# Why are Function attitudes the opposite of each other?



## bboyu (Jul 17, 2013)

Hi guys this is my first post. I am trying to get my headaround all of this stuff. The way I'm doing it is by not doing any online testsbut looking at Jung's work and explanations of the functions to see which Ilean towards etc. The reason being ill be more comfortable going back toand working from the basics than subjective tests which may type me incorrectlyas I may sit there and analyze a question before answering it putting mesomewhere I'm not. 
Now I understand that the dominant function requirescompensation by an inferior function which has to be the opposite to prevent acomplete loss of psychic balance in an individual. What I want tounderstand is WHY did Myers Briggs deduce that the auxiliary function has to beopposite to the dominant in attitude? where did they get this from and why? thesame with the tertiary being different from auxiliary and then different fromthe inferior? Because I'm finding it difficult when going through the functionsto then say to myself "nooo you cant relate to that next because the nextone has to be opposite...but why" You see what I mean. 
And also why is the Judging Perceiving function reflectedat the end of mbti types and not the actual last inferior function? 
Please when answering these questions don't startdebating amongst yourself as I've seen in every thread! *stay objective* and just work from common ground up! 
I really need to know my type so I can move forward...itjust seems like until I don't know it (because I've read so much and made notes)I can't do anything else in life! I want to start my own business and want toknow my type so I can see my strengths and work on them and see if I am reallyfit to be an entrepreneur...What are your thoughts on this does personalitytype determine success in personal ventures in life?


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

When Myers declared that the auxiliary function's attitude would be the opposite of the attitude of the dominant function (e.g., Ni-Te for INTJs), she acknowledged that that interpretation put her in the minority of Jung scholars. I think it was a mistake, although it wasn't really a very significant "mistake" from Myers' perspective since, although she gave the functions quite a lot of lip service in the first half of Gifts Differing, she then essentially left them behind in favor of the dichotomies (to her credit, IMHO).

I think the interpretation that's really most consistent with Psychological Types as a whole (as distinguished from Myers' very selective cherry-picking in that respect) is that Jung's function model for an Ni-dom with a T auxiliary was really Ni-Ti-Fe-Se — with Te being an Ni-dom's default, unconscious form of T and Ti being the form that T would take to the extent that an Ni-dom differentiated it and brought it into conscious, directed use as the auxiliary function. (Consistent with that, I think Jung, at the time he wrote Psychological Types, basically viewed himself as Ti-Ni-Se-Fe). And again, and as Myers acknowledged, this is apparently the _majority view_ among Jung scholars.

For a little more from me, see this post; and, for two threads on the subject, see here (old thread) and here (brand new thread).

Assuming you have four reasonably well-defined preferences, I think you're more likely to end up correctly typing yourself by focusing on the dichotomies rather than the functions. For more on that, see this post.


----------



## bboyu (Jul 17, 2013)

Thanks for the reply reckful. I was wondering where I had read your reply before and it was in the "old thread" which you posted here. Word for word lol...hmm you seem to like that post. Right so according to what you've said what personality type would Ti-Ni-Se-Fe be? if we transfer these functions to MBTI? What would MBTI classify that as? Also if MBTI did not exist how would we differentiate between different personalities using Jung? Would we just go off the 4 Functions like I've just written now and explain the functions working together and how they aid each other in variations to create personalities?


----------



## LiquidLight (Oct 14, 2011)

bboyu said:


> Thanks for the reply reckful. I was wondering where I had read your reply before and it was in the "old thread" which you posted here. Word for word lol...hmm you seem to like that post. Right so according to what you've said what personality type would Ti-Ni-Se-Fe be? if we transfer these functions to MBTI? What would MBTI classify that as? Also if MBTI did not exist how would we differentiate between different personalities using Jung? Would we just go off the 4 Functions like I've just written now and explain the functions working together and how they aid each other in variations to create personalities?


It wouldn't be an MBTI personality. Because in order to be an INTP you MUST have Ti+_Ne_ in that order because the P points to the first extraverted function, which in MBTI is assumed to be the first auxiliary in introverts. 

