# My Theory: Clarification and Completion of Type Theories (Hippocrates, Jung, Briggs Myers)



## SD330 (Sep 17, 2020)

I posted my introduction in this thread:​








Hello, I have Clarified and Completed the Type Theories...


Dear members of the Personality Cafe, I hold a PhD degree in political science, however, my academic interests have always been much broader and have included other sciences, especially philosophy and psychology. Having solved some of their most fundamental problems, I am one of the most...




www.personalitycafe.com





In this thread I want to present my clarification and completion of type theories (Hippocrates’, Jung’s and Myers’) which, when deconstructed to their basics, allow us to concieve the most exact personality theories. Although the part of my theory presented here does not speak much about different “characteristics” of personality and behavior, it nevertheless clarifies the biological basis of types and allows easier determining of type.

*CONTENTS:

PART I – Feelings (Emotions, Affects, Moods, etc.)

PART II – Correlations Between Feelings

PART III – Expanding and Completing the Myers-Briggs Type Theory

PART IV – History of the Type Theory

PART V – Criticism and Deconstruction of Jung’s “Cognitive Functions”

PART VI - Type Theories and the Future of Psychology
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PART I – Feelings (Emotions, Affects, Moods, etc.)*

Feelings make up what is called the „psyche“ or „soul“.

In my theory, what we call „type“ is derived from correlations which exist between feelings and which are specific for each type. Therefore, in order to explain what types are, I must first present a description and classification of feelings (emotions, affects, moods, etc.) which make up our „psychical“ or „emotional“ life.

Every language has hundreds or thousands of names for feelings, but there are only *12 elementary feelings*. I have given them the following names:

1. Slow tension;
2. Fast tension;
3. Coldness;
4. Warmth;
5. Sleepiness;
6. Wakefulness;
7. Pleasure;
8. Pain;
9. Indifference;
10. Love;
11. Repulsion;
12. Rationality.

Each of the feelings has a certain quantity (strength or intensity).

These terms describing feelings relate to the following:

There are two elementary kinds of tension of the body – the tension of slow muscle fibers and the tension of fast muscle fibers. We presuppose that the feelings of Slow tension and Fast tension are the consequences of these kinds of tension of the body. These kinds of tension of the body cause two different kinds of positions of the body, which are easiest to notice through the successions of positions of the body, that is, through bodily movements:

1. The tension of slow muscle fibers causes „slow“, „long“, „blunt“, „circular“, „wavelike“ motions of the body;

2. The tension of fast muscle fibers causes „fast“, „short“, „sharp“, „straight“ motions of the body.

3. The feeling of Pleasure refers to experiences of satisfying physiological needs such as breathing, consumption of food, consumption of drink, excretion, sex, as well as consumption of intoxicating substances, enjoyment of beauty, humor, being satisfied with one's life circumstances, a presence of dear people, a presence of material goods, a presence of different kinds of power, emotional pleasure, happiness, pride, a pleasant mood, etc.

4. The feeling of Pain refers to experiences of physical pain, a feeling of bodily injury, to physiological needs such as suffocation, hunger, thirst, a need for excretion, sexual frustration, abstinence crisis, as well as to an experience of an aesthetically unpleasant situation, a socially unpleasant situation, a dissatisfaction with one's life circumstances, an absence of dear people, an absence of material goods, an absence of different kinds of power, emotional pain, sorrow, being offended, shame, guilt, envy, jealousy, a painful or unpleasant mood, etc.

5. The feeling of Indifference can be described as a relaxed neutrality, a neutrality in relation to Pleasure and Pain, an absence of Pleasure and Pain, apathy, ascesis, etc. „Indifference“ (like, for example, „relaxation“) does not have to be a positively existing feeling, but the term „Indifference“ is nevertheless needed for describing an absence of Pleasure and Pain.

6. The feeling of Love can be described as a feeling of gentleness, mildness, etc. The qualitative opposite of Love is not „hatred“, because this term most often describes a complex feeling which consists of the feelings Pleasure, Pain and Repulsion or hostility as a complex feeling which consists of the feelings of Pain and Repulsion.

7. The feeling of Repulsion can be described as a feeling of roughness, anger, etc. The qualitative opposite of Repulsion are not the feelings of „attraction“ or „liking“, because they represent kinds of Pleasure.

8. The feeling of Rationality can be described as a tense neutrality, a neutrality in relation to Love and Repulsion, an absence of Love and Repulsion, seriousness, formality, professionalism, etc. „Rationality“ (like, for example, „relaxation“) does not have to be a positively existing feeling, but the term „Rationality“ is nevertheless needed to describe the absence of Love and Repulsion. The term „Rationality“, used as a name for a feeling, does not refer to that which is usually called a rational or calculated behavior, nor does it imply such behavior.

The correctness of this classification is shown through an analysis of *complex feelings* which consist of 2 or more different feelings, for example:

1. Coldness and Pleasure make up the feeling of calmness;
2. Coldness and Pain make up the feeling of freezing;
3. Warmth and Pleasure make up the feeling of a pleasant warmth;
4. Warmth and Pain make up the feeling of overheating;
5. Sleepiness and Pleasure make up the feeling of safety;
6. Sleepiness and Pain make up the feeling of boredom;
7. Wakefulness and Pleasure make up the feeling of a pleasant excitement;
8. Wakefulness and Pain make up the feeling of fear;
9. Pleasure and Love make up the feeling of friendship;
10. Pleasure and Repulsion make up the feeling of sadism;
11. Pain and Love make up the feeling of masochism;
12. Pain and Repulsion make up the feeling of hostility;
13. Indifference and Love make up the feeling of altruism;
14. Indifference and Repulsion make up the feeling of selfishness;
15. Rationality and Pleasure make up the feeling of hedonism;
16. Rationality and Pain make up the feeling of working.

