# Summary of Jung's Type Descriptions



## Karen (Jul 17, 2009)

Coyote said:


> You wanna start a thread for it? It'd probably the most-thanked thread in PerC history. :tongue:


A success and failure at the same time.  

I started a thread a while back and thanked everyone who posted. Then someone posted a small amount of information and an insult to another poster. I didn't know what the "thanking" rule should be...thank everyone but ignore that one poster, as if I'm being judge and jury, or just go ahead and thank without worrying about it? I went with the former, and realized that thanking can lead directly to an existential crisis and addiction to Valium and should be stopped immediately. 

Back to the subject... Did Jung ever address whether a person can have, say, two perceiving functions before a judging, such as an Ne Se Ti lineup, or if the second most used function is always the opposite in all ways from the first? And if the latter is what Jung theorized, would that be accurate, or do some people spend so much time, for example, in a wow fun-loving perception state that the judging would lag behind the Ne Se? And would that necessarily be a psychopathy or a more positive live-and-let-live philosophy?


----------



## Coyote (Jan 24, 2012)

Karen said:


> A success and failure at the same time.
> 
> I started a thread a while back and thanked everyone who posted. Then someone posted a small amount of information and an insult to another poster. I didn't know what the "thanking" rule should be...thank everyone but ignore that one poster, as if I'm being judge and jury, or just go ahead and thank without worrying about it? I went with the former, and realized that thanking can lead directly to an existential crisis and addiction to Valium and should be stopped immediately.


You made me literally LOL. :laughing:



Karen said:


> Back to the subject... Did Jung ever address whether a person can have, say, two perceiving functions before a judging, such as an Ne Se Ti lineup, or if the second most used function is always the opposite in all ways from the first? And if the latter is what Jung theorized, would that be accurate, or do some people spend so much time, for example, in a wow fun-loving perception state that the judging would lag behind the Ne Se?


Yeah, if the dom is perceiving, then the aux needs to be judging (and vice versa). Lemme find a quote for you.


Jung said:


> Naturally only those functions can appear as auxiliary whose nature is not opposed to the dominant function. For instance, feeling can never act as the second function alongside thinking, because it is by its very nature too strongly opposed to thinking.


Perhaps it's worth asking if the person is actually showing both Ne and Se, or if it's really just one of 'em?

I'm gonna have to drag myself to bed now. I've been staying up way too late this week, and I know that my daughter won't let me sleep in just 'cause it's Saturday. :tongue: G'night!


----------



## Karen (Jul 17, 2009)

Thanks for Jung quote, and good question about Ne/Se. Goodnight!


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

Coyote said:


> I came across a site that seems to provide a good summary of Jung's descriptions. What do you think?


Hey pretty nice stuff. I haven't spent time on MBTI for a while but this is a cool post.

I like how this is the same as the sum-up my own impressions from reading the jung book. 

Of course I still cannot truly identify with any of these eight pure dominant function descriptions...

I don't think that's necessarily a problem though.

Here's my comparison as MBTI ESTP or something like that... (I'm not a typical ESTP or any typical type)


Se: I'm not and never been a hedonist. I'm also not happy if my life is just experiences and no more beyond that. My purpose in my life in general is a lot more than that, though I'll admit to the fact that I can spend a lot of time just in-the-moment without being productive beyond that. But that in-the-moment stuff is not about directly enjoying sensations in this passive way depicted here. For me it's about interaction with the world, people, doing challenges, etc. I'm not suspicious when stressed, but I do get the compulsion as described. Let me note here, I'm not prone to any of the other neurotic inferior function expressions as described in this summary. Just this one a bit and a bit of the Te one, maybe.

Si: That's not me, period.

Ne: I like possibilities and like to pursue my vision and goals but I don't stop so quick, I prefer to enjoy the fruits of my work. Also, I don't keep seeing possibilities in everything, not on a conscious level for sure. Maybe unconsciously :shrug:

Ni: Nah not me.

Te: I so totally relate to the idea of looking at abstract conceptual relationships from objective experience. And yeah I like to utilize my thinking for some practical goal. But it's not true that I never carry out thinking l'art pour l'art. Also I don't care about tradition, that doesn't define my way of thinking. My actions are usually not based on analysis. I don't care if others follow my thinking "formula". 

Ti: Yeah if I introvert I tend to do this contemplation. Still, I don't have the patience nor the interest to sit for hours to flesh out an idea fully. I do it more on-and-off for a few seconds or minutes whenever I get inspired. But I do like to finish fleshing out of the idea sooner or later, whenever I get there. I create my own logical symbols, so yeah to that too... but no, I don't want anything mystical. Fuck that. I relate to the being cold/arrogant part when I'm in this cognitive "mode", but it doesn't last all day. I can identify with my ideas to some extent, but I don't see disagreement as personal attack. My Fe is hopefully not this childishly naive anymore. 

Fe: Yeah I depend on external stimuli for this kind of F stuff. I have the momentary enthusiasm thingie too just not with this gushing feeling thing. So maybe that's just Se?? Thinking overrides Fe easily for me though, it's Fe that's subordinate. So yeah... not my dominant function.