I personally would just call such a person an introverted thinking type who favored intuition. I've seen people online use the nomenclature Ti(N).


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

bboyu said:


> I was wondering where I had read your reply before and it was in the "old thread" which you posted here. Word for word lol...hmm you seem to like that post.


Why would I go to the trouble of rewriting that glorious prose just for you? :tongue:



bboyu said:


> Right so according to what you've said what personality type would Ti-Ni-Se-Fe be? if we transfer these functions to MBTI? What would MBTI classify that as? Also if MBTI did not exist how would we differentiate between different personalities using Jung? Would we just go off the 4 Functions like I've just written now and explain the functions working together and how they aid each other in variations to create personalities?


As far as which MBTI type Ti-Ni-Se-Fe would correspond to, that could depend on whose function descriptions you were working with. As further discussed in this post (on Si) and this post (on Te), the cognitive function descriptions used by theorists like Thomson, Berens and Nardi differ quite a lot from Jung's original conceptions. And, as further discussed in this long INTJforum post, I'm not really a believer in framing personality in terms of the functions at all.

But, if you're asking which modern MBTI type would be the one that, if Jung had met one of them, Jung would most likely have said was one of those Ti-Ni-Se-Fe people, then I'd say INTJ. If you read through Psychological Types looking for descriptions of the kinds of characteristics that cause people to test as J's or P's on the MBTI, you'll mostly find Jung associating them with J-doms and P-doms. So, contrary to Myers' view that _introverted_ J-doms were P's and _introverted_ P-doms were J's, I think Jung would have said that an introvert who had N and T preferences and came across as one of Jung's "rational types" (J-doms) was a Ti-dom with an N-aux rather than an Ni-dom with a T-aux.


----------



## Loupgaroux (Mar 9, 2013)

cognitivequiz.com nearly always gives me ISTP, ISFP & ISTJ as my three possible types. 

I've always identified with Si more than Se, but I'm certainly not an ISFJ since my Fe is low. Not ISTP because my Fi is stronger than my Ti. No way ISTJ because low Te. 
Me being an extrovert is laughable. I'm certainly not an N, I use Si & Se over Ne & Ni. Therefore ISFP. 

I would say those who are very extroverted would use more Xe functions & vice versa for introverts, such as myself.


----------



## bboyu (Jul 17, 2013)

reckful said:


> I'm not really a believer in framing personality in terms of the functions at all.


Well as the whole point of my post is to figure out how to type myself without relying on online tests, I thought that typing myself on functions would be the way as those are the things in terms of how your naturally leaning towards them is what determines your type...How do you personally do it then? I just want to know a way to type myself without doing any tests.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

bboyu said:


> Well as the whole point of my post is to figure out how to type myself without relying on online tests, I thought that typing myself on functions would be the way as those are the things in terms of how your naturally leaning towards them is what determines your type...How do you personally do it then? I just want to know a way to type myself without doing any tests.


I've already answered that question in the last link in my first post (and the posts it links to). I'd look at descriptions of dichotomies first and foremost — and that doesn't mean ignoring personality characteristics associated with dichotomy _combinations_ (e.g., Keirsey's NFs and SJs), but it means not treating the combinations purportedly associated with the "functions" as being something special, or something you use in a particular priority order, etc.

But the first thing I usually have someone do if they're trying to type themselves is take at least a couple of dichotomy-based tests — and I already linked you to the two I'd have you start with (including the official MBTI) in, again, the last link in my first post. With the possible exception of the T/F dimension, it's been my experience that people who get reasonably definite (and matching) scores on any dimension on those two tests usually have the indicated preference on that dimension.

If, based on tests or other analysis, you can narrow down your type to two to four possibilities, the best next step could be to read a bunch of profiles of those possible types and see how they fit you. I've put roundups of profiles of all the IN types in the spoiler and can give you other types if you want them. And one way to give other posters information about you to help them type you is to post about aspects of those profiles that strike you as being particularly like you or not like you.

As a final note, and as further discussed here, I don't think anyone should dismiss the possibility that they may pretty much be in the middle on one or more of the MBTI dimensions — with the result that the best label for them might be ENxP, for example.