There are also even more complex feelings, made up of three or four elementary feelings:

1. Pleasure, Pain and Love make up the feeling of romance or a painful friendship;
2. Pleasure, Pain and Repulsion make up the feeling of hatred or a pleasant hostility;
3. Love, Repulsion and Pleasure make up the feeling of pride;
4. Love, Repulsion and Pain make up the feeling of shame;
5. Slow tension, Fast tension, Repulsion and Rationality make up the feeling of maturity;
6. Pleasure, Pain, Indifference and Love make up the feeling of childishness.

*PART II – Correlations Between Feelings*

The elementary feelings are connected into *general and typal correlations*. These correlations point to the correlations between physiological states of the body which cause them. They also point to phenomena of metabolism, temperament, the opposing functions of the human body, the speed of the human body, the temperature of the human body, its sleepiness and wakefulness, affectedness and indifference, emotionality and rationality, health and illness, as well as gentleness and roughness.

Some of these correlations have been present in the history of medicine and psychology, and are in their most precise, but nevertheless incomplete form, contained in the works of Hippocrates, Carl Jung and Isabel Briggs Myers, as well as in many other theories. I believe that in this work I have succeeded in clarifying and completing these theories.

The general correlations between feelings appear equally in all people.
The *typal correlations* *between feelings* appear differently in different individuals (who have a different "type").

The 12 feelings are connected into correlations which make up *12 “groups of typally complementary feelings”* (what Jung and Briggs Myers call *“functions”*). These groups are:

1. Slow tension, Coldness, Sleepiness, Repulsion ——-(one aspect of „introverted feeling“)
2. Slow tension, Coldness, Sleepiness, Rationality ——(„introverted thinking“)
3. Fast tension, Warmth, Wakefulness, Repulsion ——(one aspect of „extraverted feeling“)
4. Fast tension, Warmth, Wakefulness, Rationality ——(„extraverted thinking“)
5. Coldness, Sleepiness, Pleasure —————————(one aspect of „introverted sensing“)
6. Coldness, Sleepiness, Pain ———————————(the other aspect of „introverted sensing“)
7. Coldness, Sleepiness, Indifference ——————-—(„introverted intuition“)
8. Coldness, Sleepiness, Love ——————————-(the other aspect of „introverted feeling“)
9. Warmth, Wakefulness, Pleasure —————————(one aspect of „extraverted sensing“)
10. Warmth, Wakefulness, Pain ——————————(the other aspect of „extraverted sensing“)
11. Warmth, Wakefulness, Indifference ———————(„extraverted intuition“)
12. Warmth, Wakefulness, Love —————————-(the other aspect of „extraverted feeling“).

Therefore, the “functions” are just mistaken metaphysical names for "groups of typally complementary feelings". Of course there are correlations between these groups of typally complementary feelings and certain mental functions, which is what Jung and Myers talk about, but this is the less exact part of the type theory.

Different groups of typally complementary feelings appear in a different frequency and quantity in different human bodies. Therefore, different human bodies have a different whole-life quantity of particular groups of typally complementary feelings.
The whole-life quantity of groups of typally complementary feelings in different human bodies is shown by „body types“.

*Groups of typally complementary feelings are elements of „body types“.*

What we call „temperament“, „psychological type“ or „personality type“ is foremost an inborn and lifelong biological or physiological phenomenon. It does not change throughout lifetime (identical twins have the same temperament/type). Every human being has what we call "type".

Because it is primarily a biological phenomenon, and because of a lack of a better term, in my book I have used the term *„body type“* to replace what was traditionally called the „temperament“, „psychological type“ or „personality type“.

The term „body type“ does not refer to the morphological shape of the body (for example, ectomorph, mesomorph, endomorph), and there is only a small correlation between the „body type“ and the morphological shape of the body.

*"Body type" describes the whole-life quantity of groups of typally complementary feelings of a certain human body*

Different body types have a different whole-life quantity of certain groups of typally complementary feelings.
Body types contain all twelve „feelings“.
Body types contain all twelve „groups of typally complementary feelings“.

Body types are described by the *„most frequent traits of body types“*. The opposed pairs of the most frequent traits of body types are:

A.1. Larger whole-life quantity of Slow tension in comparison to Fast tension – *„slow“*;
A.2. Larger whole-life quantity of Fast tension in comparison to Slow tension – *„fast“*;

B.1. Larger whole-life quantity of Coldness and Sleepiness in comparison to Warmth and Wakefulness – *„cold-sleepy“*;
B.2. Larger whole-life quantity of Warmth and Wakefulness in comparison to Coldness and Sleepiness – *„warm-wakeful“*;

C.1. Larger whole-life quantity of Pleasure and Pain in comparison to Indifference – *„affected“*;
C.2. Larger whole-life quantity of Indifference in comparison to Pleasure and Pain – *„indifferent“*;

D.1. Larger whole-life quantity of Love and Repulsion in comparison to Rationality – *„emotional“*;
D.2. Larger whole-life quantity of Rationality in comparison to Love and Repulsion – *„rational“*;

E.1. Larger whole-life quantity of Pleasure in comparison to Pain – *„healthy“*;
E.2. Larger whole-life quantity of Pain in comparison to Pleasure – *„ill“*;

F.1. Larger whole-life quantity of Love in comparison to Repulsion – *„gentle“*;
F.2. Larger whole-life quantity of Repulsion in comparison to Love – *„rough“*.

