# (Rant) MBTI is so convoluted it's unreal



## Lord Fudgingsley (Mar 3, 2013)

Let me tell you folks, I've formally given up on MBTI. The system just carries flaws everywhere it goes, and I believe anyone who clings to the credibility of MBTI has not met enough people in real life, or suffers from serious denial.

All I see are contradictions. It's completely convoluted in my head, to the point that I'm just left staring at all the details people post about typology. I don't have an answer to them in my head, but it doesn't take an Einstein to see that these answers are all being absurdly focused on details and don't hone in on what is actually going on inside the individual's mind. As soon as you start typing based on traits, you end up losing sight of the cognitive processes going on inside an individual.

The worst one I can think of, which I see so many people do, is attributing anxiety to inferior Ne. It's true that weak Ne can bring about a particular type of anxiety; however all perception functions bring about anxiety - just a different kind. It makes Si-doms sound like very easily stressed, feeble and rigid beings, which I have no reason to believe is true. 

I've wanted to understand MBTI, but I can't bring myself to. I've managed to understand it as far as my own type is concerned, but that's as far as I've managed. I've no doubt that I've picked up some faulty information somewhere along the line and my inner computer has basically been wrecked.

Good luck, folks. Hope you can explain this stuff better than me.


----------



## Ixim (Jun 19, 2013)

Lord Fudgingsley said:


> Let me tell you folks, I've formally given up on MBTI. The system just carries flaws everywhere it goes, and I believe anyone who clings to the credibility of MBTI has not met enough people in real life, or suffers from serious denial.
> 
> All I see are contradictions. It's completely convoluted in my head, to the point that I'm just left staring at all the details people post about typology. I don't have an answer to them in my head, but it doesn't take an Einstein to see that these answers are all being absurdly focused on details and don't hone in on what is actually going on inside the individual's mind. As soon as you start typing based on traits, you end up losing sight of the cognitive processes going on inside an individual.
> 
> ...


Read Jung maybe?


----------



## Wisteria (Apr 2, 2015)

A PerC user once mentioned that the MBTI model is unfinished and now I can understand why. The lack of research of the MBTI+JCF theory only creates more misunderstandings as people studying it try to fill in the gaps. You should move to socionics if you're still interested in the psychological types theory.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Wisteria said:


> A PerC user once mentioned that the MBTI model is unfinished and now I can understand why. The lack of research of the MBTI+JCF theory only creates more misunderstandings as people studying it try to fill in the gaps. You should move to socionics if you're still interested in the psychological types theory.


???

Between the publication of the first MBTI Manual in 1962 and the publication of the 3rd Edition in 1998, more than 4,000 research studies, journal articles, and dissertations were written on the MBTI, and there have been many more in the past 18 years. If you think socionics is the more respectable typology in that department, I think you're more than a little confused.

If you're interested, you can read quite a lot about the scientific respectability of the MBTI, and about several other issues often raised by people claiming to "debunk" the MBTI, in this post.


----------



## snowbell (Apr 2, 2012)

Ixim said:


> Read Jung maybe?


This. It gives a far stronger foundation and helps you to understand the functions which MBTI does distort and bury some. Plus understanding the functions for what they are can be more helpful than just trying to type based on type or behavior. Seems like you're more interested in the functions already.


----------



## Wisteria (Apr 2, 2015)

reckful said:


> ???
> 
> Between the publication of the first MBTI Manual in 1962 and the publication of the 3rd Edition in 1998, more than 4,000 research studies, journal articles, and dissertations were written on the MBTI, and there have been many more in the past 18 years. If you think socionics is the more respectable typology in that department, I think you're more than a little confused.
> 
> If you're interested, you can read quite a lot about the scientific respectability of the MBTI, and about several other issues often raised by people claiming to "debunk" the MBTI, in this post.