* *




_INTJ Profiles_
Official MBTI Manual
Keirsey (Please Understand Me)
Kroeger & Thuesen (Type Talk)
Hirsh & Kummerow (Lifetypes [abridged])
Berens & Nardi
personalitypage: Portrait
personalitypage: Personal Growth
personalitypage: Relationships
personalitypage: Careers

_INTP Profiles_
Official MBTI Manual
Keirsey (Please Understand Me)
Kroeger & Thuesen (Type Talk)
Hirsh & Kummerow (Lifetypes [abridged])
Berens & Nardi
personalitypage: Portrait
personalitypage: Personal Growth
personalitypage: Relationships
personalitypage: Careers

_INFJ Profiles_
Official MBTI Manual
Keirsey (Please Understand Me)
Kroeger & Thuesen (Type Talk)
Hirsh & Kummerow (Lifetypes [abridged])
Berens & Nardi
personalitypage: Portrait
personalitypage: Personal Growth
personalitypage: Relationships
personalitypage: Careers

_INFP Profiles_
Official MBTI Manual
Keirsey (Please Understand Me)
Kroeger & Thuesen (Type Talk)
Hirsh & Kummerow (Lifetypes [abridged])
Berens & Nardi
personalitypage: Portrait
personalitypage: Personal Growth
personalitypage: Relationships
personalitypage: Careers


----------



## bboyu (Jul 17, 2013)

This is really getting confusing for me as there is just too many conflicting statements flying about regarding who to favour "when doing _x"_. For example you really like the idea of typing yourself through briggs over cognitive functions by jung because mbti's focus is on dichotomies but even then in the explanation of the type - the cognitive functions are discussed with the same extro/intro version of each function depending on what you lean towards? so you have to still use jungs functions to establish what you are!? he's the one who started the whole thing off? Also you say briggs made a mistake when she said that auxiliary is opposite of dominant when jung proposed it'll be the same attitude as the conscious dominant? I don't get who are you supposed to follow its too hard typing oneself on a mix of opinions of 4 5 different scholars?


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

bboyu said:


> This is really getting confusing for me as there is just too many conflicting statements flying about regarding who to favour "when doing _x"_. For example you really like the idea of typing yourself through briggs over cognitive functions by jung because mbti's focus is on dichotomies but even then in the explanation of the type - the cognitive functions are discussed with the same extro/intro version of each function depending on what you lean towards? so you have to still use jungs functions to establish what you are!? he's the one who started the whole thing off? Also you say briggs made a mistake when she said that auxiliary is opposite of dominant when jung proposed it'll be the same attitude as the conscious dominant? I don't get who are you supposed to follow its too hard typing oneself on a mix of opinions of 4 5 different scholars?


That's the nature of the beast.

Personality psychology is frontier science right now.

It's going to get more complicated before it gets any less. If you are looking for definitive answers, you just are not going to find them. You're going to find lots of opinions, and some are better than others, but nobody really knows for sure.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

bboyu said:


> This is really getting confusing for me as there is just too many conflicting statements flying about regarding who to favour "when doing _x"_. For example you really like the idea of typing yourself through briggs over cognitive functions by jung because mbti's focus is on dichotomies but even then in the explanation of the type - the cognitive functions are discussed with the same extro/intro version of each function depending on what you lean towards? so you have to still use jungs functions to establish what you are!? he's the one who started the whole thing off? Also you say briggs made a mistake when she said that auxiliary is opposite of dominant when jung proposed it'll be the same attitude as the conscious dominant? I don't get who are you supposed to follow its too hard typing oneself on a mix of opinions of 4 5 different scholars?


As I explained in that long INTJforum post I linked you to, you can subscribe to the MBTI and ignore the functions, and that's pretty much what the official MBTI establishment has always done (including in the more recent "Step II" version) — not to mention what most of the best-known MBTI authors (e.g., Keirsey and Kroeger & Thuesen) have always done.