The larger the whole-life quantity of groups of typally complementary feelings which are described by one „most frequent trait of body types“, the smaller the whole-life quantity of groups of typally complementary feelings which are described by the „most frequent trait of body types“ opposite to it.
The Briggs-Myers theory does not contain the “healthy”, “ill”, “gentle” or “rough” equivalents for traits, however the healthy-ill dichotomy is less important, while the gentle-rough dichotomy just indicates the physical strength of the body type or its gender (female-male).

There is a total of *96 body types*. *32 types I call “undifferentiated”* and they are not contained in the Briggs-Myers theory. *64 types I call “differentiated”* and they are contained in the Briggs-Myers theory (simplified to 16).

You can view all 96 types in this PDF file:

Kosatica - Types.pdf | PDF Host
Kosatica - Types.pdf | PDF Host
*PART III – Expanding and Completing the Myers-Briggs Type Theory*

In my observations on type, I have determined that the Briggs-Myers theory is incomplete and does not contain what I call „undifferentiated“ types. Because of this, many people (over a third of human population) fail to identify themselves with one of the 16 Myers-Briggs types.

The Myers Briggs types are determined by 4 functions:

1. Dominant (approx. 40%);

2. Auxilliary (approx. 30%);

3. Tertiary (approx. 20%);

4. Inferior (approx. 10%).

These functions are elements of „differentiated“ types, however, there exist 8 more types which can be called „undifferentiated“ and the introduction of which completes the Briggs-Myers theory.

The term „undifferentiated“ does not imply an incomplete process of differentiation, but an inability to determine the hierarchy of certain functions since they appear in equal whole-life quantity. This is why many people fail to identify themselves with a certain MBTI type, and why they speak of the so called „loops“ between functions.

Undifferentiated types can only be IP and EJ.

The 8 undifferentiated types are:

Undifferentiated ISFP:

1. 30% Si

2. 30% Fi

3. 20% Ne

4. 20% Te

Undifferentiated ISTP:

1. 30% Si

2. 30% Ti

3. 20% Ne

4. 20% Fe

Undifferentiated INFP:

1. 30% Ni

2. 30% Fi

3. 20% Se

4. 20% Te

Undifferentiated INTP

1. 30% Ni

2. 30% Ti

3. 20% Se

4. 20% Fe

Undifferentiated ESFJ

1. 30% Se

2. 30% Fe

3. 20% Ni

4. 20% Ti

Undifferentiated ESTJ

1. 30% Se

2. 30% Te

3. 20% Ni

4. 20% Fi

Undifferentiated ENFJ

1. 30% Ne

2. 30% Fe

3. 20% Si

4. 20% Ti

Undifferentiated ENTJ

1. 30% Ne

2. 30% Te

3. 20% Si

4. 20% Fi

Carl Jung himself was what I call Undifferentiated INTP. He could never determine whether he was an introverted thinking or an introverted intuitive type because he had 30% Ti and 30% Ni. This is also possibly the reason why he was skeptical of Myers’ theory.

The differentiated and the undifferentiated types are two kinds of balanced functioning of the human body and psyche. In the context of MBTI, there exist no more than 24 types.

In my theory four more traits are introduced and therefore, there is a total of 96 types.

Another source of mistakes during determining of type are the imperfections of the MBTI questionnaire. The inexistence of “undifferentiated types” and the imperfections of the MBTI questionnaire means that it is only about 50% accurate in determining type and therefore, many people end up being mistyped.

Because each feeling is shown by the specific position of the body which causes it (James-Lange theory), the correlations between feelings can most precisely be determined by observing the positions of the body which cause them, and not by way of psychological questionnaires which, indirectly, examining the behavior and emotional reactions of an individual, determine his „temperament“ or „type“. Because the correlations between feelings make up a limited and enclosed system of correlations, it is possible to be 100% precise in determining the „temperament“ or „type“ of an individual.

*PART IV – History of the Type Theory*

The differentiated body types have, under different names, been present in the history of medicine and psychology, for example, in Hippocrates, Galen and other theories on the four temperaments during the Antiquity and Middle Ages. Carl Jung has, in his book written in 1921 called „Psychological Types“ (1946) noticed that „psychological types“ or what I in my book call „body types“, have been present in different authors in the philosophy of Antiquity, the Middle Ages, the Early modern period, the Late modern period and contemporary philosophy, as well as in the fields of theology, psychology, psychiatry, literature, aesthetics, biographical studies, etc. The theory on body types has also been present in the form of the theory on „personality types“ in Katharine Cook Briggs (unpublished research before 1921) and Isabel Briggs Myers in 1944 under the title „Myers Briggs Type Indicator Handbook“, as well as in later works and book which was published under the title „Gifts Differing“ – „Understanding Personality Type“ (1980). Isabel Briggs Myers (1980:6) also notices that variants of this theory were written by Vernon (1938), Thurstone (1931), Gundlach and Gerum (1931), as well as Spranger (1928). This theory is also present in later authors such as David Kiersey (in the year 1978) who speaks of „temperaments“. He also notices the existence of this theory in the time of Antiquity in Hippocrates, Plato, Aristotle and Galen, in the philosophy, literature and medicine of the Middle Ages, the Early modern period, the Late modern period, including the literature of the 19th and 20th century, but also in theoreticians of the 20th century such as Adickes, Kretschmer, Spranger and Fromm, as well as in Briggs Myers. Kiersey states that in the year 1927, there have been identified close to 5000 works on temperament and character (Kiersey, 1998:22-26). The theory on that which is in my work called „body types“ was also present in Aušra Augustinavičiūtė (1970s and 1980s) and other authors, whose theory is called „socionics“, as well as in many other theories.