Fi: That's not me, I rarely have deep feelings... I like the idea though, give me some Fi? 




LiquidLight said:


> Also we should point out that the pleasure-seeking Extraverted Sensation type would deal more with Sensation+Feeling, the Sensation+Thinking type would likely end up being more like a Te type. The ultimate empiricist as it were.


Well, then, it explains why I related to that part of Te about empiricism along with some abstraction, yet not to the rest of Te. And not to the mindless hedonism either.

That part of Te ("looking at abstract conceptual relationships from objective experience") was the only thing that I really fully related to in the descriptions.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

Karen said:


> Now we're deeply down the rabbit hole and trying to work our way through Chapter X, after which we find out it's not enough to read that one chapter but instead we need to study Jung in general in order to understand what is truly being said. Not only that, Jung himself didn't seem to have a clear understanding of the subject, which has led to the myriad of books and articles trying to clarify Jung, none of which purists are happy with since it really is best to read all of Jung's work, as well as working with a Jungian analyst for multiple years to sort out the I from the not-I. Then we can with some, but not definite, confidence know what our dominant function is. The brave person can then leap to a conclusion about the auxiliary, though not beyond because would that be introverted or extroverted? and then work their way back to an MBTI type, though the type chosen won't necessarily agree with any type written up in the books and articles on the subject.
> 
> My rabbit hole ends with multiple readings of Chapter X. I understand what people are saying, that anything less than a complete understanding, if that's even possible, will end up in potential confusion and a wrong function/type. I appreciate all the help people have given me, especially LiquidLight, but I don't think I'll ever know my type for sure, especially without reading more of Jung and going into analysis. Ne seems to fit in many ways but I spend enough time being in the present, with the object, that I'll likely never reach complete clarity on it. If, as LiquidLight has said, even he's not positive about his dominant function, what chance do the rest of us have?


Lol, at the rabbit hole. Mine ended at peeks into that jung book that contains chapter X (so not just chapter X). I've never been interested in reading more jung than that book and never will be. Tbh the rest of psychoanalysis just confuses and scares me anyway. That's just not my way of thinking, too subjective and mystical... but the psych types jung book is okay just fine 

I'm luckier than you, I know I have Ti and not Fi, which I know after reading this thread is the subject of your current question.  But maybe you're better off being a more well rounded personality with both Ti and Fi? 

You see, my final conclusion about the functional structure was this, it is true one function (however we define it) can't co-exist with another function in the same moment. This doesn't however say anything about the general trends of function activation. So I don't even believe in there necessarily being a dominant function because even that assumption doesn't follow from the above. Also from observations I'm sure some people do have more of a dominant function than others. Same for the auxiliary etc. 

So in this case you can have e.g. both Ti and Fi, you just use them in different situations. I myself have three general modes for different situations, one is Se/Ni, then another one is usually described in MBTI as Se/Fe and the third one is just Ti perhaps with some Ni in the background. I relate to people the most naturally in Se/Fe mode  Not in the other two...

Complete clarification will come from objective measurement only. Let's message Nardi and ask if we can participate in his next pilot study? Hahaha.




Karen said:


> I'd somewhat let go of MBTI for a while and have been studying Enneagrams, but now I'm looking at Ti/Fi again since I seem to engage in both about equally. I remove myself from the study of the object in order to gain a more objective understanding and at other times I use the object as a jumping off point to change my inner landscape in the way Fi is explained, both functions having equal importance, somewhat of an Ti intellectual exercise versus an Fi changing/raising of brainwaves in an effort to go both deeper and beyond.
> 
> So is my dominant sx instinctual subtype or an Fi creating the passion and intensity not just for people but for whatever I engage with? Is it a strong E4 in my tritype 741 that has me wanting to go deeper, or Fi? Or am I ENTP with a 741 sx which makes sorting out who I am somewhat confusing? I guess those are questions for another thread.


Inner landscape? Hm what you described about going deeper and beyond I assign to Ti/Ni in my case. But then I don't know what your inner landscape is like or why you attribute it to Fi. 

I'm also sx-dom so I wouldn't be able to tell you where the passion and intensity comes from but I have the same thing. 

ENTP and 4, ha, that is unique, apparently. I'm not surprised though


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

Diphenhydramine said:


> Personally I'd propose a system of a directional dominant & inferior and pure A/T, so say; Se T F Ni, or Te S N Fi. I think that would be the best way to view things -- most of the present cognitive systems don't seem to place enough influence on the inferior and too much on the Aux.
> 
> Edit: sorry phrased it stupidly.


I like how that system would utilize fewer assumptions. 

I'll say though that I don't totally fit in it as I place a lot importance on my aux... Now maybe I got that wrong and it's the inferior Ni but it doesn't seem to have the negative quality thingie 




Owfin said:


> As a thread to make a sticky, it makes me a little worried that people will identify their persona and not their type ("I'm always on to the next big thing, so I'm a Ne type!"), but then again, what can you do for a simple, short explanation? Maybe I'm looking too much into this. The "X type people" don't sound too appealing, right?


Wouldn't the persona issue be present for JCF functions too?