The dichotomy-centric view is the minority view on MBTI-related internet forums, and you can get all the functions-related advice and wisdom you want from other posters, but I'm a dichotomies guy, so the dichotomy-centric perspective is what you'll get from me.

In any case, and as I mentioned in an earlier post, even the modern MBTI theorists who are more functions-centric — like Thomson, Berens and Nardi — don't really use _Jung's_ functions. They use substantially modified versions of the functions that have been adjusted to line up reasonably well with the people whose MBTI types they (theoretically) correspond to. So if you're hoping for a magical perspective that makes Jung and Myers and Thomson and Berens and Nardi all perfectly consistent with each other, I'm afraid you're out of luck.


----------



## Erbse (Oct 15, 2010)

bboyu said:


> This is really getting confusing for me as there is just too many conflicting statements flying about regarding who to favour "when doing _x"_. For example you really like the idea of typing yourself through briggs over cognitive functions by jung because mbti's focus is on dichotomies but even then in the explanation of the type - the cognitive functions are discussed with the same extro/intro version of each function depending on what you lean towards? so you have to still use jungs functions to establish what you are!? he's the one who started the whole thing off? Also you say briggs made a mistake when she said that auxiliary is opposite of dominant when jung proposed it'll be the same attitude as the conscious dominant? I don't get who are you supposed to follow its too hard typing oneself on a mix of opinions of 4 5 different scholars?


It depends on what you expect any given system to provide you with. 

- If it's about individuation and all the borderline spiritual stuff that goes on and dwells deep within our cores, then stick to Jung.
- If it's about more superficial matters and you're just in a rut try MBTI and see where the text descriptions/solutions take you.
- If it's about relationship drama/compability try to give Socionics a shot.
- If it's about blatant ignorance and labeling with a result of feeling good go to Keirsey.

Granted, the last one is a tad mean, admittedly. Well, the last one can also easily be accomplished by throwing a random amount systems together into a giant clusterfuck to justify one's correctness and asshattery.

Additionally MBTI types don't necessarily reflect Socionic types, although they use the same letter codes. Seeing each framework in a nutshell is helpful and allows you be something different within their spheres. Within these boundaries the systems themselves better be coherent and valid, though.


----------



## bboyu (Jul 17, 2013)

Right okay, so the dichotomies are Extraverted-Introverted, Sensing-Intuition, Thinking-Feeling, Judging and Perceiving right? Jung used the words Rational-Irrational for Judging and Perceiving. 

If you just go off cognitive functions (which are the same as dichotomies with an intro/extro preference) then using Jung alone would just identify yourself as "Extraverted Thinking" type or something like that, when its all said and done correct? 

Now where did Briggs get the insight that the functions had to be of different orientation? Is it just from the one quote by Jung 
*"theres a relatively unconscious auxiliary function which is in every respect different from the nature of the primary function"*

which she misinterpreted and ignored everything else he said like *"the unconscious functions grouping themselves in patterns like the conscious ones"* I understand him to be saying by that statement that *YOU CANT HAVE 2 JUDGING/PERCEIVING FUNCTIONS IN THE SAME LEVEL OF CONSCIOUSNESS/UNCONSCIOUSNESS AND THAT THEY BOTH HAD TO OPPOSE EACH OTHER and that's how its "in every respect different from the nature of the primary" as its opposed? Am I correct here?* 

Okay so by going through the dichotomies and cognitive functions and choosing your preference:

eg Your an Introvert. *T*-X-X-*F* Thinking is dominant therefore Feeling has to oppose it to become inferior. 
Now because Thinking is a Rational/Judging function, the partly conscious/unconscious function being the auxiliary next cant be a Rational/Judging function...therefore it has to be a Perceiving function...SO from the Perceiving function you are more Intuitive than Sensing to T-N-S-F. Yes? Is this right?

How would you now transfer your preference to MBTI just so you can refer to your type (when talking to someone about it for example)? as this is the most recognized way of referring to a type (i.e using 4 letter combinations)


----------



## bboyu (Jul 17, 2013)

One more question how do you properly decide whether you are a Thinker,Sensor,Feeler, or someone who is Intuitive as the first major function? Is that just something you as a person do more than anything else? How do you identify with each function? And as above the way I went through each function is that how you'd normally have to do it without doing any test?