MBTI may have been thoroughly researched, but what about the functional stack? The MBTI dichotomies itself might not be invalid, but when those studying the MBTI model attempt to merge this with the cognitive functions it causes confusion because they both have different definitions adapted from Jung's psychological types. The descriptions online tend to be poor and inconsistent with Jung. The functional stack doesn't cover the "shadow" functions and how all eight cognitive functions are used by each personality type, inter-type relations, or group interaction. Model A in Socionics is more completed than the functional stack in MBTI.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

Wisteria said:


> MBTI may have been thoroughly researched, but what about the functional stack? The MBTI dichotomies itself might not be invalid, but when those studying the MBTI model attempt to merge this with the cognitive functions it causes confusion because they both have different definitions adapted from Jung's psychological types. The descriptions online tend to be poor and inconsistent with Jung. *The functional stack doesn't cover the "shadow" functions and how all eight cognitive functions are used by each personality type, inter-type relations, or group interaction.* Model A in Socionics is more completed than the functional stack in MBTI.


These aren't concepts by Jung either. Are you sure about which theories are inconsistent with Jung?


----------



## Wisteria (Apr 2, 2015)

PaladinX said:


> These aren't concepts by Jung either. Are you sure about which theories are inconsistent with Jung?


I know. I was comparing the functional stack with socionics


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

Wisteria said:


> I know. I was comparing the functional stack with socionics


My mistake, I assumed it was meant to logically follow the preceding claim:

"_The descriptions online tend to be poor and inconsistent with Jung."_


----------



## Ixim (Jun 19, 2013)

snowbell said:


> This. It gives a far stronger foundation and helps you to understand the functions which MBTI does distort and bury some. Plus understanding the functions for what they are can be more helpful than just trying to type based on type or behavior. Seems like you're more interested in the functions already.


Also, I'd recommend you(the OP) read the whole PT or if that's too dense(can't really fault you for that, it is and someone should've taught Jung how to express himself), the TL. DON'T READ CHAPTER X ONLY!!!

Also, model A isn't nearly finished lol!


----------



## Felipe (Feb 25, 2016)

To be honest I have to admit some flaws, for instance when Jung confused introversion and extroversion with having an internal and external frame of reference. Jung basically said that introverts have more of an internal frame, meaning they don't care what you think, have their own opinions. And extraverts have an external frame and go with what everyone else thinks and go more with general known facts instead of subjective understandings. 

But that's not true since there are introverts with external frame (who are more socially dependent) and there are also extraverts that have an internal frame (don't care what you think and have their own opinions and ideas about things).


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Felipe said:


> To be honest I have to admit some flaws, for instance when Jung confused introversion and extroversion with having an internal and external frame of reference. Jung basically said that introverts have more of an internal frame, meaning they don't care what you think, have their own opinions. And extraverts have an external frame and go with what everyone else thinks and go more with general known facts instead of subjective understandings.
> 
> But that's not true since there are introverts with external frame (who are more socially dependent) and there are also extraverts that have an internal frame (don't care what you think and have their own opinions and ideas about things).


You're onto something with your understanding that Jung thought that all the introverted types tended to be cussedly independent and all the extraverted types tended to follow the herd (more in the first spoiler), and that all the introverted types tended to favor subjective interpretations over the "facts," with extraverts being the other way round.


* *




In 1923 — two years after Psychological Types was published — Jung gave a lecture (separately published in 1925) that's included in the _Collected Works_ edition of Psychological Types. After some opening remarks on the shortcomings of past approaches to typology, here's how he began his discussion of extraverts and introverts:

_f we wish to define the psychological peculiarity of a man in terms that will satisfy not only our own subjective judgment but also the object judged, we must take as our criterion that state or attitude which is felt by the object to be the conscious, normal condition. Accordingly, we shall make his conscious motives our first concern, while eliminating as far as possible our own arbitrary interpretations.

Proceeding thus we shall discover, after a time, that in spite of the great variety of conscious motives and tendencies, certain groups of individuals can be distinguished who are characterized by a striking conformity of motivation. For example, we shall come upon individuals who in all their judgments, perceptions, feelings, affects, and actions feel external factors to be the predominant motivating force, or who at least give weight to them no matter whether causal or final motives are in question. I will give some examples of what I mean. St. Augustine: "I would not believe the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not compel it." ... One man finds a piece of modern music beautiful because everybody else pretends it is beautiful. Another marries in order to please his parents but very much against his own interests. ... There are not a few who in everything they do or don't do have but one motive in mind: what will others think of them? "One need not be ashamed of a thing if nobody knows about it."