How do you differentiate between your persona, ego and self?

I don't even like the idea of identifying the whole of your being with the functions, let alone just with a dominant function.


----------



## Karen (Jul 17, 2009)

@itsme45, I'll just comment on a couple things since I'm in typing burnout. I also have the book that contains Chapter X and it's sitting nice and neatly on my bookshelf, where I hope it's going to stay rather than reaching out and grabbing me as I walk past, a terrifying thought.  I'll see which direction my studies go before tackling the info in the book.

Psychoanalysis would be interesting but talking about dreams and symbolism isn't my main interest, though I have a strong mystical side. When you asked why I attributed deeper and beyond to Fi, it's the mystical side that can be accessed in that manner, a depth then a breakthrough beyond.

From my readings about brain quadrants, it's still somewhat unclear whether personality can be mapped so directly, but if there is some truth in it, people do tend to have a dominant brain quadrant that requires much less energy to use than other quadrants. After that, the patterns are different, with some seeming to have their second equally in adjoining quadrants, and even those who have the diagonal as the aux. My tentative opinion is that people do have a 4-pattern that's inherently most comfortable, with the diagonal/inferior being the most difficult to access, but it's difficult to have an upbringing and life that will align with individual patterns and people are lucky to be able to use their dominant most often, then aux, and to understand those are their strengths. If the world was a different place, one of the most important aspects of childhood would be to learn strengths/gifts and be encouraged to use them.


----------



## Mizmar (Aug 12, 2009)

Coyote said:


> Hmm. You raised some interesting points. If you don't mind, I'd like to do some reading and reflecting on the first half of your post before I try to posit a theory or offer an opinion.


No hurry.




> What do you think? Does that make sense in theory?


Makes sense to me.



> What are your own thoughts and/or experiences regarding Si?


I don't know for sure that I use it. I identified a lot with Jung's Introverted Intuitive type as he described it in his book. In fact, I could easily identify with all four of his introverted types (and none of his extraverted types at all). 

Perhaps I'll share with you what I wrote to someone else (not on this board) when she suggested I might be an "SP", since I wrote it in one of my less guarded moments:


> When I see a tree or rock it's not JUST a tree or rock. I experience them as animated, possessed with different layers of meaning, overflowing with mystery and emotionally resonating with different memories (difficult to describe). I think this experience corresponds better to Si (subjective sensing) than Se (objective sensation--where everything is only what it appears to be on the surface, with no hidden layers of meaning).


I'll add that from my perspective, it's like I'm seeing into a deeper, more hidden layer of reality. I'd characterize it as largely a source of amusement and wonder for me.

From Jung:


> _We could say that introverted sensation transmits an image which does not so much reproduce the object as spread over it the patina of age-old subjective experience and the *shimmer of events still unborn.*_


The bolded part is interesting to me because I normally see introverted sensation associated exclusively with the past (memory, nostalgia, ect.), in contrast to the intuitive function which seems more commonly associated with the future (seeing the future potential in an individual or event, for example).


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

Karen said:


> @_itsme45_, I'll just comment on a couple things since I'm in typing burnout. I also have the book that contains Chapter X and it's sitting nice and neatly on my bookshelf, where I hope it's going to stay rather than reaching out and grabbing me as I walk past, a terrifying thought.  I'll see which direction my studies go before tackling the info in the book.


Lol about that.  My burnout seems to be deeper than yours then, as I don't think it would ever grab me like that again  Maybe it's not a burnout, it's just that I reached my conclusions and that's all I need. Though sure I can meddle in some details out of curiosity or I wouldn't be posting here at all 




> Psychoanalysis would be interesting but talking about dreams and symbolism isn't my main interest, though I have a strong mystical side. When you asked why I attributed deeper and beyond to Fi, it's the mystical side that can be accessed in that manner, a depth then a breakthrough beyond.


I subscribe to the cognitive approach even if it is about treating a person. I see psychoanalytical methods as overcomplicated, running through hoops where this wouldn't be needed to treat someone. 

Okay so... Why do you think that's Fi and not Ni?




> From my readings about brain quadrants, it's still somewhat unclear whether personality can be mapped so directly, but if there is some truth in it, people do tend to have a dominant brain quadrant that requires much less energy to use than other quadrants. After that, the patterns are different, with some seeming to have their second equally in adjoining quadrants, and even those who have the diagonal as the aux. My tentative opinion is that people do have a 4-pattern that's inherently most comfortable, with the diagonal/inferior being the most difficult to access, but it's difficult to have an upbringing and life that will align with individual patterns and people are lucky to be able to use their dominant most often, then aux, and to understand those are their strengths. If the world was a different place, one of the most important aspects of childhood would be to learn strengths/gifts and be encouraged to use them.


Nobody ever claimed there were such actual brain quadrants, at least I recall that the PDF that's out there that talks about these quadrants says that this brain map isn't to be taken literally. I doubt anyway that it's mapped this directly, the brain is more complex than that. The quadrant stuff is merely meant to be a schematic map for a visual sum-up of ideas. A descriptive map at that. I mean, if you put a quadrant diagonally, do not use this as explanation for it being hard to use. You put the quadrant there in a diagonal manner because you already think for some reason that it's hard to use. Otherwise you'd just get into circular logic. 