The three theories which have, because of their fundamental importance, to the highest degree contributed to the development of my theory on body types are Hippocrates', Jung's and Briggs Myers'.

Hippocrates' theory should be interpreted as a theory on the two undifferentiated and four differentiated body types:

1. Undifferentiated-(Slow)-(Cold-Sleepy) and Differentiated-(Slow)-(Cold-Sleepy) – phlegmatic,

2. Differentiated-(Slow)-(Warm-Wakeful) – sanguine,

3. Differentiated-(Fast)-(Cold-Sleepy) – melancholic,

4. Undifferentiated-(Fast)-(Warm-Wakeful) and Differentiated-(Fast)-(Warm-Wakeful) – choleric.

The following groups of typally complementary feelings correspond to Jung's „psychic functions“ and „psychological types“ (Jung, 1946:412-518):

1. Coldness, Sleepiness, Pleasure – „introverted sensing“;

2. Coldness, Sleepiness, Pain – „introverted sensing“;

3. Coldness, Sleepiness, Indifference – „introverted intuition“;

4. Coldness, Sleepiness, Love – „introverted feeling“;

5. Slow tension, Coldness, Sleepiness, Repulsion – „introverted feeling“;

6. Slow tension, Coldness, Sleepiness, Rationality – „introverted thinking“;

7. Warmth, Wakefulness, Pleasure – „extraverted sensing“;

8. Warmth, Wakefulness, Pain – „extraverted sensing“;

9. Warmth, Wakefulness, Indifference – „extraverted intuition“;

10. Warmth, Wakefulness, Love – „extraverted feeling“;

11. Fast tension, Warmth, Wakefulness, Repulsion – „extraverted feeling“;

12. Fast tension, Warmth, Wakefulness, Rationality – „extraverted thinking.

Jung's (1946) terms correspond to the following phenomena:

1. „Introversion“ (p.9-14, 567) refers to the feeling of Coldness, Sleepiness and sometimes Slow tension, or represents just another name for the cold-sleepy and sometimes slow body type;

2. „Extraversion“ (p.9-14, 542, 543) refers to the feeling of Warmth, Wakefulness and sometimes Fast tension, or represents just another name for the warm-wakeful and sometimes fast body type;

3. „Rational function“ (p.547, 583, 584) refers to the groups of typally complementary feelings which in themselves contain the feelings of Love, Repulsion or Rationality;

4. „Irrational function“ (p.547, 569-571) refers to the groups of typally complementary feelings which in themselves contain the feelings of Pleasure, Pain or Indifference;

5. „Conscious“, „primary“ or „most developed“ „function“ (p.515, 516, 563-565, 613-616) refers to the group or groups of typally complementary feelings which has or which have the relatively largest whole-life quantity in a certain body type;

6. „Unconscious“, „relatively unconscious“ or „inferior“ „function“ (p.515, 516, 563-565, 613-616) refers to the group or groups of typally complementary feelings which has or which have a relatively smaller or the smallest whole-life quantity in a certain body type;

7. „Auxiliary function“ (p.513-516) refers to the group or groups of typally complementary feelings which in itself contains or which in themselves contain the feelings which exist in a relation of a polary, metabolic or temperamental opposition in relation to the feelings contained in the group or groups of typally complementary feelings which has or which have the largest whole-life quantity in a certain body type;

8. „Anima“ (p.594, 595) refers to the feeling of Love, or represents just another name for the gentle body type;

9. „Animus“ (p.594, 595) refers to the feeling of Repulsion, or represents just another name for the rough body type.

Jung thought that “introverted persons” most often direct their “libido” or “psychic energy” towards the “subject”, while “extraverted persons” most often direct their “libido” or “psychic energy” towards the “object” (p.9-14). However, “introversion” is actually a name for the feeling of Coldness, Sleepiness and sometimes Slow tension, as well as for the cold-sleepy and sometimes the slow body type, while “extraversion” is actually a name for the feeling of Warmth, Wakefulness and sometimes Fast tension, as well as for the warm-wakeful and sometimes the fast body type. It is clear that Jung’s concepts of “introversion” and “extraversion” show important phenomena and bring them into correlation with certain “mental functions”, but they are terminologically incorrect, and rest upon an incorrect dualist metaphysics which is based on the relation of the “subject” and the “object”.

In the popular culture, it is considered that the fundamental characteristic of “introverted persons” is preferring to be alone, while the fundamental characteristic of “extraverted persons” is preferring to interact with other people. This tendency is also explained by the theory on body types. Because interaction with other people causes Warmth and Wakefulness, the cold-sleepy body type most often prefers solitude or an interaction of lower frequency, which brings it into a state of physiological homeostasis and a positive mood, and optimizes its “mental functions”, while the warm-wakeful body type most often prefers socializing and an interaction of higher frequency, which brings it into a state of physiological homeostasis and a positive mood, and optimizes its “mental functions”.