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

bboyu said:


> Right okay, so the dichotomies are Extraverted-Introverted, Sensing-Intuition, Thinking-Feeling, Judging and Perceiving right? Jung used the words Rational-Irrational for Judging and Perceiving.
> 
> If you just go off cognitive functions (which are the same as dichotomies with an intro/extro preference) then using Jung alone would just identify yourself as "Extraverted Thinking" type or something like that, when its all said and done correct?
> 
> ...


As I explain in that long INTJforum post, I think it's important to keep in mind that Myers didn't really think the functions were the main event, and quite a lot of her discussion of them — and it's impossible for me to know just how much — was in the nature of lip service, because it was in her interest (not in terms of a _selfish_ interest, really, but in terms of her interest in having the MBTI accepted) to frame the MBTI as more Jungian than it really was.

So who knows how much Myers really believed in her opposite-attitude-of-the-auxiliary stance? Since her perspective was that any reasonably-well-developed type would exhibit a reasonably good balance of E and I in the _conscious_ regions of their psyche, her interpretation of the auxiliary's attitude gave her a way to frame that perspective as consistent with Jung rather than inconsistent with Jung.

In any case, for someone like me, who's not inclined to frame things in terms of the "functions" at all, Myers' "mistake" (if that's what it was) was a mistake in terms of being a _mistaken interpretation of Jung_ but not a "mistake" in terms of the actual orientation of the auxiliary function — because, if there's no such thing as an auxiliary function, there's no real issue to be "mistaken" about.

To the extent that the last part of your post (your "T-N-S-F" example) suggests that I believe in dominant, auxiliary, tertiary and inferior functions, that's really not correct. Although I don't claim that the functions have been definitively _disproven_ at this point, I view a typical INTJ (for example) as someone with I, N, T and J preferences, but without any of those preferences necessarily being in any sort of priority order, or part of any interconnected system. As I mentioned before, I think there are significant personality characteristics associated with dichotomy _combinations_ (e.g., Keirsey's NFs and SJs), but I don't view the combinations purportedly associated with the "functions" as being something special. If an INTJ has a very strong N preference and a very mild T preference, I'd expect their N preference to play a more "dominant" role in their personality than their T preference — and, conversely, if an INTJ has a very strong T preference and a very mild N preference, I'd expect their T preference to play the more "dominant" role.


----------



## bearotter (Aug 10, 2012)

Liquidlight said:


> It wouldn't be an MBTI personality. Because in order to be an INTP you MUST have Ti+_Ne in that order because the P points to the first extraverted function, which in MBTI is assumed to be the first auxiliary in introverts.
> 
> I personally would just call such a person an introverted thinking type who favored intuition. I've seen people online use the nomenclature Ti(N).
> 
> ...


I wonder if someone with _well-established _clarity in their respective dichotomy results would be more likely to fit the MBTI type dynamics models ... assuming one believes in them at all.



reckful said:


> When Myers declared that the auxiliary function's attitude would be the opposite of the attitude of the dominant function (e.g., Ni-Te for INTJs), she acknowledged that that interpretation put her in the minority of Jung scholars




I also don't really view this as a mistake or not because I'm unconvinced the described cognitive functions used by MBTI typology are philosophically the same as Jung's sufficient to even warrant much comparison here. Seems like you are also unconvinced of this. So whatever the Myers theory did, I think if it is to be treated at all, it's to be treated as its own thing. Whether someone identifies as "Ti-Ne" in Jung may simply be irrelevant to whether they do by some interpretation of Jung.