Anyway, I'm interested in what makes you think that some people use the hardest-to-use strengths as e.g. their auxiliary?

I do like the last sentence, I think similar to that. If I get to have kids, I'll give/allow them opportunities and encourage to explore everything, then wherever they get to in developing their strengths as a result, will be fine by me. I mean, whatever they like and choose to work on more, will probably be because they are naturally adept at it. There would of course be a little structure to all this, e.g. I'd encourage development some of the most important stuff, intellectual skills, physical skills, social skills and so on... example, I'd teach them basic math skills early (I don't care if the kid is F or T type ) yet also have them involved in sports (I don't care if N or S type ). 

The point is, I would not rely on a theory that tries to predict where their strengths are. I'd let them find their way even if the theory says it's impossible to go that way. Also, it is a good question what it depends on which skills are the most comfortable. Genes for sure, but early development as well. I'm so crazy about this topic because I know from experience that early development matters greatly.

And yeah I myself wonder if it happens to people that their genetical strengths get so discouraged early in life that later it's hard to catch up and find them again? If so, how hard? When is it too late? Can you get to love and be comfortable with the alternative after lots of practice? Etc...

There was a guy who tried to prove that early development matters the most. He had three kids; three girls. They had them play chess a lot from an early age, result? One of them went on to compete against the best male chess players. She was in top ten or so at one time I think... The others also did really great in female chess competitions. Hoo-hum. One interesting tidbit about this, one of the girls was said to be the most creative and talented but she was not so interested in the chess... obviously due to this, she practiced less, didn't get as far in competitions as her sisters, quit, started doing something else that she liked more. So ability doesn't equal comfortability?


----------



## Karen (Jul 17, 2009)

@itsme45:

Fi, to quote the first post of the thread: "Introverted feeling strives for an inner intensity that is unrelated to any external object. ...feelings are deep, passionately intense, and may accompany secret religious or poetic tendencies." Ni: "...attempts to fathom internal events by relating them to universal psychological processes or to other archetypal images. Consequently it generally has a mythical, symbolic or prophetic quality." I'm using Fi, intensity and depth of feelings, rather than Ni, psychological processes or images/symbols. Both functions can lead to a breakthrough and Fi isn't the only function/practice I use for that purpose, but it's easier for me than mindfulness or some other practices.

My understanding is that some authors do subscribe to the brain quadrant theory -- Ned Herrmann and Katherine Benziger are two -- but they're using it to simplify the brain in order to show in general where characteristics originate. I'm not saying it's correct in location but like any typing method that starts by dividing into 4's, such as MBTI, there are insights to be gained. As for the diagonal part of the brain being the most difficult to access, I read the physical reason but can't remember where I saw it. If true, it would explain why, if someone uses one part of the brain most easily, the opposite side would take the most energy to access, though I'm not positive if it would correlate directly with MBTI dom/inf.

Kids do need to learn the basics and I think learning to use N, S, T and F with some competence is important, especially T to back up F and vice versa. The more variety kids are exposed to, the more they'll have to choose from when finding where their gifts line cross their interests line. I think it can be difficult to catch up for some people, for example I was pushed into introversion for my first 18 years, since it was much safer to hide away and not talk or ask to go anywhere with friends. As soon as I left home I found out I was an extrovert, but one result is that I didn't have those early lessons in how to talk comfortably with everyone so I can only connect easily with maybe 50 percent of people I meet.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

Karen said:


> @_itsme45_:
> 
> Fi, to quote the first post of the thread: "Introverted feeling strives for an inner intensity that is unrelated to any external object. ...feelings are deep, passionately intense, and may accompany secret religious or poetic tendencies." Ni: "...attempts to fathom internal events by relating them to universal psychological processes or to other archetypal images. Consequently it generally has a mythical, symbolic or prophetic quality." I'm using Fi, intensity and depth of feelings, rather than Ni, psychological processes or images/symbols. Both functions can lead to a breakthrough and Fi isn't the only function/practice I use for that purpose, but it's easier for me than mindfulness or some other practices.


Ok I'm just curious, how do these deep feelings create an inner landscape? How does Fi do this "changing/raising of brainwaves in an effort to go both deeper and beyond" for you? Just some more elaboration/more details? 




> My understanding is that some authors do subscribe to the brain quadrant theory -- Ned Herrmann and Katherine Benziger are two -- but they're using it to simplify the brain in order to show in general where characteristics originate. I'm not saying it's correct in location but like any typing method that starts by dividing into 4's, such as MBTI, there are insights to be gained. As for the diagonal part of the brain being the most difficult to access, I read the physical reason but can't remember where I saw it. If true, it would explain why, if someone uses one part of the brain most easily, the opposite side would take the most energy to access, though I'm not positive if it would correlate directly with MBTI dom/inf.


Can you remember what this physical reason is?

You said this opposite site could be forced to be used as aux due to life circumstances, did you see something that made you think of this possibility? What was it?