The following body types correspond to Briggs Myers' „personality types“ (Briggs Myers, 1980):

Diff.-(Slow)-(Cold-Sleepy)-(Affected)-(Emotional) – „Introverted-Sensing-Feeling-Perceiving“ (ISFP);

Diff.-(Slow)-(Cold-Sleepy)-(Affected)-(Rational) – „Introverted-Sensing-Thinking-Perceiving“ (ISTP);

Diff.-(Slow)-(Cold-Sleepy)-(Indifferent)-(Emotional) – „Introverted-Intuitive-Feeling-Perceiving“ (INFP);

Diff.-(Slow)-(Cold-Sleepy)-(Indifferent)-(Rational) – „Introverted-Intuitive-Thinking-Perceiving“ (INTP);

Diff.-(Slow)-(Warm-Wakeful)-(Affected)-(Emotional) – „Extraverted-Sensing-Feeling-Perceiving“ (ESFP);

Diff.-(Slow)-(Warm-Wakeful)-(Affected)-(Rational) – „Extraverted-Sensing-Thinking-Perceiving“ (ESTP);

Diff.-(Slow)-(Warm-Wakeful)-(Indifferent)-(Emotional) – „Extraverted-Intuitive-Feeling-Perceiving“ (ENFP);

Diff.-(Slow)-(Warm-Wakeful)-(Indifferent)-(Rational) – „Extraverted-Intuitive-Thinking-Perceiving“ (ENTP);

Diff.-(Fast)-(Cold-Sleepy)-(Affected)-(Emotional) – „Introverted-Sensing-Feeling-Judging“ (ISFJ);

Diff.-(Fast)-(Cold-Sleepy)-(Affected)-(Rational) – „Introverted-Sensing-Thinking-Judging“ (ISTJ);

Diff.-(Fast)-(Cold-Sleepy)-(Indifferent)-(Emotional) – „Introverted-Intuitive-Feeling-Judging“ (INFJ);

Diff.-(Fast)-(Cold-Sleepy)-(Indifferent)-(Rational) – „Introverted-Intuitive-Thinking-Judging“ (INTJ);

Diff.-(Fast)-(Warm-Wakeful)-(Affected)-(Emotional) – „Extraverted-Sensing-Feeling-Judging“ (ESFJ);

Diff.-(Fast)-(Warm-Wakeful)-(Affected)-(Rational) – „Extraverted-Sensing-Thinking-Judging“ (ESTJ);

Diff.-(Fast)-(Warm-Wakeful)-(Indifferent)-(Emotional) – „Extraverted-Intuitive-Feeling-Judging“ (ENFJ);

Diff.-(Fast)-(Warm-Wakeful)-(Indifferent)-(Rational) – „Extraverted-Intuitive-Thinking-Judging“ (ENTJ).

The three listed theories (Hippocrates', Jung's and Briggs Myers') were most precise in describing the differentiated body types.

None of the listed theories speaks of the healthy, ill, gentle or rough body type. These „most frequent traits of body types“ are present in my book, which exhausts the possibilities of typing the differentiated body types on basis of their whole-life quantity of individual feelings or groups of typally complementary feelings.

Besides that, none of the listed theories speaks of that which is in this work called the „undifferentiated body type“. Undifferentiated body types are present in my book, which exhausts the possibilities of typing the body on basis of its whole-life quantity of individual feelings or groups of typally complementary feelings.

*PART V – Criticism and Deconstruction of Jung’s “Cognitive Functions”*

The theoretical basis of many personality type theories of the 20th century is Carl Jung's „Psychological Types“. When Jung speaks of a „psychological type“, he claims that it is determined by the dominant cognitive or psychological function which the person uses. In later theories such as the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and Socionics, a personality type is determined by the preference order of certain functions.

This criticism of the concept of “cognitive functions” has the goal of performing a brief logical and phenomenological deconstruction of the concept. In order to do this, we must go back to philosophy as the most general science, that is, to ontology as the basic and most general philosophical discipline. Ontology is the science on being or existence. It tells us what exists and therefore, what can at all become an object of scientific consideration. A detailed clarification of the form and subject of ontology and other philosophical disciplines such as epistemology, gnoseology, logic, mathematics, axiology, aesthetics, ethics and the science on law is contained in my book called „Consciousness, Feelings and Behavior“ (link below).

Here it will be sufficient to show that Jung's conceptual apparatus cannot withstand a thorough logical and phenomenological deconstruction. In my book, a phenomenological ontology is presented in the form of axioms or postulates, of which the first two are:

1. The present of consciousness is all that exists.

1.1. The present of consciousness is the totality of phenomena (colors, sounds, touches, smells, tastes, feelings, etc.).

When I speak of consciousness, I am refering to my own consciousness, from the first person perspective. The present of (my own) consciousness is the most general phenomenon of scientific consideration (being). „World“ and „reality“ are just different names for certain phenomena of my own consciousness. Here I will not go further into a deconstruction of the meaning of the word „time“ and the form of time and temporal science. I will rather just deal with the metaphysical character of Jungs concepts.