----------



## bboyu (Jul 17, 2013)

reckful said:


> In any case, for someone like me, who's not inclined to frame things in terms of the "functions" at all, Myers' "mistake" (if that's what it was) was a mistake in terms of being a _mistaken interpretation of Jung_ but not a "mistake" in terms of the actual orientation of the auxiliary function — because, if there's no such thing as an auxiliary function, there's no real issue to be "mistaken" about.
> 
> To the extent that the last part of your post (your "T-N-S-F" example) suggests that I believe in dominant, auxiliary, tertiary and inferior functions, that's really not correct. Although I don't claim that the functions have been definitively _disproven_ at this point, I view a typical INTJ (for example) as someone with I, N, T and J preferences, but without any of those preferences necessarily being in any sort of priority order, or part of any interconnected system. As I mentioned before, I think there are significant personality characteristics associated with dichotomy _combinations_ (e.g., Keirsey's NFs and SJs), but I don't view the combinations purportedly associated with the "functions" as being something special. If an INTJ has a very strong N preference and a very mild T preference, I'd expect their N preference to play a more "dominant" role in their personality than their T preference — and, conversely, if an INTJ has a very strong T preference and a very mild N preference, I'd expect their T preference to play the more "dominant" role.


Maybe I'm not getting my point across properly...I didn't suggest or imply anything regarding yourself, I asked you a few questions and every other member as to would that be the correct way to go about it to start off with before you try matching it to a specific MBTI type? And you haven't answered that part of my post but just defended your position and Myers position.

I'm sure I read a post of Liquidlight's somewhere on this forum which suggested that "if you're going to follow a specific theory you cant pick and choose which parts of it you're going to accept because they don't suit you" when you say to "you" an INTJ has I,N,T J preferences without any order how can you say that's an "INTJ"? How would you know what an "INTJ" is? If it wasn't for Myers to highlight such 4 letter acronyms WITH A SPECIFIC ORDER? This is exactly my point, I'm not pointing fingers at you personally I am just saying that like you have you're understanding and what you want from typlogy...I am trying to find mine by using Jung and Myers together but abiding by Jung more than Myers. I just want to use Myers to give me a 4 letter acronym that's it.

Liquidlight 
"It wouldn't be an MBTI personality. Because in order to be an INTP you MUST have Ti+Ne in that order because the P points to the first extraverted function, which in MBTI is assumed to be the first auxiliary in introverts." 

Again Does this not apply to your "INTJ"? 

*"...but not a "mistake" in terms of the actual orientation of the auxiliary function — because, if there's no such thing as an auxiliary function, there's no real issue to be "mistaken" about." *

But *THERE IS* such a thing as an auxiliary function because Jung says there is, and so does Myers??? I'm not trying to argue whether she was completely wrong or not but obviously she differs from Jung. But the thing is its THE MBTI which brought the whole thing out to the masses...so we cant ignore her either...I am just trying to find the place where it all overlaps so I can get the best understanding of the whole thing. It cant be that hard of a point to get across can it? 

I would personally have the Dominant and Auxiliary as one attitude with the Tertiary and Inferior as one attitude. 

A post by "*Spades*" in the thread *"Is the auxiliary the same attitude as the dominant?"*
"I think when one is typing themselves, they should focus on the dom and inf, and use the letter of the second strongest as the aux, regardless of which direction if points. For example, a Te dom with Ni or a Te dom with Ne *would both be "Extraverted Thinking with iNtuition" (ENTJ)."* 


This is what I want to know and achieve. *This is my question *how feasible is this ^^^ principle to type yourself using dichotomies/functions and still end up with AN MBTI 4 letter code which you can relate to? Just like she has derived at "Extraverted Thinking with Intuition" (A "JUNG LIKE" TYPE DESCRIPTION)...BUT ALSO AN MBTI TO GO WITH IT..."ENTJ"? can it be done with everyone's functions/dichotomies and still get assigned a 4 letter code or is "ENTJ" an exception which is why she used that example?

To say it a different way using *"Coyotes"* words
*I want to "generally stick to Jung's definitions, within the framework of MBTI's ordering and four-letter codes" *

Also @LiquidLight I have read a lot of your posts and you really make sense to me but I'm confused on your stance on this. As in you're very clear above in that, to be a certain MBTI type you have to have X,Y,Z in that specific order but also agree with Coyote on his method of typing someone using Jung but also giving a 4 Letter MBTI code aswell?