> Kids do need to learn the basics and I think learning to use N, S, T and F with some competence is important, especially T to back up F and vice versa.


My main idea here is have them learn some basics earlier than others usually do in school. 




> The more variety kids are exposed to, the more they'll have to choose from when finding where their gifts line cross their interests line. I think it can be difficult to catch up for some people, for example I was pushed into introversion for my first 18 years, since it was much safer to hide away and not talk or ask to go anywhere with friends. As soon as I left home I found out I was an extrovert, but one result is that I didn't have those early lessons in how to talk comfortably with everyone so I can only connect easily with maybe 50 percent of people I meet.


Yea variety is the other main idea  But with a balance, intensity > variety for me anyway... 

Well I was also pushed into some introversion when young. Yet, I can connect to anyone when I'm in the mood. I talked to loads of random people for a few months before I got smooth at this. I was about 18 when I did that  Though I think motivation matters, it's not like it was practice just for the sake of learning this, I was doing all this talking for fun! But, I have to be in the mood  It's not hard to be in that mood though... just look and talk with this openness (is it Se?). 

Btw not sure why you think 50% is a shit rate  It's pretty good... What happens with the other 50 percent?


----------



## Karen (Jul 17, 2009)

One way of approaching spiritual/personal growth is by raising the brain waves, which can be found via googling. People use this type of practice as one method to set one up to gain a Zen-type enlightenment or to not get caught up forever in negative states, both of which I was referring to with the "beyond." I find it easy and like to use something in life as a trigger to get me into a different mindset/emotional/brain wave state so I can more easily see the big picture and can function better and more happily. It's not a minor feeling -- it's very powerful, and can be used as a way station along the road to growth, or maybe something you take with you without it being the end result but a process toward beyond.

As for the physical reason for not being able to as easily access diagonal parts of the brain, I spent over a half hour yesterday and today trying to find the article that explains scientifically, with no luck. I can find plenty of articles that say it's so, but not with backup info. What I remember reading is that there are no direct links between diagonal parts of the brain, so it has to be accessed by going through an adjacent part.

Continuing with the brain quadrant theory and to answer your question, my husband uses opposite parts of the brain almost equally, to the point where he's not sure which is native. He scored 50/50 N/S on the official MBTI test. Counter to what official MBTI theory says about what happens to the N and S when they score equally, he's more INTJ at work, ISTJ at home, but the Ni and Si both frequently pull him in different directions and it can wear him out at times. He doesn't know which to go with more strongly, since both pulls are about equal. I don't know if I'd call either aux, exactly, more that opposite sides can both be strong. If I'm recalling correctly, either "The Whole Brain Business Book," by Ned Herrmann, or "Thriving in Mind," by Katherine Benziger, talked about the issue of strengths on opposite sides of the brain.

As for introversion, I tried getting over it early on by working as a waitress, with some but not total success, and I still have nightmares about the time 10 tables of people showed up at the same time when I was alone.  The other 50 percent of people I can't connect with well, it's just this general awkwardness of not knowing what to say. It's not a fear of people, just a duh, now what do I say?  I know plenty of extroverts who can talk to anyone. Part of my problem is that I'm not good at and don't enjoy small talk, beyond the first 30 seconds or so.

Anyway, I'm off for a couple days.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

Karen said:


> One way of approaching spiritual/personal growth is by raising the brain waves, which can be found via googling. People use this type of practice as one method to set one up to gain a Zen-type enlightenment or to not get caught up forever in negative states, both of which I was referring to with the "beyond." I find it easy and like to use something in life as a trigger to get me into a different mindset/emotional/brain wave state so I can more easily see the big picture and can function better and more happily. It's not a minor feeling -- it's very powerful, and can be used as a way station along the road to growth, or maybe something you take with you without it being the end result but a process toward beyond.


Sounds like nice stuff! I'm not sure this is related to functions? Or if it is, then this would be an example of directly learning to use a function better  




> As for the physical reason for not being able to as easily access diagonal parts of the brain, I spent over a half hour yesterday and today trying to find the article that explains scientifically, with no luck. I can find plenty of articles that say it's so, but not with backup info. What I remember reading is that there are no direct links between diagonal parts of the brain, so it has to be accessed by going through an adjacent part.


I think there is nothing that explains it scientifically, I remember reading this, it's just an assumption included with the brain map. There is no neurological research pointing to such parts as connected to functions.

Also... this only makes sense if we find a part or area of the brain of the person that all activity always defaults to, the home of your consciousness, and for certain functions that's not been done even by Nardi, instead it's a general pattern... (I think it was so for Ne, Se, Ni...)




> Continuing with the brain quadrant theory and to answer your question, my husband uses opposite parts of the brain almost equally, to the point where he's not sure which is native. He scored 50/50 N/S on the official MBTI test. Counter to what official MBTI theory says about what happens to the N and S when they score equally, he's more INTJ at work, ISTJ at home, but the Ni and Si both frequently pull him in different directions and it can wear him out at times. He doesn't know which to go with more strongly, since both pulls are about equal.


