATA (not your complexes, dreams, and witty interactions, etc.) - they aren't your "programmed behavior" (behavior IS always programmed or a reflection of programming that arose from the earliest years of life - sorry if this disturbs anyone, but it's the truth - I'm sick of the sugar coating of what's truly important around here just to pander to people's ignorance on issues that are so important - why let them learn with gross misunderstandings in mind? They'll just abuse this stuff anyway in the end), and WHAT you're doing). Sorry people, but this stuff is the ANTITHESIS of common-sense ideas of personality in EVERY POSSIBLE WAY ONE CAN IMAGINE. Get used to it - it's a *totally new way* of explaining the formerly inexplicable in people from a psychological perspective. It gets you to rationalize occurrences in people that you could never explain (as in, find an answer to) about them from the perspective of their outward persona (otherwise known as "personality" in today's culture). If you look at it as new, you'll actually get somewhere in understanding this stuff, because then, you won't be making false associations with stuff that isn't type.


My impression is that people less-versed make this mistake, and these people seem to include those that are a) too lazy or too ignorant to look up and learn the actual theory, b) people who are for one reason or another incapable of learning or understanding the actual theory, c) people who are more interested in how the theory can be applied on actual physical behavior and the external world than simply being a theory of the psyche. I see a lot of people in camp C often making that logical jump even when they have a rudimentary grasp of the theory itself.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

LeaT said:


> My impression is that people less-versed make this mistake, and these people seem to include those that are a) too lazy or too ignorant to look up and learn the actual theory, b) people who are for one reason or another incapable of learning or understanding the actual theory, c) people who are more interested in how the theory can be applied on actual physical behavior and the external world than simply being a theory of the psyche. I see a lot of people in camp C often making that logical jump even when they have a rudimentary grasp of the theory itself.


Sure. I blame the MBTI promoters mostly, for turning this stuff into something too meaningful about people (this is 100% to the contrary of what Jung considered it - he didn't think it meant anything about people at all, other than what he thought a husband and wife could basically explain about each other - so also, this stuff is in the realm of individuality - not 16 uniting and dividing similarities between the people of the world). Also, the fact that MBTI tries to make this stuff so accessible today is where it's big downfall is - by taking psychology out of it (more than the original creators intended as well), it becomes everything Jung didn't want it to be - a parlor game, which is certainly going to attract people looking for reasons to figure out why they are such a special snowflake to verify their biases (believe me, most people who get into MBTI do not come across it because of a deep interest in psychology - by not setting limits here, MBTI kills its own credibility and makes this stuff look like a horoscope). It forces roles onto people to play in the workforce, which might certainly be a successful form of psychological manipulation or workforce organization (for better or for worse), but otherwise, if you take this stuff literally, this is where the vast majority of misunderstandings arise. It's an abstract descriptor of reality - NOT any kind of literal truth that can be taken as such.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> Well, behavior has to be specifically defined before people start claiming that type is relevant to behavior. From what I'm aware of from a college-level psychology class, behavior is always learned and can easily be modified under any circumstances


Well, this statement is not correct about the nature of behaviour. Were you studying the behaviourist approach or what?




> that's why people are capable of acting "out of character," of course.


Only to an extent... It's stressful to keep trying to act out of character. The more out of character and the longer, the more stressful.




> An example of this reality would be feral children, who do not learn to behave in socially adaptable/acceptable ways


Behaviour != social behaviour. I suppose they don't learn language etc. because the window for learning that already passed. Plasticity of the brain is a complex thing, it does decrease a lot after the few initial years though quite some of it does remain of course 




> does that mean they do not have a type? Probably not. After all, type is just about how the ego prioritizes and makes sense of the world around you in terms of sensation, intuition, feeling, and thinking - everyone needs to do this on some level to be able to have any ability to direct their own actions and get basic needs/wants. People can probably program their own behavior under the influence of others/society. After all, if people weren't programming their own, they wouldn't be adaptable, which is a necessity to survive (throwing a bit of Darwinian thought in there).


People are... adaptable... to a degree.




LeaT said:


> My impression is that people less-versed make this mistake, and these people seem to include those that are a) too lazy or too ignorant to look up and learn the actual theory, b) people who are for one reason or another incapable of learning or understanding the actual theory, c) people who are more interested in how the theory can be applied on actual physical behavior and the external world than simply being a theory of the psyche. I see a lot of people in camp C often making that logical jump even when they have a rudimentary grasp of the theory itself.


Socionics belongs to camp D!?




JungyesMBTIno said:


> Sure. I blame the MBTI promoters mostly, for turning this stuff into something too meaningful about people (this is 100% to the contrary of what Jung considered it - he didn't think it meant anything about people at all, other than what he thought a husband and wife could basically explain about each other - so also, this stuff is in the realm of individuality - not 16 uniting and dividing similarities between the people of the world). Also, the fact that MBTI tries to make this stuff so accessible today is where it's big downfall is - by taking psychology out of it (more than the original creators intended as well), it becomes everything Jung didn't want it to be - a parlor game, which is certainly going to attract people looking for reasons to figure out why they are such a special snowflake to verify their biases (believe me, most people who get into MBTI do not come across it because of a deep interest in psychology - by not setting limits here, MBTI kills its own credibility and makes this stuff look like a horoscope). It forces roles onto people to play in the workforce, which might certainly be a successful form of psychological manipulation or workforce organization (for better or for worse), but otherwise, if you take this stuff literally, this is where the vast majority of misunderstandings arise. It's an abstract descriptor of reality - NOT any kind of literal truth that can be taken as such.


Again, official MBTI ethical guidelines state that it should not be abused in this way at the workplace. But I do agree with the rest, very well put  Well except for the last sentence. An abstract descriptor of reality should still be anchored to reality, so a theory is good if it can be used as a literal truth too. The better the model is, the more it can be used as a literal truth... So I disagree that a user of MBTI/JCF/Jung/whatnot should be content with the idea of it being abstract and unconnected to reality. If someone really thinks so then it should not be used to type people at all. After all, it's unconnected to reality so not to be used in practice...


Btw, a question to the experts.  When Jung talks about the ego using the functions as tools, does that just mean there are certain motivations (driven towards certain interests in aspects of the world) that the ego is habitually invested in for some reason and whichever function will fit as a tool will be used? Then assuming these motivations are all congruent with one function's use as a tool fit for the task, the notion of a dominant function does have a point; otherwise not. But let me know if I oversimplified this idea of the ego using a function...


----------



## Up and Away (Mar 5, 2011)

J/P can be used for thoughts too- but MBTI uses it as a way to show external behavior, like you said.

I can still say though that I'm primarily J, I just happen to work externally with P or whatever


----------