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

bboyu said:


> Liquidlight
> "It wouldn't be an MBTI personality. Because in order to be an INTP you MUST have Ti+Ne in that order because the P points to the first extraverted function, which in MBTI is assumed to be the first auxiliary in introverts."
> 
> Again Does this not apply to your "INTJ"?
> ...


I dunno. I continue to get the impression you're only half-reading my posts. You're now asking, in effect, "But doesn't Myers and the MBTI say there are dominant and auxiliary functions?" and I've explained that, yes, _officially_ they say that, but I've also explained (especially, and in quite a bit of detail, in that long INTJforum post) that the official MBTI is really best viewed as having given _limited lip service_ to the dom/aux/tert/inf functions while typing people exclusively by way of the dichotomies, conducting studies correlating all kinds of things with the dichotomies (almost exclusively), basing their type profiles on the dichotomies, and so on. Not only is it _possible_ to subscribe to the MBTI and ignore the idea of dom/aux/tert/inf functions, that's really what the official MBTI establishment — along with the best-selling MBTI authors and the independent psychologists who've conducted decades worth of studies — has mostly done for the past 30 years.

You're now asking me "the correct way to go about" starting to type yourself "before you try matching it to a specific MBTI type." And I already told you (in case you missed it):



reckful said:


> I'd look at descriptions of dichotomies first and foremost — and that doesn't mean ignoring personality characteristics associated with dichotomy _combinations_ (e.g., Keirsey's NFs and SJs), but it means not treating the combinations purportedly associated with the "functions" as being something special, or something you use in a particular priority order, etc.
> 
> But *the first thing I usually have someone do if they're trying to type themselves is take at least a couple of dichotomy-based tests — and I already linked you to the two I'd have you start with* (including the official MBTI) in, again, the last link in my first post. With the possible exception of the T/F dimension, it's been my experience that people who get reasonably definite (and matching) scores on any dimension on those two tests usually have the indicated preference on that dimension.
> 
> *If, based on tests or other analysis, you can narrow down your type to two to four possibilities, the best next step could be to read a bunch of profiles of those possible types and see how they fit you*. I've put roundups of profiles of all the IN types in the spoiler and can give you other types if you want them. And one way to give other posters information about you to help them type you is to post about aspects of those profiles that strike you as being particularly like you or not like you.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

@_bboyu_,

If you just approach each theory as a completely separate thing at first, you will go through a process where, let's say you start with MBTI, then you type yourself using Jung's functions, then Enneagram. After that you are going to have three different self-images. However, you will notice certain underlying themes and patterns that they all have in common. _That_ is going to be the best self-image you can generate. Not by trying to make them all fit into a kind of "unified personality theory" - but rather, by analyzing yourself _through_ each perspective in order to see the underlying pattern that exists _within you_ and is, itself, _manifesting through each system_ and thus becoming warped to "fit into" that particular system.

Having multiple methods of self-analysis like this gives you a much better self-image in the end because you begin to recognize what it is about yourself that is the same all across the board.

For example, in MBTI, I consistently type INTP, and sometimes J, but usually slightly P. My strongest dichotomy is the S/N dichotomy, where I almost score a _perfect set_ in favor of intuition. Like, zero answers for sensation, 100% intuition (and not on purpose either, that's actually my honest to god result without even trying to get it). I usually score somewhat more into introversion than extraversion, but again, not by a whole lot. And a good deal more thinking than feeling. But knowing my most extreme preference is for intuition, okay now we have one clue. Set that aside, next step: Enneagram.

In Enneagram, I read through all the 9 types, and I definitely fit into either 5 or 9, and I'm leaning towards 5 because that just seems closer to home for me. But the fact that I also resonate somewhat with the 9 - in particular the laziness - reminds me of the way I tend to score a bit more in favor of P rather than J. Maybe that's what's happening here, you see? But I strongly identify with the intellectualism of the 5, and also with the 4 wing. 4 is supposed to be more emotional, and that also fits into my not scoring very extremely high in thinking versus feeling, but still having a clear preference for thinking. Hence, 5w4 and not 4w5. Again, you see how this begins to form an overall picture? I read into it, and lo-and-behold, 5w4 is described as being "the iconoclast" a very intuitive and imaginary thinker who spends a lot of time involved in a dramatic inner theater where they explore all kinds of theoretical ideas. Very much starting to sound familiar to me, so I settle on 5w4 and move on.