If we thoroughly observe the phenomena the our own consciousness, we notice that there is no phenomenon of our consciousness that could be called a „subject“. There exists no cognitive subject whose object would be the present of consciousness. That which is called the „metaphysical“ or „epistemological“ „subject“ is not a correlate of the present of consciousness, but a part of the present of consciousness. The division of phenomena of the present of consciousness into those which are called „subject“ and those which are called „object“ is arbitrary. The concept of the „metaphysical“ or „epistemological“ „subject“ which would be a correlate of the present of consciousness as an „object“ is the result of an imprecise description of phenomena of the present of consciousness. The „metaphysical“ or „epistemological“ „subject“ for which it is presupposed that it exists „outside of the present of consciousness“ is a fiction. Linguistic expressions such as „reason“, „mind“, „spirit“, „soul“ or „psyche“ also represent imprecise, inadequate or fictitious descriptions of phenomena of consciousness. For that reason, „psychology“ has an inadequate name.

Just like the eye cannot be seen in our visual field, and nothing in the visual field indicates that it is seen from an eye, in the same way, a “subject” cannot be determined as a correlate of consciousness.

With this, the whole metaphysical dualism based on the relation of a subject and an object is rejected. This is the accepted position in both the continental and analytic philosophical tradition.

Going back to Jung, since there is no “subject” or “object”, we can conclude that the concepts of “introversion” as a relation of a “subject” towards itself, and “extraversion” as a relation of a “subject” towards an “object” cannot be justified. Therefore, our “psyche” is not some thing or mechanism which would have certain “functions” or which would direct its energy or libido towards a subject or an object. Still, Jung’s concepts of “introversion” and “extraversion” as specific attitudes, point to important biological and psychological phenomena.

My theory shows that introversion is a mistaken metaphysical concept which refers to the feelings of Coldness, Sleepieness and sometimes Slow tension, while extraversion is a mistaken metaphysical concept which refers to the feelings of Warmth, Wakefulness and sometimes Fast tension. These groups of feelings have their cognitive and behavioral correlates which have a certain psychological validity and this is what Jung speaks about.

When it comes to the concepts of „sensing“ and „intuition“, from a third person perspective, we can claim that the content of our consciousness is made up of perceptual and imaginary phenomena. The perceptual phenomena are the result of us „sensing“ the world. There is nothing wrong with this hypothesis, however, the process of sensing is not an event in our consciousness. The field of our perception is always there for us. The only thing that could be called a „sensing function“ is the relating of our body towards the field of our perception. Since Jung’s concept of “sensing” can also apply to observing our imaginations, this is also included in the “sensing function”. On the other hand, „intuition“ understood as an insight into possibilities which transcend our present field of perception or imagination is yet again a specific way in which our body relates to our field of perception or imagination.

Therefore, the functions of sensing and intuition refer to the way in which our body relates to our field of perception or imagination, and here we notice certain cognitive and behavioral differences. A predominance of sensing leads the individual to sense-perceptions, that is, to concrete, tangible, particular things, while a predominance of intuition leads the individual to insights, visions and possibilities, that is, to abstract, intangible, general things.

My theory shows that sensing is a mistaken metaphysical concept which refers to the feelings of Pleasure and Pain, while intuition is a mistaken metaphysical concept which refers to the feeling of Indifference (neutrality in relation to Pleasure and Pain). These groups of feelings have their cognitive and behavioral correlates which have a certain psychological validity and this is what Jung speaks about.

When it comes to the concepts of „feeling“ and „thinking“, from the first person perspective we understand that our „emotional“ or „psychical“ life consists of certain feelings (emotions, affects, moods, etc.), which have a certain quality and quantity. However, this is not the way Jung concieves his feeling function. For Jung, feeling is a judging function which gives a definitive value to something, in the sense of acceptance or rejection. On the other hand, thinking is a process of bringing presentations into conceptual connection.

However there are certain problems with these concepts. Our consciousness consists of phenomena which we describe or conceptualize, but empirical observation shows that this process stands in no correlation with feelings, nor with cognitive functions as they are understood by Jung. Therefore, description and conceptualization cannot be ascribed to the thinking function (for example, feeling dominant types are not 4 times worse at conceptualization compared to thinking dominant types).

On the other hand, while empathy can be an ethical act, it is not necessarily connected with ethical behavior. Therefore, ethical values can be achieved both through a feeling or a thinking behavioral style.

My theory shows that feeling is a mistaken metaphysical concept which refers to the feelings of Love and Repulsion, while thinking is a mistaken metaphysical concept which refers to the feeling of Rationality (neutrality in relation to Love and Repulsion). These groups of feelings have their cognitive and behavioral correlates which have a certain psychological validity and this is what Jung speaks about.

When it comes to perceiving and judging, these are characteristics of functions themselves. For example, Jung considers sensing and intuition to be perceiving or passive functions, while feeling and thinking are judging or active functions.

My theory shows that the perceving character of a function is a mistaken metaphysical concept which refers to a group of typally complementary feelings which does not contain feelings of Slow tension or Fast tension, while the judging character of a function is a mistaken metaphysical concept which refers to a group of typally complementary feelings which does contain feelings of Slow tension or Fast tension.