I guess he could just decide based on situation... use one approach in a kind of situation, use the other in another kind of situation, then no pull


----------



## Coyote (Jan 24, 2012)

To anyone who's reading: I'm now moving over a Jung vs. MBTI conversation that was de-railing another thread.

@_adverseaffects_

I hesitate to directly address your disagreements because I think that our basic POVs are different. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like you're using MBTI as the baseline, and then comparing Jung to that. In contrast, I think that the differences between _Psychological Types_ and MBTI are due to the latter's corruption of Jung's original theory. For example, you said:



> If you read pure Jung, or at least, when I read pure Jung, I see in his descriptions of Ti doms for example, qualities that would be found due to the presence of other functions but Jung saw that as truly personified by Ti itself... however it would be a Ti-Si loop at play, for example.


To me, it sounds like you're comparing Jung's work to your pre-existing MBTI knowledge. If you're committed to MBTI's definitions of the functions, then yes, Jung's Ti does sound like a mix. But if you start with Jung and then read MBTI, it just sounds like MBTI has screwed up the functions. 

For example, I originally had trouble distinguishing Ti and Ni in my own personality, so I had some doubts about my type. But reading Jung solved the problem, because I realized that the faux Ni was actually just another aspect of my Ti.

Also ... I don't really want to go into a long spiel about it or anything, but I don't like MBTI "loops." While I was learning MBTI, I used them to try to explain my seemingly odd combination of Ti and Ni (my Se sucks, so INFJ in a dom-tert loop was the only way to solve the puzzle). So I _do_ understand the appeal ... but I think that it's a crutch that's used to compensate for MBTI's inherent weaknesses. Why jury-rig MBTI when you could just use Jung's theory and everything would make more sense?




mimesis said:


> My impression -but I haven't looked into the arguments of 'Isabel'- is that the fourth letter is a way of determining Fi or Fe (etc).


In essence, yes, that's what J/P is indicating. That's why you can determine an entire function stack from the four-letter code, since the J/P will tell you whether the preferred perceiving or judging function is extraverted. Unfortunately, people use those letters in such limited ways that we're better off without 'em. I've already addressed the stereotypes about organization and responsible behavior, but they can cause serious typing problems. 

A relevant example might be INFP vs. INFJ. They have entirely different function stacks, and yet some people seem torn on which one to select. And why wouldn't they be? If the only apparent difference between the types is that one is organized and the other is messy (or whichever stereotypes you want to use), then yeah, I can see a lot of people being like ... "But I'm a mix! I procrastinate and stuff, but I also try to be neat and organized. Gosh, this is so confusing. :frustrating: Well, fine, I'll just say that I'm an INFX." ... And can you really blame them for giving up? 

On the other hand, if you were to directly address the issue of Ni-Fe vs. Fi-Ne, it's a LOT easier for people to figure out their type (or at least narrow down the options). 



> It's for most easier to determine F/T than Fi/Fe.


In my opinion, it depends on the person and type. I'm inclined to say that people who have judging functions as their dominant and inferior are more likely to be able to determine the directions, but not the orders.

For example, I spent some time wavering between INTP and INFJ. I knew that I used Ti and Fe, but I wasn't clear on which one was "more important." So I could answer Fe > Fi, but not T > F. (Until I abandoned MBTI's focus on the dominant and auxiliary functions, and learned more about the importance of the inferior function. Then it all made sense.)

... But, obviously, YMMV.



> That is my idea, because we 'internalize' values anyway, and of course the narrow link with emotion. It's what you feel/value, but it's less clear if we 'create' those values ourselves (like in a Nietzschean sense) or that we 'conform' to our environment. For instance, if you look at a group of peace protesters, the desire for peace may perhaps be a true value from within, but the lifestyle and clothing may be a lot Fe determined and to some extend conformist. You don't see many guys in a suit among them (which would truly be non-conformist in that context). They also have their code of conduct, etc.


I'm sorry, but could we clarify which definitions we're using for the functions here? (True Jungian or MBTI-based?)

Fi is a lot like Ti: It's interested in what it's interested in, and there's not a whole lot that the external world can do about it. If an Fi-dom believes in a cause and is determined to protest as a result, then he's going to protest, regardless of what others might say. On the other hand, an Fe-dom would be more inclined to attend a peace rally because that behavior is expected of him and it reflects well on him. Neither Feeling function is better than the other, but they do have very different concerns and valuations of the external world.



> Just as it is more difficult to seperate Ti from Te, because usually people do both, or at least the differences are subtle. The same with Si/e and Ni/e


I think that the inclination to use both directions (e.g., Ti and Te) occurs with the auxiliary and tertiary functions. That's why Jung phrased it more like, Introverted Thinking + Intuition, because the auxiliary doesn't _necessarily_ have a set direction. (There's a lot that could be said on that topic.) 

But your dominant and inferior function are pretty much set in their directions. 



> So...for instance Ni as opposed to Ne is convergent (closure) vs. divergent (expanding possibities, 'leaving things open'). Ni corresponds with J and Ne with P. J's also 'want to know the rules beforehand' (Fe), and 'make to-do lists' (Te).


Those sound like MBTI definitions ... so I'm gonna shy away from analyzing the claims.