[The previous examples] point to a psychological peculiarity that can be sharply distinguished from another attitude which, by contrast, is motivated chiefly by internal or subjective factors. A person of this type might say: "I know I could give my father the greatest pleasure if I did so and so, but I don't happen to think that way." Or: "I see that the weather has turned out bad, but in spite of it I shall carry out my plan." This type does not travel for pleasure but to execute a preconceived idea. ... There are some who feel happy only when they are quite sure nobody knows about it, and to them a thing is disagreeable just because it is pleasing to everyone else. They seek the good where no one would think of finding it. ... Such a person would have replied to St. Augustine: "I would believe the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not compel it." Always he has to prove that everything he does rests on his own decisions and convictions, and never because he is influenced by anyone, or desires to please or conciliate some person or opinion.

This attitude characterizes a group of individuals whose motivations are derived chiefly from the subject, from inner necessity._​


_
But that's because Jung overloaded too many aspects of personality differences onto E/I. He spent more of Psychological Types talking about the things he thought extraverts had in common and introverts had in common than he spent talking about all eight of the functions put together, and he confessed (in the Introduction) that, up until not long before he published Psychological Types, he'd thought T was part of introversion (i.e., that all introverts were T's and all extraverts were F's). And even though he'd managed to (at least mostly) correct himself on the E/I-F/T front, he was still loading quite a lot of S/N onto E/I.

So, to a substantial extent, Jung's "introvert" descriptions are really descriptions of INs, and his "extravert" descriptions are really descriptions of ESs.

But that was Jung, not Myers. Among the many adjustments (large and small) that Myers made to Jung's original concepts (based on her years of psychometric analysis, among other things) in developing the MBTI was a shift of several significant aspects of personality from Jung's E/I to MBTI S/N.

Myers understood that, as between an ENTP and an ISTJ, the ENTP is likely to be the more abstract and independent-minded one, and the ISTJ the one more likely to be "fact"-focused and culturally conventional, and her descriptions of the dichotomies (and dichotomy combinations) and the types reflect her better understanding of those issues.

In case anybody's interested in some further discussion of Myers' move of concrete/abstract from E/I to S/N, it's here. And this really isn't a controversial issue — or a dichotomies-vs.-functions issue. As further described (with multiple quotes!) in that linked post, even the more function-centric MBTI theorists (e.g., Thomson, Berens and Nardi) agree with Myers' corrections to Jung in the E/I-concrete/abstract department._


----------



## Lord Fudgingsley (Mar 3, 2013)

snowbell said:


> This. It gives a far stronger foundation and helps you to understand the functions which MBTI does distort and bury some. Plus understanding the functions for what they are can be more helpful than just trying to type based on type or behavior. Seems like you're more interested in the functions already.


I see you're stating the obvious. I suppose you've never seen me around on this forum; I admit I don't recall seeing you around.

Regardless, I hate dichotomies and have not been using them for the best part of three years.


----------



## snowbell (Apr 2, 2012)

Lord Fudgingsley said:


> I see you're stating the obvious. I suppose you've never seen me around on this forum; I admit I don't recall seeing you around.
> 
> Regardless, I hate dichotomies and have not been using them for the best part of three years.


I'm sorry my post wasn't helpful. Hopefully someone else's post has been, or you'll be able to find the information you seek elsewhere.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Lord Fudgingsley said:


> Let me tell you folks, I've formally given up on MBTI. The system just carries flaws everywhere it goes, and I believe anyone who clings to the credibility of MBTI has not met enough people in real life, or suffers from serious denial.
> ...
> Good luck, folks. Hope you can explain this stuff better than me.





Lord Fudgingsley said:


> I hate dichotomies and have not been using them for the best part of three years.


Correlation doesn't equal causation, buuut in this case I think that second quote goes a long way toward explaining the first quote. :tongue:

Mystical streak notwithstanding, Carl Jung was a believer in the scientific approach, and Isabel Myers took Psychological Types and devoted a substantial chunk of her life to putting its typological concepts to the test in a way that Jung never had, and in accordance with the psychometric standards applicable to the _science_ of personality.

As explained at length in this post, this post, and the posts they link to, it's reasonably clear that Myers, despite quite a bit of lip service to Jung and the functions, understood (based on her many years of data-gathering) that the dichotomies were the essential components of Jungian/MBTI type, and that dichotomy _combinations_ were also associated with many noteworthy aspects of personality, but also that there was nothing particularly special about the combinations that are purportedly associated with the eight faux-Jungian "cognitive functions" that people like Linda Berens — not to mention armies of bamboozled internet forumites — love to talk about. I agree with James Reynierse, an MBTI practitioner who has rightly (IMO) concluded that those functions are best viewed as nothing more than a "category mistake."