Now I take the Big 5. I score highest in openness - no surprise, and my SLOAN type is "inquisitive." Seems right, and goes along with everything else. Nothing surprising here. Low, but not extremely low, conscientiousness, below average neuroticism (I'm pretty laid back), slightly below average extraversion, slightly above average agreeableness (I'm usually a pretty friendly guy). Okay, so far so good, now finally on to Jungian functions.

Well, where to start? Intuition seems like the best bet. Everything seems to be pointing there, and I read both descriptions of extraverted intuition and introverted intuition and notice things in both that are similar to how I operate. I keep in mind that Jung notes these are not _real_ examples, they are gross exaggerations that don't exist in reality, meant only to give a contrast against each other. So that's fine, and I notice I have more in common with the introverted intuitive type than I do with the extraverted intuitive type (I'm just not that much of a go-getter "make things happen" kinda person. The Ne type seems much too proactive and energetic for me).

But now I also see things about Te and about Ti that fit me, and things about Fe and Fi that fit me, and things about Si and Se that fit me. But I notice that I always resonate a bit more with the introverted versions of each of these. It's only when I am in public, or intend to interact with others, that I will occasionally adopt an extraverted attitude. So I can say that, when my attitude is introverted, I tend to prefer all the introverted versions of the functions, and vica versa when I my attitude is extraverted. And already I note that I am probably intuitive, and I strongly identify with that, followed by thinking, favoring introverted thinking a bit more.

Then I come on PerC and see a thread talking about how Jung himself might've believed that the auxiliary function had the same attitude as the dominant function. Well good, that fits right into the whole overall pattern I've been seeing.

Now at last it seems as if I am getting a good idea of what is going on inside my own _true_ personality type which, because people are far too complex to fit into any one system, clearly transcends just one model and can't be translated into just one of these models perfectly. I had to go through the process of self-analysis looking at myself through all of these different theoretical frameworks in order to get the "gist" of my true self, which transcends them all. Naturally, I will never have a perfect idea of that true self, but thanks to all these different models, I have better than a vague idea.


----------



## Erbse (Oct 15, 2010)

bboyu said:


> ...


In my mind this forum is filled is quite a lot of redundant theorycraft that serves no purpose but for the sake of theorycraft. That isn't to downplay anyone's understanding of the material but inevitably serves no greater purpose at the very bottom line. Some people's line of thinking will be more on line with my understanding, while other's will not - that's simply how the world functions.

If you're looking for your Jungian type I suggest you to read Jung's Psychological Types about functions.

Classics in the History of Psychology -- Jung (1921/1923) Chapter 10

I for one had no troubles identifying myself in the respective function description. From there on out it narrows you down to two possible MBTI types, as only two types share the same dominant function inside of MBTI's framework. While MBTI's definition isn't exactly Jung's interpretation at the very bottom line they still, at their core, remain identically (somewhat) while MBTI tries to bestow the functions with skills or practical inclinations which may be overall accurate but not set in stone necessarily. Well, people tend to anyway, I'm not certain if it's MBTI that meant to get that trend going.

The more Jung I've read however the less use I had for MBTI and inevitably came to the conclusion that the aux-tertiary functions are a moot point and server no real purpose in terms of individuation. From a more superficial approach that theory may help you get a tad healthier initially or get some ideas as to how improve your life or spice it up a little but falls quite short when it boils down the real deal of the Jungian psychology - The pursuit of the transcendent function 'self'.

Personally, I've started with MBTI (including its, in my mind, misconceptions) and had a lot of unlearning/re-learning or more precisely perspective shifting to do.

Finally, bear in mind that Jung also said that the aux hardly ever makes it into a conscious state and as a result will remain in the unconscious for most part if not exclusively so. As such it implies that it isn't really identifiable as easily as the dom (assuming you are differentiated to begin with).


----------