> In other words, the fourth letter seems to be a sort of tool to distinct the cognitive functions (attitude/direction) NiFe from NeFi, based on behavioral pattern (organize life).


"Tool" would be a good word, although I tend to think of it as more of a "shortcut." ... Which I think is pretty reflective of MBTI as a whole.


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

Coyote said:


> In essence, yes, that's what J/P is indicating. That's why you can determine an entire function stack from the four-letter code, since the J/P will tell you whether the preferred perceiving or judging function is extraverted. Unfortunately, people use those letters in such limited ways that we're better off without 'em. I've already addressed the stereotypes about organization and responsible behavior, but they can cause serious typing problems.
> 
> A relevant example might be INFP vs. INFJ. They have entirely different function stacks, and yet some people seem torn on which one to select. And why wouldn't they be? If the only apparent difference between the types is that one is organized and the other is messy (or whichever stereotypes you want to use), then yeah, I can see a lot of people being like ... "But I'm a mix! I procrastinate and stuff, but I also try to be neat and organized. Gosh, this is so confusing. :frustrating: Well, fine, I'll just say that I'm an INFX." ... And can you really blame them for giving up?
> 
> ...


Yes I understand your arguments, but you are familiar with the theory. For me the differences are also clear, but I don't think it's so obvious as the theory or you suggest. Of course yes, when you single out a certain action/judgement/opinion. But we've seen on type me threads (the only two I have joined in) that it's not easy to do that even based on a questionaire, with follow up questions. It's still ambiguous. I think you and I agree that it's better to get to know the theory and make the assessment yourself, instead. But that requires a lot of elaboration and reflection, so my point was more that MBTI is useful for making a quick assessment, provided a certain margin of error.

It's nice to check the stereotypes, but it doesn't help you very much in terms of 'soul searching'. And particularly distorting when you are looking for AN identity not so much YOUR identity. (I actually prefer to leave identity out of it completely, as it is more about 'how' (function) rather than 'what' (type) or 'who' (identity) )


----------



## Coyote (Jan 24, 2012)

mimesis said:


> Yes I understand your arguments, but you are familiar with the theory. For me the differences are also clear, but I don't think it's so obvious as the theory or you suggest. Of course yes, when you single out a certain action/judgement/opinion. But we've seen on type me threads (the only two I have joined in) that it's not easy to do that even based on a questionaire, with follow up questions. I think you and I agree that it's better to get to know the theory and make the assessment yourself, instead. But that requires a lot of elaboration and reflection, so my point was more that MBTI is useful for making a quick assessment, provided a certain margin of error.


I'm sorry, I didn't realize that was your point. I guess that I was still thinking within the context of the arguments made by what's-her-name, in which MBTI is supposedly vastly superior to cognitive functions and its test should be trusted to determine your type. I think that you disagreed with her, but maybe it didn't full process in my mind. Sorry. 

Yeah, I think that's exactly what MBTI is designed to be: A quick-and-dirty tool for personality assessments. The problems arise when people try to make it into something it's not, and exaggerate its power/usefulness.


----------



## perfectcircle (Jan 5, 2011)

Coyote said:


> To anyone who's reading: I'm now moving over a Jung vs. MBTI conversation that was de-railing another thread.
> 
> @_adverseaffects_
> 
> ...


You view Jung's work where everyone used only one function as the "pure" form, then, is that what you are saying, and that the type descriptions where each four letter code is shortand for four cognitve functions is merely a corruption of Jung by mixing stuff around when you find no validity to that?

I disagree.

No, I don't stick to pure myers briggs-- pure myers briggs doesn't really even take into account cognitive functions, it's just a four letter preference test and I don't buy into that at all.

I appreiciate Jung, but his type observations were just that, observational, so when he found an Ti or Fi dom or any other dom, he saw them as controlled by "one cognitive function" and was not aware of the other powers at work within them supplementing their personality. he made assumptions and from there marked observations, and since then we've seen distinct categories within the categories, or at least, if you buy into them.

To @eyenexepee, yes I see what you are saying and for the above detailed reasons in the post you quoted, I disagree.


----------



## Coyote (Jan 24, 2012)

adverseaffects said:


> You view Jung's work where everyone used only one function as the "pure" form, then, is that what you are saying, and that the type descriptions where each four letter code is shortand for four cognitve functions is merely a corruption of Jung by mixing stuff around when you find no validity to that?


Oh, no, I definitely don't think that we only use one function. Not even the most unhealthy personalities could work like that. 

(I hope that I understood you correctly there. Please let me know if I didn't.)



> I appreiciate Jung, but his type observations were just that, observational, so when he found an Ti or Fi dom or any other dom, he saw them as controlled by "one cognitive function" and was not aware of the other powers at work within them supplementing their personality. he made assumptions and from there marked observations, and since then we've seen distinct categories within the categories, or at least, if you buy into them.


I'm afraid that I don't understand this part. Jung didn't say that everybody is controlled by "one cognitive function" and unaware of the others. But you do need to have a leading/dominant/principal/primary/etc. function, if that's what you're talking about?