To conclude, the physiological and emotional basis of “cognitive functions” is the following:

INTROVERSION – Coldness, Sleepiness and sometimes Slow tension

EXTRAVERSION – Warmth, Wakefulness and sometimes Fast tension

SENSING – Pleasure and Pain

INTUITION – Indifference (neutrality in relation to Pleasure and Pain)

FEELING – Love, Repulsion and sometimes Slow tension or Fast tension

THINKING – Rationality (neutrality in relation to Love and Repulsion) and Slow tension or Fast tension

JUDGING – Slow tension or Fast tension

PERCEIVING – Relaxation (absence of Slow tension or Fast tension)

*PART VI - Type Theories and the Future of Psychology*

It is well known that type theories have been criticized by academic psychologists regarding their theoretical basics, methodology of determining types, as well as the proclaimed practical utility of the theories. Some critics have even gone so far to claim that these theories are pseudoscience.

When it comes to the theoretical basics, academic psychologists have not particularly advanced the theory, and for the most part, have not even attempted to do so. The basics of these theories contained in the works of Hippocrates and other authors who speak about the four temperaments, as well as in the works of Jung and Myers have not been advanced up until my own work which has clarified and completed the basics of the type theories, deconstructing them into a theory about feelings (emotions, affects, moods), correlations between feelings and „body types“, showing that types are exact biological and psychological phenomena, which can hardly be treated as pseudoscientific fictions. This is also shown in the existing correlations between type theories and the „big five“ theory which is, in the academic circles, accepted as a more standard instrument for analyzing personality. The deconstruction of temperament and type theories can therefore also be useful for developing new personality trait theories which would be more exact and have a higher practical value compared to the „big five“ and similar personality trait theories. These theories would be focused on analyzing each trait and its impact on the individual's life, and they would be based on measuring the prevalence of each trait in an individual, regardless of his type. This makes trait theories more conceptually flexible compared to type theories, and it will be interesting to see whether the trait theories will outperform the type theories and in which aspects. In any case, since within the type theories, traits are descriptions of parts of types, these theories are significant both for personality trait theories and for personality type theories. If trait theories do outperform type theories in certain aspects, the type theories are still going to have a useful descriptive and didactical or introductory function with regard to those aspects.

Trait and type theories can be empirically investigated in order to answer the following and similar questions:

1. How can we most precisely measure traits or determine types?
2. How does a certain trait or type influence effectiveness in certain activities?
3. How does a certain trait or type influence enjoyment in certain activities?
4. Which physical or mental illnesses are correlated with which traits or types?
5. How do traits or types influence one's life priorities?
6. How do traits or types influence consumer preferences?
Etc.

We currently have relatively little reliable research which could give definitive answers to these questions, but in any case, there is a vast area for future empirical investigations of trait and type tendencies.

When it comes to the type theories, my theory should contribute to eliminating the flaws of these theories which concern conceptual inaccuracies, particularly ones related to „cognitive functions“, and it should also provide us with a more adequate understanding of the phenomenon of type. An important thing to note here is that the theory of Isabel Myers is incomplete and lacks 8 „undifferentiated“ types which I have introduced in my theory to complete the type theories for a total of 24 types in the context of Myers' theory. My theory contains 4 more traits, so that the total number of types is 96.

The theories have also been criticized for rigidly categorizing people into groups or using a logic of dichotomies. Even though the type theories allow for a flexible interpretation of one's body and personality, they are still guilty of such categorization because this flexible interpretation is limited to differences within a single type. However, in my experience, the theory is not significantly flawed in this regard, since there exists, in the reality of type as a biological and psychological phenomenon, a peculiar binary logic or bimodal distribution in the sense that almost no type is 50% characterized by one trait and 50% by its opposite trait. Rather, in my experience, it appears that in reality, a type with a 50%-50% trait ratio does not appear, though it would be plausible that such a type could appear, but this would be an extremely rare case. Therefore, what appears most often are types characterized by a different whole-life quantity of opposed feelings and traits. While this tendency leading to dichotomies is a peculiar phenomenon, and while it characterizes the essence of type theories due to the fact that they must categorize individuals according to their most common traits, it nevertheless does not imply a significant rigidity on part of the theory itself. Obviously, any categorization of people into groups according to type must have empirical evidence to back it up, and must be based on a skepticism towards any generalizations about particular types which are unproven or based on stereotypes. Therefore, the problem is not in being categorized or labeled in a certain way, but in false generalizations and stereotypes which lead to practical mistakes and devalue the theory.

When it comes to the methodology of determining types, these theories have major problems in this regard, since their value rests upon an accurate determining of types. If we cannot accurately determine type, the theory cannot give adequate descriptions, explanations, predictions or suggestions to an individual. No questionnaire which determines type is 100% accurate and I have myself failed at creating such a questionnaire. Since test subjects are prone to giving wrong information and subjectively interpreting the already imperfect questions, and since Myers' theory does not contain the 8 „undifferentiated“ types, I would estimate that the accuracy of most questionnaires which determine MBTI type is less than 50%. The questionnaire which I have created and which tests only the 4 MBTI traits with 4 questions is probably not much more than 80% accurate. I have concluded that the most reliable way to determine type is by observing the bodily positions which the body takes up when it expresses certain „groups of typally complementary feelings“ or „cognitive functions“, that is, by observing which muscles the body uses to express feelings and to move in general. The only way to achieve almost 100% accuracy in determining type is through a long period of self-observation or observation of another person’s body. Therefore, the method of interview should be the prefered method for determining type, though other methods can be helpful.