So if you've been _ignoring the dichotomies_ for "the best part of three years," while maybe contemplating stuff like the things that INFPs and ESTJs have in common (since they're both "Fi/Te types" and "Ne/Si types"), it's no wonder you've concluded that the MBTI is "so convoluted it's unreal."


----------



## Lord Fudgingsley (Mar 3, 2013)

snowbell said:


> I'm sorry my post wasn't helpful. Hopefully someone else's post has been, or you'll be able to find the information you seek elsewhere.


I appreciate that you haven't been aggressive towards me, or insistent that your advice is the one to be followed. Thank you for being reasonable.


----------



## Lord Fudgingsley (Mar 3, 2013)

reckful said:


> Correlation doesn't equal causation, buuut in this case I think that second quote goes a long way toward explaining the first quote. :tongue:
> 
> Mystical streak notwithstanding, Carl Jung was a believer in the scientific approach, and Isabel Myers took Psychological Types and devoted a substantial chunk of her life to putting its typological concepts to the test in a way that Jung never had, and in accordance with the psychometric standards applicable to the _science_ of personality.
> 
> ...


That's exactly what isn't the culprit behind the problem. The difference is that dichotomies are loose more than anything, but that people use them in their explanations of cognitive functions. The nature of cognitive functions is that they are extremely abstract and thus very difficult to explain.

But at least they actually try and explain something, rather than loosely define people by their attitudes toward the external world. Introversion in dichotomies is basically a completely unknown quality, except that it's abstaining from the world that the rest of us know.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Lord Fudgingsley said:


> That's exactly what isn't the culprit behind the problem. The difference is that dichotomies are loose more than anything, but that people use them in their explanations of cognitive functions. The nature of cognitive functions is that they are extremely abstract and thus very difficult to explain.
> 
> But at least they actually try and explain something, rather than loosely define people by their attitudes toward the external world. Introversion in dichotomies is basically a completely unknown quality, except that it's abstaining from the world that the rest of us know.


With all due respect, m'lord, you don't have the foggiest idea what you're talking about.

@Abraxas has helpfully posted the "official" discussions of the five subfacets of each of the four MBTI dichotomies from the MBTI Step II Manual, and those add up to a _lengthy_ description of both sides of each dichotomy, and here are the links to those:

Extraversion / Introversion
Sensing / Intuition
Thinking / Feeling
Judging / Perceiving

Introversion is "basically a completely unknown quality, except that it's abstaining from the world the rest of us know"?

Please.

And meanwhile, as mentioned in my previous post, the respectable, _dichotomy-centric_ districts of the MBTI also reflect the fact that virtually every _dichotomy combination_ is also associated with noteworthy aspects of personality.


----------



## Lord Fudgingsley (Mar 3, 2013)

reckful said:


> With all due respect, m'lord, you don't have the foggiest idea what you're talking about.
> 
> @_Abraxas_ has helpfully posted the "official" discussions of the five subfacets of each of the four MBTI dichotomies from the MBTI Step II Manual, and those add up to a _lengthy_ description of both sides of each dichotomy, and here are the links to those:
> 
> ...


At least I have opinions of my own.

I've literally never heard an opinion from you, just quoted sources that are a majority consensus: which in your eyes must be the truth.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Lord Fudgingsley said:


> At least I have opinions of my own.
> 
> I've literally never heard an opinion from you, just quoted sources that are a majority consensus: which in your eyes must be the truth.


With all due respect, m'lord, you don't have the foggiest idea what you're talking about.

If you haven't noticed that my views on the dichotomies vs. the functions, and Myers vs. Jung, and various other typology-related things, very much represent the _minority view_ in MBTIforumland, you can't have been paying much attention.

And my posts talk about the things I think Jung got wrong, the things I think Myers got wrong, the things I think Naomi Quenk and the current official MBTI establishment are getting wrong, and so on.

And it's also worth noting that, when I arrived at PerC in 2012, I was almost the _only_ person here with my perspective on the dichotomies-vs.-functions side of things, although I'm happy to be able to say I've got somewhat more company in that department than I used to.


----------