... Or, wait, maybe it's a miscommunication? Yes, Jung did provide examples of "pure" types, but he didn't mean that real people would be like that. It's just the best way to describe the types. Imagine if he had to give detailed accounts of every functional combination? Even then, he wouldn't be able to address each and every personality out there, since we're still human beings. So he described what a pure type would be like, and let the reader extrapolate from there.


----------



## brightflashes (Oct 27, 2015)

When I read the Jungian description of Fi (which is echoed in these summaries), I am oddly struck by the familiarity of the "childlike mask". It's almost enough to make me wonder if I'm some sort of INTJ/INFP hybrid (MBTI speaking) or, NiFi/TeSe (Jung Speak). 

The thing that holds me back from that type is that I cannot deny the Ti & Te that I seem to use, collectively, way more than I use Fi. 

fascinating stuff.

Edit: sorry to anyone who doesn't appreciate this blast from the past. This thread was linked to in someone else's type me thread and I didn't think it would be appropriate to talk about my own experiences on their thread.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

brightflashes said:


> When I read the Jungian description of Fi (which is echoed in these summaries), I am oddly struck by the familiarity of the "childlike mask". It's almost enough to make me wonder if I'm some sort of INTJ/INFP hybrid (MBTI speaking) or, NiFi/TeSe (Jung Speak).
> 
> The thing that holds me back from that type is that I cannot deny the Ti & Te that I seem to use, collectively, way more than I use Fi.
> 
> ...


well, the decision to give "INFPs" "Fi" was Myers' not Jung's
I think Jungian NiFi belongs better to the INFJ type in the MBTI, as J behaviors suit Jung's I and P suit Jung's E better
the MBTI has grouped together different Jungian types because of their decision to treat the auxiliary in the opposite attitude as fact


----------



## Dissymetry (Apr 15, 2019)

Red Panda said:


> well, the decision to give "INFPs" "Fi" was Myers' not Jung's
> I think Jungian NiFi belongs better to the INFJ type in the MBTI, as J behaviors suit Jung's I and P suit Jung's E better
> the MBTI has grouped together different Jungian types because of their decision to treat the auxiliary in the opposite attitude as fact


Can you elaborate on how MBTI J suits Jungs introversion and how MBTI P suits Jungs extroversion? In what ways? What is the connection?

MBTI J is about being decisive and organised. Orderly. Planning. Doing. I do not understand how this is related to Jungs introversion. MBTI P is about being open-ended. Preferring to take in lots of information instead of making decisions. Not planning. I do not understand how this is related to Jungs extroversion except for how MBTI P includes being "spontaneous". 

What about how the MBTI P/J dichotomy is intended to indicate the preferred extroverted function? This means J in some aspects is specifically referring to an extroversion of J. It also means when J is preferred that the introversion according to the MBTI is introverted perceiving specifically. It looks to me like your theory is is interesting but not very well-founded, I would like to hear an elaboration on it.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Dissymetry said:


> Can you elaborate on how MBTI J suits Jungs introversion and how MBTI P suits Jungs extroversion? In what ways? What is the connection?
> 
> MBTI J is about being decisive and organised. Orderly. Planning. Doing. I do not understand how this is related to Jungs introversion. MBTI P is about being open-ended. Preferring to take in lots of information instead of making decisions. Not planning. I do not understand how this is related to Jungs extroversion except for how MBTI P includes being "spontaneous".
> 
> What about how the MBTI P/J dichotomy is intended to indicate the preferred extroverted function? This means J in some aspects is specifically referring to an extroversion of J. It also means when J is preferred that the introversion according to the MBTI is introverted perceiving specifically. It looks to me like your theory is is interesting but not very well-founded, I would like to hear an elaboration on it.


Jung defines the introvert as someone who is difficult to change, and instead prefers to reinforce himself and be above the object, which happens by him abstracting the data he needs and ignoring the rest (prob by storing them in the unconscious). Since perception informs judgement, the rationale to change attitude in the auxiliary, especially as a default 'setting' is poor; at best it is potentially influenced by the contents of the unconscious, like the stored-away data of the intact object may emerge at times. Otherwise it would be impossible for the auxiliary to truly support the dominant, as the E and I are basically opposite adaptational drives and thus would create havoc if they were both conscious. Which is probably what happens in the case of some mental illnesses, especially depression and anxieties (i.e. Ps being forced by their environment to act like Js etc).

The introvert is invested in controlling the object to shape it after his vision, he acts on the object without much consideration about experiencing it as it is, he is averse to seeing the whole of it. Control over the object is integral to the introvert's survival.

MBTI's J types are people who care about order and organization, which behind it shows a person who doesn't mind cutting out what extra information he needs in order to make that happen. Also they are people who willingly and many times proudly affect the object, be it something impersonal or people, such as FJs being focused on harmonizing the group to match their accepted beliefs. Control is integral to a J's survival.

Ps are spontaneous and need lots of information because they consider that doing so might prevent them from experiencing the object, more possibilities, and they are very reluctant to make decisions that change the object, instead they prefer to change themselves, be it at the level of ideas or actions.


----------