One of the main mistakes of Jung's and Myers' theories is the claim that „cognitive functions“ exist in a relation of hierarchy. In my theory, type is characterized by the wholelife quantity/frequency/duration of feelings and functions correlated with them. In order for an individual to maximize the quality of his life, he must understand his feelings and physiological states of the body which cause them as needs of his body, and prioritize a particular behavioral style which is correlated with the present group of typally complementary feelings or the present „cognitive function“. This means that functions do not „dominate“ one another, but that their correlative feelings represent needs of our body, each of which must be satisfied in its own time in order to maximize the quality of our life, to optimize our „mental functions“, our productivity, health, etc. Therefore the more „dominant“ functions are just those which appear more often than others, while the more „inferior“ functions are just those which appear less often than others, and there are no necessary relations of hierarchy between them. A hierarchy can exist between one's motives or life priorities. It can also exist in the sense that we focus on doing things we are good at (for example, things correlated with the „dominant function“), and avoid doing things we are bad at (for example, things correlated with the „inferior function“). However if one is forced to use the cognitive and behavioral style which is correlated with his „inferior function“ and feelings which appear least often in a certain type, the individual will behave in that way and the „inferior function“ will not be „subordinated“ to the „dominant function“. Of course, the individual will not particularly enjoy this situation and activity, and he probably will not handle it in a particularly skillful and efficient manner, but he will nevertheless perform the task at hand. Also, ascribing any sort of hierarchy of personal values and beliefs (such as moral ones) to the type theory cannot be supported by empirical evidence (for example, the occasional insensitive style of behavior of rational or thinking types, observed by an emotional or feeling type is not necessarily „unethical“, but only aesthetically unpleasant ot the emotional or feeling type).

The type theories have been applied to various area of life, however, with differing results. For example, the works of Jung, Briggs Myers and Kiersey contain detailed analyses of the implications of this theory on emotional reactions and behavior of an individual with regard to his growing up, upbringing, socialization and education, family life, marriage, profession, mental health, motivation, quality of life, way of communication or use of language, use of tools, relation towards society, its norms and values, character of intelligence, interests, skills, life orientation, self-image, personal values and morality, as well as social roles of love partner, parent and leader. We should nevertheless have in mind that these are generalizations which are based on an imperfect and incomplete theory, and as such should be viewed with a certain dose of skepticism, especially when it comes to the generalizations related to worldview and moral questions.

In my experience, these theories are valuable when it comes to different areas of psychology related to education, work and career, and also for economics, that is, ergonomy and management, or managing workers and organizations, as well as for sports. These theories are particularly used as a professional orientation test, however, the temperament or type of a certain individual provides information which can only approximately point to his optimal professional orientation, so that there is a certain percentage of cases in which this theory does not manage to accurately predict the optimal professional orientation for a certain individual. Whether the theory is useful as a professional orientation test because types have inborn talents or inborn dispositions to develop talents for certain professions, or because they simply enjoy certain professions more than others as well as develop better skills due to performing these professions for a longer period of time, or a combination of these factors, is all up for debate and has to be proven with empirical research.

Type also shows the natural and balanced functioning of one’s body which optimizes the physical and mental health of an individual as well as optimizes his “mental functions” such as perception, imagination, verbal abilities, psychomotor functions, ability of memorizing, ability of remembering, etc., which all contributes to optimizing one’s work performance. This also implies that understanding type is crucial for understanding psychopathology, as many “pathological” states are discrepancies between the optimal functioning of an individual approximately shown by his type and the unbalanced functioning of an individual which is different compared to what the type theory approximates as his optimal functioning.

In conclusion, the type theories revolving around Jung’s “Psychological Types” have, prior to my work, had imperfect theoretical basics, they lacked 8 types which I call “undifferentiated types”, and their methodology of determining type was severely flawed, which has all lead to relatively poor results of the theory. These results were criticized by academic psychologists to the point where these theories have been proclaimed to be pseudoscience. Since my theory clarifies and completes these theories, I hope that my work will function as a constructive criticism for both points of view, and that it will encourage psychologists to reevaluate these theories and perform new empirical research which will show the degree to which these theories can be utilized in different areas of life. I predict that they will provide knowledge of moderate practical value which no serious psychologist should overlook.

*Sources:

1. Hippocrates, (1959)*, „VOL. IV“, William Heinemann Ltd., London; Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts

*2. James, William, (1922A)*, „What is an Emotion?“ in: „The Emotions“ – Volume I (edited by Knight, Dunlap), Williams and Wilkins Company, Baltimore

*3. James, William, (1922B)*, „The Emotions“ in: „The Emotions“ – Volume I (edited by Knight, Dunlap), Williams and Wilkins Company, Baltimore

*4. Jung, Carl Gustav, (1946)*, „Psychological Types“ – „Psychology of Individuation“, Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., Ltd., London; Harcourt, Brace and Company, New York

*5. Kiersey, David, (1998)*, „Please Understand Me II“ – „Temperament, Character, Intelligence“, Prometheus Nemesis Book Company, Del Mar, California

*6. Lange, Carl Georg, (1922)*, „The Emotions“ – „A Psychophysiological Study“ in: „The Emotions“ – Volume I (edited by Knight, Dunlap), Williams and

Wilkins Company, Baltimore

*7. Myers, Isabel Briggs with Myers, Peter B., (1980)*, „Gifts Differing“ – „Understanding Personality Type“, Mountain View, California


You can read the whole theory in my book called “Consciousness, Feelings and Behavior” which you can get on amazon.
If you decide to buy my book, thank you for supporting my work.

I look forward to sharing knowledge on these theories with you.


----------

